RADIO DAYS AND ISIS

A glimpse at yesteryear …

*

Last night I watched a film on TV produced by Woody Allen. It was called Radio Days. I’m not a great fan of Allen’s, but this was a brilliant production.

The movie took me back to my younger years when we were glued to the radio on Sunday nights to listen to The Shadow.

It was meant to be fiction, but it made me realise that those very same forces of evil are at work today …. for real.

Last week I posted a piece where Fidel Castro made the following claim … Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro claimed on Monday that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad was behind the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group,AFP reports. To date, I have not read one denial of that accusation.

Makes one wonder about a few other unanswered questions; as we approach the 13th anniversary of 9/11 …. WHO WAS REALLY BEHIND IT?

Who created Al Quaida??

Who created Taliban???

And finally, who really created ISIS???

Obviously, ‘The Shadow’ knows, but we want to know as well…

One hint was produced by Carlos Latuff a few days ago in the following …

Al-Quaida – Taliban – ISIS

al-qaeda-taliban-isis-altagreer

*

Still another hint …

isis-trojan-horse-middle-east-monitor (1)

*

Do we have to wait until Sunday night to get the answers?

WE DEMAND TO KNOW
THEM NOW!

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

SISI BACKWARDS IS ISIS

BreJZ26IgAAu_O7

*

Israeli politicians responded enthusiastically Monday to reports that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was willing to give Palestinians land in Sinai adjacent to Gaza for a state.

It obviously does not matter what the Palestinians want …

*

Israeli politicians praise Sisi plan to give Palestinians land for a state in Sinai
By LAHAV HARKOV

*

Abbas reportedly rejected plan that would expand Gaza to five times its current size and give PA autonomy in West Bank cities; Yesh Atid’s Peri, Bayit Yehudi’s Shaked say proposal worth exploring.

*

ShowImage
Sisi and Abu-Mazen. (photo credit:REUTERS)

*

Israeli politicians responded enthusiastically Monday to reports that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was willing to give Palestinians land in Sinai adjacent to Gaza for a state.

Science and Technology Minister Yaakov Peri, a former Shin Bet chief, said he’s surprised by Sisi’s generosity, calling the proposal “worth discussing seriously.”

On Monday, Army Radio reported that Sisi had offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas 1,600 square kilometers in Sinai to expand the Gaza Strip to five times its current size. According to the plan, the territory would serve as a Palestinian state under the complete control of the PA.

The new territory, composed of Gaza together with the extra land in Sinai, would be a demilitarized state that would serve as a home to which Palestinian refugees could return.

In addition to the “Greater Gaza State,” the cities currently in the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank would be under the autonomous rule of the PA. In exchange, Abbas would give up claims to a state within the pre-1967 lines.

The proposal, which was reported previously in the Arab media last week as having been offered by a senior Egyptian official, but not specifically Sisi, was rejected outright by Abbas.

Peri asked several questions arising from the Egyptian proposal in an interview with Army Radio: “What will happen to Judea and Samaria? What will be with Jerusalem? The idea that major cities in Judea and Samaria will have autonomy is vague; everyone can understand it in a different way.”

Still, the Yesh Atid minister said, “there are elements that are worth discussing despite Abbas’ refusal.”

“This could solve problems that weren’t given a response in talks between Israel and the Palestinians so far,” he added.

Peri also pointed out that Sisi’s initiative suits Egyptian interests, since there are problems with terrorism in the Sinai.

Bayit Yehudi faction chairwoman Ayelet Shaked said that the Egyptian president “discerned what the Israeli Left refuses to understand for decades.”

“The solution to the Palestinian problem,” she added, “must be regional and cannot fall on Israel’s shoulders alone.”

Shaked called on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to meet with Sisi and examine whether the initiative is possible.

According to Monday’s Army Radio report, Netanyahu has already been updated on the details of the Egyptian proposal, as have US government sources who have expressed support for the idea.

‘THOSE DANCING ISRAELIS’ AT GAZA GROUND ZERO

*

The Palestinian cause is one of the most just causes in history. What we need o do is change ourselves first and move towards more actions.

*

Gaza Ground Zero

Compiled by Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD

*

According to the United Nations, the Palestinian Ministry of Health and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, in its latest assault on the people of Gaza, the occupation forces killed 2170 and injured 10900 human beings (about 80% of them civilians, >519 children killed, 2114 children injured).

Israel was using the media distraction it created with slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza (while shouting “hamas, hamas”) to hide the intensification of its ethnic cleansing policies in the occupied West Bank. For example, Israel announced one of the largest expropriation ordesr of Palestinian lands to expand its illegal Gush Etzion complex of colonies. 3799 dunums of land (1000 acres) are to be taken from the villagers of Husan, Nahhalin, and Wadi Fukin.

The latest “ceasefire” arrangement between the resistance factions and Israel are closer to resistance demands than Israeli demands. A majority of Israeli citizens supported the genocide in Gaza and they wanted even more mayhem. Polls also reveal that many do not buy their government propaganda that the Israeli military won. But in wars there are no winners but only losers and worse losers. Gaza was devastated because the Israeli military was unable to find or attack resistance forces and vented its frustration on civilians. But politicians have a ways of twisting things to their advantage. Even Mahmoud Abbas joined the fray to adopt the Israeli myth that the ceasefire agreed to in the end was the same as the ceasefire offered in the beginning. But Israel has just violated the cease fire by attacking fisherman off the coast of Gaza. Alas, we are in for a long struggle and I urge people to intensify the BDS movement against the apartheid regime of Israel. I get interviewed a lot and speak to visiting internationals regularly. The Palestinian cause is one of the most just causes in history. What we need o do is change ourselves first and move towards more actions (especially by us Palestinians but also by global activists).

Drones have been flying over Bethlehem in the past few days. A prelude to Gazafication of our ghetto? Drones are a core part of Israel’s military occupation and ethnic cleansing strategy. Londoners have been doing great actions including taking over the roof of a British drone supplier.

Australian copycat action, also targeting Elbit: Palestine protesters occupy roof of Port Melbourne factory

For more actions from the London group

Powerful virtual tour of Gaza ground zero. (click to go through panoramic views from different locations)

“Civil resistance and conflict transformation: Transitions from armed to nonviolent struggle“ has just been released! I have a chapter in it on Palestine struggle (colonial anti-colonial and tactics of the resistance)

ARIJ reports and maps (in Arabic and Hebrew) of the recent orders affecting villagers (Nahhalin, Husan, Wadi Fukin, AlKhader)

A Common Dreams investigation has discovered thousands of anti-Semitic comments over the past two years were posted by proxies who support Israel. One included posting comments by a screen name, “JewishProgressive,” whose purpose was to draw attention to and denounce the anti-Semitic comments that HE had written under many other screen names. One proxy commentator posted inflammatory comments under sixty names and a host of identities/ Black, White and Jewish!!!

Scholars at Risk Network: Occupation attack on Palestinian Universities (another reason to boycott)

SPEAK NOT AND FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE

THE ISRAEL LOBBY’S NEW MANTRA FOR AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES
*

Raw power – intimidation, denial of tenure, firings and other kinds of discipline – are being used to try to stop the growth of Palestine solidarity on campus.

*

“Civility” is the Israel lobby’s new

weapon against free speech on US

campuses

“Civility” comes in many forms, sometimes wearing a uniform. (Ali Abunimah)

*

As I was driving through Indiana en route to Michigan this weekend, I saw this billboard for a local sheriff’s election campaign. There, above the uniformed police officer with his military-style crew cut, is the slogan “Return to Civility.”

It seemed the perfect metaphor for what “civility” has come to mean on US campuses: the forceful policing, at the behest of Israel lobby groups, of any discourse or activism critical of Israel.

In the wake of Israel’s latest Gaza massacre, the civility police are cracking down hard. Most notoriously, administrators and trustees at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have used the excuse of “civility” to fire Steven Salaita for his strong criticisms of, among other things, Israel’s slaughter of hundreds of children in Gaza.

But civility crackdowns are now breaking out across the country. Another alarming case involves a student at Ohio University.

Pouring cold water on free speech

Last week Ohio University President Roderick J. McDavis challenged the newly elected student senate president Megan Marzec to take the “ice bucket challenge.” This is a stunt where someone pours a bucket of ice water over their head on video to raise awareness of the disease ALS.

It has become a very mainstream activity which allows the participant to appear philanthropic at no political risk (former President George W. Bush took the “challenge,”inadvertently recalling his administration’s use of water-boarding as a form of torture).

But what Marzec did – as Palestinians have done with their own “rubble bucket challenge” – is to subvert the meme.

She made a video in which she pours a bucket of fake blood over her head to protest Israel’s abuse of Palestinians.

“I’m urging you and OU [Ohio University] to divest and cut all ties with academic and other Israeli institutions and businesses,” Marzec says in the 50-second video that she posted on her Facebook page Wednesday afternoon, The Columbus Dispatch reports.

“This bucket of blood symbolizes the thousands of displaced and murdered Palestinians, atrocities which OU is directly complacent in through cultural and economic support of the Israeli state,” she adds. (The original instance of the video is no longer available but I am including this copy in my post because I believe people should see that it is, contrary to the lurid criticisms, rather tame, polite and indeed civil.)

*

*

Marzec was quickly and swiftly denounced. The Twitter account of the Student Senate tweeted: “On behalf of the student senate, we humbly apologize for the video President Megan Marzec posted.”

The campus group Bobcats for Israel and Alpha Epsilon Pi, a Jewish fraternity, called for her resignation.

“In part of the video she promotes the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement, which is anti-Semitic,” one student critic told The Cleveland Jewish News.

Marzec herself has reported receiving death threats for her protest. She showed The Athens Post newspaper messages she’d been sent that “ridiculed her as a woman, among other insults,” and said that she’s been subjected to “a whole slew of very vile things.”

But she strongly defended her protest. “It’s clear to me that my video was not anti-Semitic,” she told The Post. “Any reframing of the video is caused by outrage that I am standing in solidarity with oppressed Palestinians.”

More than 600 people have signed an online petition in “solidarity with Megan Marzec’s right of free speech to publicly state her political opinions on the liberation of Palestine.” It also condemns “any attempt to employ threats and/or acts of interpersonal violence to intimidate Ohio University students into silence.”

“Civility”

Enter the president of Ohio University, who has come down not on the side of Palestinians victimized by massive Israeli violence, not on the side of Marzec who was trying to draw attention to that violence, and not against those denigrating and threatening her.

Instead, the university and President McDavis issued a campus-wide call for “civility”that criticized only Marzec.

“Her actions do not reflect the position of Ohio University or President McDavis,” the university statement says. “We recognize the rights of individual students to speak out on matters of public concern and we will continue to do so, but want to be clear that the message shared today by her is not an institutional position or a belief held by President McDavis.”

And then here is the “civility” punchline (emphasis added):

In a university community of our size, there are many issues that merit our attention and dialogue. As stewards of the public trust, we have a responsibility to encourage the free exchange of ideas. For it is through dialogue on conflicting views that we will move toward mutual understanding.

I take great pride in the fact that Ohio University is a community that tackles hard issues head-on. The conflict in Israel and Gaza is no exception. But the manner in which we conduct ourselves as we exercise our right to free speech is of utmost importance.

In my First Year Student Convocation address, I emphasized the idea that we are a University family. As members of a University family, we will not always agree,but we should respect one another. And when we engage in difficult dialogue on issues such as this, we must do so with civility and a deep appreciation for the diverse and resilient international community in which we live.

Who is being protected?

There is much to be said about McDavis’ invocation of the “family” – with all its connotations of patriarchy, hierarchy, privacy, discipline and infantilization as a metaphor – but I will leave that for another day.

There are important unstated assumptions in McDavis’ statement. Notably, he seems to be saying that by criticizing Israeli violence against Palestinians, and urging the institution to end its complicity, Marzec was somehow targeting and injuring a component of the campus community or “family.”

Unless there is a brigade of the Israeli army with particularly sensitive feelings permanently stationed on campus, this cannot be the case.

Rather, the implication seems to be that criticism of Israel and its actions is deemed offensive to Jewish students. This is certainly implied by the intervention of the Jewish fraternity.

But we must always reject the equation of Jewish students with the State of Israel, no matter how often pro-Israel groups and university administrations insist on it.

This is the Israel lobby’s new tactic, as I have argued in my recent book The Battle for Justice in Palestine: to equate criticism of Israel or solidarity with Palestinians with “hate speech,” “hate crimes” or even attacks on an individual such as sexual or racial violence that must be ultimately subject to university or juridical discipline and punishment.

In the case of Salaita, this meant the loss of his job based on libelous and speculative claims that his statements about Israel would mean students in his classroom might be endangered.

In the same vein, when Palestine solidarity groups have distributed mock eviction notices as a tactic to educate peers on campus about Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes, they have usually faced false allegations from Zionist groups that the dorm rooms of Jewish students were “targeted.”

It is in this context that Students for Justice in Palestine at Northeastern University was banned last Spring, an unprecedented act of repression that the administration onlyrescinded after a fierce student campaign and a national outcry. The year before they were banned, Northeastern SJP had been forced to sign a “civility statement,” following an organized walk-out of a talk given by Israeli soldiers.

This is the same basic idea behind the wave of complaints against various universities made by Zionist individuals and organizations under Title VI of the US Civil Rights Act in recent years alleging that campus Palestine solidarity activism was making Jewish students feel “unsafe.”

While the strategy has so far failed at the legal level, it is succeeding with university administrations, who are rushing to issue “civility” statements explicitly or implicitly targeting utterers of speech critical of Israel.

It cannot be mere coincidence that Nicholas Dirks, chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, sent an email to the entire campus community last week also calling for “civility.”

Ostensibly marking the 50th anniversary of Berkeley’s famed Free Speech Movement, Dirks said, “we can only exercise our right to free speech insofar as we feel safe and respected in doing so, and this in turn requires that people treat each other with civility.”

What does “civility” mean in this context? Does it mean saying “please,” “thank you,” “sir” and “ma’am” to war criminals? Or does it mean electing a sheriff instead of a professor to run a university to make everyone feel “safe” and secure?

(A similar statement has also just been issued from Penn State University. No particular cause is mentioned as prompting the statement and it does not mention Palestine, but I expect to see more of these.)

Dirks, as I recount in The Battle for Justice in Palestine, was the vice president at Columbia University who, prior to taking his new job at Berkeley, boasted about his role in the witch-hunt against Professor Joseph Massad.

Losing their grip

Zionism is losing its grip. It has lost the substantive debate on the past and future of Palestine in the academy. It no longer has a hold on the hearts and minds of young people the way it did in the years after the 1967 War.

Many of the Jewish students whose “safety” is being invoked to justify the campus crackdowns are joining – and in some cases leading – chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and similar groups.

Key Israel lobby groups, as I explain in the book, see US campuses as the battleground on which the future of US support for Israel will be secured or lost.

Raw power – intimidation, denial of tenure, firings and other kinds of discipline – are being used to try to stop the growth of Palestine solidarity on campus.

Corporatized university administrations across the country are fully complicit in this repression. And this iron fist is being wrapped in the velvet glove of “civility.”

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.

PSYCHOTIC DELUSIONS ABOUT LEFTIST JEWS

rottenecard_880464_8pyyxdw6mh

*

Not only is this woman mad, she is now delusional as well. And for this she gets well paid.

What is becoming more and more difficult is being a Zionist while being a leftist. As the Left becomes more and more tied to Islamic fanatics, anti-Semitism is going to become more and more of a staple of leftist dogma. And that anti-Semitism will express itself first and foremost as a virulent rejection of Israel and of Jews who refuse to disavow and condemn the Jewish state. 

Sotloff reportedly maintained faith with his Judaism in secret while in captivity. He refused food on Yom Kippur and secretly prayed toward Jerusalem.

Leftist Jews must take a lesson from Sotloff, who was reportedly a product of a Jewish-leftist worldview.

They should understand that the decision they are being required to make is not a choice between liberalism and Zionism, but between liberalism and a reactionary dogma that sits comfortably with genocidal Jew-haters and misogynist oppressors. 

It shouldn’t be a particularly difficult choice.

*

 C’mon Psycho Gal, surely you can offer your readers something realistc ….

*

The dilemma of the Jewish leftist

Caroline Glick

*

anti-Zionist Jews

 *

During his yearlong captivity at the hands of the barbarians from Islamic State, Steven Sotloff’s colleagues in Israeli media organs purged all of his articles from their websites to erase his connections to Israel and hide the fact that he was an Israeli citizen.

So, too, every effort was made to hide the fact that he was Jewish.

The reason was clear. Given the genocidal Jew-hatred endemic in jihadist doctrine, it was obvious that if Sotloff’s Judaism was exposed, he would have been singled out for torture and execution.

Much has been written since Islamic State released the video of its British executioner chopping off James Foley’s head last month. We have been told by leaders and commentators alike that with this singular crime, Islamic State awakened the sleeping lion of the West. That act of barbarism, we have been assured, will now force the US to lead a global coalition against this Islamic army of butchers.

Clearly Islamic State is not convinced. With the release of the Sotloff beheading video this week, it appears that Islamic State thinks its cinematographers will move the West in another direction – apathy.

Foley’s execution video ended with the preview of coming attractions for the Sotloff execution video.

And the Sotloff execution video ended with the preview of a British hostage’s execution video.

By releasing the films gradually, Islamic State is apparently trying to routinize beheadings. Its leaders are probably betting that by the seventh or eighth beheading video, we will greet the violence with a shrug of our shoulders.

In this, Islamic State is channeling Iran, the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban.

No, it isn’t that all these terror-supporting regimes and terror groups have engaged in beheading. It is simply that when they began engaging in terrorism, their actions shocked the civilized world until their actions didn’t shock the civilized world anymore.

Once the shock wore off, these terror states and enterprises began enjoying the stature of legitimate parties to a political dispute. As Islamic State sees it, it is only a matter of time before it too is accepted as a legitimate force in world affairs.

To understand why its gamble may well pay off, it is worth considering a seemingly unrelated matter.

At the beginning of the week, the ultra-Orthodox Lev Tahor group was expelled from a Mayan village in Guatemala. Earlier this year Lev Tahor members had fled to Guatemala from Canada.

They left Canada to evade a child abuse probe.

The group set up shop in Canada after fleeing Israel, due to similar charges.

Lev Tahor is a fanatical cult that numbers a few hundred members. Its women and girls are clad in all-black robes and covered from head to toe. The only thing they are allowed to expose is their faces.

According to Canadian child services authorities, Lev Tahor married off girls as young as 12. Its members routinely engage in polygamy. Child abuse, including forced medication with unprescribed psychiatric drugs and starvation, is allegedly rampant.

Moreover, according to Canadian officials, the cult denies its children access to education.

Lev Tahor’s alleged behavioral norms are an affront to the rule of law and human rights. Although the cult was apparently expelled from the village in Guatemala due to anti-Semitism, its members fled both the Canadian and the Israeli authorities to evade prosecution.

And yet for all of its alleged moral depravity and criminal behavior, that fact is that Lev Tahor’s treatment of its girls is certainly no worse, and in many respects better, than the treatment that Islamic societies mete out on their girls and women. And the sad truth is that for hundreds of thousands of Muslim women and girls in the West, their residency in human rights-protecting societies has failed to protect them.

Consider female genital mutilation, which Lev Tahor is not accused of engaging in.

In late July, Islamic State forces in Mosul, Iraq, decreed that all girls and women between the ages of 12 and 42 must have their genitals mutilated.

The order was an act of pure evil. Yet it was not particularly controversial within the Islamist context Islamic State operates.

As Soeren Kern wrote for the Gatestone Institute last July, throughout the world, some 140 million women and girls, the overwhelming majority of whom are Muslims, have been subjected to the barbaric practice. Three million girls under the age of 15 are forced to undergo clitoridectomies each year.

In Europe, at least 180,000 Muslim females have undergone this defilement. According to British authorities, in England alone, at least 20,000 girls are at risk of “being cut” each year.

Yet, despite the cruelty and degradation inherent to female genital mutilation, and despite the fact that under British law, anyone found guilty of carrying out this practice is supposed to face criminal charges and up to 14 years in prison, so far no one has been convicted and only a five or six offenders have even been charged for the crime.

There are two principal causes for British authorities’ failure to protect Muslim girls residing in England. First, neither the children themselves, who live in a permanent state of terror and abuse, nor their communities, which turn a blind eye, and so condone the practice, are willing to come forward and finger those responsible for this endemic abuse and violence.

And second, non-Islamic British authorities, including welfare workers and teachers, who are in a position to protect the children, are unwilling to stick their necks out. This unwillingness has two causes.

First, they fear for their lives. The murder of Theo van Gogh and the repeated attempts by Muslim fanatics to execute the Danish cartoonists who drew the caricatures of Muhammad are central components of the cost-benefit analysis most Westerners carry out when considering whether or not to get involved with human rights abuses carried out by Muslims.

Second, they fear excommunication from and defamation at the hands of the Left. Over the past 15 years, the international Left has consistently expanded its political alliance with Islamists in the West.

Among other things, this alliance has required the Left to turn a blind eye to barbaric Islamic practices like female genital mutilation and rape and to defame those who dare to openly oppose these reactionary, obscene behaviors as Islamophobic racists.

And so we have a situation where, both at home and abroad, the West has become habituated to Islamic barbarism and passive in the face of its expanding threat to their lives and their way of life both abroad and at home. Observing this behavior, clearly Islamic State’s terror masters are betting that once habituated to the beheading of Westerners, the West will yawn and go to sleep as Islamic State expands its conquests to additional countries.

It isn’t that the Westerners, led by the leftist elite, lack the ability to feel or express moral outrage. It is just that they refuse to direct it against Islamic jihadists.

And this brings us back to their political alliance with the Islamists.

The only meaningful commonality between Islamist and leftist dogma is hatred for Jews with power, first and foremost for Israel. And the singular creation of this alliance is the sides’ joint determination that it isn’t racist to hate the Jewish state, or Jews who refuse to condemn it.

In this state of affairs, the only outlet that leftists have for their moral outrage is Israel. Because while they fear being called racist, they know that being anti-Semitic will not expose them to charges of racism.

And they know Jews won’t assault them for attacking Israel and its supporters. So they project all the crimes perpetrated by Islamic fanatics on Israel.

For instance, this week Megan Marzec, the president of Ohio University’s Student Senate,posted a video of herself dousing herself in a bucket of “blood.”
Marzec explained, “This bucket of blood symbolizes the thousands of displaced and murdered Palestinians – atrocities which OU is directly complacent in [sic] through cultural and economic ties with the Israeli state.”

In other words, she accused Israel of the crimes Hamas seeks to inflict on Israel, and of the crimes that Islamist forces, such as al-Qaida, Islamic State and Boko Haram, are currently carrying out in their areas of operations.

The growing prevalence of anti-Semitism in leftist circles has placed Jewish leftists in a vulnerable position.

Their ideological movement is denying Jews the right to self-defense and self-determination and siding with Islamists who seek to annihilate them. For a growing number of leftist Jews, their new status as members of a hated group has made them feel it necessary to publicly side with Israel’s enemies against it.

Consider the recent New York Times op-ed by Antony Lerman which ran under the title “The End of Liberal Zionism.”

Lerman insisted that there is no way to square Zionism with liberal values.

According to this disaffected Jewish leftist, “The only Zionism of any consequence today is xenophobic and exclusionary, a Jewish ethno-nationalism inspired by religious messianism. It is carrying out an open-ended project of national self-realization to be achieved through colonization and purification of the tribe.”

But of course, outside the fringes of Israeli society, no such movement exists.

Rather, Lerman is describing Islamic supremacism and, like his fellow leftists, projecting its pathologies on Israel, which Islamic supremacists seek to destroy.

Lerman quoted an article published a few weeks before his in The New York Review of Books by Jonathan Freedland titled “Liberal Zionism After Gaza.”

Freedland argued that as the two-state solution becomes more and more remote, liberal Zionists “will have to decide which of their political identities matters more, whether they are first a liberal or first a Zionist.”

But this is of course absurd. The only way a person can uphold liberal values is by being a Zionist. Israel is the only country in the region that is a human rights-respecting liberal democracy that is governed by the rule of law.

What is becoming more and more difficult is being a Zionist while being a leftist. As the Left becomes more and more tied to Islamic fanatics, anti-Semitism is going to become more and more of a staple of leftist dogma. And that anti-Semitism will express itself first and foremost as a virulent rejection of Israel and of Jews who refuse to disavow and condemn the Jewish state.

Sotloff reportedly maintained faith with his Judaism in secret while in captivity. He refused food on Yom Kippur and secretly prayed toward Jerusalem.

In so doing, he showed that the evil that controlled him physically, could not penetrate his soul. For this he died a Jewish hero.

Leftist Jews must take a lesson from Sotloff, who was reportedly a product of a Jewish-leftist worldview.

They should understand that the decision they are being required to make is not a choice between liberalism and Zionism, but between liberalism and a reactionary dogma that sits comfortably with genocidal Jew-haters and misogynist oppressors.

It shouldn’t be a particularly difficult choice.

A NOTE OF THANKS FROM THE PEOPLE IN GAZA

It depends on YOU where we go from here!

*

images

 

*

From the ruins of our towns and cities in Gaza, we send our heartfelt appreciation to all those who stood with us and mobilized during the latest Israeli massacre.

*

From Gaza we say: the outcome of our

battle depends on you

Editorial AT

*

“Now, our battle to hold Israel accountable for its fresh war crimes and crimes against humanity has begun,” say Gaza civil society groups. (Anne Paq / ActiveStills)

*

From the ruins of our towns and cities in Gaza, we send our heartfelt appreciation to all those who stood with us and mobilized during the latest Israeli massacre.

In the occupied West Bank, Israel has embarked on one of its largest illegal land grabs in decades by confiscating another 1,000 acres of Palestinian land to expand its illegal colonies.

Now, our battle to hold Israel accountable for its fresh war crimes and crimes against humanity has begun. The outcome of this battle to end Israeli impunity will determine whether Israel’s latest assault will be yet another stage in Israel’s “incremental genocide” of Palestinians or the turning point that will bring an end to Israel’s status as an entity above the law – the world’s dangerous pariah. The outcome of this battle depends on you.

Two months after its 2008–2009 massacre in Gaza, Israel’s prize was an upgrade in trade relations with the European Union. By 2012, western powers in cooperation with the UN Secretary General had effectively prevented all investigation by the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC) into the war crimes and crimes against humanity that Israel committed during the attack.

During the most recent massacre, on 2 August 2014, three days after the occupation forces bombed the designated UN humanitarian shelter in Jabaliya refugee camp, killing 20 civilians and wounding at least 150 people as they slept, the US Congress approved $225 million in additional military aid to Israel. The following day, the occupation forces bombed another UN shelter in Rafah killing ten civilians and injuring dozens.

Also during the massacre, Germany sold Israel an attack submarine with nuclear capability, and the United Kingdom refused to freeze its arms sales to Israel. These and other forms of criminal complicity from world governments and official bodies pave the way for Israel’s ongoing genocidal attacks. It is up to people of conscience and all those who seek peace with justice worldwide to make sure this complicity ends now.

We urge you to stand with the Palestinian people in its entirety and to demand that Israel be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity it has committed and continues to commit against the Palestinian people everywhere.

We urge you to intensify boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns to further isolate Israel economically, militarily, academically and culturally.

Intensify BDS against Israel in all fields, including by taking the following actions:

  • Working to have arrest warrants issued against Israeli war criminals and for them to be tried before your courts.
  • Pressuring governments to impose a comprehensive military embargo on Israel.
  • Pressuring governments to suspend all free trade and bilateral agreements with Israel until it complies with international law.
  • Building effective direct action against Israel and Israeli companies, such as the inspiring Block the Boat actions that prevented Israeli ships from unloading in California and Seattle, and the occupations of Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems’ factories in the UK and Australia.
  • Working within trade unions to raise awareness about Israel’s regime of oppression and engaging in effective BDS measures such as stopping handling of Israeli goods, divesting trade union funds from Israel and complicit companies, and boycotting complicit Israel trade unions. The trade union movement has a proud history of successful campaigning against apartheid in South Africa, and the Congress of South African Trade Unions has joined Palestinian trade unions in calling for trade union action to end Israel’s impunity.
  • Holding to account those corporations and retailers that support and profit from Israel’s regime of occupation, colonialism and apartheid, including by boycotting their products and taking creative and direct action. The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) has suggested a list of corporate criminals to target.

The majority of the world’s people are waking up to the reality of Israel’s rogue regime of oppression and racism. For the rest of what is supposed to be the UN’s International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, demand an end to Israel’s criminal impunity. Stand with Gaza, and act for freedom, justice and peace in Palestine.

Issued by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) and the following Gaza organizations/unions:

  • Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions
  • University Teachers’ Association in Palestine
  • Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations Network (umbrella for 133 orgs)
  • Medical Democratic Assembly
  • General Union of Palestine Workers
  • General Union for Health Services Workers
  • General Union for Public Services Workers
  • General Union for Petrochemical and Gas Workers
  • General Union for Agricultural Workers
  • Union of Women’s Work Committees
  • Pal-Cinema (Palestine Cinema Forum)
  • Herak Youth Movement
  • Union of Women’s Struggle Committees
  • Union of Synergies–Women’s Unit
  • Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees
  • Women’s Studies Society
  • Working Women’s Society
  • Palestinian Students’ Campaign for the Academic Boycott of Israel
  • Gaza BDS Working Group
  • One Democratic State Group

IMAGE OF THE DAY …. THE COLOURS THAT LURK BEHIND THE ‘EXTREMISTS’

Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

Al-Quaida – Taliban – ISIS

al-qaeda-taliban-isis-altagreer

NO WAR REPARATIONS FOR GAZA

iQFG5.Lsq9qk

*

Germany paid reparations (and continues to pay) to victims of the holocaust ….

Israel pays NOTHING to Gazans that were also victims.

War Reparations are unheard of in the ziodictionary ….

*

Israeli way of rebuilding Gaza

capturesatan1

*

On Wednesday Israel whined that the war cost them over 9 Billion Dollar$ …. of which NOT ONE CENT WAS THEIRS!

Today it was disclosed that it will cost Gaza almost 8 Billion Dollar$ to rebuild their destroyed territory …. AND NOT ONE CENT WILL COME FROM ISRAEL!

*

The Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction, a Palestinian Authority body that oversees the implementation of donor-financed projects, said the process would take “five years if Israel removed its blockade over Gaza entirely.”

*

Rebuilding Gaza to cost $7.8
billion

*
A Palestinian man sweeps the floor of his home that was damaged by an
Israeli airstrike on Aug. 25, 2014 in Beit Lahiya (AFP/File Roberto Schmidt)
 *
GAZA CITY (Ma’an) — The reconstruction of the Gaza Strip will cost $7.8 billion, Palestinian experts said in a report Thursday, as the Palestinian labor minister said 100,000 jobs could be created in Gaza if Israel held to its promise to end its siege within the month.The Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction, a Palestinian Authority body that oversees the implementation of donor-financed projects, said the process would take “five years if Israel removed its blockade over Gaza entirely.”Direct losses were estimated at $4.4 billion, while a budget of $3.02 billion was set for the development needs of the Gaza strip which include a seaport and a water desalination plant.

The 200-page document set a strategy to relief the people of Gaza and link that to the sustainable development that will help reduce unemployment and poverty.

The document recommended that for the rebuilding to run smoothly several conditions should be met, including completely lifting the eight-year old Israeli siege and allowing freedom of movement.

Since 2006, Gaza has been subject to a joint Israeli-Egyptian blockade that severely limits all imports and exports, including the entry of construction materials.

Israeli promised to ease these restrictions in a ceasefire recently signed in Cairo, but no such materials have yet been let in through Gaza’s border crossings with Israel.

The besieged coastal enclave, home to 1.8 million people and bordered by Israel and Egypt, was ravaged between July 8 and August 26 in its third war in six years.

The Israeli assault cost the lives of more than 2,150 Gazans, destroyed thousands of homes, severely damaged the enclave’s sole power plant, and burnt dozens of factories.

The document said over 60,000 housing units were damaged including 20,000 left uninhabitable causing losses of $1.38 billion.

But the 1.8 million-2.2 million tonnes of debris estimated to have resulted from the destruction of buildings could also be used to help rebuild and possible expand the territory into the sea, according to the report by 13 Palestinian experts.

The losses of the education sector were estimated at $55 million, the health sector at $90 million, the energy sector at $54 million, the economic sector at $200 million, the agricultural sector at $250 million, the culture and tourism sector at $20 million each, the community sector at $30 million, and infrastructure at $180 million.

The report estimated the indirect losses caused by the assault at $2 billion.

A conference of international donors for the reconstruction of Gaza is set to take place later in the month in either Egypt or Norway.

*

*
‘100,000 jobs’

Minister of Labor Mamoun Abu Shahla said on Thursday that the opening of all crossings into Gaza for just one month could provide over 100,000 jobs for Palestinians in Gaza.

Abu Shahla said that the government will be able to provide job opportunities once the crossings are opened, but if Israel failed to lift the siege the situation in the enclave — where he said poverty has reached 55 percent — would stay the same.

“In 15 to 20 years, the construction will be done if 100 trucks enter Kerem Shalom (crossing) daily,” he said.

“This is unacceptable and irrational. We demand that Ban Ki Moon and international organizations play their role in rebuilding Gaza in a short period,” adding that the crossings must be opened completely to allow Palestinians to rebuild.

Abu Shahla told Ma’an that of the more than 450,000 forced out of their homes during the offensive, 58,000 remain in school shelters after their homes were destroyed.

He said the government is trying to provide 10,000 motor homes equipped with water and electricity to place beside destroyed houses during reconstruction.

Abu Shahla added that 15-20 camps with 500 housing units each will be built.

#OperationAfterCeasefire ~~ THE SUFFERING CONTINUES IN GAZA

The number of displaced Palestinians in Gaza is rising again despite the fact that the 26 August ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinian resistance is holding.

*

Despite ceasefire, the number of displaced in Gaza is rising again

Palestinians return to their damaged home in Absan near the boundary with Israel, east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, 2 September. (Abed Rahim Khatib / APA images)

*

The number of displaced Palestinians in Gaza is rising again despite the fact that the 26 August ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinian resistance is holding.

Meanwhile, the scale of the destruction to Gaza’s infrastructure and economy caused by 51 days of Israeli bombing is becoming starker.

The death toll stands at 2,168 people, of whom 521 are children, according to Al Mezan Center for Human Rights which carefully verifies deaths.

And despite the ceasefire, Palestinians continue to die. Mariam Abu Amra, 23, was the latest to succumb in a Jerusalem hospital today from wounds she sustained during the Israeli attack in Deir al-Balah in Gaza, Ma’an News Agency reported.

People going back to UN shelters

“Following the ceasefire there was a steep decline in the number of internally displaced persons,” the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA)reported today, “but figures have gradually risen again in UNRWA shelters, and an estimated 110,000 are still displaced, including with host families.”

UN OCHA said that the number of displaced persons in UN shelters fell dramatically from 289,000 to 53,000 between 26 and 27 August.

But as of 2 September, UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees, said that 58,217 Palestinians were sheltering in its schools – a total that remains “higher than the number of displaced sheltered during the peak of the hostilities from 27 December 2008 to 19 January 2009” – Israel’s previous major military assault on Gaza.

UN OCHA said that unexploded bombs and ammunition remain “a major protection concern and pose a risk to those returning to their homes and involved in repair and reconstruction activities.”

No power, no water

Other severe problems are the lack of water and power.

The only power plant in Gaza “remains inoperable following an Israeli airstrike on 29 July and despite extensive repairs, electricity outages of 18 hours a day continue in most areas across Gaza,” UN OCHA reported.

With “extensive damage to the water and wastewater system, 20 to 30 per cent of households, or 450,000 people, remain unable to access municipal water due to damage and/or low pressure,” the agency added.

Last week, The Electronic Intifada’s Joe Catron reported on the dire situation of families still living in temporary shelter due to the massive destruction.

In total 15,670 housing units were damaged, including 2,276 completely destroyed, and up to 500,000 Palestinians were displaced during the peak of Israel’s onslaught.

An estimated 108,000 Palestinians will need long-term solutions because their homes were too severely damaged to inhabit or were destroyed altogether.

“Unprecedented” destruction

“The scale of damage” observed by UN OCHA “is unprecedented since the beginning of the Israeli occupation in 1967. All governorates in Gaza witnessed extensive aerial bombardment, naval shelling and artillery fire, resulting in the widespread loss of life and livelihoods.”

*

A Palestinian barber works at his damaged shop in Absan, near the boundary with Israel, east of the town of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, 2 September. (Abed Rahim Khatib / APA images)

*

The cost of the damage totals almost eight billion dollars, according to the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction, a body belonging to the Western-backed Palestinian Authority.

What is now coming into to focus is the long-term damage to the economy, especially as Israel has still not eased its siege. OCHA states:

The majority of the Gaza population has lost its productive assets. According to the Palestinian Federation of Industries, 419 businesses and workshops were damaged, with 128 completely destroyed. With limited activity at the commercial crossings and extensive damage to private infrastructure and other productive assets, business activities were largely paralyzed during the operation. Hostilities forced farmers and herders to abandon their lands, and resulted in substantial direct damage to Gaza’s 17,000 hectares of croplands as well as much of its agricultural infrastructure, including greenhouses, irrigation systems, animal farms, fodder stocks and fishing boats.

These losses come on top of an already fragile economy in which two-thirds of Gaza’s almost 1.8 million residents were receiving food assistance prior to the Israeli attack.

Unemployment had increased dramatically since mid-2013, as the Israeli-allied Egyptian military regime shut down lifeline tunnels that helped Palestinians evade the worst economic effects of the Israeli siege.

UN OCHA states that unemployment in Gaza hit 45 percent overall earlier this year and 70 percent among people aged 20-24.

The Israeli assault has already made the situation worse: the number of unemployed laborers shot up from 170,000 before the attack to over 200,000 now, according to Sami al-Amsi, head of the Palestinian Labor Union.

Whether or not the calamitous situation improves depends on whether Israel makes good on its ceasefire commitments.

*

Palestinians fish at sunset at the seaport in Gaza City, 3 September. (Ashraf Amra / APA images)

*

A “sustained opening of crossings” linking Gaza to the world, via Egypt and Israel, “is vital, alongside the removal of restrictions on the entry of materials for rehabilitation and reconstruction,” UN OCHA said.

Egypt said today that an Israeli delegation was expected in Cairo within a week to continue indirect negotiations with Hamas and other Palestinian resistance factions over the terms of a long-term truce.

ISRAELI SOLDIERS HAVE WAY TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS …

hebron israeli soldiers

*

President Roosevelt was known for his ‘make work projects‘, which helped put many unemployed Americans back to work during the Great Depression.

Today, it seems that a problem has developed in Israel; the Army has way too much time on their hands and ‘make work projects’ have been developed to occupy their time (AND PALESTINE).

Here are just a few of this week’s examples of zionist harassment and terrorism …

(Click on links to see full reports)

*

Israeli demolitions leave 5 homeless in East Jerusalem

219808_345x230*

Israeli forces detain 4 Palestinians at Aqsa compound sit-in

263323
*
295148_345x230

*

Israeli forces detain 3 Palestinians from Beit Ummar

286270_345x230*

Israel demolishes Palestinian structures in West Bank

294979_345x230*

There are lots more examples of the harassment the Palestinians face every day of their lives … there might be a ceasefire, but we are still waiting for a

CEASE OCCUPATION!

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?

UPDATED GUIDELINES FOR THE ACADEMIC BOYCOTT

Hawking Guardian 1

*

PACBI urges academics, academic associations/unions, and academic — as well as other — institutions around the world, where possible and as relevant, to boycott and/or work towards the cancellation or annulment of events, activities, agreements, or projects involving Israeli academic institutions or that otherwise promote the normalization of Israel in the global academy, whitewash Israel’s violations of international law and Palestinian rights, or violate the BDS guidelines.

top

*

How to boycott Israel: updated guidelines for academics

A Palestinian man inspects a classroom damaged by an Israeli air strike at a school in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, 24 August. (Abed Rahim Khatib / APA images)
*

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) recently updated its guidelines on how to apply the international academic boycott of Israel.

This comes at a crucial moment – in the wake of Israel’s latest spasm of horrifying destruction and mass killing in Gaza, and after a period of unprecedented growth in support for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS).

Calls for academic boycott will resonate more than ever particularly in light of Israel’s recent bomb attacks on university facilities in Gaza, its violent raids on universities in the West Bank and the financial and political support Israeli universities have themselves given to the carnage.

Right now, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza are not going back to school on time as a direct consequence of the Israeli devastation, while in the West Bank young children face such violence as tear gas fired at them on their way to class.

The school year in Gaza was scheduled to begin on 23 August but has been postponed; Israeli attacks since 7 July killed more than 500 children and injured thousands. In total220 schools were damaged, 22 of which were completely destroyed.

Children will not be able to go back to class until “war-damaged schools” are repaired and “unexploded ordnance” removed, the UN says.

When children do go back to class, learning will certainly be an even bigger challenge due to the fact that virtually the entire child population in Gaza is in need of psychosocial support due to the trauma of Israel’s 51-day bombardment.

Practical guidance

The updated PACBI guidelines are important for two reasons: they provide a practical reference that can be used to decide if a specific activity is boycottable and they can be used to debunk false claims made by opponents of the boycott, for example that the boycott stifles “academic freedom.”

A common false claim is that PACBI has called for a blanket boycott of Israeli individuals or even of Jewish individuals.

But, PACBI states: “Anchored in precepts of international law and universal human rights, the BDS movement, including PACBI, rejects on principle boycotts of individuals based on their identity (such as citizenship, race, gender, or religion) or opinion.”

A person’s activities are boycottable, however, when “an individual is representing the state of Israel or a complicit Israeli institution (such as a dean, rector, or president), or is commissioned/recruited to participate in Israel’s efforts to ‘rebrand’ itself.”

There are other circumstances as well, as the guidelines detail.

The PACBI guidelines “are mainly intended to assist conscientious academics and academic bodies around the world to be in harmony with the Palestinian call for boycott, as a contribution towards upholding international law and furthering the struggle for freedom, justice and equality.”

PACBI urges:

academics, academic associations/unions, and academic – as well as other – institutions around the world, where possible and as relevant, to boycott and/or work towards the cancellation or annulment of events, activities, agreements, or projects involving Israeli academic institutions or that otherwise promote the normalization of Israel in the global academy, whitewash Israel’s violations of international law and Palestinian rights, or violate the BDS guidelines.

Normalization and “fig-leafing”

Many Palestinians reject initiatives that they say constitute “normalization.” But what does this mean? Here is the definition provided by PACBI:

Academic activities and projects involving Palestinians and/or other Arabs on one side and Israelis on the other (whether bi- or multilateral) that are based on the false premise of symmetry/parity between the oppressors and the oppressed or that claim that both colonizers and colonized are equally responsible for the “conflict” are intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible forms of normalization that ought to be boycotted.

Far from challenging the unjust status quo, such projects contribute to its endurance. Examples include events, projects, or publications that are designed explicitly to bring together Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis so they can present their respective narratives or perspectives, or to work toward reconciliation without addressing the root causes of injustice and the requirements of justice.

The guidelines gives examples of forms of joint activity that are and are notnormalization and also warn against “fig-leafing”:

International academics who insist on crossing the BDS “picket line” by pursuing activities with boycottable Israeli institutions and then visiting Palestinian institutions or groups for “balance,” violate the boycott guidelines and contribute to the false perception of symmetry between the colonial oppressor and the colonized. The BNC (including PACBI) rejects this attempt at “fig-leafing” and does not welcome such visits to Palestinian institutions.

PACBI also publishes guidelines for cultural boycott, which were updated in 2009.

The full academic boycott guidelines are here.

 

WHAT THE WAR IN GAZA COST THE US TAXPAYER

tcss

*

NO FUNDS TO ISRAEL = NO WAR

NO WAR = POSSIBLE PEACE

POSSIBLE PEACE = ZIONISM’S GREATEST ENEMY

*

They make it sound like it was their own money that was spent on the slaughter ….

“The direct cost of the operation stands at more than $9 billion,” the defense minister said, adding that dealing with terror is “expensive,” and that even if the “defense budget would be tripled it would still not be a waste of money.”

*

Ya’alon: It’s ‘expensive’ to fight terror, Gaza op cost $9b.

At cost of $100,000 per interceptor, defense minister says Iron Dome is expensive, but prevented greater economic losses

*

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon commented on the defense budget and the cost of Operation Protective Edge during Calcalist’s Economic Forum Tuesday, and said that though military expenses are high, the expense is required to deal with the new form of terror threats Israel is faced with.

“The direct cost of the operation stands at more than $9 billion,” the defense minister said, adding that dealing with terror is “expensive,” and that even if the “defense budget would be tripled it would still not be a waste of money.”

He further claimed that the Iron Dome missile defense system saved Israel from being forced to take over Gaza and allowed life in Israel to continue as normal, thus minimizing the economic cost of the war. “Each Iron Dome interceptor is $100,000. In economic terms it’s worthwhile, but obviously this is still expensive.”

Ya’alon also responded to what he described as “ministers who claim that the treats on Israel have decreased.”

According to Ya’alon, “though the claim that there are no longer conventional military threats is mostly true – there is peace with Egypt, peace with Jordan, Syria is busy with infighting, and no Iraqi forces mounting – but nonetheless, regional developments forces us to deal with terror groups with state-like abilities – and dealing with this challenge is expensive.”

Ya’alon stressed that military intelligence was the key and also the most expensive in this regard. “What holds back our ability give better intelligence is money. The enemy also knows how to use technology and this forces us to deal with that as well. “

Economy Minister Naftali Bennett also spoke at the conference, and said the army needs to be more efficient if it wants more money. Spinning a famous quote from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Bennett quipped: “If they grow efficient, they’ll get funds. If they don’t, they won’t get money.” (Netanyahu said once of the Palestinians: “If they give, they’ll get.”)

Bennett seemed to reference both the army in general and soldiers themselves, saying soldiers should get benefits and assistance on the basis of the level of their sacrifice.

Bennett lamented the fact that “a soldier wounded in a car crash gets the same treatment as a soldier wounded in London. Soldiers at the home front should not get the same benefits as combat soldiers.”

 

Source

VIDEO ~~ SHE’S A PALESTINIAN …… SO ARE WE ALL!

carlos_latuffs_palestinian_fist_sticker

*

Collage By Carlos Latuff

i am palestinian first half

*

*

She’s A Palestinian

she’s just a palestinian
all her friends are from the mediterranean
everybody makes fun of the ottomans
the IDF wanna send her to oblivion

her grandma grew olives and oranges
her daddy had him a professorship
but when he spoke it always became heresy
the vatican wanna see the holes in his hands

she’s just a palestinian
she likes books, she’s not one of the fellaheen
she’s just a palestinian girl

she’s just a palestinian
her brother tries to find a job each morning
she goes to al-khaleel university
if the roads aren’t blocked and they can leave the house

her mom’s head nurse at the hospital
they make do without bandages and medicine
when everybody’s done with work and classes
they’ll meet for a drink before the curfew

she’s just a palestinian
she wanna walk in the nabi-musa pilgrimage
she’s just a palestinian

oh, what a girl
i got here, oh
i’d walk her home
but she lives in hebron

and those motherfuckers got it rough
the helicopters freak me out
and i wanna go home, not to canaan

when you’re in the middle of the IDF and the PLO
well the PLO’s an NGO….
US helicopters come with US guns and you
you ain’t got a home
i’ll be brooklyn
you’re more than welcome, you’re more than welcome
hey, hey

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

ISRAELI TWO STATE SOLUTION ~~ ONE JEWISH STATE IN THE EAST, THE OTHER IN THE WEST

That certainly simplifies matters ….. A Palestinian State doesn’t quite fit into zio’s ‘Master Plan’

*

ONE-STATE-TWO-STATE-PUZZLE

Image Credit – David Klein

*

Some 400 hectares (988 acres) in the Etzion settlement bloc near Bethlehem were declared “state land, on the instructions of the political echelon” by the military-run Civil Administration.

Israel Radio said the step was taken in response to the kidnapping and killing of three Jewish teens by Hamas militants in the area in June. The notice published by the military gave no reason for the decision.

Hmmm …. I thought that was the reason for the genocide in Gaza

 

*

Israel Appropriates West Bank Land for Possible Settlement Use

Peace Now: Biggest Land Appropriation in 30 Years

*

GETTY IMAGES

By Reuters

*

Israel announced on Sunday a land appropriation in the occupied West Bank that an anti-settlement group termed the biggest in 30 years and a Palestinian official said would cause only more friction after the Gaza war.

Some 400 hectares (988 acres) in the Etzion settlement bloc near Bethlehem were declared “state land, on the instructions of the political echelon” by the military-run Civil Administration.

Israel Radio said the step was taken in response to the kidnapping and killing of three Jewish teens by Hamas militants in the area in June. The notice published by the military gave no reason for the decision.

Peace Now, which opposes Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank – territory Palestinians seek for a state, said the appropriation was meant to turn a site where 10 families now live adjacent to a Jewish seminary into a permanent settlement.

Construction of a major settlement at the location, known as “Gevaot”, has been mooted by Israel since 2000. Last year, the government invited bids for the building of 1,000 housing units at the site.

Peace Now said the land seizure was the largest announced by Israel in the West Bank since the 1980s and that anyone with ownership claims had 45 days to appeal. A local Palestinian mayor said Palestinians owned the tracts and harvested olive trees on them.

Israel has come under intense international criticism over its settlement activities, which most countries regard as illegal under international law and a major obstacle to the creation of a viable Palestinian state in any future peace deal.

Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, called on Israel to cancel the appropriation. “This decision will lead to more instability. This will only inflame the situation after the war in Gaza,” Abu Rdainah said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke off peace talks with Abbas in April after the Palestinian leader reached a reconciliation deal with Hamas, the Islamist movement that dominates the Gaza Strip.

In a series of remarks after an open-ended ceasefire halted a seven-week-old Gaza war with Hamas on Tuesday, Netanyahu repeated his position that Abbas would have to sever his alliance with Hamas for a peace process with Israel to resume.

Israel has said construction at Gevaot would not constitute the establishment of a new settlement because the site is officially designated a neighborhood of an existing one, Alon Shvut, several km (miles) down the road.

Some 500,000 Israelis live among 2.4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, territory that the Jewish state captured in the 1967 Middle East war.

*

Here’s just one of those settlers ….. would you want her for a neighbour?

*

And the American response … (Don’t forget who will pay for the new settlements)

*

US rebukes Israel over claim of West Bank land

State Department urges Jerusalem to reverse decision, calling the move ‘counterproductive’ to efforts to achieve two-state solution; Palestinians say decision will lead to more instability.

Read the full report HERE

« Older entries Newer entries »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,144 other followers