Saturday, 22 May 2010

Iran Threatens to Pull out of Nuclear Deal over new UN Sanctions

Posted on May 21, 2010 by Juan

Iranian member of parliament Mohammad Reza Bahonar warned Thursday that “If (the West) issues a new resolution against Iran, we will not be committed to Tehran’s statement and dispatching fuel outside Iran will be canceled.”

Turkey and Brazil, with full backing from Washington DC and in close cooperation with the Obama administration, had apparently succeeded by Monday morning in negotiating a deal whereby Iran would send over half of its low enriched uranium to Turkey, which would then send it on to (presumably) France and Russia for enrichment to 19.75 percent for use in Iran’s medical reactor for the production of medical isotopes. The deal was nearly identical to the one sought last October in Geneva by the Obama administration. Iran had agreed to something like this arrangement, but then reneged.

In the meantime, the Obama administration determined to seek a further round of United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran. Even as Brazil and Turkey were working overtime to get an agreement from Tehran, Washington had finally persuaded Russia and China to accept a new round of relatively weak sanctions. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton more or less rejected the Turkey-Brazil deal as soon as it was announced, in favor of increased sanctions.

Veteran Iran observer Gary Sick predicted this course, calling it “moving the goalposts”– an email observation. Yesterday Roger Cohen wrote an op-ed for NYT to the same effect. Obama would no longer take ‘yes’ for an answer.

One sticking point was that Iran did not offer, in the deal struck with Turkey and Brazil, to cease enriching uranium. But this goal is the primary one of the Obama administration and Gareth Porter argues that even last October’s negotiations were viewed in Washington as a step toward ending the enrichment program. (The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty gives Iran the right to enrich for peaceful nuclear reactors to generate electricity, but the US and the Security Council have attempted to amend the NPT ex post facto).
Brazil’s foreign minister said, according to the USG Open Source Center translation of an article in the Portuguese Agencia Brasil for Thursday, May 20, 2010:
‘According to the minister of foreign affairs, who spoke with reporters at Itamaraty in Brasilia today, no one will be able to ignore the agreement signed in Tehran. “. . . I feel that ignoring that agreement would reflect an attitude of disdain for a peaceful solution. I don’t believe it is possible to do that.”
Amorim said that before traveling to Tehran with Lula, he had already learned that permanent members of the UN Security Council were drafting a resolution proposing new sanctions against Iran but that they would await the results of Lula’s trip. According to Amorim, there has not yet been time to analyze the document. “If you have a result and the next day someone presents a resolution proposing sanctions, the wait was in fact purely formal.”
The minister said the announcement that Iran would continue its uranium enrichment program even after the agreement was signed with Brazil and Turkey was a matter to be dealt with in a second phase.
“We were not intending to solve all the problems at once. That requires a conversation not with Brazil but with the permanent members of the UN Security Council, and I am optimistic about its results. We put the ball in the goal area, but the goal will have to be scored by the permanent members of the council and the representatives of the IAEA.”
Amorim emphasized that continuing the uranium enrichment program was not part of the negotiations leading to the agreement signed yesterday. “I am trusting in people’s common sense and feel that we have helped give a peaceful negotiation a chance. It was not we who invented the agreement. It had already been proposed by the UN Security Council and the IAEA.”
Amorim is likely to be disappointed by all sides, and in my view the reason lies in part in domestic US politics.

There are four domestic political forces affecting Iran policy. The War Hawks, including the more hard line of the Israel lobbies, would like to see the US back on the war footing with Iran characteristic of the late Bush administration. The pragmatic hawks such as US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, aware of how ruinous entering a third war would be for the US at this point, would at least like to see the imposition of robust sanctions. The Realists, exemplified by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, would like to see engagement and negotiation with the regime in Tehran, even at the cost of ignoring the Islamic Republic’s crackdown on the Green Movement and massive human rights violations. The Democratic left and the National Iranian American Council (the most effective Iranian-American lobby) would like to see a rapprochement with Iran, but urge continued pressure by the West on the regime to open up and to cease its authoritarian measures.

The Obama administration came into office talking like the Realists, and the Realists, most Iranian-Americans and the left wing of the Democratic Party would have liked to see him take the Brazil-Turkey deal. But through congressional pressure and that of the Israel lobbies, the pro-sanctions faction has come out on top. Adopting the position of the pragmatic hawks and seeking tighter sanctions has the advantage that it blunts the arguments of the War Hawks. It is a better platform for Democrats to run on in the November midterms than open, direct negotiations with Iran. Ironically, Obama has allowed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and SecDef Gates to continue to build up Iran as a supposedly major security challenge to the US, making it harder for him to follow through on his original plan of direct negotiations with Tehran. (How unlikely a candidate Iran is to play major foe of the United States is clear if you look, as Stephen Walt has, at the basic economic and military realities; Iran is poor and weak.

Unhelpful linkage with other Middle East policy may be in play, as well. The slight increase of sanctions may be intended to mollify Israel and forestall a disastrous military strike by that country on the Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz near Isfahan. Promising stricter sanctions may also be important to the US negotiations with the Likud-led government of Israel over a two-state solution with the Palestinians. That is, horsetrading over Israel-Palestinian issues may be driving Iran policy in the White House.

Those pragmatic hawks eager for stronger sanctions seem to envisage restrictions on Iran’s finance sector in its interfacing with the rest of the world.

Likewise, they wish to forestall further Russian arms deals with Tehran. Vedomosti Online reported on Thursday, May 20, 2010 (according to the translation of the USG Open Source Center):
‘Konstantin Makiyenko, expert of the Center for Analysis of Strategy and Technology, says that the adoption of this resolution would terminate the military-technical cooperation of Russia and Iran, except, probably, merely for deliveries of transport helicopters, and would directly affect deliveries to Iran of S-300 missile systems. . . The first contract for the delivery of Tor M-1 air-defense missile systems was signed in 2006, and for deliveries of the S-300, in 2007, but the contract has still not been executed. Russia is citing technical problems.’
In contrast, Aleksey Arbatov of the Russian Academy of Sciences World Economy and International Relations Institute said, “The delivery of the S-300 never was planned since it would have provoked an Israeli military attack on Iran, now Israel is taking a time-out to asses the effectiveness of the new sanctions, and in the event of noncompliance with them, could strike in the fall or spring. . .” He added that Iran’s lack of the S-300 minimizes the number of casualties on the attacking side . . .”

Nevertheless, Arbatov thinks the West is flailing around on the sanctions issue and is unlikely to be effective: “The sanctions are being imposed as a conscience salve, they will have no effect, like the previous ones . . .’
Obama mysteriously has ceased leading on the Iran issue and is instead showing himself willing to be led. Thus have the pragmatic hawks (with the war hawks waiting in the wings) defeated the Realists and the liberal internationalists. Obama stabbed Turkey and Brazil in the back after asking them to risk their face for him. Obama is giving Iran the impression that he is indecisive. All of this backtracking for the sake of a sanctions regime that is highly unlikely actually to change Iran’s behavior, contrary to the express hopes of Secretary Gates. Obama’s current Iran policy cannot be explained in the terms of US-Iranian relations. It must be driven by something else. The Israel lobbies and dealings with the Netanyahu government are the likeliest candidates in explaining the abandonment of a Realist approach.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

'Walking in the path of fascism'

Israel's denial of entry to Noam Chomsky is but the latest in a long list of attempts to silence critics of Zionist oppression and violence, writes Khaled Amayreh

Click to view caption
Noam Chomsky

Fearing that he would further expose Israel's anti-peace stance and its oppression of the Palestinian people, the Israeli government this week barred Noam Chomsky from entering Israel-Palestine.

Chomsky, a world-renowned intellectual and linguist, was detained briefly at the Palestinian side of the Allenby Bridge on Sunday 16 May. There he was told by Israeli authorities that the Israeli government didn't like his writings and that he was viewed as persona non grata.

Chomsky, 81, had been scheduled to lecture at the Birzeit University in the West Bank. Following his deportation, the non-conformist American Jewish intellectual told reporters that he concluded from the questions of the Israeli official at the border terminal that the fact that he came to lecture at a Palestinian and not an Israeli university led to the decision to deny him entry.

"I find it hard to think of a similar case in which entry to a person is denied because he is not lecturing in Tel Aviv. Perhaps only in the Stalinist regime."

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor of linguistics and philosophy is a well-known critic of the Israeli occupation of Arab lands. On many occasions, Chomsky compared Israeli policies and practices in the West Bank with those of the defunct white minority apartheid regime in South Africa.

Chomsky also castigated the genocidal Israeli onslaught on Gaza last year along with the ongoing blockade of the coastal enclave's 1.7 million people initiated by Israel more than three years ago for the purpose of pushing Gazans to rise up against Hamas. Hamas won a landslide victory in the 2006 general elections, which infuriated Israel and its guardian-ally, the United States, prompting them to impose draconian sanctions on Gaza.

"The young man [the Israeli border official] asked me whether I had ever been denied entry into other countries. I told him once, to Czechoslovakia, after the Soviet invasion in 1968," Chomsky said, adding that he had gone to visit ousted Czechoslovak leader Alexander Dubcek, whose reforms the Soviets crushed.

According to Haaretz newspaper, Chomsky, who was accompanied by his daughter and several other friends, was questioned on the nature of his lectures, whether he was going to criticise Israeli policies and whether he had spoken with Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah. He was further asked why he didn't have an Israeli passport since he was Jewish. He reportedly answered, "I am an American citizen".

Chomsky supports the two-state solution but he rejects the Israeli concept of the two-state solution strategy: namely, ceding the Palestinians some isolated cantons cut off from each other and that could never be a "viable and territorially contiguous state".

In recent years, especially with the rise to power in Israel of religious and rightwing anti- democratic parties, the Israeli political establishment became more sensitive to criticisms of Israeli policies abroad, especially from such Jewish intellectuals such as Chomsky.

In 2008, Israel refused entry to Richard Falk, an American Jewish academic, for comparing the Israeli occupation with Nazi crimes against Jews. In 2007, Falk, a Princeton University professor of international law, was quoted as saying that Israel's blockade on the Gaza Strip was "a Holocaust in the making". Falk was later appointed UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Israel defended its decision to deport Falk, arguing that he indulged in "shameful comparisons to the Holocaust".

Similarly, nearly, two years ago, Israeli security services deported Norman Finkelstein, another American Jewish intellectual and critic of the Israeli occupation. The Shin Bet, Israel's domestic security agency, said that Finkelstein was not permitted to enter Israel because of suspicious involvement with hostile elements in Lebanon, and because "he didn't give a full account to interrogators with regards to these suspicions".

Finkelstein remarked on that episode, saying: "I am confident that I have nothing to hide. Apart from my political views, and the supporting scholarship, there isn't much more to say for myself -- no suicide missions or secret rendezvous with terrorist organisations."

Finkelstein, 57, had accused Israel of exploiting the holocaust for political ends and in order to justify its crimes against the Palestinian people. In 2000, Finkelstein wrote The Holocaust Industry on the exploitation of Jewish suffering.

Mounting international criticism of the repressive Israeli treatment of Palestinians, as well as the extensive havoc and destruction wreaked on civilians in the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon, generated strong reactions by intellectuals and human rights activists around the world. Such criticisms seemed to push the political class in Israel towards stonewalling with the Israeli government resorting to deportation as a method to silence vocal critics of Israeli practices.

In 2008, Israel refused Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu entry while on a UN fact-finding mission in the Gaza Strip. Israel apparently feared that Tutu would file a damning report, indicting Israel for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, as did Judge Richard Goldstone a year and a half later, following the Israeli blitzkrieg against Gaza that killed and maimed thousands of Palestinian civilians and inflicted widespread destruction.

Subsequently, Israel and its supporters repeatedly accused Goldstone of being biased against, and hostile to, Israel. Some "Israel-Firsters", especially in North America, have gone as far as calling Goldstone an "anti- Semite" and "self-hating Jew".

The abovementioned intellectuals are mere examples of how Israel, which claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East, is drifting towards Jewish fascism. On 18 May, one Israeli journalist wrote, commenting on the deportation of Chomsky: "Denying Noam Chomsky entry to Israel puts an end to the myth that Israel is a democracy. It is a state where the police arrest demonstrators protesting the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and expel a pregnant non-Jewish woman so that she won't give birth to her child in Israel. I will not argue whether Israel is fascist or not. But in reality, Israel is walking in the path of fascism."


International condemnation for barring Chomsky from entering WB

Reporters Without Borders organization has expressed astonishment at the Israeli authorities step of barring entry of renowned Jewish-American scholar Noam Chomsky into the West Bank last Sunday.

US wants regime-change within Hizbullah

Rehmat's World

May 22, 2010 ·

Humilation Never

Barack Obama’s Homeland Security advisor and former senior CIA official under Dubya Bush, John Brennan, wrote  in July 2008, in the ANNALS magazine of the ‘American Academy of Political and Social Science’ that “Washington should soften its rhetoric toward Iran without relenting on its demands for Iran to cut ties with terrorists” (Hamas and Hizbullah).

On May 18, John Brennan told a Washington think tank that Hizbullah a very interesting organization, has improved from “purely a terrorist organization” to an entity that now counts members in Lebanese parliament and even cabinet posts.

However, Brennan likes Washington to bring a regime change within the organization as it did within the Palestinian Authority (PA) by projecting pro-USrael corrupt Mahmoud Abbas over duly elected Hamas government. “What we need to do is to find ways to diminsh their (Sheikh Nasrallah and clerics) influence within the organization and try to build up the more moderate elements,” he said.

Reacting to Brennan’s comments published in Jerusalem Post, Major-General Yaakov Amidror, former commander of Israel’s National Defense College, told CBN: “I think it’s a joke…..I don’t believe there is anyone in the (US) administration who is naïve enough to believe there are moderate elements within Hezbollah that might act against Iran……. I don’t believe this naïveté exists in Washington, I think that this is something that Jerusalem Post has to go and to find where a mistake was made, maybe in the translation to what is going on in Washington to the front page of Jerusalem Post because if the Jerusalem Post is right something wrong has happened in Washington…”

To some political analyst, Brennan’s statement is Obama administration’s admission that Hizbullah cannot be defeated by the Zionist entity on the battle-field, but must be destroyed from within.

And once the US succeed in replacing the religious leadership with secularist leadership like Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who in his autobiography wrote: “In regard to Israel, I have always been moderate, who wishes for the freedom of Palestinians but will not sacrifice too much Lebanese blood to obtain this freedom. My main objective is to remove Israel from its nine mile wide security zone in South Lebanon”. Hizb’Allah under such a puppet leadership would certainly be acceptable to ZOGs both in Washington and Tel Aviv.

John Brennan speaks fluent Arabic and recently got into trouble with the Jewish Lobby for calling Jerusalem by its Islamic name Al-Quds (watch video below).

The latest Israeli ‘smoking gun’ against Hizbullah was published in German daily Spiegel (May 17, 2010), which claimed that Hizbullah (like Mossad) has brought ‘sex’ into espionage: “Hizbolla is supposed to have infiltrated the elite unit with a faked Facebook profile. With the photo of a pretty young woman who logged in with an Israeli name, the Shiite military is supposed to have built up contact to elite soldiers and elicited secret information.  The facebook page of Reut Zuckerman, who is lying on a sofa beaming into the camera in her profile photo went online about a year ago. The people behind the site made contact with numerous Israeli army soldiers. MySay reports that about 200 soldiers and reservists were on Zuckerman’s friends list. Zuckerman concentrated particularly on an elite unite of paratroopers. Apparently many of the men suspected that the woman was herself an Israeli soldier in a special unit. The people behind the site worked slowly to gain the confidence of the soldiers and are reported to have gained key information regarding the activities of the unit in question……”

If that’s true – Well done Hizbullah.

Abdar Rahman Koya wrote: “From a rag-tag band of guerrillas in the 1980s, the Hizbullah have become a near-professional army capable of resisting the Israelis on several fronts for prolonged periods. But they are far more than simply a military force. They are also a popular political movement in Lebanon, capable of transcending the country’s fractured communal politics, and the main providers of education and welfare services to Lebanon’s poorest people. It is not only for their military strength that they are massively popular with Arab and Muslim peoples everywhere – and regarded with fear by Israel, the West and Arab governments alike.

Hizbullah is perhaps the most successful non-governmental social, political and military movement in the world today”.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Israel (and America) need better than Obama!

Via Friday-Lunch-Club

USNews&WR/ here

Click here to find out more!
"..... If the Obama administration wants to leave any kind of decent mark in history for its handling of the Middle East—pretty poor so far—it should do something right now that would clear the air and save Mitchell the four months he's allocated. It's simple. Just invite the Palestinians to do what the Israelis have done for decades, which is to declare in the language of their own people that both sides have genuine claims to this land (not really!), that both sides have the right to live in peace, and that a viable compromise is possible....
The Israelis are clearly prepared to live with a Palestinian state along their borders. The trouble is precisely that the Palestinians are not..... Decades of terrorism have left Israelis demoralized about the potential of negotiations.....
What will make it difficult for the Israelis to be forthcoming in the brokered negotiations with the Palestinians is the widespread concern that this administration, unlike others going back to the Truman years, lacks a basic commitment to Israel, or sympathy for it.... the Israelis no longer believe that the American commitment to Israel is rock-solid. They have witnessed the erosion of U.S. support for Israel at the United Nations and more recently at the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States has taken public positions on the settlement freeze and Jerusalem that enhanced the expectations of the Palestinians, who cannot be less pro-Palestinian than the White House and, therefore, cannot climb down from the positions taken by the U.S. administration.
... When the Israelis left Lebanon (UNDER DURESS!), Iran operated through its proxy, Hezbollah; when the Israelis left Gaza, Iran went in through Hamas, and all the U.N. and international guarantees failed to stop the attacks....Obama clearly wonders whether the current Israeli prime minister is serious about making peace......"
إقرار المناورة ومعاودة تنفيذها سنويّاً، يشيران إلى عجز عن حماية الجبهة الداخلية الإسرائيلية (أرشيف)
Posted by G, Z, or B at 8:20 PM
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Truth, Non-Violence and the Palestinian Hills


By Samah Sabawi

(Based on a presentation given at Melbourne University Australia on April 30, 2010. The event was sponsored by Students for Palestine. )

Where is the Palestinian Gandhi? I get this question at the end of almost every presentation I’ve given on Palestine. This fascination with finding a Palestinian Gandhi has been reflected time and again in newspapers commentary, and political discourse. Obama has promised in his Cairo speech [1] that should Palestinians renounce violence peace will find its way.

Singer Bono wished with all his heart for Palestinians to find their Gandhi or their King [2]. A slew of bleeding hearts said it, wrote it, preached it and insisted on it.

The search for the Palestinian Gandhi even manifested itself in well-intentioned projects that end up being incredibly patronizing and condescending to the Palestinians. Take the Gandhi Project [3] for example; an initiative by the Skoll foundation that aims to teach Palestinians non-violence by translating the movie Gandhi and projecting it in cities camps and villages throughout the West Bank. This project - as well meaning as it appears to be - reflects an almost insulting level of ignorance of the existing Palestinian culture of non-violence and the challenges Palestinians face when protesting non-violently against the brutal apartheid State.
For generations, Palestinians have adopted in their daily lives a culture of non-violent “Sumud”, an Arabic word that means to be "steadfast" and to "persevere”. Through Sumud, Palestinians have been able to protect their identity and to refuse not to exist. After all, since its inception, the Zionist project denied Palestinians their existence. Who can forget the false claim that Palestine was “a land without a people”?
Although Sumud was always part of the Palestinian story, it came to a full bloom as a distinct feature of Palestinian life during and in the aftermath of the six-day war in 1967. Having learned from their 1948 experience, more Palestinians were urged to show sumud and chose to be steadfast remaining on their land regardless of Israel’s war and occupation. Many believe that Palestinian steadfastness and Sumud and their refusal to leave in huge numbers during and after the 1967 war contributed to the reason why Israel wasn’t able to annex the West Bank and the Gaza strip as they had a very high Arab Palestinian population [4] which could have undermined the purity of the Jewish state.

Palestinians exhibit Sumud in their daily lives as they perform what would amount to normal everyday tasks in other places. Palestinian children resist succumbing to the will of their Occupiers non-violently as they make their daily journey to school despite the long waits at the checkpoints and the harassment by Israeli illegal settlers [5].

Palestinian men and women non-violently challenge their occupiers when they continue to go to work even if it means riding a donkey using back mud roads because they are denied access to the main streets in their villages as well as denied access to the Jewish only roads[6] which Israel has built illegally to connect the settlements. It is worth mentioning here that to build these Jewish only roads Israel has confiscated and carved up pieces of Palestinian land fragmenting and isolating hundreds of communities.

Palestinian families non-violently resist the imposed isolation by the occupiers when they insist on doing their family visits, even though what should be a 10 minute walk at times can take an entire afternoon of waiting for permits, submitting to body searches, waving IDs and waiting and waiting and waiting…. [7]

Even when Palestinians get married and have babies under occupation they are challenging their oppressors in a place where birth registration, family reunification, marriage certificates and building permits are controlled by a state that has one thing in mind – reducing the number of Arabs and paving the way for Jews to colonize their land.

But Palestinians still preserver not only as individuals or families but also as organized communities! Palestinian NGOs today play a big role in helping the people deal with these issues. Through the method known as Reverse Strike – a non-violent method of resistance that focuses on community building - Palestinian civil society has created alternatives for the people to help lessen their dependency on their oppressors. Palestinian civil society has also successfully built an infrastructure of resistance. Inside the Occupied Territories, non-violent resistance shines through as villages and various Communities take on direct action to protests Israel’s continued assault on their rights, their freedom and their dignity. The protests of the communities of Jayyous, Budrus, Bil’in, Ni’lin and Umm Salamonah have now become known as the white intifada. The organization of these protests reflects a healthy and determined Palestinian Civil Society.

Palestinian Civil Society initiated the calls for the BDS campaign and is also working closely with international organizations and individuals to support the Free Gaza campaign. Both campaigns aim at engaging international solidarity groups giving them an important role to play in the liberation struggle. This month, the latest BDS victory was Elvis Costello’s refusal to play in Israel. This happened while the Freedom Flotilla’s three cargo ships and five passenger ships set sail to Gaza. The ships are carrying 5,000 tons of construction materials, medical equipment, and school supplies, as well as around 600 people from 40 countries. They will once more challenge Israel’s illegal hold over Gaza’s borders, air and sea. We are seeing a fantastic rise in a people to people movement that is inspiring hope for a better future.

In Diaspora as well as inside the OT, Palestinian academia, artists and human rights activists do their part in Palestinian Sumud as they document Israel’s atrocities, write about the injustices, paint pictures, publish articles, sing traditional songs, write books and recite poetry that keeps the Palestinian narrative alive. People like Sari Nussiebeh, Ramzy Baroud, Ismael Shamout, Rima Bana, Mazin Qumsiah, Sam Bahour, Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, Dr. Sari Makdisi, Ali Abunimah and thousands of others who are hard at work non-violently protecting the Palestinian narrative. They have built the pillars of resistance that have kept the Palestinian identity and culture alive.

As I have shown so far, Palestinian culture of Sumud and non-violent resistance has encompassed direct action, reverse strike and civil disobedience over decades of oppression. There is so much evidence to show that the Palestinian non-violent resistance is and has always been central to the Palestinian struggle. But if that was the case, then where is that Palestinian Gandhi? The answer to that is simple: You are asking the wrong question.

There is no shortage of Palestinian Gandhis in Israel’s jails, at checkpoints, and in refugee camps. There are even Gandhis as young as five years old walking to school holding on to their backpacks, to their pride and to their dignity while they get stoned and showered with settler garbage. There are scores of Gandhis in Palestine, young, old, men and women. The problem is how to make these Gandhis visible to a world blinded by ignorance and by prejudice. The correct questions to ask are how do we make the work of the Palestinian Gandhis effective and visible? Can non-violent Sumud ever fulfill its goals of liberation and justice? What are the challenges facing the Palestinian non-violent movement and how can we help overcome these challenges?

There are two major challenges to Palestinian non-violence; the first is Israel’s reaction to peaceful protest. Israel is a country that views itself as being above international universal laws rights and jurisdictions. It often reacts violently to non-violent protests, spraying protesters with chemicals, rubber bullets and tear gas at times claiming their lives. Israel crushes political dissent by arresting political activists even those who hold Israeli citizenship. Israel holds activists on administrative detention without fair trial for indefinite periods of time. In short, Israel doesn’t respond and is not phased by non-violent protests simply because it views all Palestinians peaceful or not as a threat. The minute a Palestinian baby is born, it is automatically a dangerous threat to the nature of a state that defines itself by its Jewishness. All Palestinians are seen as demographic bombs, they are enemies of the state and therefore no matter what methods Palestinians use - violent or non-violent, Israel will not change its course. It will still view them as enemies that must be fought, crushed and ethnically cleansed.

The other challenge to the Palestinian non-violent movement is that it remains invisible to the international community. Palestinian daily hardships in going to school or work or visiting relatives are all daily acts of non-violent resistance that go by completely unnoticed by Israelis and by the International community. The media is hungry for blood…a peaceful protest that occurs on a weekly basis with civilians sprayed with sewerage water or injured or even killed doesn’t make the news. A child’s journey to school, head held high as Jewish settlers' children throw garbage at him and stones never makes the headlines.

This pattern of Palestinian invisibility feeds into Israel’s impunity. Soldiers and settlers are not held accountable for their actions and rarely, if ever, has any soldier been punished for degrading, humiliating, or taking the life of an innocent Palestinian. Even when Israel’s impunity reaches extreme levels as it did when they attacked Gaza, committing a long list of war crimes and human rights violations there was not enough international outcry to hold it accountable and to change the course of its actions.

So, where do we go from here? It is clear that the Gandhis of Palestine cannot succeed in their liberation struggle without the help of the international community. Palestinian civil society has called on people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel. This idea was inspired by the South African struggle against apartheid. BDS has been endorsed by over 170 Palestinian parties, organizations, trade unions and movements representing the Palestinian people in the 1967 and 1948 territories and in the Diaspora. I urge you to visit the Global BDS website ( for ideas on how any one of you can help.

Finally, I’d like to say that it is a fallacy to assume that non-violent resistance is not a natural human reaction to oppression, especially when you’re dealing with unarmed civilians, families and communities. Non-violence is not a doctrine that has to be taught, preached, projected on large screens and stuffed down the throats of an indigenous people trying to survive and to have normal lives. Gandhi himself has refused to be seen as an inventor of the methods of non-violence, saying [8]. “I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and Non-violence are as old as the hills.” If Gandhi was to visit the West Bank and Gaza Strip today, I am sure he would agree that truth and non-violence in Palestine are indeed as old as the Palestinian hills.

- Samah Sabawi is a writer and a human rights activist from Gaza. She has published numerous articles and poems on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. She is the co-author of "The Journey To Peace in Palestine: From the Song of Deborah to the Simpsons"


[1] See White House website.
[2] Ten for the Next Ten by Bono Guest Oped.
[3] “As part of its vision to empower people to create a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world, the Skoll Foundation has partnered with the Global Catalyst Foundation to sponsor the Gandhi Project in the Palestinian Territories.” See here.
[4] Waleed Mustafa, Former Dean of Arts Talking About the Concept of Sumud to Palestine-Family Bethlehem University.
[5] AT-TUWANI: Settler youth harass Palestinians and international human rights workers CPTnet23 April 2010.
[6] B’tselem The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights: Restrictions on Movement.
[7] Palestine Monitor: Exposing Life Under Occupation.
[8] Brief outline of Ghandhi’s Philosophy - by Stephen Murphy.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Winep: " Hizballah's partner meets President Obama"

Via Friday-Lunch-Club

WINEP's Schenker at his best ... here
".... Given the current power dynamics in Beirut, a less overtly pro-Western line from Lebanon's ruling party is to be expected. But some of the government's recent rhetoric seems gratuitous. For example, in April 21 remarks to the Italian daily La Stampa, Prime Minister Hariri derided Israel's claims that Syria transferred Scud missiles to Hizballah, comparing the accusations to faulty U.S. prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

More problematic for Washington, however, are the increasing signs of Syrian influence in Lebanon that may eventually affect the direction of Beirut's policies. Just as Syrian officials routinely visit Tehran prior to meetings with U.S. officials, for example, Hariri stopped off in Damascus for consultations with Asad en route to Washington. Similarly, Syria recently assigned Deputy Vice President for Security Affairs Muhammad Nasif as a liaison to Walid Jumblatt -- a particularly audacious appointment given that the U.S. Treasury Department designated Nasif in November 2007 for "furthering the Syrian regime's efforts to undermine Lebanese democracy."
In another notable development, Hizballah has begun targeting Washington's agreement with the Lebanese Internal Security Forces, particularly the standard end-use clause that prohibits the transfer of U.S. equipment to terrorist organizations. During an April interview on al-Manar, Nasrallah called the agreement "insulting" and criticized it for applying a U.S.-defined terrorist label to Hizballah. This controversy may constitute Hizballah's initial salvo against Washington's burgeoning defense cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).
The change in fortune for America's pro-Western allies in Beirut raises questions about the future of U.S.-Lebanese ties.....
Yet maintaining financial support at current levels will prove increasingly difficult if the Lebanese government no longer appears committed to UN Security Council resolutions (e.g., 1701 and 1559) that call for disarming militias such as Hizballah and ending foreign (i.e., Syrian) meddling in Lebanon. Although no one is under the illusion that the government is capable of taking positive steps on these fronts, Beirut should at least be expected to avoid making statements that undermine these important resolutions. In this regard, statements by Murr and President Michel Suleiman in support of Hizballah's armed status are particularly problematic.
Lebanon remains important to U.S. interests. In addition to being a key battleground between pro-Western moderates and advocates of the Syrian/Iranian resistance model, Lebanon is current chairman of the UN Security Council and may therefore play a central role in the process of sanctioning Iran for its nuclear endeavors.
Given the constraints on Hariri, the Obama administration is likely to ask little of him on Monday. But a discussion of Lebanon's stance on Iran sanctions -- with an eye toward convincing Beirut to, at minimum, abstain during the UN vote -- would be beneficial. Notwithstanding comments this week by President Obama's chief counterterrorism advisor John Brennan suggesting Washington's affinity for "moderate elements" within Hizballah, the administration should also encourage Hariri to downplay his coalition's recent enthusiasm for the resistance. Although such rhetoric may be intended to insulate the prime minister from Hizballah attacks at home, it shakes confidence in Washington and undermines UN resolutions that are critical to Lebanon's future as an independent, democratic state."

Posted by G, Z, or B at 3:05 PM
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

IOF troops arrest a whole family in southern Jenin

[ 21/05/2010 - 01:32 PM ]

JENIN, (PIC)-- More than 10 military vehicles raided, at dawn Friday, the village of Kafr Rai to the south of the northern West Bank city of Jenin and arrested a whole family after ransacking their home.

Eyewitnesses said that the IOF troops commandeered homes overlooking the house of Majed Saleh Dallah (55 years) and took positions on the rooftops of those houses then they surrounded and raided his house.

The occupation troops ransacked Dallah's house and used police dogs during their search of the house.

The occupation troops arrested Dallah and four of his children aged 17 to 35 and left summonses for the other three ordering them to surrender themselves to the occupation security services at Salem military post.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Sayyed Nasrallah: On Sunday We'll Celebrate and The Israelis Will Go to Shelters

Mohamad Shmaysani

21/05/2010 “On this day, ten years ago, the residents of the Qonaytra and Ghandouriyeh, were gathering for the funeral of a woman from occupied Qonaytra. On this day, the first decisive step was taken on the path of liberating the south. Those people took the initiative to storm into the crossing and remove all roadblocks to return to their occupied town.

When this really took place, every other fence tumbled down on 22, 23, and 24 May 2000. By the 25th of May, the battle had settled,’ Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said Friday afternoon as he officially inaugurated the resistance landmark site in the southern town of Mlita, as part of the efforts to enhance Jihadi toursim in Lebanon.

Lebanese political and security officials attended the inauguration as well as Ambassadors and Hezbollah and Amal Movement leaders.

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed the history of any people or nation is part and parcel of its identity that expresses its past ans certainly has an impact on its present and future.
“Today we are trying to make a modest step compared to the history of our country and our people as well as to the history of the resistance in terms of the sacrifices and the historic victories that have been achieved. One of our top responsibilities is to safeguard the history of the resistance; Lebanon’s history is very complicated because of its sectarian considerations. There was a resistance that had started in 1948; not in 1978 or in1982. It had started ever since the Zionist entity occupied Palestine. It has been a long history of resistance, challenge, and steadfastness. It’s been a long history of occupation, threat, and aggression as well. At one stage the residents of the southernmost parts of south Lebanon manifested their resistance and so did the Lebanese army and the security forces that had been deployed there. At another stage, the resistance took a more advance form; from the Palestinian resistance factions to the formation of Lebanese resistance factions. The beginning was with Imam Sayyed Moussa Sadr’s introduction to the Lebanese Resistance Factions (AMAL). This went on until a new resistance was born based on all this heritage and all this history and all these achievements and sacrifices. The Islamic Resistance came to light with Hezbollah being the main faction in the resistance movements,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.

His eminence tackled the municipal election in south Lebanon due Sunday saying that Hezbollah and the Amal Movement’s top priority was to preserve the resistance through the preserving the populace and the social structure across Lebanon. “This is why we’ve called for agreement and we’ve actually established this by signing a detailed agreement with the Amal Movement over the municipal election. It was not an easy task for both leaderships…I reiterate what one of our brothers said a few days ago: Our residents in south Lebanon, the best gift that Hezbollah and Amal can offer to the people in the municipal election is agreement. Indeed it is the most wonderful gift to offer.”

Speaking about Mlita’s resistance landmark site, Sayyed Nasrallah said the town was chosen because it is one of the old posts of the Islamic Resistance that was founded in the Iqlim El-Toffah region to face the Israeli occupation army and their collaborators’ fortified outposts. “Let us write down the history of the resistance from its many perspectives. Until now, everything that has been achieved was based on individual efforts. There are reports, articles, books about the resistance and its leaders. We need to make every effort to write down the history of the resistance as it is.”

On Sunday, the municipal election will take place in south Lebanon. On the same day, Israel has decided to hold drills dubbed Turning Point 4, which will see Israeli settlers in north occupied Palestine evacuated into shelters due to rocket attacks from Hezbollah.
“We will witness a different scene on both sides of the border: celebrations for victories in municipal elections in Lebanon while on the other side, millions of settlers will move into shelters in the framework of an emergency plan out of fear from the resistance.

On Sunday, you will not be afraid from anyone.

You will celebrate the Liberation Day and you will turn this referendum into a festival while resting assure that the resistance is ready for every equation. Inshallah I will see you May 25, when we mark the Resistance and Liberation Day.”

Hezbollah on Alert ahead of Israel Drill; Warns 'Israelis Have No Place to Hide'

21/05/2010 Thousands of Hezbollah resistance fighters have been ordered to maintain a heightened state of alert ahead of a large-scale Israeli occupation army exercise which begins Sunday, the group's representatives in southern Lebanon, Sheikh Nabil Qaouk, told the AFP news agency on Friday.

Sheikh Qaouk said, "The Hezbollah fighters have (been instructed) to be completely ready to confront Israeli maneuvers on Sunday. A few thousands of our fighters will not go to the polls (to participate in municipal elections in southern Lebanon) and are ready (for anything) today."

Israeli officials have stressed that the week-long drill was planned in advance, however Sheikh Qaouk clarified that "in the event of a new aggression against Lebanon, the Israelis will not find a place to hide in Palestine."

Sheikh Qaouk made the remarks during a meeting at his home in Tyre with Jewish American intellectual Noam Chomsky, who was denied entry to the Zionist entity and the occupied West Bank earlier this week.

Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai held a press briefing this week on the "Turning Point 4" exercise, which is aimed at preparing the home front for a possible military conflict.

"The scenario we are referring to includes the firing of hundreds of missiles at Israel from different places and targets," Vilnai said, stressing that the drill was preplanned and would include an air raid siren across the country on Wednesday.

Israel believes that Hezbollah has built its cache to more than 40,000 rockets since the Second Lebanon War, and that the resistance group has developed the capability to reach the center of the occupied country with its weapons.

Last month, Israeli President Shimon Peres accused Syria of providing Scud missiles to Hezbollah, charges that Damascus has denied.

Syria and Hezbollah both went on alert anticipating an Israeli attack on Lebanon in January, Arab-language media reported then.

Hezbollah's deputy secretary general, Sheikh Naeem Qassem, said the group was preparing to retaliate if Israel decided to attack.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Palestinian children tortured in Israeli occupation jails

[ 21/05/2010 - 11:47 AM ]

RAMALLAH, (PIC)-- Hiba Masalha, a Palestinian lawyer who visited child-prisoners at the Majedo and Rimonim prisons said that a number of them were subjected to barbaric torture before being questioned or charged.

Masalha said on Thursday that she met with 17-year-old Ahmad Farouq Jaara from Nablus who was arrested on 14 January 2010 at the Za'tara roadblock. He told her that he was subjected to a harsh interrogation at Betah Tekva detention centre where he was tied to a stool with both hands and feet tied. He was interrogated and tortured for 21 days causing his health to deteriorate.

She also met with 16-year-old Salama Abdel-Jawad from the Askar refugee camp who was arrested at the Hamra roadblock on 14 February 2010. He told her that on his arrest the soldiers kicked and beat him mercilessly using rifle butts bruising him all over and causing him to bleed from the face and legs.

She also said that Mahmoud Yaziji, 16 years, from Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip, told her that he was arrested at the Erez crossing by special forces who beat him severely, causing bruises all over his body. He was detained for one whole night at the crossing before he was taken to Askalan prison.

Meanwhile, 16-year-old Atef Jaradat, from Sair, in al-Khalil told the lawyer that IOF troops arrested him on 2 February 2010 him to the Keryat Arba settlement where he spent one night. He was then taken to Atsion detention centre where he was interrogated while tied to a stool in the cold and under the rain, during the interrogation an interrogator going by the name of Imran, beat him on his face, his arms and legs, then gave him electric shock making him fall each time he was subjected to the electric shock. He is also being denied family visits since his arrest.

Masalha also met with Muhammad Rashid Abu Shahin (16 years), from the Balata refugee camp, who told her that he was arrested on 3 January 2010 on the Hamra roadblock where he was manhandled and beaten by the occupation soldiers using rifle butts. He was then taken to the Hawwara detention centre where the interrogater used a plastic pipe to beat him with so that he confesses. The child is suffering chronic back pain as a result of being hit on the spine. He has not been provided with any medical attention apart from being given pain killers.

Zakerya Waddah Awada, 16 years, from Nablus told her that he was arrested on 2 March 2010 and that IOF troops beat him up inside the military jeep. At the Hawwara detention centre soldiers took him out of his cell during the night to the yard where he was forced to strip naked and stand in the cold for the rest of the night. He was denied visits since his arrest.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Holocaustism vs. Islam

Contibuted by Michael
Holocaustism vs. Islam

The writer of the following article is Dr. Kevin James Barrett (b. 1959). He is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best known critics of the “War on Terror”. From 1991 to 2006 Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and Universities in San Francisco, Paris and Wisconsin.
In Summer 2006, Dr. Barrett was attacked by a group of Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally blacklisted in teaching in American colleges and Universities. Dr. Barrett ran for Congress in 2008.

Currently he authors books , work as a radio talk show host, writes a blog and is founder of the Muslim Jewish Chriatian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (MUJCA) , a nonprofit organization. Dr. Barrett is son of Olympics sailor Peter Barrett and professor Laurie Barrett, both Unitarian.

He converted to Islam in 1992. Dr. Barrett lives in Wisconsin with his wife, two sons and a dog named
Salman Rushdie

Sometimes it seems like there are only two major religions left: Holocaustism and Islam.

According to Gilad Atzmon , “The Israeli Philosophy professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz was probably the first to define the holocaust as the ‘new Jewish religion’.”
But as the persecution of Bishop Williamson makes clear, Holocaustism has replaced Christianity as well as Judaism.

You can tell which story is sacred and which one isn’t by the reaction you get when you commit sacrilege. Nowhere in the West is anyone being brought up on charges of denying the crucifixion-resurrection. People can blithely doubt the crucifixion and the resurrection and the virgin birth and the trinity other tenets of Christianity and still work in the great universities of the West. In fact, if they don’t doubt these things, they might have a harder time getting hired. Admit at a faculty luncheon that you don’t doubt the resurrection or the virgin birth, and you’ll get some very strange looks.

But admit that you doubt any aspect of the sacred Holocaust narrative–six million Jewish victims, most killed in gas chambers, as part of a pre-conceived effort to eliminate Jewry from the face of the earth–and you’ll never work in this town again. Thus we are treated to the spectacle of a Catholic bishop being tried by a new Inquisition for a heresy that has nothing to do with Catholicism.

My wise old kabbalah professor, Jacob Needleman, once pointed out that the Holocaust caused a great many Jews to lose their faith in God. How could a good God let this happen? Abandoning God, these Jews joined the atheist Zionists who were colonizing Palestine. They began worshipping the state of Israel, and its power, instead of God, the true source of all power. So it’s easy to understand why Holocaustism, the sacred foundation of secular Zionism, became the majority religion of today’s ethnic Jews.

But why has Holocaustism replaced Chrisitianity?

I suppose it is because Christianity has been in slow decline for several centuries. By the 19th century, neither the thinking nor the ruling classes really believed in God any more. ( A.N. Wilson, God’s Funeral .) The reaction against Christianity in post-Christian Europe reached the point that by the post-World War II period, a residual Christian guilt complex met growing Jewish-Holocaustist power in the media …and the result was Holocaustism replacing Christianity as the core sacred narrative of the West.

Islam vs. Holocaustism

Islam, the world’s fastest-growing religion, is immune to Holocaustism for two reasons.

First, Muslims understand and oppose the Holocaustist atrocities in Palestine. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” said Jesus, peace upon him…and the fruits of Holocaustist Zionism — millions of people ethnic-cleansed, children shot for sport with impunity , white phosphorus dropped on the world’s most densely-populated space, and on and on — are as visibly evil to Muslims as they are invisibly evil to Westerners.

Second, Islam is built around the core teaching of tawhid: the absolute, eternal oneness of God as the only appropriate object of worship. The worst possible sin, from an Islamic perspective, is worshipping something other than God.
So Muslims are not easily drawn into worshipping alleged sons of God, crucifixions, trinities, chosen peoples, or even holocausts.

Since Muslims stubbornly persist in worshipping God rather than the Holocaust, the 9/11 false-flag attack was orchestrated in order to launch a Holocaustist crusade against Islam. Just as the sacred story of the Holocaust was used to brainwash Jews into believing they had been victimized and thus had the right to become vengeful victimizers, the sacred official story of 9/11 was used to brainwash Americans and Westerners into believing that they too had been victimized, and that thus they too must become vengeful victimizers. In both cases the target of vengeance was Arabs and Muslims — though why Holocaustists would take vengeance against Germans by mass-murdering and ethnic-cleansing Arabs and Muslims has never been explained. Le coeur noir a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.

The Future of an Illusion

The 9/11 truth movement has already succeeded in desacralizing the official myth of 9/11. The question of what really happened and why on 9/11 has become a legitimate topic of debate. As time goes on, it will grow more and more difficult for the high priests of the official myth to do to other skeptics what was done to me , Steven Jones , and Kevin Ryan

Meanwhile, the world’s Muslims will persist in worshipping God alone and refusing to kowtow to Holocaustism. They will continue to view the Jewish holocaust, small h, as just one of a great many holocausts and genocides, some of which continue today in places like Palestine , Iraq , and Afghanistan.
They will continue to insist that the Jewish holocaust, like all other holocausts and genocides, be the subject of free and fearless historical debate in which all viewpoints are welcome, and issues decided on the basis of reason and evidence, not emotion or intimidation or fines and jail sentences

And they will continue to insist that Palestine be returned to its rightful owners.

When the dust settles, insha’allah, I think more and more Westerners will come to realize that the Muslims were right all along — not only about history and politics, but more importantly, about God
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Aqsa foundation: Israel will house hundreds of settlers near the holy Mosque

[ 20/05/2010 - 12:08 PM ]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- Al-Aqsa foundation for endowment and heritage said Wednesday that Israel intensified its settlement and Judaization activities around the Aqsa Mosque, especially in the nearby area of Ras Al-Amud in order to bring hundreds of settlers to live there.
The foundation explained that the Israeli occupation authority (IOA) is renovating apartment buildings in the area used to belong to Jordan before the Israeli invasion in 1967 in order to house hundreds of settlers in them.

It added that the IOA intends to build a bridge connecting these old buildings with other nearby apartment buildings.

The foundation pointed out that most of the Israeli settlement outposts and projects are carried out in the high hills surrounding and overlooking the Aqsa Mosque, especially in Attour area in the east and the castle of Jerusalem area in the west in addition to other Judaization projects in Silwan town, south of the Aqsa Mosque, and the building of a railway in the northwest of the Old City.

The foundation warned that the IOA is intensifying its settlement activities to cordon off the area around the Aqsa Mosque in an attempt to isolate the Mosque and the Old City of Jerusalem.

For its part, Al-Quds international institution said in a new report on the educational situation in Jerusalem for 2010 that Israel’s persistence in expanding its segregation wall in the West Bank led to the isolation of more than 145,000 Jerusalemites from their holy city and disrupted the Palestinian educational process.

The institution stressed that the education has central importance in the conflict over Jerusalem between the Israeli occupation and the native residents, adding that the harsh social and economic conditions experienced by Jerusalemites under occupation affect the educational future of their sons and daughters who consequently drop out of schools.

It noted that the IOA discriminates flagrantly between the schools in the east part of Jerusalem and the western part in terms of budgets, facilities, equipment and efficiency of the education system.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Anti-Semitism is Zionism's Bread and Butter

May 4, 2010
by Henry Makow Ph.D.

(Editor's Note: "Are Israeli Policies Entrenching Anti-Semitism Worldwide?" This is the subtitle of a recent
article in a Jewish magazine.It expresses a naive  Jewish misconception about anti-Semitism and Zionism. Jews are under the impression that Zionism is there to protect them from anti-Semitism. In fact, Zionism is there to create anti-Semitism in order to force Jews to carry out the Illuminati agenda, i.e. central banker world government based in Jerusalem. Israel is the Rothschild's private fiefdom; their private army, secret service and nuclear arsenal. All these are being used to advance the Rothschild world government agenda. Zionist Jews will have alot of 'splaining to do.'

The brutual unwarranted Israeli attacks on Lebanon in Aug. 2006 and Gaza in Dec. 2008 created widespread anti-Semitism, as intended. To say that Jews who take exception to these atrocities are "self-hating Jews" is juvenile and disingenuous, traits we now expect from the Zionst leadership. How dare they act in the name of the Jewish people without any mandate. In this light, I am updating and reposting my Dec. 2005 article: "The Zionist Protection Racket." )

A "protection racket" is a scam where an aggressor instigates an attack, blames a bogeyman, and then offers to protect the victim from this bogeyman in return for money and power.

The "War on Terror" is a protection racket. The aggressor is the world financial elite known as the "Crown" based in the City of London. Their instrument is the Zionist project, specifically Israel, the Mossad and its Neo Con allies.

The victim is the people of the United States and the West in general. The goal is the overthrow of Western Civilization, and the establishment of a Luciferian world police state called the "New World Order."

"Zionism is but an incident of a far reaching plan," said leading American Zionist Louis Marshall, counsel for bankers Kuhn Loeb in 1917. "It is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon."


The Zionist Jewish leadership regards the Jewish rank-and-file as a pawn to be manipulated. "Anti Semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren," says the author of Protocols of the Elders of Zion (9-2) a "forgery" that reads like the blueprint of the New World Order.

The holocaust tookplace in order to create Israel.Jews had to be terrorized into setting up Israel as a "national home," i.e. colonizing the Middle East. World Finance funded the Nazis. Zionists actively collaborated with them. See "The Holocaust as Mental Paradigm." See also "Zionism: A Conspiracy Against Jews"
Zionist betrayal is the reason Jews went passively to their deaths, says Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld in his book "Holocaust Victims Accuse." Non-Zionist Jews were worth more dead than alive to the Zionist leadership who, Shonfeld says, reaped the moral and financial capital from their forced "sacrifice." See my "Zionism: Compulsory Suicide for Jews."

The Jewish elite has a long history of manipulating Jews. For example, in 1950 a wave of anti Semitism and terrorism in Iraq made Naeim Giladi, 21, join the Zionist underground. Giladi was imprisoned, tortured and sentenced to death by Iraqi authorities.

He escaped and fled to Israel only to discover that the bombings had been engineered by his fellow Zionists to dupe Iraqi Jews into going to Israel. An ancient community was deprived of its wealth and reduced to second-class citizen status in Israel, replacing Palestinian labor. See my "Zionists Double Crossed Iraqi Jews"

Israel provoked attacks from its neighbors in order to "retain its moral tension" according to the secret diary of Prime Minister Moshe Sharett. The state must "invent dangers" to start war and thereby "acquire our space,"
he wrote. See
"The Zionist Roots of the War on Terror."


The pogrom on Sept. 11 2001 was designed to stampede Americans into forfeiting their civil rights and invading the Middle East, like Zionists.

There is a drumbeat in the media to convince Americans that they are victims of Muslim fanatics. This propaganda campaign is carried out by Neo Cons (a.k.a. Zionists.) In his book, "The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America," Michael Collins Piper writes:
"In the build-up to the Iraq war, Zionist propagandists and the media increasingly began touting the message to Americans that "the whole world is against us"... and the Israelis are our only real solid dependable ally ...The theme that anti Americanism had run rampant was instilled in Americans for the very purpose of making them "anti" everyone who refused to support the...Iraq war...and the more broad ranging Zionist agenda." (157)

Sound familiar? This is the tactic they use on Jews. See my "How Jews are Brainwashed and Manipulated."

Piper says that Zionism is being equated with Americanism. Zionist agents like Nathan Sharansky crafted the overblown and specious rhetoric of Bush's second inaugural speech that committed the US to advancing the Zionist agenda using force.

History provides a sobering warning as to where this could be leading. In his essay,
The Nature of Zionism, Russian author Vladimir Stepin writes,

"During the civil war in Russia, the Zionists also performed another task. Using some units of the Red Army - Trotsky was the chairman of the country's Revolutionary Military Council - they organized the Jewish pogrom in Seversk.

The result of this was the "Law on Those Involved in Pogroms" of 27 July 1918. In accordance with this law, a monstrous Zionist terror raged in Russia for ten years: a person accused of anti-Semitism was, without any argument being allowed, declared to be involved in pogroms and placed against the wall to be shot.

Not only anti-Zionists, but the best representatives of the intelligentsia of Russia, could be accused of being anti-Semitic, and so too could anyone one felt like accusing of it. People saw who was exercising power in Russia and expressed their discontent with it. 90% of the members of the Cheka - the Soviet security organ, 1918-1922 - were Zionists.

Apart from the law on those involved in pogroms, the Zionists practiced genocide against the ethnic groups inhabiting Russia, and they did so by accusing people of counter-revolutionary activities, sabotage, and so on, irrespective of whether or not the people in question really had conducted such activities. It was standard practice merely to put them against the wall to be shot."

Extrapolate from this, and we can see false flags being used to deprive Americans of their freedoms.


My hunch is that the central banking elite, using Masonic secret societies in the military and intelligence agencies, is responsible for 90% of terrorism. The purpose is to manipulate people into advancing the goals of the New World Order, which includes destroying true religion, nation states, democracy, race and family.

In their mind, they have to destabilize and enslave us to protect their monopoly on government credit i.e. money creation.

They are running a protection racket to protect us from their bogus "terror." In the same way,  Zionism is a response to "anti-Semitism" they create. In the process, Jews are brainwashed and manipulated, while Westerners are losing their civil rights and habits of freedom. 

Are Israeli Policies Entrenching Anti-Semitism Worldwide?   

Are Jews who protest Israeli policies necessarily "self-hating"? Or do their ideas offer Israel its best hope for survival? Here students at Tel Aviv University in Israel protest against the war in Gaza , January 19, 2009.  --  Photo CREATIVE COMMONS/YAIRMIII.
Are Jews who protest Israeli policies necessarily "self-hating"? Or do their ideas offer Israel its best hope for survival? Here students at Tel Aviv University in Israel protest against the war in Gaza , January 19, 2009. -- Photo CREATIVE COMMONS/YAIRMIII.
Tikkun Magazine, May/June 2010

by Tony Klug

Even posing the question is painful, for after all the suffering anti-Semitism has caused the Jewish people over the centuries, the last thing we need or deserve is to have it become a permanent state of affairs. Nonetheless, the proposition that the State of Israel, which was conceived as a way of normalizing relations between Jews and all other peoples, might instead be normalizing anti-Semitism is not one we can simply close our eyes to in the forlorn hope that it will go away of its own accord.
I realize I may be stepping near the knuckle here. As Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest might have said, "To take on one controversial topic may be regarded as a misfortune; to combine two controversial topics looks like carelessness." However, to my mind, the two topics (Israeli policies and anti-Semitism) are not separate and unrelated but ineluctably converging—an inference I draw reluctantly from my forty years of engagement on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide. I believe that the danger signals are flashing and that it is important to be candid about these matters at these uncertain times. 

The Other Alleged Culprits

Our starting point—regrettably not a controversial one—is that there has been a disturbing rise of anti-Jewish sentiment around the world in recent years. Reports of this rise may occasionally be exaggerated or distorted, but they are not invented out of thin air. But why has this come about?
Some say it is the fault of extremist Muslims, or of large-scale Muslim immigration to Europe and other Western countries, or even of Islam itself and its holy book, the Qur'an. Others widen the net of fault to blame "spineless" Western governments and their smug, predominantly Christian populations who, they say, have always harbored anti-Semitic feelings anyway. Yet others accuse human rights groups of betraying their mission and developing—along with almost the entire NGO sector, the mass media, the trade unions, and the universities—an almost exclusive obsession about Israel, the "stand-in collective Jew."
Finally, there are the alleged "self-hating Jews"—Jews accused of being ashamed of their origins and of turning their backs on their people in order to ingratiate themselves to others. The accusation is facile and commonly offensive, as many Jews who are on its receiving end—a constantly expanding number, apparently—draw largely on such traditional Jewish values as justice, peace, truth, human dignity, and rightful treatment of the stranger ("for you were strangers in the land of Egypt") for their inspiration. These values—with which I am quite familiar as they were daily drilled into me at the orthodox Jewish school I attended between the ages of five and eighteen—are trashed virtually every time the "self-hating" accusation is leveled. In most cases, the accusation (whatever it is supposed to mean exactly) is made not because there is any basis for it, but because it meets the self-serving purpose of enabling the accuser to deflect mounting inconvenient realities.

A novel recent addition to those labeled as members of the "self-hating" community are the Israeli government officials responsible for overseeing Prime Minister Netanyahu's partial construction freeze, whom disgruntled West Bank settlers have greeted as "anti-Semites."
Altogether, this adds up to a large number of people supposedly out of step. With so many alleged anti-Semites around, is it any wonder there are Jews who feel paranoid? But, then again, are we not primed to see ourselves as the perennial victims when, at the annual Seder table, we recite the passage from the Pesach Haggadah that warns, "Not just one alone has risen against us to destroy us, but in every generation they rise against us to destroy us"? If we take this adage to heart—as a statement as much about the present and future as about the past—are not all the above groups just bit players merely acting out their scripted parts?
It's not that there is nothing to any of this. Indeed, the Jews have had more than their fair share of adversity since time immemorial, and there are still plenty of authentic anti-Semites around, doubtless rather enjoying the moment. But maybe some introspection on our part is also warranted. Is it possible that we ourselves have in some way contributed in recent times to the overt rise in Jewish unpopularity? It's a tricky question, as minority groups throughout history have habitually been accused of causing the prejudice from which they suffer, a slur the browbeaten Jews of Europe, among others, stoically endured over many generations. Yet, again, in the contemporary reality, it's a question we cannot simply shield ourselves from on the back of a convenient, if often legitimate, principle.

Definition Creep: Are We Changing the Meaning of "Anti-Semitism"?

If by anti-Semitism we mean an irrational hatred of Jews, or an underlying prejudice or contempt for all things Jewish, can there be such a thing as an antipathy to Jews or Jewish causes that is not irrational—even if some Jews find it upsetting? The answer would be "no, never" only if we define antagonism to virtually any Jewish endeavor—let's say Jewish schools in the educational sphere—as necessarily a form of "anti-Semitism." Such a generalization would clearly be stretching the meaning of the term too far.
In the political arena, pertinent examples could range from disparaging the policies and practices of the Israeli government, through contesting Zionism as a political ideology, to questioning the legitimacy of a Jewish state. Such challenges, in particular the latter two, are bound to make many supporters of Israel feel uncomfortable, even outraged. That's understandable, but are the critics necessarily driven by anti-Semitism? To corral them into this fold by slapping on the prefix "new"—as in "new anti-Semitism"—is not only simplistic and muddling, but it also risks trivializing past Jewish suffering, as well as genuine instances of anti-Semitism today, and it generally debases the currency.
Not only this, but many Jews, religiously observant or secular, within Israel and without, would suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of this "definition creep." So too, retrospectively, would past luminaries of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, leading figures of which, prior to the establishment of the Israeli state, were outspokenly anti-Zionist. Should they therefore now be deemed anti-Semitic, or newly anti-Semitic?

As with any phenomenon, stretching the definition of anti-Semitism is bound to make it appear more prevalent than it really is by inflating the figures and expanding the fear factor. More ominously, it can obscure the real situation. Worse still, it can pervert it, as we saw in November last year when certain Zionist circles in Britain courted two far-Right members of the European Parliament, one from Poland and the other from Latvia, who had been accused of blatant neo-Nazi associations in the past and of distinct anti-Semitic proclivities more recently. This tendency was again in evidence the following month when two right-wing Hungarian politicians, who had made very disparaging comments about their country's Jews, participated in the annual Global Forum to Combat Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem, sponsored by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. There was a time when Jews and official Jewish bodies would not go near such people with a bargepole. However, their records as "friends of the Jews" have been defended partly on the ground that their political parties can be relied on to take Israel's side on resolutions at the European Parliament. (Why they do this is a matter of debate, although it may have something to do with many modern-day fascists apparently hating Muslims more than they hate Jews and seeing them as the greater threat.)

There may be a parallel here with the posture of the chairman of the far-Right British National Party, Nick Griffin, who, when he appeared on BBC Television's Question Time in October 2009, disavowed his anti-Semitic past by claiming that his party was "the only political party which, in the clashes between Israel and Gaza, stood full square behind Israel's right to deal with Hamas terrorists." In all of these cases, professed support for Israel or Israeli actions is employed to relieve the charge of anti-Semitism, even by an avid anti-Semite with a record of Holocaust denial.

Among Israel's most impassioned partisans on the other side of the Atlantic are members of the ardently pro-Zionist, evangelical Christian Right in the United States. For them, aliyah (immigration of Jews to the holy land) should not let up until every Jew lives in Israel, and settlement building in "Judea and Samaria" should not cease until the entire West Bank is colonized by the Jewish people. Then the conditions would be right for the "rapture," at which point all Jews would have to choose between conversion to the true faith of Christianity or perishing forthwith. Ultimately—quite literally—this creed is deeply anti-Semitic. But its purveyors are sought out and serenaded by many of the influential pro-Zionist Jewish lobbies in America and by the Israeli government. They are, after all, through their ostensible support for even the most outrageous Israeli policies, proven "friends of the Jews."

To summarize, it now seems that it is the stance that groups and individuals take toward the Israeli state and the policies of its government of the day, that is becoming, bit by bit, the standard by which anti-Semitism is measured and assessed, steadily replacing the former gold standard of enmity toward the Jews qua Jews. Traditional anti-Semites are no longer—necessarily—anti-Semites. They may even be regarded as philo-Semites. Their place has been taken by people who have no quarrel with Jews qua Jews but do have a problem with the behavior and the policies of the political leadership in Israel, particularly with regard to its actions in occupied Palestinian territory. Some of them may even have a problem with the whole idea of a Jewish state. They, in this worldview, are fast becoming the new anti-Semites.

Unquestionably Genuine Anti-Semitism

None of the above is to say that anti-Zionism or hostility to Israel is not sometimes used as a cover for anti-Semitism or, in some cases, that it does not spring from similar impulses, whether on the part of the far Right or the far Left or elements in between. This was the blatant motive of the neo-Nazi National Front, a forerunner of the British National Party, when it latched on to the "anti-Zionist" crusade in the 1970s, using all the familiar anti-Semitic imagery and gobbledegook. A similar motive was quite transparent when the Polish Communist government launched a campaign against so-called Zionists in the wake of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war that robbed many of the comparatively few remaining Polish Jews of their livelihood and party membership and coerced thousands of them into leaving the country, to settle—not in Israel in most cases—but in Scandinavia!

Nor is it to say that it is not absurd to see a clutch of despotic human rights abusers sitting in sanctimonious judgment of a nation that, despite its own serial transgressions, is not in their league. One only has to leaf through the range of reports produced by such illustrious organizations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to gain an idea of the scale of the tyranny elsewhere.

And it is certainly not to say that we should not be concerned about the propensity of some anti-Zionist jargon to propagate, wittingly or inadvertently, many of the familiar, sinister anti-Semitic tropes, such as Jewish power, Jewish money, Jewish control of the media and governments, Jewish vengeance, or even the idea of Jews as child-murderers.

Now that Jews Are in Power in One Country ...

While all this is deeply troubling, the concern should not cause us to lose a sense of proportion: the "objective" situation of the shtetl Jew in Mittel Europe in past centuries—when anti-Semitism was often official state policy and authentic blood libels were common currency—and the "objective" situation of the modern-day state of Israel, bear no resemblance to one another. In this respect, Zionism has succeeded in spades. But many Zionism-adherents seem not to have noticed.

The Jewish reality has changed dramatically since the end of World War II, with the establishment of a Jewish state and the entrenchment of equal citizenship rights in most if not all countries that Jews inhabit. Whichever way you look at it, there simply is no comparison in reality between past trumped-up accusations of abusive power leveled against a downtrodden, defenseless community that time and again was made to pay a heavy price for these baseless smears, and the current accusations of improper use of power against an advanced, nuclear-armed state which, for the past forty-two years, has enforced a harsh military rule over the lives of another downtrodden, dispossessed people, while relentlessly colonizing their remaining land.

Drawing parallels is treacherous territory, and I normally keep off it. But if there is any sort of parallel with the Mittel Europe of centuries past, the more compelling one is not between the subjugated Jew of then and the powerful, occupying state of Israel today but between the Jew of then and the occupied Palestinian of now. This is the parallel that much of international public opinion instinctively perceives, and it goes a long way to explaining the global switch of sympathy. To the extent that the Jewish world remains in denial, it is dislocating itself from the rest of the world.

And, whether we like it or not, and whatever our personal views may be, as Jews we are all implicated in Israel's actions, good or bad. While the audacious claims of successive Israeli governments to speak on behalf of Jews the world over may highlight the association—Prime Minister Olmert, for example, opined that Israel's ferocious war with Lebanon in 2006 was "a war that is fought by all the Jews"—the general perception is rife even without the explicit claim.

Herein, I believe, lies the key to the conspicuous increase in anti-Jewish sentiment in a range of countries, most strikingly among Arabs and Muslims. What has triggered it is no more of a mystery than what lies behind the simultaneous upsurge in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab feeling among Jews. It's the conflict, stupid. More particularly, it's the Occupation. And at the core of the Occupation is the invasive settlement project and the whole hideous infrastructure—segregational and intensely oppressive—that has proliferated on its back.

What If the Jewish State Had Been a Hindu or Buddhist State?

Shorn of the hysteria, and with exceptions, a lot of the opposition to Israel's actions has little or nothing to do with it being a Jewish state. Had it been a Hindu or a Buddhist state, for example, the Palestinians would have been no less embittered if the state in question had dispossessed them and then proceeded to dispossess them further. And it would still have attracted the opprobrium of people around the world, plenty of Jews included, who held a commitment to basic justice and fairness and the right to self-determination—the very attributes that, at an earlier point in time, underpinned widespread sympathy for a Jewish state.
Moreover, if Hindu or Buddhist diaspora communities ostentatiously demonstrated from far-away lands their solidarity with a militarily powerful, modern Hindu or Buddhist state which, albeit under horrendous provocation, eschewed the diplomatic path and mercilessly pounded—to international revulsion—an impoverished, entrapped people, from land, sea and air, causing widespread death and destruction, it would hardly be surprising if such communities found themselves on the receiving end of rising negative sentiment in the countries they inhabited.

The Hindu/Buddhist diaspora communities themselves—parading ostensibly under a banner of wanting peace for everyone—would doubtless see it all very differently and express their indignation at the very idea that they were condoning human rights abuses or that they were in denial about them. Accordingly, any manifestations of hostility toward them could only be explained in terms of inveterate anti-Hinduism or deep-seated anti-Buddhism. But such cognitive dissonance would not be to their benefit. On the contrary, its most likely consequence over time would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, deepening the antagonism toward them. This is where the real danger lies.

A Malfunctioning Moral Compass

Deepening antagonism from global onlookers is not the only danger. The diaspora associated with the occupying state may also be in danger of losing its moral direction. There may be some individuals who know that the latest military assault is merely the most recent in a rolling sequence of onslaughts that have pounded towns and villages in neighboring countries and in the occupied territories in preceding years, but who find themselves barely batting an eyelid at the widespread devastation. They have become inured to it. Some may go further still and celebrate the carnage, taking leave of their moral compass altogether. One of the problems with occupation regimes is that, irrespective of their national identity or religious or other affiliation, they tend to brutalize the occupier as well as the occupied.

The processes at work are not hard to fathom. If there is one cast-iron law of history, it is probably that occupations and other forms of colonial rule are sooner or later resisted, and when that point comes, the occupier has a straightforward choice between leaving and allowing the native population to exercise its independence and self-determination—or staying. When the time came, Israel made the disastrous decision to stay. The rest was predictable.

As the Palestinians stepped up their resistance, Israel stepped up its colonization of their territory and the harshness of its retaliation—if only to keep order. The charge of "brutal occupier," while plainly unjustified in the earlier years, turned out to be prophetic. In consequence, the moral appeal of Israel's case started to weaken, alongside the fading memory of the Nazi Holocaust. While the country's level of international support began to drain away, it simultaneously firmed up in the organized Jewish diaspora, through a form of heightened tribal solidarity. The sharpening polarization increasingly isolated Jewish opinion and led to a steady upsurge in anti-Jewish feeling.

I say all this was predictable because, in essence—although in the future conditional tense—I first mapped out this very sequence in a Fabian pamphlet in the mid-1970s, a relatively calm period in the Palestinian territories. But it wasn't intended as a prediction, as I felt sure that Israel, in its own self-interest, would have the good sense to leave the occupied territories in the near future and help foster a Palestinian state. It was more of a hypothetical warning of what might happen in the decades ahead in the unlikely event that Israel failed to come to terms with the imperative of withdrawal. Unfortunately, Israel lost its way and the scenario I described thirty-five years ago has since played itself out.

At the time of my writing, there were fewer than 5,000 settlers in the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war. Today, there are around 500,000. Israel appears more entrenched in the West Bank—the principal focus of Palestinian national aspirations—than ever, and organized Jewish diaspora opinion behind Israel and its policies seems more solid than ever. As the Palestinians despair of a two-state solution—and as Israelis despair, too, but for somewhat different reasons—the prospects of a fair and workable peace settlement are fast fading. In the absence of a plausible alternative, the conflict is on the verge of becoming unresolvable and of transforming itself into a state of perpetual strife, with potentially dire international consequences, not least, I fear, for Jews around the world.

The downward trajectory of the situation has been brought into focus recently by the Goldstone Report on the war in Gaza and by Israel's usual "there's-nothing-to-it" response to that report. More ominously, it has been sharpened by the growing worldwide BDS campaign—a call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel—which, despite the occasional Pyrrhic "pro-Israel victory" that every time seems to excite the U.K.'s Jewish Chronicle and other Jewish media to no end, we can be sure will continue to gather steam for as long as the Occupation lasts. How big a step is it from boycotting Israeli goods to boycotting shops that stock such goods? And guess which shops this will mostly affect? The battle lines are already being sketched out.

The Mantras of Self-Justification ... and Self-Delusion

How, one may ask, does a reputedly intelligent people, with traditionally strong humanistic values, manage constantly to delude itself about what is going on, what lies in store and what needs to be done? And how has it allowed the Jewish Star of David, and by implication the Jewish religion and Jewish people, to become associated in the eyes of growing numbers of people with repression?

One answer is that, over the years, a blanket of self-justifying stories and catchphrases that we tell ourselves and everyone else time and again, ad nauseam, has smothered the art of rational thought. Many of the mantras will be familiar:

"We are the only democracy in the Middle East. We have the most moral army in the world. The Palestinians spurned our generous offer—as always, with violence. We have the right to defend ourselves. There is no peace partner. The Arabs have always rejected us and always will. Palestinian terrorism. Arab terrorism. Muslim terrorism. Anti-Semitism. New anti-Semitism. Blood libels. Self-hating Jews. Islamo-fascism. Security, security, security. Everyone else is naïve, naïve, naïve. We have no alternative." And the list goes on. It is worth noting, however, that one formerly popular slogan, "the most liberal occupation of all time," is rarely heard these days.

Again, it's not that there is nothing to any of these catchphrases or the stories that underpin them—although many of them do not stand up well to scrutiny—but they are constantly wheeled out, in a spirit of injured innocence, to deflect any substantive criticism of Israeli actions.
The analogy with the hypothetical Hindu and Buddhist states can be taken only so far. It breaks down once an explanation for the ostensibly wicked ways of the "nation of usurpers and occupiers" is sought by delving into their scriptures, belief systems, history, or supposed genetic makeup. In the Jewish case, this does not require much original or detailed research for, possibly uniquely, there, waiting in the wings, is a pernicious time-tested ideology—that of full-blown anti-Semitism—with all the answers, simplistic and absurd though they may be. It is at this point that anti-Jewish sentiment tips portentously into something far more sinister. Hinduism and Buddhism, whatever their own issues, have nothing to compare with this.

I make none of the above observations with relish. There was a time in my life when I sang from the regulation Jewish pro-Zionist song sheet and defended Israel's corner at the local, national, and international student levels, first as an active member of the Jewish Society at the University of Birmingham, then, more diplomatically—and I believe fairly—as student union president during the seminal 1967 Arab-Israeli war that spilled over onto campuses up and down the country, and later as deputy president of the British National Union of Students, responsible for international affairs during a distinctly hot phase of the cold war, in which the Middle East conflict played a starring role. I believed then, as I do now, in the essential justice of Israel's underlying cause and backed its right to self-determination and independence, free of threat—not always to my political or personal advantage. The Jews had suffered enough over many generations and deserved their own place, if that's what many of them wanted.
I was struck, as others have been, by Lord Byron's lament in 1815, when the worst tragedies to face the Jewish people still lay a distance ahead and several decades before Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, was a twinkle in anyone's eye. Byron wrote: "The wild dove hath her nest, the fox his cave, / Mankind their country, Israel but the grave!" By "Israel," of course, he meant the Jewish people.

But, in the attempt, more than a century later, to rectify the Jewish calamity, a second people paid a heavy price. The ill-fated Palestinians—the knock-on victims of Nazi atrocities, whose original felony was simply to be in the way of another distressed people's frantic survival stratagem—have also suffered enough and are no less worthy of their place in the sun. If they don't get it soon, the Israelis, for sure, will never be left in peace to enjoy theirs. In this respect, each holds the key to the other's destiny.

The passionate arguments deployed in bygone days—that Israel was not expansionist, that it desperately yearned for peace, that it was eager to withdraw from the occupied territories, that it would guarantee everyone access to their religious sites, that it was a good friend of the Palestinians, that it did everything it possibly could to avoid civilian casualties, and so on—have all been exposed, one by one.

It's not that these arguments were necessarily false from the very beginning. But little by little they were usurped by the triumphalist mood that infiltrated the country and swept the Jewish world following the Six-Day War and the hubris the resounding victory gave rise to. Such characteristics are of course not unique to Israel. They are common to conquering powers and have frequently led to their eventual downfall.

The Immutable Terms of Any Deal

So what may be done?
By far the preferable—and simplest—path would be a public declaration of a swift, authentic change of Israeli policy that heralded a genuine commitment to ending the Occupation, pulling out of the West Bank, sharing Jerusalem, ending the siege of Gaza, and living peacefully and in mutual respect alongside a sovereign Palestinian state broadly along the pre-June 1967 borders, albeit with agreed, equitable land exchanges. Nothing less than this will ever do, no matter which Palestinians are on the other side of the bargaining table or which government is in power in Israel or indeed the United States. These are the immutable terms of any deal, and Israeli leaders' occasional and hollow claims to be extending a hand in peace to the Arab world are no substitute. Absent the above commitments, they are worthless platitudes.
An Israeli declaration along the lines I have outlined, if sincere, could radically transform the regional and international political atmosphere, just as the Oslo Accords did in the 1990s. Almost overnight, Israel moved from semi-pariah to semi-hero. Its leaders, together with the Palestinian leader, were awarded the Nobel peace prize. Shimon Peres, then the Israeli foreign minister, was spoken of as a possible future UN Secretary General. One country after another, including from the Arab and Muslim worlds, lined up to establish or re-establish relations with and visit the Jewish state. As the optimism, in subsequent years, gave way to gloom and doom, it is easy to forget the uplifting mood of that time.

Today, sixteen disappointing years later, the reaction to a fresh initiative may not be quite so dramatic, but a firm Israeli commitment along the lines described would give the Palestinians—as well as the Israelis—something tangible to hope for. It could be the vital trigger everyone is waiting for to spark off a fresh momentum.

If they had any sense, Jewish diaspora communities would use such influence as they have with the Israeli government to encourage it to adopt such a policy and simultaneously align themselves with apposite international moves to this end—if not from conviction then at least on the grounds of prudent self-protection.

And Failing That ... Jews Must Protest

In the more likely, if regrettable, event that the current Israeli government will commit itself to no such thing, what should Jewish diaspora communities do? I believe they would be well advised to take a deep breath and reconsider their habitual reflexive responses, which are in part responsible for the mess we are in. No one would expect them to waver from their uncompromising support for the genuine welfare of the Israeli state and people, and I do not propose this. But, with precisely this welfare in mind, it is beyond time for them to distance themselves from the expansionist policies of the Israeli government, its belligerent approach to problem-solving in the region, and its propensity to infringe Palestinian human rights, periodically on a massive scale.

Some Jewish groups and many individual Jews are already doing this, to the consternation of certain voluble self-appointed guardians of the Jewish good. However, in the main, these dissenting Jews are, I believe, helping to lower the temperature of anti-Jewish feeling.
To state the obvious, not everyone will agree with all the arguments expounded here. That is their prerogative. But this is not a purely academic discussion. The price of getting it wrong could be high. To those who hold that Israel is not "in occupation" of the West Bank at all, but that it has "liberated" the biblical Judea and Samaria, more worldly considerations may matter little. This is a voice that has grown louder over the years, and it is not susceptible to reasoned argument. Nor does it concern itself, in a serious way, with such secular anxieties as anti-Semitism.

But there is another camp that is seriously concerned about anti-Semitism. Indeed, it is convinced that anti-Semitism is the principal underlying cause of the conflict, and—with the full force of the self-fulfilling prophecy behind it—interprets any manifestation of ill feeling toward Jews, or even toward Israel, as compelling proof of this conviction. It is "Jew-hatred," they say, that continues to keep the conflict going and prevents Israel from leaving the West Bank. Movement toward a peace settlement will be possible only once the Arab and Muslim worlds, they argue, have purged their anti-Semitism—doubtless a worthy goal but one with an almost limitlessly extendable bar and a certain cart-before-the-horse quality to it.

In the end, this argument is both an excuse and a recipe for sustaining the status quo, continuing the colonization of the West Bank, the building of exclusive roads, the construction of the monstrous separation barrier, the destruction or confiscation of Palestinian homes, and, in general, the encroachment on and encirclement of the remaining space of the putative Palestinian state.

Through cheap and inappropriate usage, the charge of anti-Semitism has become so debased—in particular when it is directed at the dispossessed Palestinians themselves and at others for whom universal justice and human rights are genuinely paramount—that a strange and dreadful thing is starting to happen: the charge of anti-Semitism is gradually being transformed in the minds of many from a mark of shame to a badge of honor. This is quite an achievement.

But not everything is so bleak. In the White House, there is a president who is learning his trade but who seems to have the right instincts. Intellectually, emotionally, and politically, he is committed to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the near future on the only basis that, for the last forty years at least, makes any sense: two states for two peoples. The twenty-seven-nation European Union, to Israel's predictable ire, has recently reiterated the same policy in very clear terms, laying emphasis on the need for Jerusalem to be the shared capital of both states.

The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, which calls for full peace and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for withdrawal from the territories captured in 1967—an offer that would have had Israelis dancing in the street not so long ago—remains on the table, with the support of the twenty-two-nation Arab League and the endorsement of the fifty-six-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, in a speech in June 2009, uttered, for Likud, the hitherto forbidden phrase "a Palestinian state," even if he hedged it with strict preconditions. The PLO, too, still remains committed to the two-state policy it adopted in 1988, and even Hamas has indicated its preparedness to do a deal based on the pre-June 1967 borders.

So, it seems, many of the pieces are in place. But they are no more than the bare bones of a comprehensive solution and will amount to little without a deft international strategy that responds to the urgent needs of the moment, coupled with an effective enforcement mechanism. Sponsoring indirect or even direct negotiations between inherently unequal parties in the first instance is decidedly not that strategy. What is required now is an end to sham processes and a shift of focus directly to the endgame.

We are on the cusp. It could go this way or that. Hard decisions will have to be made. In the next year or so, we'll all have a better idea of where we stand and what to look forward to. Much will depend on President Obama's grit and strategic sense. One thing's for certain, though. Whatever happens, there will be profound repercussions, good or bad, for Jews qua Jews around the world. So if we can have any influence on the decisions, let's try to make sure they are rational, sound, and responsible, for much rides on them—not just for Israel and the Palestinians, but for all of us.

Dr. Tony Klug is a veteran commentator on Middle East affairs. His Visions of the Endgame (Fabian Society, 2009 download the pdf here) outlines a strategy for Obama and the international community to bring the conflict swiftly to an end. An earlier pamphlet, How Peace broke out in the Middle East (pdf here), described an imagined future sequence of events as if they had taken place in the past, to indicate how Israelis and Palestinians could bring about peace by themselves. The international strategy is the default alternative. 

Klug, Tony. 2010. Are Israeli Policies Entrenching Anti-Semitism Worldwide? Tikkun 25(3): 23

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian