IN ISRAEL ~~ THE DAY AFTER THE NIGHT BEFORE

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Abraham Lincoln

Just remember, he did not speak for me or most of Israel

Just remember, he did not speak for me or most of Israel

“After my short visit to the United States, I return to Israel knowing that many around the world heard what Israel has to say about the impending deal with Iran.”

Netanyahu Returns to Israel ‘Knowing Israel Has Been Heard’

Prime Minister lands back in Israel following speech to Congress on the dangers of a ‘bad deal’ with Iran.

Following his high-profile speech to Congress last night, Prime MinisterBinyamin Netanyahu returned to Israel Wednesday.

In a statement shortly after landing, Netanyahu said he was satisfied with his address and its reception.

“After my short visit to the United States, I return to Israel knowing that many around the world heard what Israel has to say about the impending deal with Iran,” he said in a statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office.

In an apparent response to claims by US President Barack Obama that his speech did not offer “practical alternatives” to the deal with Iran currently under discuss, the prime minister added: “In my speech before theCongress, I presented a practical alternative, which would impose tougher restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, extending Iran’s breakout time by years.

“I also called on the P5+1 to insist on a deal that would link the lifting of those restrictions to Iran’s ceasing its sponsorship of terrorism around the world, its aggression against its neighbors and its calls for Israel’s destruction.”

The responses he received were positive, he emphasized – from both sides of the isle.

“I heard encouraging responses from both Democrats and Republicans. They understood that the current proposal would lead to a bad deal and that the alternative is a better deal.”

The above is the extreme right viewpoint FROM

A more realistic view is presented by Jon Stewart

Bibi’s Congress Reception Was ‘Longest Blowjob a Jewish Man Has Ever Received’

The Editors at Mondoweiss added the following humour as well …. Click  HERE  to see report

Factchecking Netanyahu: An annotated guide to the Israeli P.M.’s speech to Congress

BIBI’S BEX ALERT

Full speech presented at end of this post

download

11 Lies Netanyahu Told

Congress on Iran

Getty Images / Lior Zaltzman

Getty Images / Lior Zaltzman

The long awaited for speech is now a part of the anus of history …. but the following points are the ones to be remembered according to Americans For Peace Now

11 Bogus Arguments Bibi Will Likely Be Making Against an Iran Deal

Prepare for Netanyahu’s Washington Speeches:
Listen for these 11 Bogus Arguments against an Iran Deal

Meir Dagan quoteOn March 3rd, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress, where he is expected to make the case against a nuclear deal with Iran, at least a deal that could result from the current negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 (the U.S., France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, and the United Kingdom).  During this visit to Washington, Netanyahu will make other speeches and find other occasions to speak to the media in which he will no doubt, make the same case.  In anticipation of these speeches and statements, it is important to “un-pack” and debunk the bogus arguments against an Iran deal that Netanyahu is most likely to be making.  The eleven most prominent of those arguments are examined here.  The full document can be printed/downloaded here.

—————————————————————————————-

Additional sanctions and credible threats of military action can secure a better deal with Iran than current negotiations.

  • Decades of U.S. sanctions targeting the Iranian regime failed to achieve the goal of either compelling that regime to give up its nuclear program or causing it to fall.  Likewise, years of U.S. sanctions targeting the Iranian people have failed to achieve the goal of mobilizing Iranians to either force their government to change course or to overthrow it and replace it with a more pro-West alternative.
  • In recent years, multilateral, international sanctions have contributed to convincing the Iranian government to come to the negotiating table and offer real compromises with respect to its nuclear program. More U.S. sanctions today are far more likely to result in Iran’s abandoning the negotiating table than to result in Iran suddenly becoming amenable to a purported “better” deal – i.e., one involving elements that no Iranian regime would ever accept.
  • In such a case, it would be the U.S., not Iran, that would likely be blamed for the collapse of talks, leading to an erosion of international consensus on Iran sanctions that undermines the existing sanctions regime without achieving tangible Iranian compromises in return.
  • In such a case, Iranian hardliners who oppose any compromise with the West would be strengthened, with new U.S. sanctions and the collapse of talks bolstering the argument that the U.S. and its allies are not truly interested in a deal, but want regime change.  In such circumstances, it is far more likely that Iranian leaders will conclude that the urgent development of Iranian nuclear weapons is a necessary deterrent against such attack.

 —————————————————————————————-

The only good deal with Iran is one that leaves Iran with zero enrichment capacity.

  • Zero enrichment – the demand that not a single centrifuge is left spinning in Iran – is neither an achievable nor a necessary goal of negotiations.
  • It’s not achievable because just as P5+1 negotiators must get a deal they can “sell” to their constituencies, Iranian negotiators must be able to sell a deal to their own constituencies as meeting their own red lines (most notably, sufficient capacity for legitimate domestic energy production and legitimate R&D purposes, preserving what Iran views as a sovereign right to enrich, and assuring that Iranian pride in the nation’s scientific advances is left intact).
  • It’s not necessary because assuming “zero enrichment” is genuinely shorthand for “the best possible guarantee that Iran’s nuclear program will remain peaceful,” this goal can be achieved through a nuclear agreement that includes strict limits on Iran’s enrichment capacity and stringent safeguards and transparency with respect to Iran’s nuclear facilities and materials.
  • Insisting on “zero enrichment” guarantees that such limits and safeguards are absent.  Demands for zero enrichment as a condition for a deal are tantamount to rejecting any agreed-upon, negotiated solution with Iran.  Alternatives offered by advocates of a zero-enrichment red-line consist of fantasy and wishful thinking (“more pressure and Iran’s government will give in or be overthrown) and war-mongering (“military action can remove the threat of a nuclear Iran”).  Both approaches would likely exacerbate, rather than curb, the Iranian nuclear threat.

—————————————————————————————-

Any deal with Iran is a bad deal, because the mullahs can’t be trusted.

  • A nuclear deal with Iran would be grounded in ongoing rigorous inspections and verification mechanisms – not trust.  It is those rigorous inspections and verification mechanisms that would ensure that Iran lived up to its end of a deal.
  • Should Iran interfere with those inspections and verification mechanisms, or should those inspections and verification mechanisms reveal Iranian malfeasance, the international community would know immediately and have ample opportunity to prepare its response.
  • Without an agreement, those rigorous inspections and verification mechanisms would be absent.  The international community, recognizing that Iran cannot be trusted, would be left to worry and try to come up with policies and actions based on incomplete information.
  • Even with an agreement in place, the U.S. and international community will doubtless prepare and maintain contingency plans to address the possibility that Iran will renege on the deal – including planning for military action.

—————————————————————————————-

It would be wrong to make any nuclear deal with Iran unless that deal also held Iran accountable for its support for terrorism and extremism, in the region and beyond.

  • Achieving and implementing an agreement acceptable both to the P5+1 and Iran will require that some sanctions imposed on Iran – sanctions imposed as a direct consequence of concerns about Iran’s nuclear program – be removed.
  • However, an Iran nuclear deal would not change U.S. policy or impact U.S. sanctions with respect to Iran’s support for terrorism.  U.S. anti-terrorism legislation is for the most part separate from Iran nuclear legislation; anti-terrorist provisions that apply to countries around the world would continue to apply equally to Iran, even with a nuclear deal in place.
  • A nuclear deal with Iran could, potentially, open the door for improved U.S.-Iran relations – relations – which could eventually lead to improvements in other areas of concern to the U.S., including concerns linked to Iran’s support for terrorist organizations.
  • Those seeking to derail Iran talks or scuttle a nuclear deal with demands related to other issues are sending a message that their true goal is not mitigating the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, but regime change in Iran.  Such a message will likely strengthen hardliners, increasing the threat that Iran will indeed seek to acquire nuclear weapons and worsening Iranian behavior in the other spheres, including with respect to support for terrorism outside Iran’s borders.

—————————————————————————————-

It would be wrong to make any nuclear deal with Iran unless that deal also held Iran accountable for its terrible record with respect to human rights and civil liberties inside Iran.

  • An Iran nuclear deal would not change U.S. policy or impact U.S. sanctions with respect to Iran’s record on human rights abuses, democracy, or other non-nuclear-related matters.
  • By improving the conditions of Iranians overall, an Iran nuclear deal could strengthen domestic groups engaged in promoting human rights and civil liberties.  It could also strengthen Iranian political forces that are more open to change.  For these reasons, a nuclear deal is widely supported by human rights and democracy advocates within Iran.
  • The failure of Iran diplomacy – and what this failure would mean in terms of discrediting some of Iran’s more moderate political voices – could open the door to greater repression domestically.

—————————————————————————————-

A deal with Iran over its nuclear program will only strengthen and enrich an odious, extremist regime, and in doing so increase the threat of extremists everywhere.

  • The U.S. and its P5+1 partners are pursuing a nuclear agreement with Iran not as a gift to Iran, but because curtailing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is in the vital interests of the U.S. and the international community, including Israel.
  • A deal with Iran over its nuclear program would in no way imply U.S. approval for Iranian policies or acquiescence to Iranian bad behavior in any sphere.  A deal likewise would in no way limit the ability of the U.S. and the international community to criticize or pressure Iran – just like any other country.
  • Derailing talks or undermining a deal with Iran over its nuclear program will only strengthen those in Iran who believe that the West will not be satisfied with anything short of the overthrow of the current regime, and who view the militarization of Iran’s nuclear program as necessary to deter an attack.

—————————————————————————————-

One-year “breakout” time for Iran to become a nuclear state is way too short. If Iran decides to dash to get a bomb, it will already be too late.

  • “Breakout” time does NOT refer to the time required for Iran to become a nuclear-armed state.  It refers only to the time needed for Iran to produce enough weapons-grade uranium to fuel a single nuclear bomb.
  • To represent a threat as a nuclear-armed state, Iran would first have to produce sufficient weapons-grade uranium to fuel at least two bombs – one to test (to prove its nuclear capabilities) and the other to hold as a deterrent against retaliation. It would also have to build both bombs, build a working delivery system, and carry out a test.
  • An agreement would impede Iran’s ability to “dash” to become a nuclear-armed state by extending “breakout” time from the current 2-3 months to at least one year.  It would achieve this by prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium to a level (20%) at which it could be converted into weapons-grade uranium, and by imposing limits on the number and type of centrifuges Iran would be permitted to operate, as well as on the size of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium.
  • An agreement would also impede any future Iranian nuclear weapons “dash” by extending the time required for Iran to build actual bombs and a delivery system. It would achieve this by imposing international oversight and inspections that would diminish, in an unprecedented way, Iran’s ability to pursue nuclear activities with potential military dimensions, even covertly.
  • Absent an agreement, there will be no limits on Iran’s ability to build up its stockpile of enriched uranium. Absent an agreement, the U.S. and international community will revert to the longstanding status quo in which they have extremely limited and often imperfect information about what is going on inside Iran’s nuclear program.
  • Should Iran renege on a nuclear deal and pursue weaponization, a one-year “breakout” time ensures that the U.S. and the international community would have ample time and opportunity to respond.

—————————————————————————————-

The real issue isn’t “breakout” but “sneak-out.”  It doesn’t matter how many limits or safeguards you put into place – Iran will cheat and we will wake up one day to find Iran armed with nuclear bombs. 

  • “Sneak-out” is a danger with or without an agreement.
  • An agreement will put into place inspection, oversight and verification mechanisms – with respect to facilities, equipment and supplies – that ensure that a “sneak-out” would be far more difficult for Iran to achieve and far more likely to be detected.
  • Without an agreement, these inspection, oversight and verification mechanisms will not be implemented, ensuring that any “sneak-out” effort would be far more likely to go undetected.

—————————————————————————————-

The current negotiations are leaving in place too many Iranian centrifuges.  The more centrifuges left spinning, the greater the threat Iran poses.

  • Viewed in isolation, the number of centrifuges Iran is allowed to operate under an agreement does not provide a clear measure of breakout time.  It thus fails to adequately calculate the threat Iran would pose should it renege on a nuclear deal and shift to a militarized nuclear program.
  • To truly measure this threat requires examining the number of centrifuges, the types of centrifuges, and the size of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium under an agreement.
  • Consistent with the interim deal that gave birth to the current negotiations, Iran has already eliminated its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium gas – the feedstock required to produce weapons grade uranium.  By doing so, the immediate threat of Iranian “breakout” has been dramatically reduced by, in effect, emptying the cartoon bomb that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu displayed at the UN in 2014.
  • A nuclear deal with the P5+1 can be expected to significantly reduce and cap the number of centrifuges spinning in Iran.  A deal likewise can be expected to limit the type of centrifuges left spinning and to limit Iranian enrichment, such that Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb will not be refilled and such that weapons-grade uranium remains out-of-reach.
  • Without an agreement, the number of Iran’s centrifuges can be expected to grow, and the level at which uranium will be enriched can be expected to return to 20 percent, or go even higher.

—————————————————————————————-

A nuclear deal with Iran will leave Iran as a threat to the world and an existential threat to Israel, will sell out our allies in the Gulf, and will fuel a nuclear arms race in the region.

  • The prospect of Iran armed with nuclear weapons is indeed alarming, particularly to Israel, which exists in close proximity to Iran and which has over the years been the target of harsh threats from various Iranian political and religious figures.  It is also alarming to many countries in the Middle East, who see Iran as seeking regional dominance and meddling in their affairs.
  • Neither diplomacy nor military action can guarantee that Iran will not someday decide to pursue nuclear weapons. Iran long ago acquired the knowledge and expertise to do so.  International pressure and sanctions have impeded Iran’s nuclear program for years, but more importantly, leaders in Iran today have decided not to pursue an active nuclear weapons program.
  • A negotiated deal can bolster this decision, while further rolling back Iran’s nuclear capacity such that if Iran’s leaders someday have a change of heart, the U.S. and international community – including our friends and allies in the region – will have ample time and opportunity to take action.
  • A negotiated deal with Iran would not imply U.S. endorsement of Iranian bad behavior elsewhere in the region, nor would it imply that the U.S. was abandoning traditional allies in favor of warmer ties with Iran.
  • Rejecting a negotiated deal out-of-hand in favor of hardline demands for the complete eradication of Iran’s nuclear capacity is virtually guaranteed to have the oppose effect.  Making the complete elimination of any Iranian nuclear capacity the end goal of U.S. policy is tantamount to demanding that the U.S. go to war, and is likely to strengthen those in Iran who view the acquisition of nuclear weapons as necessary to deter such military action.  Such a policy would, in fact, be far more likely to fuel regional instability and an arms race than a negotiated deal would.

—————————————————————————————-

A deal that “sunsets” after 10 or 15 years is no good – it just means that Iran will wait and ready itself and then go nuclear the minute a deal ends.

  • Just as there is no possibility of a “zero enrichment” deal with Iran, there is no possibility of Iran agreeing to a “permanent” deal on its nuclear program.  Iran is in trouble right now because it has repeatedly violated the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), resulting in sanctions.  Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program are grounded in the understanding that by demonstrating compliance with all of its NPT obligations, Iran will no longer be in violation of the NPT and Iran’s tenure in the international doghouse – at least with respect to its nuclear program – can come to a close (at least so long as Iran remains in compliance).
  •  An Iran nuclear agreement – whether its provisions are in place for 10 years, or 15 years, or however many years are agreed on – would dramatically mitigate the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. For the period of the deal, the agreement would dramatically curtail Iran’s nuclear program, extending breakout time from a couple of months to a year, making it much harder for Iran to shift course and making the path to weaponization far longer than it would be without an agreement.
  • At the time that an agreement sunsets (and different provisions would likely sunset at different times), Iran would still remain a member of the NPT and subject to the requirements of that treaty.  Iran would also remain bound by an Additional Protocol to the treaty, granting UN inspectors greater authority in monitoring Iran’s nuclear program.  Following a decade or more of intrusive inspections and other oversight mechanisms, the U.S. and international community would at that time also be in a far stronger position to judge Iran’s actions and intentions vis-à-vis its nuclear program than they would have been without a deal. If, subsequent to a deal “sunsetting,” they determine that Iran’s leaders are shifting course and pursuing weaponization, the U.S. and international community will have ample time and opportunity to take action – and their decisions at that time will benefit from more than a decade of insights into Iran’s nuclear program and more than a decade of improved planning based on those insights.
  • Optimally, by the time a deal sunsets Iran would recognize the tangible benefits of continued curtailment of its nuclear program – benefits that would be imperiled if, in the period after an agreement “sunsets,” Iran decided to shift course and pursue weaponization of its nuclear program.

In case you missed the speech, here it is in full. As I side-note I must tell you that I always get a chuckle thinking about something my brother once told me. he was fascinated that the Prime Minister of Israel speaks a better English than I do ;)

*

And here’s what Ali Abunimah had to say about the speech … 

See video below

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his much trailed and politically divisive speech to the US Congress today, forcefully denouncing a possible international agreement that would place Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program under strict supervision.

Immediately afterwards, I spoke to The Real News Network’s Paul Jay to analyze the speech, including Netanyahu’s appeal to Biblical myths and Islamophobia in his attempt to derail US diplomacy.

Netanyahu’s speech came as US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, were in Switzerland to close the deal at high stakes negotiations backed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany.

President Barack Obama dismissed Netanyahu’s speech as offering nothing new and said the Israeli leader offered no alternatives to his efforts to reach a diplomatic agreement.

Approximately fifty Democratic members of Congress skipped Netanyahu’s speech, some after intense lobbying efforts by Palestinian rights advocates.

BOTEACH ON DEFENSE OF IGNORANCE

“It is not up to Shmuley Boteach to make it appear this is the way the Jewish community treats our friends.”

A few days after ‘rabbi’ Boteach was denounced by almost every legitimate leader of the Jewish Community for his recent actions, specifically by putting the following ad in the New York Times last Saturday …

B-9ecSYU0AAx5qB (1)
… he comes to his own defense in the following video;

Pretty pathetic if you ask me!

Obviously, the condemnations stand. only Boteach himself disagrees.

Neither does Shmuley Boteach!

Neither does Shmuley Boteach!

Despite the idiot ‘rabbi’s rants …

Susan Rice Gets Warm Reception at AIPAC

Delegates Ignore Calls To Boycott NSA Chief Speech

By JTA

Getty Images

Getty Images

 A nuclear deal with Iran must include access to its nuclear facilities even after the expiry of restrictions, which would last at least ten years, Susan Rice, the U.S. national security adviser, told AIPAC.

Rice, addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Monday, the second day of its annual conference, said expectations that Iran would cease uranium enrichment altogether or that restrictions would be in place indefinitely, were unrealistic.

But she added that intrusive inspections would continue indefinitely.

“At the end of any deal, Iran would still be required to offer comprehensive access to its nuclear facilities and to provide the international community the assurance that it was not pursuing nuclear weapons,” she said.

Insisting on no enrichment would collapse the alliance the Obama administration has built to sanction and isolate Iran, factors which led Iran to agree to nuclear negotiations, Rice said.

“Let’s remember that sanctions have never stopped Iran from advancing its program,” she said.

Without a deal, Rice said, Iran would return to enrichment levels it achieved before the terms governing nuclear talks with the major powers imposed restrictions, and seek to expand its nuclear capability.

“And, we’ll lose the unprecedented inspections and transparency we have today,” she said.

Rice also addressed concerns about reports that any deal restricting Iranian nuclear activities would expire after 10-15 years.

“I know that some question a deal of any duration,” she said. “But, it has always been clear that the pursuit of an agreement of indefinite duration would result in no agreement at all.”

Restrictions would be in place at least for ten years, she said.

“A deal that extends for a decade or more would accomplish this goal better than any other course of action – longer, by far, than military strikes, which would only set back Iran’s program for a fraction of the time,” she said.

The AIPAC activists received Rice warmly, ignoring calls from some right wing figures to stay away from her talk after she said last week that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress was “destructive” of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Netanyahu and the Republican congressional leadership infuriated the Obama administration by arranging the speech, which will take aim at the White House’s Iran policies, without consulting with the White House or congressional Democrats.

AIPAC favors legislation that would trigger new sanctions should Iran walk away from the talks and would subject any deal to congressional review. President Obama Obama has pledged to veto the legislation.

“Additional sanctions or restrictive legislation enacted during the negotiation would blow up the talks, divide the international community, and cause the United States to be blamed for the failure to reach a deal,’” Rice said.

She earned cheers for saying emphatically that Obama would consider “all options,” a euphemism for military action, should the talks fail.

However, activists also pointedly cheered whenever Rice described the views of skeptics of the talks in order to rebut them.

“I know that some argue we should just impose sanctions and walk away” if the talks collapse, was one such unintended applause line. “I know that some of you will be urging Congress to insist that Iran forego its domestic enrichment capacity entirely” was another.

JEWISH LEADERS LASH OUT AT SHMULEY BOTEACH

 

His own neighbours rejected his bid for a Congressional Seat in the last election

His own neighbours rejected his bid for a Congressional Seat in the last election

“It is not up to Shmuley Boteach to make it appear this is the way the Jewish community treats our friends.”

The ‘good rabbi’ has finally gone too far and seems to have pissed off the entire Jewish community which he thinks chose him to be their spokesman ….

It started this week with his attack on Susan Rice which appeared in the Friday edition of the Jerusalem Post and other zionist media …. Click HERE to see his report.

SUSAN RICE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF GENOCIDE

As if that was not enough, he then placed a full page ad in the Saturday edition of the New York Times denouncing Rice …

Obviously the Sabbath is not very holy to some ‘rabbis ;)

B-9ecSYU0AAx5qB (1)

Which led to the Jewish community leaders denouncing him!

Outrage Spreads Over Shmuley Boteach ‘Genocide’ Ad Smearing Susan Rice

Rabbi Denounced for Attack on Security Adviser

GETTY IMAGES

By JTA

A wall-to-wall array of Jewish groups condemned an ad accusing National Security Adviser Susan Rice of turning a blind eye to genocide.

“Susan Rice has a blind spot: Genocide,” said the ad appearing in Saturday’s New York Times, touting a talk on Iran this week in Washington hosted by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, the New Jersey-based author and pro-Israel advocate.

As soon as the Sabbath ended, Jewish groups rushed to condemn the ad. The American Jewish Committee called it “revolting,” the Anti-Defamation League called it “spurious and perverse”, the Jewish Federations of North America called it “outrageous” and Josh Block, the president of The Israel Project, said it was “entirely inappropriate.”

Marshall Wittmann, the spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which will host Rice on Monday at its annual conference, said, “Ad hominem attacks should have no place in our discourse.”

Also condemning it were the Orthodox Union, J Street, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the Rabbinical Assembly of the Conservative movement. In a combined statement, the leaders of the Union for Reform Judaism and Reform’s Religious Action Center called the ad “grotesque,” “abhorrent” and a “sinister slur.”

The ad notes Rice’s recent complaints about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress next week, organized without consulting the White House. Netanyahu plans to speak against nuclear talks between Iran and the major powers, which Obama backs. Rice said last week that the way the speech was organized was “destructive” to the U.S.-Israel relationship.

The ad also notes a controversy from the 1990s, when Rice was on President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council staff and reportedly advised against describing the mass killings in Rwanda as “genocide.”

“Ms. Rice may be blind to the issue of genocide, but should treat our ally with at least as much diplomatic courtesy as she does the committed enemy of both our nations,” it said.

In an interview, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, who directs the Rabbinical Assembly, said Rice deserved an apology from Boteach.

The ad “is completely inconsistent with the record of friendship and loyalty this public official has shown Israel and the Jewish people,” Schonfeld said.

Rice grew close to pro-Israel and Jewish groups during her stint, in President Barack Obama’s first term, as U.S. envoy to the United Nations., through her efforts to head off attacks on Israel and to protect vulnerable populations in Sudan.

“It is not up to Shmuley Boteach to make it appear this is the way the Jewish community treats our friends,” Schonfeld said.

Boteach, whose talk on Monday will take place in a Senate office building and will include Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust memoirist, and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), has appealed to AIPAC activists to attend. AIPAC, like many of the groups that have condemned the ad, is skeptical of the Iran nuclear talks.

Nathan Diament, the Washington director of the Orthodox Union, a group that has been pronouncedly skeptical of the talks, on Twitter described the ad as an “inappropriate ad hominem attack” that “doesn’t advance discourse on key issue of Iran.”

Rabbi Steve Gutow, who heads the JCPA, the public policy umbrella for the community, said the ad was a blow against bipartisan support for Israel.

“It’s a sad moment for the jewish community to have this ad appear,” he said in an interview.

Even the ADL joined in …

ADL denounces Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s Susan Rice attack ad in NY Times

The Anti-Defimation Leage (ADL) on Sunday criticized an ad in Saturday’s New York Timesthat called National Security Advisor Susan Rice “blind” to genocide.

Rice gave an interview earlier in the week criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The ad was taken out by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach through his organization This World: The Values Network run by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.

Obviously, some Jews know and appreciate who butters the bread on Israeli tables!

Here’s a video of the idiot ‘rabbi’ on the streets of New York a few months ago …

ZION GOING OVERBOARD TO DISCREDIT THE BDS MOVEMENT

As BDS gains support on nearly every major US Campus, the zionists move into ‘panic mode’ and fight back.

Internationally the Movement is gaining support in the Academic and artistic communities as well.

The following video produced by the zionists is typical of their tactics, lies, exaggerations and quoting out of context …. see for yourself.

Interesting to note that Israeli law forbids me to post a swastika on this Blogsite, but the zionists themselves are allowed to do it.

Also remember ….

Stand with US and help us break the silence! Image by Latuff

Stand with US and help us break the silence!
Image by Latuff

 

ZION’S TWISTED LOGIC REGARDING JEWISH SUPPORT OF THE BDS MOVEMENT

But why would Jewish students allow BDS resolutions against Israel when it has one of the most exemplary human rights records of any country on earth, especially given the level of existential threat it faces daily.

The time has come for each one of us to stand up and defend Israel, the Jewish people, and the universal Jewish values that underpin the Western world; Campus is ground zero.

Jewish Voice For Peace actively supports the BDS movement.

Jewish Voice For Peace actively supports the BDS movement.

One of zions favourite sons, Shmuley Boteach, is making headline news again at the Jerusalem Post. With every column he writes he displays more ignorance than Psycho Gal herself.

Just see for yourself … 

No Holds Barred: As Stanford falls to BDS, it’s time to strike back

The dominoes are falling one by one. The student governments of major and highly prestigious universities, comprised of giant Jewish student populations, are voting to divest from major companies doing business with Israel.

The latest to succumb is Stanford University, which this past Tuesday voted in favor of BDS. Stanford, with its large Jewish student body, is a particular blow seeing as it is such a very important university in the world in relation to hi-tech and the Internet as well as the large and influential Jewish presence in Silicon Valley and the Bay area.

How can this be happening, especially when the SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) groups who loudly influence the passing of these resolutions usually number fewer than a hundred members at their respective universities? Take UCLA, which voted in favor of BDS a few months back. There are over 3,000 Jewish students there. Could they really have allowed their elected student government to vote so unjustly? There’s an old joke about the professor who was asked, “What is worse? Ignorance or apathy?” To which he replied, “I don’t know and I don’t care.”

Ignorance and apathy are infecting the Jewish student body politic and allowing Israel to be defamed on campus. Let’s begin with apathy. Many Jewish students take it at face value that Israel is an occupying power in the West Bank and that there may therefore be some merit to BDS.

What they don’t know is that there never was a Palestinian state on the West Bank to occupy. It was land that was part of the British mandate that was seized illegally by Jordan in 1948 and annexed illegally, with only three governments, Britain, Pakistan and Iraq, recognizing the annexation. When Israel conquered the land in a defensive war in 1967 (and no one disputes that King Hussein’s attack of Israel in the war was wholly unprovoked) its status continued as a disputed territory.

True, the oft-cited United Nations Resolution 242 called for the “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” But it did not say from which territories (Israel has already given land back nearly four times its size in Sinai and Gaza).

It also said that such withdrawal had to be linked to a comprehensive peace settlement. Clearly, with Israel’s neighbors calling for its annihilation, and with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority financing and sending terrorists to murder Israelis, there has been no peace agreement.

In the wake of the Oslo accords, there has been political autonomy for 97 percent of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, which begs the question of how Palestinians are faring under PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ rule as compared to Israel’s. Certainly, the lack of any Palestinian democracy – Abbas is in his tenth year of a four-year term – and the harsh penalties for speaking out against Abbas, including imprisonment for criticism of his kleptocratic dictatorship, with hundred of millions of dollars going to him, his sons and his cronies, is a serious violation of Palestinian rights. And certainly the Palestinians living under Hamas control are up a creek, what with its brutal assassinations of all political opponents, honor killings of women and executions of gays, among countless other human rights abuses.

But even if we were to take the most extreme definition of occupation, the question would arise as to why there is no BDS movement against, say, China, which has been occupying Tibet since 1950, 17 years longer than Israel has supposedly been occupying the West Bank. Here we get repeated lies from the likes of Abbas, who said at The Cooper Union to 1,000 mostly NYU students that “we are the only people living under occupation.”

Avi Shlaim, the Israel-Oxford academic, lied outright in my debate with him at Oxford in November of last year when he said that the Israeli “occupation” is the longest in the world. I quickly shot up to correct him and he admitted the error.

But why would Jewish students allow BDS resolutions against Israel when it has one of the most exemplary human rights records of any country on earth, especially given the level of existential threat it faces daily.

Where are the boycotts of Syria, which has killed more than 150,000 Arabs; Saudi Arabia, with its vile racism, misogyny and exportation of radical Islamic teachings across the globe; Egypt, which in recent years has sentenced hundreds of people to death in the wake of its revolution, including 183 people in just one day; or any of Israel’s dictatorial neighbors that trample on human rights in the most extreme way?

How about Jordan, which has maintained a policy of rejecting and deporting Palestinian refugees from Syria, while simultaneously allowing a few hundred thousand Syrian nationals to take refuge there? And what of Lebanon, which in 2001 stripped its few hundred thousand Palestinian residents of the right to own property or pass it on to their descendants and banned them from employment as lawyers and doctors along with over 20 other professions? Or how about Kuwait, which in 1991 uprooted some 250,000 Palestinians from their homes and expelled them from that country? The list goes on.

Is there no BDS movement for them? Is it just for the Jews? Which brings us to the question of Jewish apathy regarding the slander and demonization of the State of Israel, and the attempts to destroy it by any means possible.

How do we get Jewish students invested in protecting Israel, and understanding of the magnitude of the threat it faces? What is clear from the BDS resolutions currently riling American campuses is that the existing American Jewish student organizations are not equipped to fight BDS.

Many Hillel directors have approached us and candidly shared their conundrum: they fear that openly and aggressively defending Israel will alienate students not favorably disposed to the Jewish state. It is our responsibility to show them that, to the contrary, proud defense of Israel is the best way to inspire Jewish identity and commitment in students.

The Jewish community must launch large-scale and well-coordinated programs that can turn the tide on campus and reclaim the narrative. Campus Maccabees, if you will – PR black belts trained in improving the public perception of Israel. It must begin with “An Israel Defense Bible,” a short manual that gives students concise, clear and comprehensive information to fight back.

We at This World: The Values Network are committed to creating this handbook. Already, This World has carved a unique niche for itself in global pro-Israel advocacy by hosting world-class events, large-scale media campaigns, live debates, lectures and conferences, garnering international attention and recognition.

The time has come for each one of us to stand up and defend Israel, the Jewish people, and the universal Jewish values that underpin the Western world. Campus is ground zero.

COPYCAT CHARLIE EMERGES IN ISRAEL

Looks like zionist created anti-Semitism is ‘kosher’ in some circles …

The hooked-nosed Jew.

The hooked-nosed Jew.

Animated video titled ‘The Eternal Jew’ features a German named Herr Stürmer paying a hooked-nosed Jew for slanderous information about the IDF and Israel; Peace Now demands AG to open police investigation into video.

The final scene shows the Jew hanging from a tree with a warning that “Europeans may seem different to you, but to them … you are exactly the same.” Next are the logos of well-known dovish Israeli organizations, including the New Israel Fund, B’Tselem and Peace Now, sending the clear message that such organizations spread defamation against Israel for money paid by European anti-Semites.

Europeans may seem different to you, but to them ... you are exactly the same

Europeans may seem different to you, but to them … you are exactly the same

*

Three reports dealing with this ….. click on links 

Followed by an editorial in HaAretz

*

Leftists accuse Netanyahu, settlers of brewing ‘another assassination’ with ads

*

Samaria Settler Council under fire for video depicting leftists as anti-Semite collaborators

*

Left-wing NGOs warn settler group’s video could incite to violence

*

Right-wing leaders, stop cultivating anti-Left, anti-Arab propaganda

Settler group’s recent video framing leftists as Nazi collaborators suggests lessons of Rabin’s murder have yet to be internalized. The right must go beyond lip service against such voices.

The Samaria Settlers Committee, a body that benefits from public funds through the Samaria Regional Council, posted a video in which a master with a German accent who hides behind a broadsheet newspaper uses his Jewish servant to collect stories that blacken the reputations of Israel and the Israel Defense Forces. In exchange, the master tosses the servant euro coins, until the former no longer has any need for the Jew and sends him to his death.

The analogy is clear: Left-wing organizations, whose logos appear at the end of the video after the Jewish collaborator hangs himself, are helping Nazi Europe in exchange for money. The newspaper behind which the master hides bears a resemblance to Haaretz. The message is also clear: The fate of Nazis and their accomplices is known, and the image of the Jewish collaborator swinging on the rope conveys it literally.

Almost 20 years have passed since the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who appeared in right-wing posters dressed in a Nazi uniform, but it seems that the tragic results of the incitement against him have yet to be internalized. Along with the constant incitement against Arabs, the right-wing propagandists do not hesitate to portray leftists using the most inappropriate images human history has to offer as part of its campaign of fear-mongering and delegitimization.

Ideological differences are not only legitimate, but are desirable in a democratic regime. Passionate debate is an integral part of the political game and during an election campaign one can expect the arguments to get particularly heated. But incitement that marks certain organizations as moving targets, like the video by the Samaria Settlers Committee, exceeds the bounds of that debate and constitutes violence for its own sake.

Representatives of Meretz and Peace Now have asked Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to launch an investigation into the video. But along with the legal route, it is appropriate to ask where the right-wing leaders are, both those who were silent in the days before the Rabin assassination and then came to eulogize him, and those who joined the leadership ranks in recent years.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did the right thing when he criticized the clip on Sunday and said that he “objects to the comparison between Israeli groups and individuals and Nazi Germany.” However, almost in parallel his party posted a clip that insinuates that the left will allow Islamic State to gain control over Jerusalem.

Netanyahu and the other leaders of the right must recognize the enormity of the responsibility on their shoulders. Lip service will not prevent the disaster – only a real change in the tempestuous discourse that they are consistently and irresponsibly cultivating will do so.

THE ZIONISATION OF MLK? …. NOT QUITE!

Based on this one quote …

Best they look at the whole picture to see the truth …

King canceled a planned trip to Israel in September 1967 in part because of political misgivings over the annexation of Jerusalem. He reportedly told his aides in a telephone call:

[“I’d run into the situation where I’m damned if I say this and I’m damned if I say that no matter what I’d say, and I’ve already faced enough criticism including pro-Arab.  I just think that if I go, the Arab world, and of course Africa and Asia for that matter, would interpret this as endorsing everything that Israel has done, and I do have questions of doubt…  Most of it [the pilgrimage] would be Jerusalem and they [the Israelis] have annexed Jerusalem, and any way you say it they don’t plan to give it up…  I frankly have to admit that my instincts – and when I follow my instincts so to speak I’m usually right – I just think that this would be a great mistake. I don’t think I could come out unscathed”]

*

Wall picture from NYC2Palestine on Facebook

Wall picture from NYC2Palestine on Facebook

On MLK Day, lots of folks are talking Palestine

It’s nighttime now on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, but the day has not gone by without a lot of folks talking and thinking about Palestine.

USA Today has a big piece on how King’s legacy is being carried on today in the U.S. by leaders of #BlackLivesMatter, including Phillip Agnew of Dream Defenders (which was founded after the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2012). Reporter Rick Hampson notes one of King’s strengths, and Agnew’s:

  • The internationalist. His ability to elicit support from abroad – and shame Americans with segregation’s inherent contradictions — resonates with Agnew, who recently traveled to Palestine with other activists.

Dream Defenders lately held an action in Nazareth.

Speaking of King’s internationalism, Jamil Dakwar writes:

“If you wonder what #MLK’s position on #BDS would be read this newly found 1964 London speech.”

BDS is of course the international movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel. Dakwar links to this speech reported on DemocracyNow today in which King addressed racial injustice at home and abroad in 1964 and called for boycotting South Africa:

Our responsibility—our responsibility presents us with a unique opportunity: We can join in the one form of nonviolent action that could bring freedom and justice to South Africa, the action which African leaders have appealed for, in a massive movement for economic sanctions. In a world living under the appalling shadow of nuclear weapons, do we not recognize the need to perfect the use of economic pressures? Why is trade regarded by all nations and all ideologies as sacred? Why does our government and your government in Britain refuse to intervene effectively now, as if only when there is a bloodbath in South Africa—or a Korea or a Vietnam—will they recognize a crisis? If the United Kingdom and the United States decided tomorrow morning not to buy South African goods, not to buy South African gold, to put an embargo on oil, if our investors and capitalists would withdraw their support for that racial tyranny that we find there, then apartheid would be brought to an end. Then the majority of South Africans of all races could at last build the shared society they desire.

Electronic Intifada reported that speech excerpt some years ago, as well as a letter that King wrote in 1962 along with Albert Lutuli, a leader of the African National Congress. Key sentence:

The apartheid republic is a reality today only because the peoples and governments of the world have been unwilling to place her in quarantine.

Israeli supporters are promoting the fact that King also said nice things about Israel– calling it one of the outposts of democracy in the world (youtube clip here). Avi Mayer also tweets this photo of MLK Street in central Jerusalem.

MLK Street in Jerusalem

But Dakwar is surely on target here. King was martyred when Israel was still Plucky Israel in the eyes of the west, before the occupation took real form. And it is the treatment of Palestinians under occupation that has driven the BDS movement in the west. There’s no question that if King were alive today, he would be in lines with that movement. Besides, think of how far America has come since King’s death. Diversity is today widely celebrated, and some establishment institutions are actually fostering diversity.

[Update: King canceled a planned trip to Israel in September 1967 in part because of political misgivings over the annexation of Jerusalem. He reportedly told his aides in a telephone call:

[“I’d run into the situation where I’m damned if I say this and I’m damned if I say that no matter what I’d say, and I’ve already faced enough criticism including pro-Arab.  I just think that if I go, the Arab world, and of course Africa and Asia for that matter, would interpret this as endorsing everything that Israel has done, and I do have questions of doubt…  Most of it [the pilgrimage] would be Jerusalem and they [the Israelis] have annexed Jerusalem, and any way you say it they don’t plan to give it up…  I frankly have to admit that my instincts – and when I follow my instincts so to speak I’m usually right – I just think that this would be a great mistake. I don’t think I could come out unscathed”]

Brooklyn for Peace urges folks to support negotiations with Iran– “Dr. King knew that war abroad means misery at home”– and is pressing activists to get on the campaign to pressure that NY City delegation to Israel not to go. From NYC2Palestine’s Facebook page:

Join us on Thursday, Jan 22nd at 1pm in City Hall Park to tell New York City Council members – Don’t Tour Apartheid Israel!

New Yorkers are outraged by 15 New York City Council members’ decision to take an all-expenses-paid propagandatour of Israel, organized by the Jewish Community Relations Council and United Jewish Appeal in February 2015.

Multiple social justice groups and organizations participating in a press conference on the steps of City Hall this past Monday told the New York City Council: #DontTourApartheid. We, the people of NYC, need to do the same.

Also, on Fresh Air today, Eric Foner spoke of the importance of solidarity to the antislavery movement, whites and blacks joining together. What was a difficult thing that was to achieve in the 1850s:

You know, the barriers between black and white were far higher than they are today. And overcoming that in order to work in a collaborative way, cooperating with each other in a, I think, noble cause of trying to assist people who were escaping from slavery and trying to undermine the institution of slavery and, eventually, bring about its abolition. And I – you know, I think on Martin Luther King Day, it should lead us to remember that the civil rights movement had antecedents in our history. It had, you know – that this was a great social movement of the mid-19th century and that these are the things that inspire me in American history – the struggle of people to make this a better country. To me, that’s what genuine patriotism is.

Of course Martin Luther King built that sort of coalition with considerable care in the 1960s, and today we should be thankful for the transformative coalition that we and so many others are building across racial and religious and national lines to free Palestinians (and Israelis), and lift a glass to MLK.

Thanks to Annie Robbins, Allison Deger and Alex Kane.

ZIONISM IN DENIAL

Don’t be fooled by the heading …. this is not about driving Israel into the sea. Charlton Heston showed us all on the big screen what happened the last time it was tried.

This is a post about both criticizing and attacking zionism from within … specifically about Avraham Burg,  ANOTHER ZIONIST WAKES UP TO REALITY. Zion sees this man as a traitor, we see him as a mentch and welcome him into the ranks of reality.

In an OP-ED from today’s Ynet, the following report follows. Instead of looking in the mirror and seeing the horrors of zionism, they try to find fault with Burg’s decision about leaving their ranks.

Burg’s claims against Israel are so unfounded that it’s hard to believe they are coming out of the mouth of a person who was the Labor Party’s whiz kid. 

The Avraham Burg syndrome

 How did one of Zionist left’s leaders, a former Jewish Agency chairman and Knesset speaker, move to margins of anti-Zionist camp?

We are witnessing a man who has come a long and fascinating way, from the leadership of the Zionist camp to the margins of the anti-Zionist camp.

He was once a talented young man, a wonderful rhetorician, a television presenter, a Peace Now activist who quickly became the Labor Party’s rising star, and later the Jewish Agency’s chairman and Knesset speaker. He was the embodiment of the Zionist left. Both leftist and Zionist.

The year 2000 was one of the most fascinating years of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Camp David talks failed, despite a first-ever Israeli willingness to divide Jerusalem. One of the strongest opponents was none other than Avraham (Avrum) Burg.

At the end of that year, on December 23, the Clinton outline was put on the table and approved by the Israeli government. The Palestinians’ response was a big and clear “no,” which included their insistence on the “right of return.”

Burg speaks at a Hadash meeting. 'Intellectual lack of integrity, wild exaggerations and double standards towards Israel'
Burg speaks at a Hadash meeting. ‘Intellectual lack of integrity, wild exaggerations and double standards towards Israel’

And what happened at the time to the wonder child of the left and Labor Party? He pointed an accusing finger at Israel. In September 2003, on the backdrop of the intensifying Palestinian terror, Burg published an article titled “The end of Zionism” in British newspaper The Guardian, and later in French daily Le Monde, in which he mainly provided justifications for the Palestinian murderousness.

“Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centers of Israeli escapism,” he wrote. “They spill their own blood in our restaurants in order to ruin our appetites, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry and humiliated.”

Burg should have known that the Palestinians had rejected a proposal for a state. The leaders of the Arab world supported it, but then-Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat preferred the road of violence.

Burg knew, and definitely should have known, that the suicide bombers’ hatred was not the result of Israeli oppression but the result of incitement and brainwashing. The terror, already then, was not against the occupation – but against Israel’s actual existence.

That was Burg’s contribution to the demonization process, the dehumanization and delegitimization of Israel. It was a huge contribution. Because the article was written by a person who had served as the Jewish Agency chairman and as the Knesset speaker, and for several weeks in 2000 he was even Israel’s acting president.

The deterioration continued. Burg became one of the camp’s darlings. He was elected, for example, as chairman of the New Israel Fund’s International Council, precisely because of his new views.

One can take a different road of course. Former Labor Party Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich went the opposite way. She voted for Hadash in the past. She sobered up. The facts affected her. She is not against equality for Arabs, but she is also in favor of a Jewish nation state. She proves that one can be both leftist and Zionist.

One can and should criticize Israel. The policy includes mistakes as well. But what happened to Burg – a complete denial of the right for a Jewish nation state, using the excuse of “the need for equality” – has happened to many people in the left. The struggle for equality is justified. But does the fact that there is a Slovakian minority in the Czech Republic deny the right for a Czech nation state?

Burg’s claims against Israel are so unfounded that it’s hard to believe they are coming out of the mouth of a person who was the Labor Party’s whiz kid.

If there is anything which characterizes demonization, it is concealed, among other things, in intellectual lack of integrity, in wild exaggerations, in double standards towards Israel. this is the syndrome which drove Burg crazy. This is the syndrome which is driving many in the left crazy.

Now Burg has now landed in the Hadash party whose secretary-general, Ayman Odeh, heads the committee against national service, which was established by the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee. There is no difference between opposing duties and opposing rights. It’s of course the best way to increase the alienation between Jews and Arabs.

But don’t worry, we are talking about Avrum Burg here. He will soon find excuses and justifications.

ISRAEL SEEMS PLEASED WITH THE RISE OF ‘ANTI SEMITIC INCIDENTS’ IN EUROPE

Principled anti-racists should not be less vigilant about fighting anti-Semitism just because Israel and its Zionist affiliates habitually exaggerate, exploit and on occasion fabricate reports of hatred directed against Jews.

But they should be prepared to call it out and refuse to play along.

Fighting racism means fighting Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Protestors defying a ban on Palestine solidarity demonstrations in Paris hold a banner saying “Stop the blackmail: Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism,” 26 July 2014. (Alain Bachellier/Flickr)

Protestors defying a ban on Palestine solidarity demonstrations in Paris hold a banner saying “Stop the blackmail: Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism,” 26 July 2014. (Alain Bachellier/Flickr)

As threats to Jews said to mount in Europe, Israeli minister gets “excited”

ZION RECREATES LIES ABOUT ISLAM

Two months ago I posted the following …..

THE CIA AND MOSSAD COMBINE FORCES TO ‘FIGHT’ TERRORISM

Just one way the US  and the West keeps the truth hidden

Just one way the US and the West hides the truth

Here’s another way ….

Ever hear of MEMRI? (Middle East Research Institute)

The institute was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born, American political scientist. MEMRI states that its goal is to “bridge the language gap between the Middle East and the West”. Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions. (FROM)

Emphasis on Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions.

Consider me one of those ‘critics’!

From their own Site

MEMRI’s work directly supports fighting the U.S. War on Terror. Highly trained staff thoroughly translate and analyze open-source materials that include television programming, radio, newspapers, textbooks, and websites.

Every single day, MEMRI receives requests from members of the U.S. government, military, and legislature. Since September 11, 2001, the demand for this material has significantly increased – providing thousands of pages of translated documents of Arab, Iranian, Urdu, Pashtu, Hindi, Dari, and Turkish print media, terrorist websites, school books, and tens of thousands of hours of translated footage from Arab and Iranian television.

This video takes you from the halls of government to the briefing rooms of the U.S. military to the frontlines of counter-terrorism efforts, and demonstrates just how MEMRI has become – A Vital Component in the U.S. War on Terror.

Members of MEMRI’s Board of Advisors and Directors are bi-partisan and have honorably served Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Read more…

They even operate their own TV Network …. The Palestinian Authority often broadcasts clips on their own TV Network in their attempt to justify the occupation and ethnic cleansing policies of their zionist brothers. 

Regarding a recent video clip, British zionists are campaigning with it in an attempt to discourage a YES Vote in Parliament as to whether or not  recognise a Palestinian State.

In the clip, which was recently posted to the internet, Palestinian Sheik Omar Abu Sara in a sermon given in the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem asks the following of those Arab countries currently helping NATO to attack Islamic State:

“Whom are they fighting? Are they fighting the Jews? The Russians? The Hindus? They are fighting our brothers. These planes are bombing our brothers. Is the Al-Aqsa Mosque too far for them? Is Jerusalem too far for them? Are the Jews too far for them?”

It is sentiments like these that persist not just throughout Hamas but throughout the more respected Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas.

Here is a clip that was broadcast on Palestinian Authority television in which the PA Mufti of Jerusalem Muhammad Hussein urges his followers to kill Jews.

Could we expect a combination of the CIA and Mossad to portray the honest aspirations of the Palestinian people?

Hope you noticed that none of those passing by stopped to listen to this guy.

Apparently their video didn’t reach the audience they were hoping for …. (only 30,847 viewers) so they are trying again in desperation.

Here’s their ‘remake’ … (Only 301 views at this posting)

Tens of Arabs can be seen sitting or standing, watching the preacher. 

PATHETIC!

Full report from ziocrap file HERE

IN PHOTOS ~~ HAS MOSSAD INFILTRATED THE US LEGAL SYSTEM?

unnamed (2)

Some background info on the case …

A conspiracy to convict …. and it’s not a theory!

The Mossad Connection …

After her conviction this week, Shurat HaDin, an Israeli legal group that The Electronic Intifada revealed works closely with the Israeli spy and assassination agency Mossad,claimed responsibility for helping US prosecutors unearth Odeh’s 45-year-old record with the Israeli military court. The Jerusalem Report said on Thursday:

“In trying to defang her defense, the NGO [Shurat HaDin] said that the US attorney’s office ran into heavy red tape trying to get the IDF [Israeli army] Archives Division to supply it, in timely fashion, with documents proving Odeh’s identity and conviction, in Israel’s Judea and Samaria [occupied West Bank] courts, for her hand in the bombing. Using its own connections, Shurat HaDin was able to get the relevant documents.”

Read the full report on the Electronic Intifada HERE

*

Photos from the demonstration outside the Manhattan Federal Building in New York

Photos © by Bud Korotzer

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

ZIONISM HAS KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN THE EBOLA VIRUS

Image From

Image From

*

Is a research scientist working to find a cure for AIDS called an extremist?

Same question, a research scientist working to find a cure for the Ebola Virus??

The answer is NO!*

unnamed

*

BUT ….

Activists who are working to expose the evils of zionism are extremists according to the spokesmen of zion. Here is their definition … Of course, the definition of an ‘extremist’ is one for whom the real-world moral consequences of his or her actions are of little concern, especially in comparison to the imperative of maintaining fealty to a rigid – and often destructive – political ideology.

A Jewish settler from an illegal settlement in the Occupied West Bank who roams the streets of Jerusalem armed with a gun is not an extremist, But someone like myself who lives in Jerusalem goes out unarmed is one …. how’s that for ziologic?

A neighbour who circulated a petition recently to keep Arab children out of a local playground is not an extremist, BUT someone like myself who refused to sign it is one. (BTW, hardly anyone signed it).

An influential rabbi who recently tried to have Arab children removed from a local nursery is not an extremist, but someone like myself who campaigned against him is one.

I can give hundreds of other examples, but these are enough to get my message across.

Now for the latest attack from zion …. (First read THIS POST from last week)

Whilst it’s not clear if SodaStream’s decision to close their plant in the West Bank town of Mishor Adumim was undertaken due to pressure from BDS activists, the reaction by the BDS Movement to the company’s decision to move production of the fizzy drink makers to a new location in the Israeli Negev – placing the employment of 500 Palestinians in jeopardy – speaks volumes about the political extremism of the movement.

So, if you are involved in any way to expose, or better yet find a cure for the virus known as zionism, be ready to be labeled an extremist. Here is how they view the closure of the SodaStream plant …

*

What does it say about BDS activists when the loss of 500 Palestinian jobs is a ‘victory’?

*

Whilst it’s not clear if SodaStream’s decision to close their plant in the West Bank town of Mishor Adumim was undertaken due to pressure from BDS activists, the reaction by the BDS Movement to the company’s decision to move production of the fizzy drink makers to a new location in the Israeli Negev – placing the employment of 500 Palestinians in jeopardy – speaks volumes about the political extremism of the movement.

Homepage of BDS Movement, Nov. 2

 

The Guardian’s Middle East editor Ian Black wrote the following on SodaStream’s relocation in an Oct. 29th column:

Palestinian activists have hailed a decision by SodaStream International, an Israeli-owned soft drink company, to close its controversial factory in a settlement in the occupied West Bank, calling the decision a victory for the campaign for boycott, disinvestment and sanctions.

The company had defended itself as employing 500 Palestinians, along with 450 Israeli Arab and 350 Israeli Jewish citizens, and insisted that closure for political reasons would benefit no one.

But the BDS statement said: “Any suggestion that SodaStream is employing Palestinians in an illegal Israeli settlement on stolen Palestinian land out of the kindness of its heart is ludicrous.”

Naturally, neither the Guardian’s Ian Black, nor the BDS Movement, bothered to explain how the closing of a factory which employs (at wages far above the average in the West Bank) the largest number of Palestinians outside the Palestinian Authority could reasonably be characterized as a victory for Palestinians.

Indeed, additional evidence attesting to the BDS Movement’s true motivations can be found in this passage near the end of Black’s article:

It’s [the BDS Movement] statement said: “Even if this announced closure goes ahead, SodaStream will remain implicated in the displacement of Palestinians. Its new Lehavim factory is close to Rahat, a planned township [see footnote] in the Naqab [Negev] desert, where Palestinian Bedouins are being forcefully transferred against their will. Sodastream, as a beneficiary of this plan, is complicit with this violation of human rights.”

The statement is referring to draft legislation in the Knesset last year (since shelved), on Bedouin development, which would have seen some 20,000-30,000 Israeli Bedouin relocated from unrecognized and undeveloped shanty towns to officially recognized and developed towns in the Negev, including the city of Rahat.  Those who moved were to receive financial compensation as well as free land.

So, the BDS statement is in effect saying that, by virtue of the fact that the new SodaStream factory will be located some 9 km from one of the towns which would become home to thousands of Bedouins (in the context of a plan to relocate Bedouin to developed), planned communities), the company is somehow “complicit” in human rights violations.  Even though the company will be moving its factory to within Israel’s pre-67 boundaries, BDS will not end their anti-SodaStream campaign.

Indeed, the broader point should be familiar to anyone with even a basic understanding of the malevolence of the BDS Movement.  BDS seeks the right of “Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties”, goals which undermine the fundamental right of the Jewish people to self-determination. BDS leaders have made their opposition to the continued existence to the Jewish state (within any borders) quite clear.

The promoters of the SodaStream boycott are so zealous in desire to isolate, delegitimize, and demonize Israel, that they are unburdened by the fact they’ve harmed a thriving factory, one which provides a livelihood to hundreds of Palestinian workers and has served as a rare model of co-existencebetween Arabs and Jews.

Of course, the definition of an ‘extremist’ is one for whom the real-world moral consequences of his or her actions are of little concern, especially in comparison to the imperative of maintaining fealty to a rigid – and often destructive – political ideology.

LUMPING HAMAS WITH ISIS ~~ IT’S JUST PLAIN WRONG!

And we all know that CNN never lies ....

And we all know that CNN never lies ….

*

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is notorious for making theatrical attempts to find “distractions” or “red herrings” in order to divert attention from his unceasing efforts to decapitate all chances for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank.

 
 
What makes Israel so hell-bent on lumping Hamas with ISIS?

By Khalid Amayreh in occupied Palestine

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is notorious for making theatrical attempts to find “distractions” or “red herrings” in order to divert attention from his unceasing efforts to decapitate all chances for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank.

Netanyahu has effectively tripled the building of Jewish colonies in the West Bank. He has also allowed millenarian Jewish settlers to carry out almost daily provocations against Islam’s third holiest sanctuary, namely Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque. This could trigger a worldwide conflagration that would put an end to peace efforts in the region.

Netanyahu hopes to desensitize any semblance of Western, especially American, opposition to Israel’s lebensraum policy in the West Bank and the Jewish states’ unrelenting efforts to kill any remaining prospects for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

However, Netanyahu’s diversionary tactics seem to have been blunted by two main recent developments: The Swedish decision to recognize a future Palestinian state and the British Parliament vote to do the same.

None the less, the news from London and Stockholm is not expected to make Netanyahu change his mind or rethink his policy. After all Netanyahu is more of a dishonest demagogue and pathological liar than a straight, honest statesman who would value truth and rectitude.

Netanyahu would insist and swear that Israel wants peace and aspires for peace. He would go as far as making all sorts of solemn testimonies and eloquent statements underlining Israel’s desire for peace. But the truth of the matter is that all of his declarations are sanctimonious and mendacious.

In the final analysis, however, a country that truly desires peace doesn’t build hundreds of settlements on its neighbor’s territories. A country that truly desires peace doesn’t transfer hundreds of thousands to live on a land that doesn’t belong to them.

Netanyahu and the other shipyard dogs of Israeli hasbara would never cease invoking old lies that the settlers are simply returning to their fathers’ land.

But would anyone under the sun give up his home and land if a stranger showed up, insisting that the property belonged to him and claiming that his ancestors owned or occupied the area five thousand years ago???

Needless to say, this analogy more or less epitomizes the entire Palestinian question.

Red herring policy

Israel’s “red-herring policy” is not new. During Egypt’s Gamal Abdul Nasser’s rule, Israel argued that if only Nasser would stop rotating in the Soviet orbit, peace would be around the corner.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, Israel argued that if only the PLO and its leader Yasser Arafat would recognize Israel and revoke the PLO charter that called for Israel’s destruction, peace would be within reach very soon.

In fact, Netanyahu himself repeatedly blamed the lack of progress in talks with the PA on Palestinian disunity, namely the rift between Fatah and Hamas. In numerous TV interviews, he argued that the “the Palestinians are not speaking in one voice.  Let them get united first.”

However, when Hamas and the PA finally agreed to reconcile, Netanyahu got quite hysterical and convulsive. He warned that the PA would have to either make peace with Hamas or Israel, claiming that Palestinian national unity was the ultimate antithesis to peace.

Now, Netanyahu is playing the same Hasbara game once again. And the reasons for this game of make believe remain unchanged, namely morbid Israeli efforts to distract attention from Israeli recalcitrance, intransigence, and rejectionism.

The ISIS Mantra

Having failed to destroy Hamas militarily and liquidate the Palestinian people’s enduring struggle for freedom and independence from Israel’s Nazi-like occupation, Netanyahu is now trying to lump Hamas with ISIS.

His ultimate goal is to make the international community demonize Hamas and therefore distract the world’s attention from Israel’s nefarious occupation.

But Hamas, a national Islamic liberation movement that appeared on the Middle East’s political horizon after winning transparent democratic elections in 2006, is simply something different.

Hamas’s strategic goal is liberty, not domination, or hegemony or anything of this nature.

Hamas’s ultimate goal is to enable the thoroughly tormented Palestinians to live a normal life. like the rest of the peoples of the world, free from Nazi-like Jewish Zionist roadblocks and checkpoints, enable them to travel freely,  pray freely in their mosques, especially in Jerusalem’s Aqsa Mosque, to harvest their olive fields freely and be able to move and commute freely from one locality to the other.  Is this too much?

Hamas wants the Palestinian people to live in dignity and be able to do the sort of things that other peoples around the world take for granted.

Hamas would like to see the Palestinian people free from the specter of fear and terror, including arbitrary arrest at the hands of Gestapo-like Israeli soldiers who routinely raid Palestinian homes in the quite hours before dawn.

In brief, Hamas is not evil. That is why at least 50% of the Palestinian people back Hamas.

In fact, Israel doesn’t hate Hamas because Israel believes Hamas is evil.  As far as evilness is concerned, even Satan himself learns from Israel.

Israel hates Hamas for an entirely different reason, namely the conviction that Hamas is the main hurdle that prevents or impedes the realization of Israel’s ultimate goal: the liquidation of the Palestinian cause.

It is not true that Hamas stands in the road to peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Israel has been negotiating with the PA (not in good faith) for over 20 years, but to no avail.

The failure of peace talks between Israel and the PA cannot be attributed to Hamas. Those claiming it was are simply not telling the truth.

The real cause is Israel’s adamant insistence on retaining the spoils of the 1967 war.

THE CIA AND MOSSAD COMBINE FORCES TO ‘FIGHT’ TERRORISM

Just one way the US  and the West keeps the truth hidden

Just one way the US and the West hides the truth

Here’s another way ….

Ever hear of MEMRI? (Middle East Research Institute)

The institute was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born, American political scientist. MEMRI states that its goal is to “bridge the language gap between the Middle East and the West”. Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions. (FROM)

Emphasis on Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions.

Consider me one of those ‘critics’!

*

From their own Site

MEMRI’s work directly supports fighting the U.S. War on Terror. Highly trained staff thoroughly translate and analyze open-source materials that include television programming, radio, newspapers, textbooks, and websites.

Every single day, MEMRI receives requests from members of the U.S. government, military, and legislature. Since September 11, 2001, the demand for this material has significantly increased – providing thousands of pages of translated documents of Arab, Iranian, Urdu, Pashtu, Hindi, Dari, and Turkish print media, terrorist websites, school books, and tens of thousands of hours of translated footage from Arab and Iranian television.

This video takes you from the halls of government to the briefing rooms of the U.S. military to the frontlines of counter-terrorism efforts, and demonstrates just how MEMRI has become – A Vital Component in the U.S. War on Terror.

Members of MEMRI’s Board of Advisors and Directors are bi-partisan and have honorably served Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Read more…

They even operate their own TV Network …. The Palestinian Authority often broadcasts clips on their own TV Network in their attempt to justify the occupation and ethnic cleansing policies of their zionist brothers. 

Regarding a recent video clip, British zionists are campaigning with it in an attempt to discourage a YES Vote in Parliament as to whether or not  recognise a Palestinian State.

In the clip, which was recently posted to the internet, Palestinian Sheik Omar Abu Sara in a sermon given in the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem asks the following of those Arab countries currently helping NATO to attack Islamic State:

“Whom are they fighting? Are they fighting the Jews? The Russians? The Hindus? They are fighting our brothers. These planes are bombing our brothers. Is the Al-Aqsa Mosque too far for them? Is Jerusalem too far for them? Are the Jews too far for them?”

It is sentiments like these that persist not just throughout Hamas but throughout the more respected Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas.

Here is a clip that was broadcast on Palestinian Authority television in which the PA Mufti of Jerusalem Muhammad Hussein urges his followers to kill Jews.

Could we expect a combination of the CIA and Mossad to portray the honest aspirations of the Palestinian people?

Hope you noticed that none of those passing by stopped to listen to this guy.

 

A TERRORIST SPEAKS OF ISIS AND HAMAS IN ONE BREATH

3153962_370

*

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

*

Netanyahu’s Convenient Lies About ISIS and Hamas

By Nathan Brown

*

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

RISING ABOVE PAMELA GELLER

Condemned by such noted liberals as the ADL, Dinesh D’Souza, and the Daily News, banned by the Great Neck Synagogue (but embraced by Chabad), Geller is the anti-Muslim wacko who takes ads on buses and subways to remind us all that followers of Islam are “savages” and that there’s no such thing as a moderate Muslim. (Someone better inform Dr. Oz.)
*

We Are All Pamela Geller

Let’s Figure Out How We Rise Above Her

By Jay Michaelson

*

Hate: One of Geller’s ads posted in the New York subway system.

GETTY IMAGES
Hate: One of Geller’s ads posted in the New York subway system.
*

Well, now we know what it takes to stop Pamela Geller’s crusade against terrorism: an actual victim of it.

Condemned by such noted liberals as the ADL, Dinesh D’Souza, and the Daily News, banned by the Great Neck Synagogue (but embraced by Chabad), Geller is the anti-Muslim wacko who takes ads on buses and subways to remind us all that followers of Islam are “savages” and that there’s no such thing as a moderate Muslim. (Someone better inform Dr. Oz.)

Until yesterday, Geller was planning another assault on the citizens of New York, in the form of hateful bus and subway ads. But at the 11th hour, reason intervened, in the form of the family of James Foley, one of the Islamic State’s victims, who asked that Geller pull the ads.

The Foley family succeeded where an array of activists and municipalities have failed. Say what you will about Geller’s politics, her legal counsel is excellent. Her organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative — and its project, Stop the Islamicization of America — has won court victories that make it very difficult for the MTA, or its sister agencies in Boston, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., to stop her. “Our hands are tied,” an MTA representative told the Daily News.

This is, after all, political speech, carefully lawyered to evade prosecution. And let’s remember that Geller has only committed to withdrawing those picturing Foley, which still leaves plenty of hate to be written on the subway walls.

Prior to the Foleys’ success, tactics have varied widely — with similarly varying results.

The best the MTA has been able to win is a disclaimer that SOIA’s views are not those of the MTA. Mayor Bill DiBlasio has proposed contemplation: Those “forced to view [the ads] can take comfort in the knowledge that we share a better, loftier and nobier view of humanity.” Alright.

San Francisco’s Muni system did better, posting their own ads a few feet from Geller’s setting forth Muni’s anti-discrimination policy and explicitly condemning Geller’s statements. Better.

Moderate Muslim organizations have started their own counter-protests: the #MyJihad campaign (which Geller has co-opted) and humor-based campaigns such as “Fighting Bigotry With Hilarious Posters,” which warns us that “the Muslims are coming — to your radiology department.” Nice.

And enterprising activists have made an art form out of directly “modifying” Geller’s posters, sometimes just with black spray paint but other times with pictures of Geller herself and witty speech-bubbles like “I’m obsessed and must struggle to stop.” I won’t name acronyms, but some left-leaning Jewish organizations have gotten in on the act too.

Here, however, I’d like to take a different tack.

Geller’s ads may have been pulled, but her presence is still felt keenly in our community, and I think it’s too easy to focus on Geller as a racist clown, thus giving all the rest of us a free pass. Geller is like a pro-Israel Barry Goldwater: in our hearts, many in our community believe her to be right.

So, rather than Di-Blasian self-satisfaction, I’d like to invite the exact opposite: self-questioning. It’s highly appropriate for this season of repentance, and it is a lot more productive. We should be asking ourselves: What views do I hold that enable, or resemble, such extremism? If I’m on the Left, do I call out my friends when their anti-Zionism slides into anti-Semitism? And if I’m on the Right, do I hold myself and my friends accountable for views which border on bigotry?

Let me give some examples, direct from Geller herself.

One of Geller’s new ads states that “Hamas is ISIS, Hamas is Al-Qaeda, Hamas is Boko Haram, Hamas is CAIR in America.” Factually, this is quite false. In fact, while Hamas has nominally supported ISIS in Syria — thus damaging ties with its historic sponsor, Iran — the Islamic State is a Salafist jihadist/fundamentalist movement that regards Hamas as impure and the Israel/Palestinian conflict as largely irrelevant. In fact, Hamas’s best friend today is Qatar, which is in the coalition opposing the Islamic State. Unsurprisingly, Geller is just ignorant here.

But to vilify CAIR in this way is defamatory, like saying that AIPAC is Baruch Goldstein. Do some CAIR members support Hamas? Probably. Did some AIPAC members support Goldstein? Probably. Does that make them identical? No.

Now I want to turn the question inward. Have I learned enough about the differences among Muslim groups, or do I reduce them all to the “Them” in an Us/Them dichotomy? Do I recognize that all religious and national groups have their moderates and extremists? That Paul Ryan isn’t Bill O’Reilly isn’t Pamela Geller — even if they’ve all intersected at times?

And do I appreciate the consequences for American civil society if I were really to believe, as another Geller ad insists, that “yesterday’s moderate is today’s headline”? Is everyone who has an expansive view of the Second Amendment the same as mass shooters in Colorado and Connecticut? Is every conservative in the KKK? Do we see what this kind of thinking would mean?

Let’s take a second example. “Jew-hatred: It’s in the Quran,” an AFDI poster blares. And indeed, the Quran has many violent passages, including some about Jews — most notoriously 5:60, which says that “some” Jews have been transformed into “monkeys and pigs.” It is definitely triumphalist in nature. (See, e.g. 4:101, 66:9, 28:66.)

But have you read the Quran, cover to cover? Including verses like 2:256 (“Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error”), or the many similar exhortations in 6:107, 11:28, 42:8, 65:26, and elsewhere? Or, for that matter, 2:47, which exhorts “Children of Israel! Call to mind the favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other nations”?

To be sure, ISIS’s barbarian shave not lived up to these nobler teachings. Nor did the Crusaders, of course, live up to theirs.

And have you read the Bible, cover to cover? Including Deuteronomy 7:2-3, which calls for the complete ethnic cleansing of the Land of Israel, along with similar exhortations in Numbers 31:7-18, Joshua 11:12-15, and elsewhere? And is not Judaism likewise triumphalist, sure that it is the one true religion?

All Western religions have teachings of peace and teachings of violence within them. All have followers who emphasize one or the other. All can be triumphalist, violent, and ethnocentric — or the opposite. In some times and places, the fundamentalists hold sway; in others, the moderates. This is reality.

Perhaps you’ve noticed the irony here. In condemning all Muslims as savage and violent, Geller is herself becoming like those Muslims who are. She is a fundamentalist like they are fundamentalists; she is irrational like they are irrational.

And another irony: So are we, if we simply assume that Geller is over there, and I’m over here. Moderate/Extremist is just another Us/Them dichotomy — one that gives me a pass just as Geller’s Us/Them dichotomy gives her.

Actually, we are all Pamela Geller to some extent: She is simply the manifestation of the fearful, irrational, and hateful parts of each of us. There’s a Geller inside me and a Geller inside you. I can listen to that part of myself and “know she’s right.” Or I can listen to it, reflect on it, and explore whether that’s the voice I want to obey.

Indeed, what finally defeated Geller — in this particular battle at least — was nothing more and nothing less than basic human decency. A grieving family with every reason to support her vitriolic rhetoric has instead asked her to back off. They have risen above vengeance to something better.

It is all too human to support Pamela Geller, and all too human to simply blow her off. But as the Foley family has shown, it is also possible to rise above her.
The views expressed in these two articles are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

*
RELATED
*

No, Pamela Geller, the Qur’an Is Not Anti-Semitic

By Reuven Firestone

*

Pamela Geller, left; Qur’an, right / Getty Images

*

Soon you will see ads, courtesy of Pamela Geller, in the New York City subway system that state, “Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s in the Qur’an.”

Is she right?

It’s easy to understand why many Jews might think so. Anti-Semitism has become a frightening force in much of the Muslim world, and a recent Anti-Defamation League study has shown that anti-Semitism is more common in Muslim majority countries than in any other region identified by religion, culture or geography. Muslims need to address this problem for many reasons, not least of which is that anti-Semitism reflects deep ignorance and a willingness to be manipulated by simplistic propaganda that is harmful to Muslims as well as Jews.

But anti-Semitism is not found in the Qur’an.

This may be difficult to fathom given the recent heated public discussion. Some people cite what appear to be obviously angry and seemingly hateful negative references to Jews in the Qur’an. Others argue that these verses are taken out of context. They cite counter-verses from the same Qur’an that appear to respect Jews and even refer to Jews using the same positive language reserved for followers of Muhammad.

So what’s the real story? As usual, the issue is not so simple, and many on both sides of the debate do us all a disservice with their hyperbole and naïve arguments.

Yes, the Qur’an contains verses that refer negatively to Jews. In order to understand these verses, we must read them both in relation to the fullness of the scripture in which they are located (synchronically), and also in relation to how other scriptures treat non-believers (diachronically).

Let’s start with the synchronic reading. Negative references to Jews in the Qur’an occur in relation to negative references to other communities, all of which opposed the emergence of the new Arabian prophet and his revelation. The Jewish communities of Arabia, like the Christian, Zoroastrian and native polytheist communities, did not accept the prophetic status of Muhammad. A few individual Jews and Christians joined his movement, but when they did they voted themselves out of their native religious communities.

This is a natural occurrence. No established religion is willing to discard the canon of its own scripture in order to accept a new prophet with a new revelation. Islam fits into this pattern as well, since it refuses to accept the prophetic status of new divine messengers who emerged out of its own tradition, such as the prophets of the Baha’i faith or the Ahmadiyya.

The Jews of Arabia were greatly respected and influential in Arabia during Muhammad’s lifetime. Because of their status, their refusal as a community to acknowledge his prophethood was a major impediment to the new movement and was condemned by the Qur’an as obstinacy, and hard-headedness. The Qur’an criticizes local Jews, for example, when it states, “Many of the People of the Book would like to turn you back to unbelievers after your having believed, because of envy on their part after the truth has become clear to them” (Q.2:109).

Established religions are never welcoming to new religions, and the disappointment, resentment and anger of newly emerging religions toward established religions that refuse to embrace them is found in all monotheistic scriptures. Many are familiar with the negative references to Jews in parts of the New Testament such as Matthew 23 and John 8. As in the Qur’an, these texts reflect the shock and resentment of those believing in a new redemptive and charismatic leader. They simply could not understand why members of established religions would refuse to join their program.

Negative references to Jews in both scriptures reflect reactive anger and zealous resentment. They do not represent a program to vilify, demonize or scapegoat Jews.

Jews are naturally sensitive to negative references to Jews in other scriptures, but are usually unaware of the same phenomenon of othering in their own scripture. The Hebrew Bible is full of reactive anger and zealous resentment toward competing religious communities. Canaanites, Egyptians and other members of established religious peoples are depicted repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible as spiteful, wicked and mortal enemies of ancient Israel. But most of those portrayed as evil opponents were simply members of established religions who felt threatened by Israelite successes in conquest and expansion. Like the Jews and Christians of Arabia, they opposed the emergence of a new, competitive religious community. The Israelite claims to being God’s chosen people with an exclusive relationship with the one God of the universe (who happened to be called the God of Israel!) could only have added to the tension.

These are all cases of the natural tension that occurs with the birth of new religions. Established religions resent and oppose them — just think of “cults” as new religions in order to understand the mindset. Like the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, the Qur’an includes material that reflects this frustration. It does not express anti-Semitism, Jew-hatred or racism.

Anti-Semitism is caused by different forces, which scapegoat Jews by manipulating people through deceitful deflection of criticism onto Jews. Those who engage in the deception use anything they can to further their aims, including scripture. Negative scriptural references to non-believers exist in all scriptures, and they are sometimes cited and manipulated by hateful people to encourage violence and even slaughter of the religious other. But it’s important for Jews to understand that anti-Semitism is no more basic to Islam than hatred of all non-Jews is basic to Judaism, an old anti-Semitic screed that was often claimed by citing scriptural citations from the Hebrew Bible.

Many writings single out and disparage particular communities, and any kind of “othering” is problematic. We need to be able to distinguish between normal even if problematic cases, and those that are truly hateful and absolutely unacceptable cases of racism, anti-Semitism or Islamophobia. Reacting to every negative reference to Jews as anti-Semitic is unwise, simplistic and dangerous. Don’t be fooled by frightened people into the naïve and simplistic conclusion that any negative reference to Jews is anti-Semitism.

Rabbi Reuven Firestone is Professor of medieval Judaism and Islam at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles and Senior Fellow of the Center for Religion and Civic Culture at the University of Southern California. He is author of Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam and is President Elect of the International Qur’anic Studies Association.

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

DEBUNKING 5 ISRAELI POINTS JUSTIFYING GENOCIDE

903258-256-kb5b608fd

*

Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.

*

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza—Debunked

Smoke from an Israeli strike rises over the Gaza Strip. (AP, Hatem Moussa)

*

Israel has killed almost 800 Palestinians in the past twenty-one days in the Gaza Strip alone; its onslaught continues. The UN estimates that more than 74 percent of those killed are civilians. That is to be expected in a population of 1.8 million where the number of Hamas members is approximately 15,000. Israel does not deny that it killed those Palestinians using modern aerial technology and precise weaponry courtesy of the world’s only superpower. In fact, it does not even deny that they are civilians.

Israel’s propaganda machine, however, insists that these Palestinians wanted to die (“culture of martyrdom”), staged their own death (“telegenically dead”) or were the tragic victims of Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes (“human shielding”). In all instances, the military power is blaming the victims for their own deaths, accusing them of devaluing life and attributing this disregard to cultural bankruptcy. In effect, Israel—along with uncritical mainstream media that unquestionably accept this discourse—dehumanizes Palestinians, deprives them even of their victimhood and legitimizes egregious human rights and legal violations.

This is not the first time. The gruesome images of decapitated children’s bodies and stolen innocence on Gaza’s shores are a dreadful repeat of Israel’s assault on Gaza in November 2012 and winter 2008–09. Not only are the military tactics the same but so too are the public relations efforts and the faulty legal arguments that underpin the attacks. Mainstream media news anchors are inexplicably accepting these arguments as fact.

Below I address five of Israel’s recurring talking points. I hope this proves useful to newsmakers.

1) Israel is exercising its right to self-defense.

As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.

The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.

2) Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.

Israel argues that its occupation of the Gaza Strip ended with the unilateral withdrawal of its settler population in 2005. It then declared the Gaza Strip to be “hostile territory” and declared war against its population. Neither the argument nor the statement is tenable. Despite removing 8,000 settlers and the military infrastructure that protected their illegal presence, Israel maintained effective control of the Gaza Strip and thus remains the occupying power as defined by Article 47 of the Hague Regulations. To date, Israel maintains control of the territory’s air space, territorial waters, electromagnetic sphere, population registry and the movement of all goods and people.

Israel argues that the withdrawal from Gaza demonstrates that ending the occupation will not bring peace. Some have gone so far as to say that Palestinians squandered their opportunity to build heaven in order to build a terrorist haven instead. These arguments aim to obfuscate Israel’s responsibilities in the Gaza Strip, as well as the West Bank. As Prime Minister Netanyahu once explained, Israel must ensure that it does not “get another Gaza in Judea and Samaria…. I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

Palestinians have yet to experience a day of self-governance. Israel immediately imposed a siege upon the Gaza Strip when Hamas won parliamentary elections in January 2006 and tightened it severely when Hamas routed Fatah in June 2007. The siege has created a “humanitarian catastrophe” in the Gaza Strip. Inhabitants will not be able to access clean water, electricity or tend to even the most urgent medical needs. The World Health Organization explains that the Gaza Strip will be unlivable by 2020. Not only did Israel not end its occupation, it has created a situation in which Palestinians cannot survive in the long-term.

3) This Israeli operation, among others, was caused by rocket fire from Gaza.

Israel claims that its current and past wars against the Palestinian population in Gaza have been in response to rocket fire. Empirical evidence from 2008, 2012 and 2014 refute that claim. First, according to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the greatest reduction of rocket fire came through diplomatic rather than military means. This chart demonstrates the correlation between Israel’s military attacks upon the Gaza Strip and Hamas militant activity. Hamas rocket fire increases in response to Israeli military attacks and decreases in direct correlation to them. Cease-fires have brought the greatest security to the region.

During the four months of the Egyptian-negotiated cease-fire in 2008, Palestinian militants reduced the number of rockets to zero or single digits from the Gaza Strip. Despite this relative security and calm, Israel broke the cease-fire to begin the notorious aerial and ground offensive that killed 1,400 Palestinians in twenty-two days. In November 2012, Israel’s extrajudicial assassination of Ahmad Jabari, the chief of Hamas’s military wing in Gaza, while he was reviewing terms for a diplomatic solution, again broke the cease-fire that precipitated the eight-day aerial offensive that killed 132 Palestinians.

Immediately preceding Israel’s most recent operation, Hamas rocket and mortar attacks did not threaten Israel. Israel deliberately provoked this war with Hamas. Without producing a shred of evidence, it accused the political faction of kidnapping and murdering three settlers near Hebron. Four weeks and almost 700 lives later, Israel has yet to produce any evidence demonstrating Hamas’s involvement. During ten days of Operation Brother’s Keeper in the West Bank, Israel arrested approximately 800 Palestinians without charge or trial, killed nine civilians and raided nearly 1,300 residential, commercial and public buildings. Its military operation targeted Hamas members released during the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange in 2011. It’s these Israeli provocations that precipitated the Hamas rocket fire to which Israel claims left it with no choice but a gruesome military operation.

4) Israel avoids civilian casualties, but Hamas aims to kill civilians.

Hamas has crude weapons technology that lacks any targeting capability. As such, Hamas rocket attacks ipso facto violate the principle of distinction because all of its attacks are indiscriminate. This is not contested. Israel, however, would not be any more tolerant of Hamas if it strictly targeted military objects, as we have witnessed of late. Israel considers Hamas and any form of its resistance, armed or otherwise, to be illegitimate.

In contrast, Israel has the eleventh most powerful military in the world, certainly the strongest by far in the Middle East, and is a nuclear power that has not ratified the non-proliferation agreement and has precise weapons technology. With the use of drones, F-16s and an arsenal of modern weapon technology, Israel has the ability to target single individuals and therefore to avoid civilian casualties. But rather than avoid them, Israel has repeatedly targeted civilians as part of its military operations.

The Dahiya Doctrine is central to these operations and refers to Israel’s indiscriminate attacks on Lebanon in 2006. Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot said that this would be applied elsewhere:

What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. […] We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases.

Israel has kept true to this promise. The 2009 UN Fact-Finding Mission to the Gaza Conflict, better known as the Goldstone Mission, concluded “from a review of the facts on the ground that it witnessed for itself that what was prescribed as the best strategy [Dahiya Doctrine] appears to have been precisely what was put into practice.”

According to the National Lawyers Guild, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, Israel directly targeted civilians or recklessly caused civilian deaths during Operation Cast Lead. Far from avoiding the deaths of civilians, Israel effectively considers them legitimate targets.

5) Hamas hides its weapons in homes, mosques and schools and uses human shields.

This is arguably one of Israel’s most insidious claims, because it blames Palestinians for their own death and deprives them of even their victimhood. Israel made the same argument in its war against Lebanon in 2006 and in its war against Palestinians in 2008. Notwithstanding its militarycartoon sketches, Israel has yet to prove that Hamas has used civilian infrastructure to storemilitary weapons. The two cases where Hamas indeed stored weapons in UNRWA schools, the schools were empty. UNRWA discovered the rockets and publicly condemned the violation of its sanctity.

International human rights organizations that have investigated these claims have determined that they are not true. It attributed the high death toll in Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon to Israel’s indiscriminate attacks. Human Rights Watch notes:

The evidence Human Rights Watch uncovered in its on-the-ground investigations refutes [Israel’s] argument…we found strong evidence that Hezbollah stored most of its rockets in bunkers and weapon storage facilities located in uninhabited fields and valleys, that in the vast majority of cases Hezbollah fighters left populated civilian areas as soon as the fighting started, and that Hezbollah fired the vast majority of its rockets from pre-prepared positions outside villages.

In fact, only Israeli soldiers have systematically used Palestinians as human shields. Since Israel’s incursion into the West Bank in 2002, it has used Palestinians as human shields by tying young Palestinians onto the hoods of their cars or forcing them to go into a home where a potential militant may be hiding.

Even assuming that Israel’s claims were plausible, humanitarian law obligates Israel to avoid civilian casualties that “would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” A belligerent force must verify whether civilian or civilian infrastructure qualifies as a military objective. In the case of doubt, “whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.”

In the over thee weeks of its military operation, Israel has demolished 3,175 homes, at least a dozen with families inside; destroyed five hospitals and six clinics; partially damaged sixty-four mosques and two churches; partially to completely destroyed eight government ministries; injured 4,620; and killed over 700 Palestinians. At plain sight, these numbers indicate Israel’s egregious violations of humanitarian law, ones that amount to war crimes.

Beyond the body count and reference to law, which is a product of power, the question to ask is, What is Israel’s end goal? What if Hamas and Islamic Jihad dug tunnels beneath the entirety of the Gaza Strip—they clearly did not, but let us assume they did for the sake of argument. According to Israel’s logic, all of Gaza’s 1.8 million Palestinians are therefore human shields for being born Palestinian in Gaza. The solution is to destroy the 360-kilometer square strip of land and to expect a watching world to accept this catastrophic loss as incidental. This is possible only by framing and accepting the dehumanization of Palestinian life. Despite the absurdity of this proposal, it is precisely what Israeli society is urging its military leadership to do. Israel cannot bomb Palestinians into submission, and it certainly cannot bomb them into peace.

ZIO BEX ALERT ~~~ MORE LIES TO JUSTIFY SLAUGHTER

download

*

zios claim this was from Gaza …. ‘Hamas using children as human shields’ …

*

Look where it’s really from …

*

link6

 

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,196 other followers