WHY WAS MY DAUGHTER’S WEDDING SEEN AS A SECURITY THREAT TO ISRAEL?

Palestine-99542987592_xlarge

*

 Yes, I would like to receive an honest and convincing answer to my frustrating question.

My daughter and her fianceי have never been involved in any wrong doing or security violations. However, Israel is so notorious for invoking the security mantra to justify denying Palestinians their basic rights. 

One Civil Administration official in Hebron told me that “if your daughter wanted to join her husband in Gaza, she would have to sign documents, wavering her right to return to the West Bank. In other words, she would have to willfully accept eternal deportation.

*

What does preventing a wedding have to do with Israeli security?
By Khalid Amayreh in occupied Palestine

Yes, I would like to receive an honest and convincing answer to my frustrating question. What does preventing a Hebron fiancיe from being wed to her Gaza fiancי have to do with Israeli security? Does it constitute a security risk? Does it compromise Israeli security in any real manner?

In recent months, I have left no stone unturned in order to obtain a real answer to my question from Israeli officials, but to no avail. Yes, I heard all sorts of prevarication and mendacious justifications and pretexts to justify the unjustifiable.

My daughter Azhar, 19, was engaged to Abdullah Abu Allaban, 23, from Jabalya in the Gaza Strip last year. Their marriage certificate was officiated at the Islamic Sharia court in Dura near Hebron where we live. Ever since, she has been trying in vain to travel the 30 mile-distance from Hebron to Gaza to join her husband. (It is like the distance between Oklahoma City and Norman).

We contacted the civil administration of the Israeli occupation and army and were told to contact the Palestinian Authority (PA) liaison office. However, when we did, we were told that the PA had no authority or power over these matters.  At the Israeli liaison office, a young female soldier told us rather sarcastically to “see Mahmoud Abbas, perhaps he could help you,” Mahmoud Abbas is the helpless chief of the helpless entity known as the Palestinian Authority. He is always at Israel’s beck and call.

My daughter and her fiancי have never been involved in any wrong doing or security violations. However, Israel is so notorious for invoking the security mantra to justify denying Palestinians their basic rights.

One Civil Administration official in Hebron told me that “if your daughter wanted to join her husband in Gaza, she would have to sign documents, wavering her right to return to the West Bank. In other words, she would have to willfully accept eternal deportation.

This is not fair by any standard of civility. Where else in the world does this gross injustice happen? Even the most rogue states don’t do this. Why must traveling a 30-mile distance from Hebron to Gaza lead to eternal banishment from one’s homeland?

The Israeli army authorities would deny that they are preventing a fiancיe in the West Bank from joining her fiancי in Gaza. They would argue that the couple could always travel abroad for the marriage ceremony and consummation and then return to occupied Palestine

This is partly true, but it usually involves a lot of problems, mainly stemming from the unkind treatment meted out to Palestinians by neighboring Arab authorities especially in Jordan and Egypt. Moreover, the traveler would have to incur a lot of extra expenses.

As a journalist who has been covering the bitter conflict between Israel and the Palestinians for more than 30 years, I have long become aware of Israel’s real goals behind this illogical policy of denying Palestinians the sort of things that other people around the world take for granted.

Israel simply doesn’t want us to be around. Israel wants a land without people and is always seeking an opportune time to get rid of us.  But, we won’t give Israel this opportunity, no matter what.

Israel also manipulates humanitarian issues such as this one in order to recruit informers and agents for its security agencies so that they would inform on their communities, friends and neighbors, thus corroding the Palestinian society from within.

The Israeli intelligence didn’t ask me, either implicitly or explicitly, to “cooperate” with them in exchange for permitting my daughter and me to travel to Gaza. Perhaps they knew that my profile wouldn’t allow this sort of thing to happen.   

But it is really sad that the very people who call themselves “the chosen people” and “light upon the nations” would ask the father or mother of a child afflicted with cancer, who need to have a travel permit to take the child to hospital in either Israel or the West Bank for medical treatment, to either “cooperate with us” or have your child dead in a few days or weeks.

Israel, for the sake of argument, may have some “legitimate security” concerns if it allowed Palestinians to commute freely between the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But Israel also employs meticulous security measures that make it virtually impossible for Palestinians traveling through Israel checkpoints and roadblocks to indulge in any foul play.

Hence, the only remaining explanation for the draconian Israeli measures is that Israel is interested first and foremost in frustrating, harassing and tormenting the Palestinians in the hope that the latter would contemplate leaving their ancestral homeland for good in order to have a normal life in exile.

A TERRORIST SPEAKS OF ISIS AND HAMAS IN ONE BREATH

3153962_370

*

The rise of ISIS and its rivalry with other groups does pose a challenge but in a less direct way than Netanyahu suggests. In a visit earlier this month to Jordan, I found Da’ash (as ISIS is known according to its Arabic acronym) on everybody’s lips regardless of an individual’s political affiliation. Those of an Islamist bent regarded the upstart as a challenge and a rival, not an ally.

*

Netanyahu’s Convenient Lies About ISIS and Hamas

By Nathan Brown

*

Benjamin Netanyahu, left; anti-ISIS fighter, right / Getty Images

*

Speaking at the General Assembly this week, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu repeated a refrain he has sounded for three decades (since his days as Israeli ambassador to the U.N.) — that all forms of terrorism are different sides of the same coin and have civilization as their target:

So when it comes to their ultimate goals, Hamas is ISIS and ISIS is Hamas. And what they share in common all militant Islamists share in common. Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al-Shabab in Somalia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al-Nusra in Syria, the Mahdi army in Iraq, and the Al-Qaida branches in Yemen, Libya, the Philippines, India and elsewhere.

The startling assortment of groups; the lumping of a Shiite movement (Hezbollah) with those that can treat Shi‘a as apostates; the linking of Israel’s enemies with those now targeted by the United States — all this is politically convenient. But is it accurate?

Well, yes of course — in the same sense that France’s François Hollande, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and Israel’s HaPoel Tel Aviv all spring from the same socialist movement. It’s not clear how such claims aid understanding, analysis or policy.

The rise of ISIS and its rivalry with other groups does pose a challenge but in a less direct way than Netanyahu suggests. In a visit earlier this month to Jordan, I found Da’ash (as ISIS is known according to its Arabic acronym) on everybody’s lips regardless of an individual’s political affiliation. Those of an Islamist bent regarded the upstart as a challenge and a rival, not an ally.

There seems to be some level of sympathy for Da’ash not because of the barbarity of its behavior but for its ability to threaten an international order that is seen as unjust. I spoke with Jordanian officials who seemed more concerned with the interest Da’ash generated among disaffected Jordanians than its actual core supporters.

But that places the leadership of some of the groups Netanyahu identifies in a very awkward position. On the one hand, they reject Da’ash’s ideas, methods, textual interpretations and agenda. On the other hand, they note that Da’ash defiance strikes some chords among the youth and that its actions grab agenda-setting attention. Their response is therefore somewhat guarded — to criticize Da’ash’s deeds and doctrines but in tones that fall far short of the horrified revulsion expressed elsewhere. The result sounds cagey and calculated — because it is.

Recent U.S. moves to engage Da’ash militarily may help these groups square the circle — not because the groups are all the same but because of the way in which they are rivals jostling for position. By turning their critical words against the U.S. — and thus shifting focus to the deeply unpopular U.S. military and security presence in most of the region — such rivals can maintain their distance from Da’ash without losing those whose inclinations might otherwise gravitate to more radical or disgruntled forces.

In two conversations with Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood leaders — one whose extremely hawkish views landed him in prison once and the other whose extreme dovish views have led to his estrangement from the movement — I was struck by the identical way they referred to Da’ash. They both brought it up (I was interviewing them for utterly unrelated work I’m doing on Islamic legal debates) and went on to describe it as a violent movement whose ways they found wrong but still saw as a product of the violence and occupation inflicted on the region. Such a stance was sincere — but also politically adept.

All actors are caught making some difficult political choices. Da’ash’s opponents of various stripes are trying to figure out how much they share and how much they can combat their foe militarily without aggravating the situation politically.

Israel likewise faces some difficult political choices with Hamas. Netanyahu’s formulation of the problem to an international audience may be politically useful in garnering sympathy for Israel in some circles. But when Israel turns its attention from speechifying to hard realities, it will likely conclude that its Hamas problem does not get easier by making it so much larger.

Nathan Brown is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

 

The views expressed in this article is the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

SICK AND TIRED OF ISRAEL’S WHINING

It is the imposed solution that will come from the Western world, which is already sick and tired of hearing about Hamas and about the victims of terror and about the IDF’s successful operations. The world of late 2014 wants peace and quiet, not to be driven up the wall.

*

Israel obsession

*

 

World won’t listen to Netanyahu’s UN speech


Op-ed: Sick and tired of hearing about Hamas terror and IDF’s successful operations, Western world is preparing to impose a solution on Israel and Palestinians.
*

It’s more than likely that very few people, if any at all, will be glued Monday evening to the television, computer and smartphone screens or to the radio in order to watch and listen to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the United Nations General Assembly.

It seems that even fewer people did so on Friday, during Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ speech.

The Palestinian leader said what he said. The Israeli prime minister will say what he’ll say. The statements and the speakers hardly interest anyone anymore. Both in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority, people have had enough of things that are said, of promises that are not kept and of dreams that don’t come true. The question is: Is there anything new under the sun? The answer seems to be: There is nothing, for now.

For almost 150 years, we have been fighting over the same piece of land. It’s the same piece of sky covering the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Those are the same olive trees planted on the Galilee mountains and on the Samaria mountains. Thousands have already paid with their lives for this tough and bitter fight between two people seeking to sit and live on the same part of the ground. Nothing leads the decision to one side or another so that one of the sides, or better yet – both, will live in peace and tranquility.

Those who believe that “God’s right hand is victorious” don’t believe in any political solution anyway, and will do a lot – if not everything – to make it fail. Those among the Palestinians who believe in the option of expelling Israel’s citizens from their land once again are devotedly sticking to this belief. These days Abbas is joining those who believe that, if only for tactical reasons. He is fighting for his political life right now, if not for his actual life.

At the UN on Monday, Netanyahu will insist that our lives will be in danger if the Palestinians try to fulfill their dreams. Netanyahu is also fighting for his political life these days, and not just these days. He has to say these things firmly for the sake of the public, mainly his public, which no longer believes anything.

The solution, at least for now, following the aggravated political discourse and before the stones and Kalashnikovs are pulled out, seems distant but not impossible. The two rival sides will reject it out of hand, but we are nearing its execution.

It is the imposed solution that will come from the Western world, which is already sick and tired of hearing about Hamas and about the victims of terror and about the IDF’s successful operations. The world of late 2014 wants peace and quiet, not to be driven up the wall.

At these moments, I remember the attempts to make peace between the two nations, as well as the tremendous efforts to thwart these attempts. We are probably going to miss them.

WHERE IS MOHAMMED?

Peek-a-boo, I don’t see you

*

Why Israel pretends Mohammed isn’t there

It isn’t a matter of racism. It’s a matter of denial.
By Asher Schechter FOR

2026429094
Babies born in Israel. Photo by Ancho Gosh
*

Earlier this week, Israel’s Population, Immigration and Borders Authority (PIBA) released its annual statement for Rosh Hashanah. Filled with tidbits about Israel’s population, such as the official number of Israeli citizens (8,904,373) and how many births occurred during the outgoing Jewish year (176,230), a main attraction in PIBA’s annual publication is the list of most-popular baby names.

The year 5774 saw a stunning upset when it came to girls: Tamar dethroned Noa. Regarding boys, the most popular names stayed Yosef, Daniel and Uri.

But Yosef wasn’t actually the most popular baby name in Israel. That, as reported by Haaretz’s Ilan Lior last week, was in fact Mohammad.

One would be hard-pressed not to suspect racism. No distinctly-Arab baby name made it to the top 10 of popular baby names in Israel (Yosef and Adam are common among both Jews and Arab-Israelis), although Arabs account for 20% of Israel’s population.

On the face of it, the omission smacks of a deliberate attempt to exclude the Arab population of Israel from yet another thing Israeli. Yet this isn’t a matter of simple, blatant racism. It’s worse. It’s denial.

Denial of what? First of all of Arabs, of course. Failing to acknowledge the existence of its big Arab population is a much subtler of exclusion, and in a way worse than outright racism: at least when we discriminate, we acknowledge the other.

But mostly it’s a denial of a reality that isn’t convenient. In recent years, Israel has developed a habit of trying to embellish or simplify reality by ignoring inconveniences. Let’s call it the “not counting the Haredim and Arabs” trick.

Peek-a-boo, I don’t see you

For instance, back in April 2012, PM Netanyahu made a revealing admission. Asked about the extreme inequality in Israel and the surge of public anger, as shown in the social protests of 2011, Netanyahu claimed: “If you deduct the Arabs and the Haredim from inequality indices, we are doing great.”

His statement caused an uproar but since then, the claim that Israel is doing just great if you don’t count it’s most impoverished groups has become a cliche of sorts among Israeli officials: if not for those pesky Haredim and Arabs, Israel would have been one of the most advanced countries in the OECD.

A study conducted by the Taub Center for Israel Studies in 2013 proves that even if you discount the Haredim and Arabs, Israel remains a poor, unequal, relatively-unproductive country by OECD standards. But the misconception has become entrenched, appropriated by ordinary and official Israelis for other walks of life beyond economics, whether it’s Israel’s troubled education system or, well, baby names.

In that sense, if you don’t count the name Mohammad, Israel’s most popular baby name is Yosef. And if you deduct the Arab population, Israel is a Jewish state. It’s a cool mental trick, that enables Israel to be the Jewish country it always wanted to be. It also implies, quite ominously, that Israel as a nation has lost some capacity of dealing with reality.

For years now, for instance, Israel has been concerned with the so-called “demographic threat”, a scenario in which Palestinians, both within Israel and in the Occupied Territories, become a majority thanks to their high birth rates and therefore risk Israel’s Jewish majority and its status as a Jewish state. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was among the first to raise this concern, back in 2003. Some analysts suggested the fear of it forced Ariel Sharon to unilaterally disengage from Gaza.

Which brings us back to Mohammad, and the reality that its omission masks. After all, what is the acknowledgement that Mohammadis the now most popular baby name in Israel, if not an embarrassing admission that the so called “demographic bomb” has already exploded? That Israel, despite its definition of itself as Jewish, is a lot less Jewish than it would have liked? How would you like a dose of demographic gunpowder with your honey-dipped apple this year?

But, if you deduct Mohammad, everything seems just fine. We are not racists, we swear, we are simply escaping to a much-less complicated fantasy land.

NETANYAHU TO TELL THE ‘TRUTH’ ABOUT GAZA AND IRAN AT THE UN

What part of the truth do we not already know?

'Copyleft' by Carlos Latuff

‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

*

Image by Bendib

Image by Bendib

*

Netanyahu will speak at the UN on Monday. Before leaving, the prime minister vowed to “tell the truth of Israel’s citizens to the entire world.” 

“In my UN General Assembly speech and in all of my meetings I will represent the citizens of Israel and will – on their behalf – refute the slander and lies directed at our country,” Netanyahu went on to say.

*

Netanyahu heads to US to dispel Abbas, Rouhani’s ‘slander and lies’

Prime minister to meet with US President Obama, UN Secretary-General Ban and Indian Prime Minister Modi.

Ynetnews

*

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was set to leave for New York on Sunday morning to “refute the slander and lies” in Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s “deceptive speech” and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ “inciteful speech” at the UN General Assembly.

Netanyahu will speak at the UN on Monday. Before leaving, the prime minister vowed to “tell the truth of Israel’s citizens to the entire world.”

“In my UN General Assembly speech and in all of my meetings I will represent the citizens of Israel and will – on their behalf – refute the slander and lies directed at our country,” Netanyahu went on to day.

The prime minister will begin his visit on Sunday in a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This would be the first time in over a decade the prime ministers of Israel and India meet.

On Tuesday, Netanyahu will meet with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, followed by a meeting with US President Barack Obama on Wednesday.

While Rouhani only mentioned Israel once in his speech, saying that “Had we had greater cooperation and coordination in the Middle East, thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza would not have been fallen victim to Zionist regime’s aggression,” Abbas dedicated the lion’s share of his speech to Israel.

In the speech, Abbas called the previous round of fighting against Gaza “a series of absolute war crimes carried out before the eyes and ears of the entire world, moment by moment.” The devastation unleashed, he asserted, “is unmatched in modern times.”

He further stated that “the Israeli government undermined chances for peace throughout the months of negotiations,” referring to the failed 9-month-long peace process undertaken before the latest violence in Gaza. “Israel has consistently sought to fragment our land and our unity.”

Senior officials in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office denounced the allegations as “a speech of incitement filled with lies.”

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also commented on Abbas’ speech Friday saying that, “Abu Mazen’s (Abbas’) words at the UN General Assembly sharply clarify again that Abu Mazen doesn’t want and can’t be a logical partner for a political settlement. Abbas isn’t a member of joint government with Hamas for no reason.”

The Foreign Minister said that “Abbas complements Hamas in his political terrorism and storytelling against Israel. So long as he’s chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas will lead to the continuation of the conflict. He has proved time and again that he is not a man of peace, but rather Arafat’s heir.”

 

THE BABY THAT COULD SAVE THE WORLD

witchbaby3

*

In 2011, former President Clinton told reporters in Davos, Switzerland: “I would like to have a happy wife, and she won’t be unless she’s a grandmother … It’s something she wants more than she wanted to be president.”

Let’s hope to God he was right!

*

Chelsea Clinton Has Baby Girl Named Charlotte

First Grandchild for Hillary and Bill Clinton

*

GETTY IMAGES
*

By Reuters

Chelsea Clinton has given birth to a girl, she said in a statement on social media, giving former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton their first grandchild.

“Marc and I are full of love, awe and gratitude as we celebrate the birth of our daughter, Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky,” Clinton said in the post on her Twitter and Facebook profiles, referring to her investment banker husband Marc Mezvinsky.

The messages came out after midnight on the U.S. East Coast. Details on the baby’s height and weight have not been released.

Later on Saturday, Charlotte’s new grandparents shared their excitement about the birth in a joint statement.

“We are thrilled to be with our daughter and her husband as they welcome their daughter into the world,” the senior Clintons said.

“Chelsea is well and glowing. Marc is bursting with pride. Charlotte’s life is off to a good start,” they said.

Chelsea Clinton announced her pregnancy in April while sitting side-by-side with her mother in armchairs on a stage at a New York City event on empowering women.

It remains unclear how the birth of the first Clinton grandchild will affect the political ambitions of Hillary Clinton, who is considering a run for the White House in 2016.

In 2011, former President Clinton told reporters in Davos, Switzerland: “I would like to have a happy wife, and she won’t be unless she’s a grandmother … It’s something she wants more than she wanted to be president.”

IN PHOTOS ~~ CLIMATE CHANGE; PUTTING THE BLAME ON WALL STREET

SONY DSC

*

Monday, the day after the big climate march, was the day that climate activists chose to have a demonstration, including acts of civil disobedience, against Wall Street.  The people were demonstrating there with full understanding that unregulated, rapacious capitalism was the cause of the destruction of the earth and Wall Street is the epicenter of these destructive corporations.  The action was named, FLOOD WALL ST.  The plan was to meet at Battery Park at the southern tip of Manhattan, wear blue (representing water), walk to Wall St. and have a massive sit-in there.  On the bus going down Broadway we could see very many police on the streets in the area, particularly on Wall St., they were clearly prepared for an invasion.  

When we reached Battery Park, beautiful under sunny skies with a bit of fall chill in the air, we found well over 1,000 people there carrying signs and banners, singing, playing musical instruments and yes, wearing blue, except for those in polar bear or mermaid costumes.  Spirits were high but the mood was also serious, ‘we aren’t going to let anyone destroy our home’.  All the signs and chants spoke of capitalism as the enemy.  The crowd had people of all ages and races, including Native Americans.  At noon they started walking towards Wall St. along Broadway which is very narrow at it’s southern end.  When they reached Wall St. they stopped without turning onto it.  The entire street was filled with demonstrators and the area was brought to a stand-still.  Tourist buses were stuck and the people onboard applauded the demonstrators and waved to them.  Eventually a path was cleared for them to pass out of the area.  Many people sat down and sang.  Some made speeches.  One young man climbed to the top of a telephone booth and when the police asked him to get down he said he was doing civil disobedience up there.  He was a Wobbly, a member of the International Workers of the World, and described the beautiful kind of world he wanted to  live in.  At one point a balloon burst and many people put their hands up and started chanting, “Don’t shoot.  It was just a balloon”. 

The police gathered around the Bull representing Wall St. that stands at Bowling Green, guarding it as if it was made of gold.  Many of them were congenial and talking to the demonstrators, some joking and laughing.  In contrast to them were the officers wearing white shirts, the supervisors, who were clearly not amused.  They conferred a lot and spoke on phones.  By the time we left in the mid-afternoon there was barely a cop in sight and many demonstrators had left with the exception of 100+ sitting on the ground in the middle of Broadway.  We hoped the NYPD, instructed by New York’s new liberal mayor, would just wait it out. But that was not to be.  We later learned that at about 8PM those sitting-in were all arrested. 

The demonstration was somewhat different from the big climate march the day before.  These folks knew exactly who was guilty of creating global warming and, in a sense, were stating upfront, we aren’t going to let you get murder our children and grandchildren,  we will fight you with all our strength which will continue to grow.

*

Photos © by Bud Korotzer, Commentary by Chippy Dee

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

Chris Hedges was there .... His report can be read HERE

Chris Hedges was there …. His report can be read HERE

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

The threat of Arctic melting

The threat of Arctic melting

SPOOF OF ‘HAVE GUN AT THE UN’

'Copyleft' By Carlos Latuff

‘Copyleft’ By Carlos Latuff

*

Full text of the President’s Speech HERE

FORMER ISRAELI PRESIDENT SEEKS EMPLOYMENT

Impeccable references …

Hand picked by Netanyahu to serve as Israel’s last President …

*

Shimon+Peres+Prime+Ministerial+Chances+Impove+4B3a9O3d-Uol

*

Supported every act of terror and genocide committed by him without hesitation …

YET

I was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize

*

Two war criminals share a moment

Two war criminals share a moment

*

Crossed the Knesset floor to sit with Ariel Sharon, the butcher of Beirut …

*

Shimon_and_Sharon

*

YET

There is a Peace Centre named after me

*

Oxymoron extrodanaire

Oxymoron extraordinaire

*

As I enter the 100th decade of my life, I now seek employment as my life in government is now over …. Any suggestions would be welcome.

*

SPOOF ON HOW OBAMA INTENDS TO FIGHT EBOLA IN AFRICA

'Copyleft' by Carlos Latuff

‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

*

Meanwhile …. 

Hmmm …. troops and medical experts ….. interesting combo

*

The Israeli aid group IsraAid will also be sending two teams of medical experts to Sierra Leone and Liberia. One team will assist in launching a trauma treatment program which aims to help the population cope with fears of the disease and stress caused as a result of the outbreak.

*

 

Israel sends experts, aid to Africa to fight Ebola

Doctors, medicine and medical supplies sent to Africa in effort to assist fight against Ebola virus, which has killed thousands. ‘Every country has a role in the struggle,’ says Israel’s envoy to UN.

Full Report HERE

WHY DID THE WEST CREATE ISIS WHEN THEY ALREADY HAD ZIONISM?

Even Jon Stewart can’t take the ISIS ‘threat’ seriously …. why should we? More and more people are waking up to the fact of who the real enemy really is.

*

ISIS: ‘American-Zionist Tool’ for Dismembering Iraq (Sotal Iraq, Iraq)

*

 If America had been truly serious about putting Iraq on the right path and instituting a genuine democracy, it would have issued legislation to protect human dignity and the right of the people to live within a framework of liberty, peace, security and safety! Instead, the United States did just the opposite, disrupting Iraq’s civilizational project.

“Strangely enough, America today is fighting ISIS, and has sent experts to Iraq for that very purpose. For whom? For the love of Iraqis? And for whose benefit does America support ISIS and provide it with weapons in Syria? For whose benefit does it support the al-Nusra Front? … Today it is essential for us to stand against, pay careful attention to, and analyze carefully, all American and Israeli plans. We must all join to defeat their criminal designs for undermining Iraq, and their tool of implementation, ISIS.”

*

Globe & Mail, Canada

Globe & Mail, Canada

*

By Ali Abed Al Ghazzi 

Translated By Lina Barakat-Masroujeh

*

No observer of events can justifiably describe America’s role in the Middle East as one of a neutral advocate of liberty and peace, because the U.S. shows no concern for Arabs or Islamic interests. It is entirely concerned with securing its hegemony over the entire region to ensure the protection of its own economic interests and the security interests of Israel.

Following the 2003 occupation of this ancient society, which has well-established roots and stretches far back in history, America employed a reckless and cunning policy of spreading sectarianism in order to dismember and dissociate Iraq’s social and intellectual fabric.

The United States knew how to sow its malicious ideas with the rules and regulations imposed by the notorious [U.S. Proconsul] L. Paul Bremer. Bremer dissolved the Army, and his de-Baathification allowed militias to integrate into the armed forces, which fostered sectarianism and religious, ethnic and racial strife, establishing a system that encouraged the division of Iraq. Ultimately, that was the key objective.

If America had been truly serious about putting Iraq on the right path and instituting a genuine democracy, it would have issued legislation to protect human dignity and the right of the people to live within a framework of liberty, peace, security and safety! Instead, the United States did just the opposite, disrupting Iraq’s civilizational project.

Strangely enough, America today is fighting ISIS, and has sent experts to Iraq for that very purpose. For whom? For the love of Iraqis? And for whose benefit does America support ISIS and provide it with weapons in Syria? For whose benefit does it support the al-Nusra Front?

Everyone should be aware that America, with its policies of double standards, its purely demagogic methods, and its changing of colors in the region, are in place only to serve its own special interests. What does America and its Zionist and Freemason allies want from Iraq after the catastrophes of Mosul and Tikrit? [ISIS overran both cities and continues to occupy them].

Today it is essential for us to stand against, pay careful attention to, and analyze carefully, all American and Israeli plans. We must all join to defeat their criminal designs for undermining Iraq, and their tool of implementation, ISIS. And we much take special care not to exclude any of Iraq’s religions, ethnicities, or races. Iraq is in dire need of a nation that stands with our armed forces to deter these traitors and ISIS scum.

For the sake of protecting Iraq’s land, sky, and water, and maintaining the cohesion of the nation, remember that Allah never forsakes those who believe in Him, and that defending the homeland is a sacred duty in all religions.

 

Original report in Arabic HERE

 

Source

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.

9/11/14 ~~ THE BAR MITZVAH OF ISLAMOPHOBIA

Goldstone barred from grandson's Bar Mitzvah Published in Mail & Guardian on 22 Apr 2010

Goldstone barred from grandson’s Bar Mitzvah
Published in Mail & Guardian on 22 Apr 2010

*

Actually, the demonization of Islam started earlier than 13 years ago, but 9/11/01 was the official date that it became America’s ‘proud baby boy’. Islamophobia took its place in history to replace the Cold War which ended shortly before the demise of the Soviet Union itself. America needed a new enemy so it created one, with a little help from its friends.

*

'Demonization of Islam' "Copyleft' by Carlos Latuff

‘Demonization of Islam’
“Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

*

Some of those friends were even caught dancing in the streets of New York in celebration of the Twin Towers’ attack …

*

The mentally challenged US President at the time of the attack was seen reading a book to children … UPSIDE DOWN!

Duh!

Duh!

*

We still do not have the answers to the role he played in the attacks … but he had enough warning  not to be in the White House when they occurred.

*

"Copyleft' by Carlos Latuff

“Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

There are still over 100 unanswered questions that can be found HERE

*

Why does America refuse to admit that others are victim to the same forces of hatred and terrorism that attacked them thirteen years ago today? Worse yet, why does America continue to hide the fact that it is they who are orchestrating those very forces?

*

al-qaeda-taliban-isis

'Copyleft' by Carlos Latuff

‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

 

*
Thirteen years ago today America was attacked. Civilians died. Thirteen years later it is still making headline news….
*
Gaza is attacked every day. Civilians die every day. It never makes headline news in the West. It’s as if it never happens…. BUT IT DOES.
*
A pro Palestinian blogger posted the following a few years ago, it says it all!

Dear America, your 9/11 is our 24/7.

Sincerely, Palestine.

That’s the entire post, short and very much to the point.
*
The plight of those in Gaza and the rest of Palestine is not only omitted in the media, it is hidden from the eyes of the Western population altogether. Palestine, Gaza in particular, simply does not exist.
*
To date, one of the best reports I have seen regarding 9/11 was written by my son Peter six years ago …
*

I am Not a Conspiracy Theorist: 9/11 Facts or Fictions?

By Peter Amsel

*

Living in the world today can be quite difficult, especially if you feel the need to avoid the moral and intellectual pitfalls that “modern” life provides. However, this is something that only becomes difficult if you feel a need to avoid compromising your moral compass (assuming such exists), otherwise it should not be a serious impediment. There are many things about myself and my character that I like to believe are true and reasonably noble, amongst that list would be that I am willing to take correction from others when I make mistakes and that I try to be as generous of my time, energies and resources as much as I am able. While these are not the only traits that I would like to trumpet, humility is also a trait that I am aware that I have, but am in need of more.

Having said that, there is one thing that I am truly thankful that I possess, and that is the ability to reason. This is by no means a unique gift as it defines our species in our ability to look at information and make decisions based on the facts that have been presented to us. Being reasonable means that we are able to look at information and ideas even if they come to us from people and sources that we may not immediately trust and assess that information. We look at material without prejudice, allowing the truth to be revealed, allowing the obfuscations and machinations of the special interest groups, lobbyists and anyone else with something to gain by the perpetration of lies to be shut out through the acknowledgement that the truth shall, indeed, set you free.

Unfortunately, alas, that is not how the “real world” seems to operate. Alas, that seems to be just the opposite as to how things work. Before anything else is said, there is one other trait that I am very proud to possess: I am not, in any way, shape or form, a conspiracy theorist. I believe that men walked on the moon. I believe that a lone man, using a single rifle (having been trained as a Marine by the United States and having attained sharp shooter status) assassinated JFK. I believe that Area 51 is, in fact, a Top Secret (UMBRA) Military Base used for the testing and development of new aircraft for the USAF (including the U2, SR71, B1, B2, F117, F22, F35, and the UCAV’s that are currently being deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan).

I am not a believer in conspiracies.

We have not been told the truth about 9/11; we have been lied to and the people that have told the lies know that the truth has been concealed from the public; furthermore, they know that the truth is not “out there”, it has been examined by experts in their field, experts that are willing to openly dispute the “findings” of the “9/11 Commission”, a work of fantasy and fiction that fed the American people a pile of obfuscation that stank of the stench of the rotting corpses trapped in the rubble of Ground Zero.

I will never be able to forget that morning; I was in the basement working on the computer when the phone rang. My step-father’s frantic voice told me to turn on CNN; a plane had just crashed into the WTC. The rest of that day I watched. I watched, prayed, wept, cried, sobbed, prayed, and cried some more. My parents are from New York and I spent the majority of my summer vacations visiting family there; even though I had been born and raised in Canada, this felt like an attack on my own home. I was talking to a friend in Toronto when the first tower collapsed. It seemed wrong then, too fast, too symmetrical … too … perfect. Then the second tower fell.

 

Continue reading this at his BLOG

*

There are still other unanswered questions …. WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE?

*

Uncle Sam still wants us to believe that 9/11 is a thorn in his side

'Copyleft' by Carlos Latuff

‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

IMAGINE HAVING A PRESIDENT THAT DOESN’T CARE ABOUT YOU

Unfortunately Palestine is not alone with that situation …

*

Whose side are you on?

Whose side are you on?

*

As Abbas busies himself with non existent Egyptian promises, the following has been going on in Palestine. Seems he has no interest in any of it. (Click on links to see reports)

*

Jerusalem teen shot by Israeli soldier a week ago dies of his wounds

Ma/an Images

Ma/an Images

*

Watch: Israeli soldiers arrest 2 young boys in Silwad

(MaanImages/File)

(MaanImages/File)

*

Israeli forces shoot, kill Palestinian near Ramallah

Issa Khaled al-Qatri, 22, was killed by Israeli forces early Wednesday (MaanImages)

Issa Khaled al-Qatri, 22, was killed by Israeli forces early
Wednesday (MaanImages)

*

Israeli forces detain, assault Palestinian near Bethlehem

(MaanImages/File)

(MaanImages/File)

*

Israeli forces detain 6 Palestinians in West Bank overnight

(MaanImages/File)

(MaanImages/File)

*

And the pièce de résistance

Abbas may end unity with Hamas over Gaza governance

A woman waves the national flag as she celebrates the agreement to form a unity government in Gaza on April 23, 2014. (AFP Mahmud Hams)

A woman waves the national flag as she celebrates the agreement
to form a unity government in Gaza on April 23, 2014.
(AFP Mahmud Hams)

DENIALS FROM THE NILE

What Authority??

What Authority??

*

The alleged master plan that was reported yesterday regarding an Egyptian proposal to ‘give’ Palestine the Sinai Peninsula was denied today. The plan would have permanently divided and conquered Palestine, making it impossible for the creation of a United Palestinian State.

It’s no wonder that Israeli government ministers welcomed the idea on Monday.

*

Here is what is reported today ….

*

Palestinian, Egyptian Officials Deny

Reports of Sinai Offer For State

Israel Government Ministers Welcomed Idea

*

GETTY IMAGES

By JTA

*

Palestinian and Egyptian officials both denied reports that Egypt offered to the Palestinian Authority part of the Sinai Peninsula for annexation by Gaza to form a Palestinian state.

According to the media reports that circulated Monday, Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi offered P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas 1,600 square kilometers (approximately 620 square miles) located on the border in return for the Palestinian Authority waiving its demands for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.

Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh on Monday denied the reports, the official Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.

Abbas also was reported as saying that an unnamed senior Egyptian official offered to settle Palestinian refugees on land adjacent to Gaza.

“We will not accept any offer that doesn’t achieve the Palestinian people’s aspirations and goals to gain freedom and independence and establish an independent Palestinian state on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital,” Rudeineh said, according to Wafa.

The Egyptian Foreign Ministry denied the offer was made and added that the initiative was actually presented in the past by ousted President Mohamed Morsi.

The Palestinians asserted that the plan was once floated by a former head of the Israeli National Security Council in order to deal with the Palestinian issue.

Israeli government ministers welcomed the idea on Monday.

ANOTHER ATTACK ON THE JEWISH LEFT FROM THE ZIO RIGHT

D09A11_2*

For the second time this week, the Jewish Left came under attack …. this time from an Israeli government spokesman. The earlier attack was from the Jerusalem Post’s Psycho Gal. Sad to see that her level of ‘thinking’ has reached the government corridors.

WE MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT (as leftists)
*

One should always look to see where the
attack is coming from 

… those, such as these can be

dismissed without a problem.

*

A poll last week by the Knesset channel found that 39% of respondents saw Bennett as leader of the “right-wing” in Israel, giving him the edge over Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Coming in second, Netanyahu got 28% support, while 20% picked Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman as their right-wing leader of choice.

*

Bennett: Leftists Live in the Nineties

In his first public speech since the conclusion of Operation Protective Edge, Naftali Bennett sharply criticized the Israeli left.
*
Naftali Bennett
Naftali Bennett Flash 90
*

In his first public speech since the conclusion of Operation Protective Edge, Economics Minister and Jewish Home party leader Naftali Bennett sharply criticized the Israeli left, accusing them of having outmoded world views that they have refused to update.

“I cannot believe the things I hear from supporters of the left,” said Bennett. “They speak as if I am still in the 1990s,” when Israel spun off large chunks of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza to the control of the Palestinian Authority.

“But it’s the left that is stuck in the 90s, not me,” he said at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center Monday.

“They are like people sitting on the beach as a tsunami approaches,” Bennett said. “They ignore the tsunami and concentrate only on their little aquarium.”

The idea of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria is simply a non-starter for Israel, Bennett said. Those who still believed in it after the war in Gaza, during which Hamas was able to significantly interrupt daily Israeli life evenfrom the far south, indicated what would happen if Hamas and other terror groups could do as they pleased in Judea and Samaria.

“Six months ago I said that a Palestinian state would destroy the Israeli economy, and they laughed at me,” Bennett said. “But after Hamas managed to close down flights coming into Israel by targeting Ben Gurion Airport, my colleagues have stopped laughing. Does the left really believe we can trust the PA with the hills overlooking the center of the country? All it would take is one missile to ruin our economy,” Bennett said.

Besides the terror of Hamas and Fatah, said Bennett, a Palestinian state would advance the terror of ISIS and similar Islamist groups. “Israel needs to be a lighthouse in the storm that surrounds us,” said Bennett.

“With our solid base in a strong state, a strong economy, and 4,000 years of tradition, we must export this light abroad. We in the Economics Ministry are doing these things, exporting Israeli water technology and other positive things to India and China, as well as medical technology to the entire world. This is our vision.”

A poll last week by the Knesset channel found that 39% of respondents saw Bennett as leader of the “right-wing” in Israel, giving him the edge over Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Coming in second, Netanyahu got 28% support, while 20% picked Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman as their right-wing leader of choice.

 

From my ziocrap file

IMAGE OF THE DAY ~~ ISIS THE TROJAN HORSE

Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

Just look who’s hiding inside ….

isis-trojan-horse-middle-east-monitor

APARTHEID; IN DEFENSE OF THE INDEFENSIBLE

Israel and its defenders go to great lengths to insist the “Jewish state” is not an apartheid one. Curious, then, that the only arguments they can muster in their favor are precisely those that were used to apologize for South Africa’s decades of indefensible discrimination and violence.

*

Defending Apartheid: Then in South Africa, Now in Palestine

By Nima Shirazi FOR

 *
Just like another Israel,
by enemies surrounded, lost in the veld,but for another Canaan elected,
led forward by God’s plan.

- Reverend J.D. du Toit, Potgieter’s Trek (1909)

*

This past May, in a relatively banal column touting the necessity of an impossible “two-state solution” in the context of what he deemed to be U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s “specious comparison” of a potential Israeli future to South African apartheid, formerHa’aretz editor-in-chief David Landau wrote:

This resort to apartheid infuriates the majority of Israelis and Israel-lovers, including those in the peace camp, and one can readily understand why. Apartheid was based on racism; Israeli Jews are not racist. They may occupy, persecute and discriminate Palestinians, but they act out of misguided patriotism and a hundred years of bloody conflict. Not out of racism.

It would be a gross understatement to say that Landau’s formulation was fundamentally flawed.

First and foremost, there is a vast amount of evidence proving that Jewish Israeli society – built wholly upon the 19th century premise (and promise) of ethnic and religious superiority, exclusivity, and privilege enforced through ethnic cleansing,forced expulsion, displacement and dispossession, segregation, colonization and occupation – is somehow becoming even more openly racist. Poll after poll revealsincreasingly bigoted trends.

The work of reporters like David Sheen and Max Blumenthal, for instance, routinely demonstrates a viciously militarized and unjust society masquerading as an embattled liberal democracy, acting with aggression and impunity. More recently, pogroms targetingmigrants and refugees from Africa, incitement against Palestinians inside Israel, andexplicit anti-miscegenation campaigns are becoming more frequent and more dangerous.

A country for “the white man”

In a mid-2012 interview, Israel’s Interior Minister Eli Yishai said that Africans, “along with the Palestinians, will bring a quick end to the Zionist dream,” since “[m]ost of those people arriving here are Muslims who think the country doesn’t belong to us, the white man.” Referring to refugees from Sudan and Eritrea as an “infiltrator threat,” he told the press he was eager to deport all African immigrants for, in his words, “the benefit of the Zionist dream.”

A chapter in a forthcoming book, detailing a three-year, anthropological study of the attitudes of typical, secular Israeli high school students conducted by Dr. Idan Yaron, isstark in its assessment of the cultural racism and hatred present in Israeli society. Reporter Ori Kashti notes that, based upon Yaron’s observations, “such hatred is a basic everyday element among youth, and a key component of their identity. Yaron portrays the hatred without rose-colored glasses or any attempt to present it as a sign of social ‘unity.’ What he observed is unfiltered hatred.”

Landau’s desperate defense against the apartheid label perfectly demonstrates theLiberal Zionist need to insist that Israel and its founding ideology are not inherently racist, a position less and less palatable to people who are actually paying attention.

His claim that because “Israeli Jews are not racist,” and therefore Israel can’t possibly be deemed a “apartheid” state, not only misunderstands the actual definition of apartheid, which isn’t merely race-based discrimination and oppression. It also mirrors precisely the arguments made by defenders of South African apartheid in opposition to calls for equal human and civil rights.

Zionism’s defenders mirror apartheid’s apologists

Beyond the shared “promised land” and “chosen people” rhetoric that has inspired boththe Afrikaner and Zionist ideologies of racial, religious, and ethnic supremacy, so has that of land redemption through settler-colonialism and transplanting indigenous populations. The connective tissue between apartheid and Zionism is thick, and not only in that both European colonial ideologies were officially institutionalized and implemented against native peoples as government policy in 1948.

Historian Donald Akenson has written, “The very spine of Afrikaner history (no less than the historical sense of the Hebrew scriptures upon which it is based) involves the winning of ‘the Land’ from alien, and indeed, evil forces.”

One can easily see a corollary in the words of David Ben-Gurion, written in a 1937 letter to his son, Amos. Palestine, he wrote, “contains vast colonization potential” for Jewish settlement to exploit. Moreover, he declared, “What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish. A unified Eretz Israel would be no source of satisfaction for me – if it were Arab.” (emphasis in original)

This past June, settler leader Dani Dayan argued in the New York Times that, assummarized by David Samel, “Israel retain control of ‘Judea and Samaria,’ that it continue to exercise military rule over millions of stateless Palestinians, but that it loosen its stranglehold by making concerted efforts to make Palestinians happier despite the permanent loss of freedom, equality in the land of their birth, and justice under international law.”

Dayan’s essay calls for what is essentially, in Samel’s words, “window dressing of reduced restrictions on Palestinians” in order to “keep the natives happy.” Just like his more “liberal” counterparts like David Landau on the west side of the Green Line, Dayaninsists, “we settlers were never driven — except for fringe elements — by bigotry, hate or racism.”

This argument effectively relies on the disingenuous presumption that the actual victims of an exclusivist, 19th century European ideology – the colonized indigenous population – are merely incidental to the ideology itself. That is, as Landau wrote, “misguided patriotism and a hundred years of bloody conflict” are really to blame for the oppression, discrimination and violence against Palestinians, not the racist obligations of Zionism.

In October 1964, Foreign Affairs published the lengthy essay, “In Defense of Apartheid,” by Charles A. W. Manning. Not only did Manning accuse outside meddlers and finger-waggers of refusing to acknowledge South Africa’s right to exist as an apartheid state, he also justified its racist policies as “a heritage from a complicated past.”

Quoting approvingly from the 1954 Tomlinson Commission, Manning wrote that while “a continuation of the policy of integration would intensify racial friction and animosity… the only alternative is to promote the establishment of separate communities in their own separate territories where each will have the fullest opportunity for self-expression and development.”

Two states for two peoples, indeed.

In the face of international opprobrium, apartheid is “the philosophy of patriots,” Manning explained, “a remedial treatment for a state of things deriving from the past.” He added that apartheid is a matter of “nationalism, rather than racialism.”

It is easy for the foreigner to deride a nationalism which he does not share; but nowhere in human history has nationalism ever been destroyed by foreign scorn. Admittedly, Afrikaner nationalism is a form of collective selfishness; but to say this is simply to say that it is an authentic case of nationalism. For what is nationalism anywhere if not collective self-love? What underlies apartheid is at bottom an attitude not toward the black man, but toward the forefathers-and the future-of the Afrikaner people.

Manning continued:

Deplore the white man’s collective self-concern, and you may equally well damn every other example of nationalism, white or black. It is absurd to assume that nationalism is nice, or nasty, according to its color.

Manning bemoaned that, as a result of misunderstanding the necessity and, yes, benevolence of apartheid, even South Africa’s best friends were beginning to abandon it. “Israel finds it necessary to ignore the analogy between South Africa’s predicament and her own,” he lamented.

Still, Israel maintained diplomatic relations with South Africa into 1987 and was one of the last countries to join the international boycott campaign.

‘National suicide’

In 2012, Israel’s High Court upheld the state’s explicitly discriminatory “Citizenship and Entry” law, which, as Ben White has explained, “places severe restrictions on the ability of Palestinian citizens of Israel to live with spouses from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as from so-called ‘enemy states’ (defined as Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq).” The ruling stated that “Palestinians who gain Israeli citizenship through marriage pose a security threat.”

Writing in Al Jazeera, following the decision, White elaborated:

In the majority opinion, Justice Asher Grunis wrote that “human rights are not a prescription for national suicide”, a term often invoked by those worrying about what realising Palestinian rights would mean for Israel’s Jewish majority. This same phrase was invoked by the Interior Minister Eli Yishai, while coalition chair and Likud MK Ze’ev Elkin applauded the High Court judges for understanding, as he put it, that “human rights cannot jeopardize the State”.

A particularly instructive reaction came from Kadima MK Otniel Schneller, who said that the decision “articulates the rationale of separation between the (two) peoples and the need to maintain a Jewish majority and the (Jewish) character of the state”.

The notion that advocating and legislating in favor of “human rights” and equality would be the death knell of the Israeli state – “national suicide” – perfectly articulates that inherent injustice of Zionism; indeed, it is a self-indicting statement.

And, as has already been noted here and elsewhere, is yet one more example of how Israel’s apologists employ precisely the same logic, arguments and excuses – often literally the same words, verbatim – as the staunch defenders of the apartheid system in South Africa.

In April 1953, on the eve of assembly elections in South Africa, Prime Minister D.F. Malanwarned that outside forces – including “the United Nations, Communist Russia… as well as a hostile press” – were “trying to force upon us equality, which must inevitably mean to white South Africa nothing less than national suicide.”

Malan added, “I consider the approaching election South Africa’s last chance to remain a white man’s country.”

Just months after Malan and his National Party won the election and consolidated power, South Africa’s London-based High Commissioner A.L. Geyer delivered a speech on August 19, 1953 entitled, “The Case for Apartheid,” before the city’s Rotary Club. He argued against the indigenous claims of the native black population (“South Africa is no more the original home of its black Africans, the Bantu, than it is of its white Africans”); that the apartheid state is the only “homeland” known to white South Africans (“the only independent white nation in all Africa… a nation which has created a highly developed modern state”); and that “South Africa is the only independent country in the world in which white people are outnumbered by black people.”

These claims echo common hasbara tropes: that Palestinians are an “invented people” and that the Arab majority in Palestine was due to immigration into Palestine rather than an ancient indigenous population with roots in that land for centuries, if not millennia; that Israel is the “only democracy in the Middle East,” a bright bastion of technology and Western modernism amidst a sea of darker-skinned barbarians.

In his speech, Geyer – who was national chairman of the South African Bureau of Racial Affairs, known, ironically, by the acronym “SABRA” – turns to the question of what the future South Africa will look like and sees “two possible lines of development: Apartheidor Partnership.” He explains:

Partnership means Cooperation of the individual citizens within a single community, irrespective of race… [It] demands that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever in trade and industry, in the professions and the Public Service. Therefore, whether a man is black or a white African, must according to this policy be as irrelevant as whether in London a man is a Scotsman or an Englishman. I take it: that Partnership must also aim at the eventual disappearance of all social segregation based on race.

Geyer, speaking on behalf of those intent on maintaining a stratified and discriminatory society, was obviously not a fan of this prospective outcome. Just as those who still push for an illusorytwo-state solution” insist that a Jewish majority must be artificially engineered to exclude as many non-Jews as possible within the area controlled by Israel for a “Jewish and democratic” state to continue existing, Geyer too bristled at the idea of true self-determination wherein the result wasn’t already predetermined through gerrymandered demographics.

If the black population were to be given full voting rights, for instance, whites would no longer hold a monopoly on political power in the country. The inevitable result, Geyer warned, would be “black domination, in the sense that power must pass to the immense African majority.”

This sentiment was similarly articulated by Ehud Olmert, then the Israeli Prime Minister, in a 2007 interview with Ha’aretz. “If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories),” he said “then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.”

Here’s how Geyer, in 1953, articulated his argument against such a horrifying future of democracy, equality, and justice:

Need I say more to show that this policy of Partnership could, in South Africa, only mean the eventual disappearance of the white South African nation? And will you be greatly surprised if I tell you that this white nation is not prepared to commit national suicide, not even by slow poisoning? The only alternative is a policy ofapartheid, the policy of separate development.

Indeed, as Israeli Justice Grunis reminded us, “human rights are not a prescription for national suicide.” Geyer couldn’t have agreed more. Denying basic and fundamental rights, while promoting and implementing a policy of demographic segregation and geographic separation, was a matter of survival, Geyer argued – just like his Zionist successors do now.

“Apartheid is a policy of self-preservation,” Geyer said. “We make no apology for possessing that very natural urge. But it is more than that. It is an attempt at self­-preservation in a manner that will enable the Bantu to develop fully as a separate people.” As the native black Africa population in South Africa was, Geyer noted, “still very immature,” efforts must be made “to develop the Bantu areas both agriculturally and industrially, with the object of making these areas in every sense the national home of the Bantu.”

Thirty years later, very little had actually changed.

In his infamous “Rubicon” speech, delivered in Durban on August 15, 1985, South African president P.W. Botha declared that “most leaders in their own right in South Africa and reasonable South Africans will not accept the principle of one-man-one-vote in a unitary system. That would lead to domination of one over the other and it would lead to chaos. Consequently, I reject it as a solution.”

Botha added, “I am not prepared to lead White South Africans and other minority groups on a road to abdication and suicide. Destroy White South Africa and our influence, and this country will drift into faction strife, chaos and poverty.”

In response, ANC president Oliver Tambo condemned Botha’s disingenuous statements about his apartheid regime’s commitment to “the protection of minorities” and “the just and equal treatment of all parts of South Africa.” Botha, he said, had instead committed to the continued “oppression of the overwhelming majority of our people” and “promised our people more brutal repression.”

Calling for increased resistance, through both armed struggle and the imposition of international sanctions, Tambo declared that all victims of apartheid were “ready to make any and all sacrifices to achieve justice and democracy based on the principle of one man, one vote in a unitary South Africa.”

That very same year, Raphael Israeli, a professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem andfuture client of the neoconservative PR firm Benador Associates, published an essay promoting increased Zionist colonization of the West Bank and Gaza and then subsequent partition of what he called “Greater Palestine” (which includes Jordan) as part of a potential solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israeli argued that “the seemingly reasonable claim that the ‘state belongs to all its inhabitants'” anticipates the “nightmare of a bi-national state” in which “Israel is no longer a state of the Jews or a Jewish state.”

The essay, entitled “One Palestinian People and One Palestine,” was eventually included in a collection edited by Israeli himself entitled, “Dangers of a Palestinian State.”

In laying out his vision for a bizarre tripartite entity within “Greater Palestine,” with redefined parameters of sovereignty and self-determination in which a “Palestinian government” is established in Amman, Jordan, alongside the Hashemite monarchy, and Israeli military control over the West Bank continues until a final settlement on borders is agreed upon.

Israeli stresses that Jewish citizens of the Zionist state reject the implementation of a “one person, one vote” system throughout Israel and the territories it occupies because they would be “faced with an intractable dilemma: either a democratic and egalitarian Israel with rights for all, with the corollaries of a bi-national state immediately and an Arab-majority state in the future; or Jewish Israel where the Jews would maintain rights and rule and the Arabs would be devoid of both.”

“No Israeli government,” the renowned academic wrote, “could face that dilemma and resolve it in any acceptable way.”

For Zionism, as it was for apartheid, equality and human rights are non-starters. The fear that a “one person, one vote” system and of a “state for all its citizens” instills in Zionists is no different from that expressed by defenders of South African apartheid.

Defended by de Klerk

Following John Kerry’s “apartheid” comment earlier this year, F.W. de Klerk, the former South Africa prime minister who presided over the dismantling of the apartheid regime, came to Israel’s defense. “I think it’s unfair to call Israel an apartheid state,” he said.

This is the same de Klerk, however, who two years earlier reflected that, while “[i]n as much as it trampled human rights, [apartheid] was and remains morally indefensible,” he still defended what he said was the system’s “original concept of seeking to bring justice to all South Africans through the concept of nation states.”

De Klerk explained that the Bantustanization of South Africa was conceived as a way to “bring justice for black South Africans in a way which would not – that’s what I believed then – destroy the justice to which my people were entitled.”  He added that it was “not repugnant” to believe that “ethnic entities with one culture, with one language, can be happy and can fulfill their democratic aspirations in [their] own state,” separate from one another.
After his comments sparked negative reactions, de Klerk’s spokesman walked back his comments. When “an artificial creation” like apartheid fell, the spokesman said, “you can go two ways – either by going your separate ways like in the Soviet Union or in what is being suggested for Israel and Palestine, or by trying to build a multicultural society.”When “the first option” failed in South Africa, apartheid leaders “changed course,” he said, continuing, “It is not immoral for the Afrikaners to want to rule themselves any more than it is for the Israelis or the Scots to wish for the same things.”

Israel and its defenders go to great lengths to insist the “Jewish state” is not an apartheid one. Curious, then, that the only arguments they can muster in their favor are precisely those that were used to apologize for South Africa’s decades of indefensible discrimination and violence.

MAKING ABLUTION WITH SOURED MILK

2

*

When my late father, who passed away in 2002, didn’t like a particular situation, he would compare it with having to make ablution with soured milk. The figurative analogy was meant to illustrate a nightmarish experience that one always wishes to avoid.

*

“It is like having to make

ablution with soured

milk”

*

By Khalid Amayreh

*

When my late father, who passed away in 2002, didn’t like a particular situation, he would compare it with having to make ablution with soured milk. The figurative analogy was meant to illustrate a nightmarish experience that one always wishes to avoid.The reason I invoked this anecdote is the shockingly stupid behavior of the Palestinian Authority (PA) under both its late leader Yasser Arafat and the current one Mahmoud Abbas.Israeli negotiators are almost satanically smart. They are the Crème de la Crème of Western deception, fascism, racism and nefariousness.

I remember that when a frustrated Arafat demanded that Judeo-Nazi Israeli leaders carry out previous commitments made under American-brokered agreements, he was often met with endless procrastination, stonewalling and utter rejection. 

Consecutive Israeli leaders, including Isaac Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and this criminal thug, Binyamin Netanyahu, would simply tell Arafat to “forget it.”

They would cite the strong opposition to the implementation of agreements with the Palestinians, such as withdrawal from some areas in the West Bank, by extreme right-wing and ultra-religious parties both in government and the Knesset.

Israeli leaders would ask Arafat to “moderate” his demands, arguing that the Israeli government itself would fall and new elections would have to take place if the Palestinian leader insisted that Israel make the demanded “concessions.”

Likewise, successive U.S. governments, always at Israel’s beck and call, would effectively adopt the Israeli view even without asking any question. American administration officials and envoys, people like George Shultz, Condoleezza Rice, even Bill Clinton, would tell Arafat that Israel was a democratic state and that any Israeli government would have to accommodate the opposition. 

With this manifestly spurious argument, Arafat and other Arab leaders, from Egypt’s Mubarak to King Fahed of Saudi Arabia would just shut up.

I still don’t know for sure why the PA leadership didn’t use the same logic with the Israelis and their American guardian-allies. Arafat and his aides could have always argued that “we, too, have our own opposition, and we have to accommodate them, otherwise we would be betraying our political system.” 

The PLO leadership did have some smart people who could really outsmart their Israeli counterparts. And, of course, there was always a surplus of ignoramuses and hangers-on who didn’t know the difference between a watermelon and a squash. Unfortunately, however, the driver’s seat belonged to the ignoramuses who surpassed their more capable colleagues, especially in playing the sycophancy game vis-à-vis Arafat, who we all know held all the reigns, took all the decisions and controlled all the money.

I remember that when the Oslo Accords were officially signed on 13 September, 1993, an Israeli TV correspondent named Yuni Ben Menachem, interviewed PLO ambassador to Tunis, Hakam Balawi. Ben Menachem asked the PLO official how the soon-to-be formed Palestinian Authority would deal with the Islamist opposition to the Oslo Agreement. Without mincing words, and without patting an eyelash, Balawi said: we would crush them to smithereens.

Needless to say, it is this type of mindset that brought one disaster after another on the Palestinian people and their enduring just cause.

Balawi could have simply said something like this: “we would deal with our opposition the same way you will deal with yours.” Had he said that, he would have given the Israelis a different impression. But Balawi, like most PLO officials, then and now, was more interested in pleasing and appeasing the Israelis, even at the expense of his own people and their paramount national interest.

Sadly, Balawi’s remarks were not a slip of the tongue. He was expressing mainstream thinking permeating through the PLO. 

He wasn’t at all a single spoiled apple in a fruit box. He was representing a widespread phenomenon within Fatah and the PLO. It is really lamentable to say that this sorry phenomenon continues to define PLO political performance, especially with regard to Israel.

It is really sad that the PLO continues to be Israel’s laughingstock. 

The PLO did recognize Israel more than 20 years ago, even without a reciprocal Israeli recognition of a putative Palestinian state.

The PLO had agreed to suppress, torment and torture its own citizens as part of a scandalous security coordination regime with Israel, which effectively reduced the PA apparatus to a Palestinian Judenrat.

In return, Israel decapitated the two-state solution prospects by confiscating the bulk of the West Bank and by planting Jewish colonies all over the very small piece of land in which the PA says will establish its contemplated but increasingly precarious state.

And now, in the aftermath of the Israeli holocaust in Gaza, which more or less destroyed the coastal enclave and left tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians murdered and maimed, the venomous Judeo-Nazi snake is telling PA leader Mahmoud Abbas that if only he declares Hamas a terrorist organization, the envisaged Palestinian state will be just around the corner.

When will the PLO leadership learn the lesson, namely that Zionist Jews are habitual and pathological liars who can never be trusted? Doesn’t the bankrupt leadership learn from its numerous mistakes? Is it irredeemably ignorant and stupid?

THOSE ‘DANCING ISRAELIS’ ARE AT IT AGAIN

3168421_370

*

Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro claimed on Monday that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad was behind the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group,AFP reports.

*

Fidel Castro Claims Mossad is Behind the Islamic State

Former Cuban leader claims U.S. Senator McCain collaborated with the Mossad to create the Islamic State terrorist group.
*
Former Cuban president Fidel Castro

Former Cuban president Fidel Castro Reuters
*

Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro claimed on Monday that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad was behind the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group,AFP reports.

Castro’s claims were made in a column published in Cuban media in which he lashed out at the United States and Europe and accused them of war-mongering. He also compared the NATO military alliance’s representatives to the Nazi SS.

Castro also attacked U.S. Senator John McCain over United States policy in the Middle East, calling him “Israel’s most unconditional ally.”

He singled out McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, saying he had supported Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency and “participated together with that service in the creation of the Islamic State, which today controls a considerable and vital portion of Iraq and reportedly one-third of Syria as well.”

He accused the West of “cynicism” and said the trait had become “a symbol of imperialist policy,” according to AFP.

Turning to NATO, Castro said the alliance’s representatives were reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s feared SS.

“Many people are astonished when they hear the statements made by some European spokesmen for NATO when they speak with the style and face of the Nazi SS,” he charged.

“Adolf Hitler’s greed-based empire went down in history with no more glory than the encouragement provided to NATO’s aggressive and bourgeois governments, which makes them the laughing stock of Europe and the world,” added Castro.

Last month, Castro compared Israel’s military operation in Gaza to a “disgusting form of fascism”.

He later signed an international manifesto “supporting Palestine” and demanding that Israel respect UN resolutions and withdraw from “Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”

Several other famous anti-Israel activists, including Bolivian President Evo Morales, Argentine artist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Cuban dancer Alicia Alonso and American writer Alice Walker, were also among the signatories.

Communist Cuba broke diplomatic relations with Israel in 1973 after the YomKippur War.

 

Found AT

« Older entries Newer entries »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,169 other followers