Tuesday, 24 February 2009

Interview with Raji Sourani On Israeli War Crimes in Gaza

Source

bitterlemons: Were war crimes committed during the recent Israeli offensive on Gaza and can they be prosecuted?

Sourani: I believe that war crimes were committed, not only during the brutal Israeli offensive that started on December 27 last year, but from before.

We have worked hard to record Israeli war crimes and we are working hard to bring Israeli war criminals to justice. This approach is working and the proof is Israel has instituted new procedures to counter such moves. There is legislation by the Israeli parliament that punishes anyone giving information that can lead to the legal prosecution of war criminals and there is provision for legal aid for any Israeli so accused.

Moreover, the Israeli government is engaged in a campaign in Europe in particular to persuade countries to change their laws to prevent the possibility of holding Israelis accountable in courts there.

bitterlemons: What kind of crimes are we talking about?

Sourani: There are verified specific past cases, such as that of [the July 2002 assassination of] Salah Shehadeh in which a 985-kilo bomb was dropped on a civilian area, killing six children and nine women. In the recent war, hundreds of such bombs were dropped every day over the Gaza Strip.

We have prepared very serious legal documentation of war crimes committed against Gazan civilians during the war. I won't say where or how we are going to use this information. But we have files and names; we know where to use this information effectively and we will use it, sooner or later.

bitterlemons: Is there not a problem of process if this were to be taken, for instance, to the International Court of Justice?

Sourani: No. We avoid any body related to the political will of the United States for the simple reason that we know the limits, pressure and political reality faced by the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council.

What we instead pursue is what is known as universal jurisdiction, which does not depend on political will but on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in individual countries. So we have to identify where the Geneva conventions are part of a legal system and how we can then effectively use that system.

It is therefore very important for us to coordinate with counterparts in other countries. And there is a real area of cooperation between people across the world seeking the rule of law over the law of the jungle.

bitterlemons: There have been several much-publicized incidents of families decimated and neighborhoods destroyed. In terms of what happened in such incidents, how would you characterize the Israeli offensive?

Sourani: In the Fourth Geneva Convention, these are characterized as "grave breaches" or "war crimes". I don't want to exaggerate and go beyond that, though the Spanish court, in its recent ruling on Salah Shehadeh, said that incident could be described as a crime against humanity.

We have a lot of evidence and detailed legal files on those publicized cases and many, many more. These will make Israeli military and political leaders real targets for those who seek justice and want to ensure accountability for war criminals. This is our duty and our obligation as human rights activists. Our loyalty to the suffering, pain and bloodshed of our innocents, the protected Palestinian civilians in Gaza, will be reflected through this legal process. We want to see the rule of law, not the law of the jungle.

bitterlemons: Israel will say the rocket fire from Gaza is a war crime. Will this complicate efforts to pursue Israeli crimes?

Sourani: A crime doesn't legitimize another crime. If Israel believes that rockets are war crimes perpetrated by Hamas, why is it afraid of having an independent, international investigation committee to look into what happened in Gaza and let them look at both sides? That is the mission of the Human Rights Council. Israel never allowed any of the special human rights rapporteurs, whether John Dugard or Richard Falk, to visit the occupied territories.

If Israel believes the Palestinian side is guilty of war crimes, let an international commission investigate. We are ready to be held accountable as long as it goes both ways. But everyone knows that there hasn't been such a level of suffering, bloodshed and killing as that which occurred between December 27 and January 19 since the Nakba in 1948.

bitterlemons: Are you hopeful that anyone will be brought to justice?

Sourani: Of course. We have to be optimistic. We are aware that the US provides full legal and political cover for Israel; we know Europe is part of a conspiracy of silence; we know Europe is even providing excuses for Israel's war, calling it a "defensive" war. But we also know that this was the first ever war crime broadcast live on TV with the whole world watching. And we know that what happened to our people was unjustified, unfair and illegal. We are not going to be good victims and stay quiet, and we are not going to give up.

We have no right to forget or forgive. One day, the situation will change. Do Jews have the right to prosecute Nazi war criminals? Of course. Do we have a right to prosecute Israeli war criminals? Of course.

I want Israeli military commanders to face justice. They seem proud of what they have done. If they can defend themselves, let them stand in a court of law and do just that.- Published 23/2/2009 © bitterlemons.org

Raji Sourani is director of the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights.

Israel is a Terrorist State by Definition: Chomsky



Israel is a Terrorist State by Definition: Chomsky

Readers Number : 92

By Christiana Voniati – Polotis
21 February


Al-Manar.com.lb is not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.


Following is an excerpt of Professor Chomsky’s interview with Christiana Voniati, who is head of International News Department POLITIS Newspaper, Nicosia, Cyprus.

February 21, 2009 "Countercurrents" -- Voniati: The international public opinion and especially the Muslim world seem to have great expectations from the historic election of Obama. Can we, in your opinion, expect any real change regarding the US approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Chomsky: Not much. Quite the contrary: it may be harsher than before. In the case of Gaza, Obama maintained silence, he didn’t say a word. He said well there’s only one president so I can’t talk about it. Of course he was talking about a lot of other things but he chose not to talk about this. His campaign did repeat a statement that he had made while visiting Israel six months earlier –he had visited Sderot where the rockets hit- and he said “if this where happening to my daughters, I wouldn’t think of any reaction as legitimate”, but he couldn’t say anything about Palestinian children. Now, the attack on Gaza was at time so that it ended right before the inauguration, which is what I expected. I presume that the point was so that they could make sure that Obama didn’t have to say something, so he didn’t. And then he gave his first foreign policy declaration, it was a couple of days later when he appointed George Mitchell as his emissary, and he said nothing about Gaza except that “our paramount interest is preserving the security of Israel”. Palestine apparently doesn’t have any requirement of security. And then in his declaration he said of course we are not going to deal with Hamas -the elected government the US immediately, as soon as the government was elected in a free election the US and Israel with the help of European Union immediately started severely punishing the Palestinian population for voting in the “wrong way” in a free election and that’s what we mean by democracy. The only substantive comment he made in the declaration was to say that the arab peace plan had constructive elements, because it called for a normalization of relations with Israel and he urged the arab states to proceed with the normalization of relations. Now, he is an intelligent person, he knows that that was not what the arab peace plan said. The arab peace plan called for a two state settlement on the international border that is in accord with the long standing international consensus that the US has blocked for over 30 years and in that context of the two state settlement we should even proceed further and move towards a normalization of relations with Israel. Well, Obama carefully excluded the main content about the two state settlement and just talked about the corollary, for which a two state settlement is a precondition. Now that’s not an oversight, it can’t be. That’s a careful wording, sending the message that we are not going to change their (Israel’s) rejectionist policy. We ‘ll continue to be opposed to the international consensus on this issue, and everything else he said accords with it. We will continue in other words to support Israel’s settlement policies- those policies are undermining any possible opportunity or hope for a viable Palestinian entity of some kind. And it’s a continued reliance on force in both parts of occupied Palestine. That’s the only conclusion you could draw.

Voniati: Let us talk about the timing of the assault on the Gaza Strip. Was it accidental or did it purposefully happen in a vacuum of power? To explain myself, the global financial crisis has challenged the almost absolute US global hegemony. Furthermore, the attack on Gaza was launched during the presidential change of guard. So, did this vacuum of power benefit the Israeli assault on Gaza?

Chomsky: Well, the timing was certainly convenient since attention was focused elsewhere. There was no strong pressure on the president or other high officials of the US to say anything about it. I mean Bush was on his way out, and Obama could hide behind the pretext that he’s not yet in. And pretty much the same was in Europe, so that they could just say, well we can’t talk about it now, it’s too difficult a time. The assault was well chosen in that respect. It was well chosen in other respects too: the bombing began shortly after Hamas had offered a return to the 2005 agreement, which in fact was supported by the US. They said, ok, let’s go back to the 2005 agreement that was before Hamas was elected. That means no violence and open the borders. Closing the borders is a siege, it’s an act of war……… not very harmful but it’s an act of war. Israel of all countries insists on that. I mean Israel went to war twice in 1956 and 1967 on the grounds, it claimed, that its access to the outside world was being hampered. It wasn’t a siege, its access through the Gulf of Aqaba was being hampered. Well if that is an act of war then certainly a siege is, and so it’s understood.

So Khaled Mashaal asked for an end of the state of the war, which would include opening the borders. Well, a couple of days later, when Israel didn’t react to that, Israel attacked. The attack was timed for Saturday morning – the Sabbath day in Israel – at about 11:30, which happens to be the moment when children are leaving school and crowds are miling in the streets of this very heavily crowded city… The explicit target was police cadets… Now, there are civilians, in fact we now know that for several months the legal department of the Israeli army had been arguing against this plan because it said it was a direct attack against civilians. And of course, plenty civilians will be killed if you bomb a crowded city, especially at a time like that. But finally the legal department was sort of bludgeoned into silence by the military so they said alright. So that’s when they opened –on a Sabbath morning. Now two weeks later, Israel – on Saturday as well- blocked the humanitarian aid because they didn’t want to disgrace Sabbath. Well, that’s interesting too. But the main point about the timing was that there was an effort to undercut the efforts for a peaceful settlement and it was terminated just in time to prevent pressure on Obama to say something about it. It’s hard to believe that this isn’t conscious. We know that it was very meticulously planned for many months beforehand.

Voniati: In a recent interview with LBC, you said that the policies of Hamas are more conducive to peace than the US’s or Israel’s.

Chomsky: Oh yes, that’s clear.

Voniati: Also, that the policies of Hamas are closer to international consensus on a political peaceful settlement than those of Israel and the US. Can you explain your stance?

Chomsky: Well for several years Hamas has been very clear and explicit, repeatedly, that they favor a two state settlement on the international border. They said they would not recognize Israel but they would accept a two state settlement and a prolonged truce, maybe decades, maybe 50 years. Now, that’s not exactly the international consensus but it’s pretty close to it. On the other hand, the United States and Israel flatly reject it. They reject it in deeds, that’s why they are building all the construction development activities in the West Bank, not only in violation of international laws, US and Israel know that the illegal constructions are designed explicitly to convert the West Bank into what the architect of the policy, Arial Sharon, called bantustan. Israel takes over what it wants, break up Palestine into unviable fragments. That’s undermining a political settlement. So in deeds, yes of course they are undermining it, but also in words: that goes back to 1976 when the US vetoed the Security Council resolution put forward by the arab states which called for a two state settlement and it goes around until today. In December, last December, at the meetings of the UN’s General Assembly there were many resolutions passed. One of them was a resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people. It didn’t call for a state, just the right of self-determination. It passed with 173 to 5. The 5 were the US, Israel and a few small pacific islands. Of course that can’t be reported in the US. So they are rejecting it even in words, as well as –more significantly- in acts. On the other hand, Hamas comes pretty close to accepting it. Now, the demand which Obama repeated on Hamas is that they must meet three conditions: they must recognize Israel’s right to exist, they must renounce violence and they must accept past agreements, and in particular the Road Map. Well, what about the US and Israel? I mean, obviously they don’t renounce violence, they reject the Road Map – technically they accepted it but Israel immediately entered 14 reservations (which weren’t reported here) which completely eliminated its content, and the US went along. So the US and Israel completely violate those two conditions, and of course they violate the first, they don’t recognize Palestine. So sure, there’s a lot to criticize about Hamas, but on these matters they seem to be much closer to –not only international opinion- but even to a just settlement than the US and Israel are.

Voniati: On the other hand, Hamas has been accused of using human shields to hide and protect itself. Israel insists that the war was a matter of defense. Is Hamas a terrorist organization, as it is accused to be? Is Israel a terrorist state?

Chomsky: Well, Hamas is accused of using human shields, rightly or wrongly. But we know that Israel does it all the time. Is Israel a terrorist state? Well yes according to official definitions. I mean, one of the main things holding up cease fire right now is that Israel insists that it will not allow a cease fire until Hamas returns a captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit - he’s very famous in the West everybody knows he was captured. Well, one day before Gilad Shalit was captured, Israeli forces went into Gaza City and kidnapped two Palestinian civilians (the Muamar Brothers) and brought them across the border to Israel in violation of international law and hid them somewhere in the huge Israeli prisons. Nobody knows what happened to them since. I mean, kidnapping civilians is a much worse crime than capturing a soldier of an attacking army. And furthermore this has been regular Israeli practice for decades. They’ve been kidnapping civilians in Lebanon or on the high seas…They take them to Israel, put them into prisons, sometimes keeping them as hostages for long periods. So you know, if the capturing of Gilad Shalit is a terrorist act, well, then israel’s regular practice supported by the US is incomparably worse. And that’s quite apart from repeated aggression and other crimes. I don’t like Hamas by any means, there is plenty to criticize about them, but if you compare their actions with US and Israel, they are minor criminals.

Voniati: Though of Jewish decent, you have been repeatedly accused of anti-Semitism. How do you respond?

Chomsky: The most important comment about that was made by the distinguished statesman Abba Eban, maybe 35 years ago, in an address to the American people. He said that there are two kinds of criticism of Zionism (by Zionism I mean the policies of the state of Israel). One is criticism by anti-Semites and the other is criticism by neurotic self-hating Jews. That eliminates 100% of possible criticism. The neurotic self-hating Jews, he actually mentioned two, I was one and I.F. Stone, a well-known writer was another). I mean that’s the kind of thing that would come out of a communist party in its worst days. But you see, I can’t really be called anti-semite because I’m jewish so I must be a neurotic self-hating Jew, by definition. The assumption is that the policies of the state of Israel are perfect, so therefore any kind of criticism must be illegitimate. And that’s from Abba Eban, one of the most distinguished figures in Israel, the most westernised … praised, considered a dove.

Voniati: How do you comment on the Davos incident concerning Erdogan’s verbal attack against Peres?

Chomsky: It was impolite. You are not supposed to behave like that at Davos. But the idea that Peres was given 25 minutes to justify major atrocities and aggression, that’s what’s shocking. Why have that at Davos? I mean, do you allow Saddam Husein in such a gathering to justify the invasion of Kuwait? So Erdogan reacted, in my view, not in accord with the gentile atmosphere of the collection of the people who but basically appropriate under the circumstances.

Voniati: Have you, by any chance, been informed about the Cypriot-flagged vessel "Monchegorsk" that is docked in Limassol and seems to have been carrying weapons to the Hamas-run Gaza Strip? Israel and the United States requested that the vessel be stopped...

Chomsky: I don’t know about the Iranian vessel but I do know that right in the middle of the Gaza attack, Dignity was blocked in international waters and attacked by the Israeli navy and almost sunk. Now, that’s a major crime. That’s much worse than piracy off the coast of Somalia for example. If the Iranian vessel was stopped in international waters, that’s completely illegitimate. Israel has no authority to do anything in international waters. And the talk about not sending arms to Gaza …I mean, do they stop sending arms to Israel? I mean right in the middle of the Gaza war, the pentagon announced that it was sending a huge shipman of armaments to Israel. Did anybody stop that? They should say that those armaments are not intended for use by the Israeli army. The pentagon also announced that they are being prepositioned, that is, that they re being placed in Israel for the use of the US army In other words what they re saying is –and it’s been true for a long time- is that the US regards Israel as an offshore military base of its own, which they can use for their aggressive acts throughout the region.

Avram Noam Chomsky, 80, is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor emeritus and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as the father of modern linguistics. Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident, and a libertarian socialist intellectual.

Christiana Voniati is head of International News Department POLITIS Newspaper, Nicosia, Cyprus. E-mail: christiana.voniati@politis-news.com - Blogspot: www.voniati.blogspot.com

The Rise of Avigdor Lieberman; The End of Labor Zionist Vision

The Rise of Avigdor Lieberman And the end of the Labor Zionist vision
By Justin Raimondo – Antiwar.com
23 February

Al-Manar.com.lb is not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.

The rise of Avigdor Lieberman as the kingmaker of Israeli politics is a disaster for American supporters of Israel and for U.S. interests in the region, albeit not entirely a surprise, at least to regular visitors to this space. The circumstance of his entry into the government as minister of foreign affairs or some other key policymaking post will mark the end of the old Labor Zionism and its passage into history as yet another failed experiment in utopian socialism, along with Fourierism, Owenism, and the Icarians. With Lieberman and his party the catalyst as the up-and-coming force in Israeli politics, the Zionist project enters a new post-democratic era.

One recent indication of this were the virtually unanimous calls for outlawing the Arab parties. Not only Lieberman but also Livni and the "Left" chimed in, with Yisrael Beiteinu, the Lieberman outfit, setting the tone. Gideon Levy, writing in Ha'aretz, reminds us where we have seen this kind of thing before:

"If [Rabbi Meir] Kahane were alive and running for the 18th Knesset, not only would his list not be banned, it would win many votes, as Yisrael Beiteinu is expected to do. The prohibited has become permitted, the ostracized is now accepted, the detestable has become the talented – that's the slippery slope down which Israeli society has skidded over the past two decades."

Kahane was the George Lincoln Rockwell of Israeli politics: he advocated expulsion of all Arabs and the immediate launching of an armed struggle to achieve a "Greater Israel." Twenty years ago, his party was disqualified from running for office and banned under the strictures of the election code, which forbids parties that advocate racism and incitement to violence. Today, avers Levy, "his doctrine has won." The formerly forbidden "has become legitimate in public discourse." The signal result of this pivotal election has been "the transformation of racism and nationalism into accepted values."

Not only accepted, but dominant: as Daniel Levy acerbically titles his analysis of the Israeli elections, the country has become "The Israel of the Three Likudniks":

"So here we are in the Israel of the three Likudniks. Allow me to explain: Israel's three largest parties (together accounting for about 75 of the 110 mandates decided by the Jewish vote) are now all led by Likudniks and by a Likud-derived outlook – albeit of slightly different emphases. Kadima was of course birthed by the Likud, its founding father is none other than Ariel Sharon; its current leader Tzipi Livni was a former stalwart Likudnik; and its number two joined the Likud following a career in the military (Shaul Mofaz). Let's call this Likud-lite. Then one has the brand name version of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party. Let's call this traditional Likud. Finally, there is Yisrael Beiteinu (or Israel Our Homeland) led by longtime Likud party functionary and the party's former director-general, Avigdor Lieberman. His number two, Uzi Landau, was a 22-year Likud Knesset member and led the so-called Likud rebel faction during Sharon's Gaza disengagement. Lieberman rebranded the Likud for a Russian audience and gave it a nasty and overtly racist edge. Let's call this Likud gone wild."

Israeli politics has largely become a matter of which brand of nationalistic intransigents will hold the reins of power. In a race to the right, the ultras have the advantage and the momentum. As I warned in this space, the future belongs to Lieberman's vision of a secularized and Russified Zionism – authoritarian, expansionist, and increasingly hostile to U.S. interests and the constraints of the "special relationship."

There isn't much controversy about what Lieberman represents, even in the ranks of Israel's most fervid supporters. Marty Peretz, writing in The New Republic, declares Yisrael Beiteinu to be "neo-fascist," a party led by a "certified gangster" who is "the Israeli equivalent of Jorg Haider of Austria (now dead) and Jean-Marie Le Pen, who, with Bridgitte Bardot, is a leader of National Front in France."

While there are some superficial similarities, Lieberman fails to fit into the Euro-rightist mold in two important ways – aside from his complete dissimilarity to Bardot, who would undoubtedly object to his pork obsession.

To begin with, Lieberman is no defender of traditional cultural norms and religious values, championed by both Le Pen and Haider. The former bouncer has earned the opprobrium of the religious parties, which denounced him as an agent of Satan for taking on the prohibitions against pork – a favored food of his Russian immigrant constituency – and for trying to break the Orthodox monopoly on marriage by allowing secular ceremonies. More importantly, the Le Pen and Haider movements are anti-immigrant. That is their major platform plank, whereas Lieberman is himself a Russian immigrant and the leader of a party of recent arrivals. Le Pen, for all his shenanigans, is a Poujadist, not a Vichyite, and Haider's party was and is very similar: a movement of middle-class burghers who object to the expense of subsidizing recent immigrants with all the accoutrements of the Austrian welfare state.

Lieberman and his party are quite a different breed. Like the German National Socialists, they are avowed enemies of religion and tradition, revolutionaries impatient to sweep away the failed remnants of the old order and root out an internal "fifth column" they claim represents a threat to the nation. As I put it some months ago, what we have in Lieberman is the final proof that we are, indeed, living in Bizarro World, and reality has been turned on its head. Because what we are seeing in Israel today is the rise to power of a Jewish Hitler.

American policymakers, consumed as they are by the possibility that some homicidal maniac will acquire access to nuclear weapons – Saddam Hussein, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Osama bin Laden – should ask themselves what will happen if Lieberman gets his hands on them. After all, here is a man who called for bombing Tehran – and the Aswan dam! – about to become foreign minister of Israel. Is anybody paying attention?

In the nuclear age, "Likud gone wild," as Daniel Levy put it, is a truly frightening prospect. In yet another example of how the principle of "blowback" works, the country we spend billions subsidizing and protecting, backing its leaders and policies to the hilt, is on the verge of becoming a nuclear rogue nation. In which case, I will not join those who call for a preemptive U.S. invasion to eliminate an imminent threat – but don't think I won't be tempted.
Source


From Wired's DangerRoom, here

Cube2_2

"Amnesty International delegates in Gaza also found evidence of the use of a new type of missile, seemingly launched from unmanned drones, which explodes large numbers of tiny sharp-edged metal cubes, each between 2 and 4 mm square in size. This purpose-made shrapnel can penetrate even thick metal doors and many were seen by Amnesty International’s delegates embedded deep in concrete walls. They appear designed to cause maximum injury…
The signature of these new missiles, in addition to the deadly tiny metal cubes, is a small and deep hole in the ground (about 10 cm or less in diameter and up to several meters in depth)



Posted by G, Z, & or B at 12:21 PM

TUESDAY’S OBAMATOON

Source



February 24, 2009 at 2:52 pm (Associate Post, Barack Obama, Cartoons)







You wanted change???
In Dollars or Shekels???
*


(Ben Heine © Cartoons)

Monday, 23 February 2009

New Israeli Land Confiscations in the Southern West Bank



Written by Ahmad Jaradat, Alternative Information Center (AIC)
Monday, 23 February 2009

Recently, many dunam of Palestinian land has been confiscated to be added to the settlement of Efrat in the West Bank. Last week, the Israeli courts rejected a Palestinian appeal against a military order of confiscation of land issued one year ago. This order confiscates 2000 dunam (1 dunam= 1000 m²) belonging to nine Palestinian families in the villages of al-Khader and Artas in the south of Bethlehem District, to the north of the settlement of Efrat.
The families affected appealed to the Israeli courts in Jerusalem through human rights organizations, but unfortunately only one of the nine appeals was accepted. According to sources, there are plans to expand the settlement of Efrat toward the north and northwest, encroaching ever closer to the two villages and to the city of Bethlehem.

The Court sustained the Settlement Council and the Israeli Authority, even though the farmers presented the necessary certificates of ownership in due time, which is, according to the Israeli Law, seven days from the issue of the order.

As a result, the Palestinians of the area will begin a popular protest movement, considering that all the legal procedures have not worked. They want to preserve their lands, which have fertile soil for trees and grapes and are rich in spring water, factors that contribute significantly to the success of agriculture, and, subsequently, a good income for the families.

A long time ago, throughout the region between Bethlehem and Hebron, one could see only fields and beautiful landscapes, now everything, from east to west, is covered with settlement buildings, spoiled by by-pass roads, and fragmented by the wall. All these factors work together, compromising the geographical unity of the West Bank.

The Aim of Land Confiscation and the Strategic Policy of Settlements: The Case of Gush Etzion and Efrat

In 1983 the settlement of Efrat was established in the West Bank, soon becoming one of the biggest colonies, though one of the less crowded with people. In all the area of the settlement, there is a lot of space between one building and another, and the streets are very large. At the beginning, the settlement was built as a line from the north to the south. Later, however, it was also expanded west to east, with new housing units, security zones and roads.

According to Israeli sources, the number of inhabitants is approximately 9,000. On the land just confiscated, in all probability 2,000 houses will be built.

This extension will be strategic, in fact the order of confiscation n. 5/03/09 aims to join the settlement of Efrat with the settlement of Gush Etzion. After the unification, the Israeli Government will continue building the Wall in order to surround the two settlements. Taking into account, the additional two orders of confiscation in the Hebron District, it becomes clear that the Israeli Administration is attempting to create a kind of metropolitan region around Jerusalem, completely encircled by the Wall, covering 100 square miles.

Tens of families have lost their lands and their properties, becoming refugees in their own land. Only in the Hebron District are there are 45,000 dunam of land between the Green Line and the Wall.

The disposition of the settlements in West Bank is not accidental, but based on an extreme version of the Zionist project, entailing evacuation of the great majority of non-Jews from the lands controlled by Israel. The settlements are created according to a circular population distribution, aiming to eventually connect between one settlement and the other. This strategic planning is vexing the Palestinians: they can't cultivate their lands, they can't simply build in their cities and villages, and they lose the freedom of movement.

It is the Settlement Council in West Bank that coordinates the building of new outposts. So, settlers decide for the settlers. The Israeli Army merely issue the military order for security reasons, and the Israeli Government simply undersign the decisions made by the Settlement Council.

Three months ago, 103 outposts were counted. The outpost is the first step of the settlement policy. Typically, the Israeli military evacuate the Palestinian people in as non-explicit way as possible, frightening them in order to declare the land as an “abandoned asset.”

This despite the fact that the IV Geneva Convention, in the article 49, prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territories to the occupied territories.

Furthermore, the Hague Regulations prohibits an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs, in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for benefits of local population.

Not one of the cases of land confiscation in the Hebron District adheres to the regulations of international law.

The Reactions to the Land Confiscations and the Connection between the Israeli Policy of Settlement and the “Peace Process”

The Palestinian leadership, and particularly Mahmoud Abbas, has spoken a lot about this last land confiscation. Israel has acted to appropriate a huge amount of land during a significant political period. Because Israel is in a transition period during which elections were just held, and a new government has not been formed, it is conveniently for the settlers, more difficult to control the situation. Meanwhile, though the Palestinian Authority has spoken a lot, it has done nothing to prevent the land confiscations.

The AIC met with, Abdul Hadi Hantash, an expert on land and settlement for the Land Defense General Committee. The Committee is very active; it has brought 285 cases to the Israeli courts. “In the past, we won 80 percent of the cases,” explained Hanatash. “In the cases of confiscation for ‘Israeli property of the land,’ the Court used to sanction the mechanism, contributing to create a mask of legality. Subsequently, however, they began to do this in parallel with the army.”

Typically, the Committee takes three approaches to help Palestinians fight against the land confiscations.

The first step is a press conference; the second step is going to foreign consulates and organizing tours for politicians and diplomats in order to show the real situation of the occupation. The third step is bringing the case to the Israeli courts. Between 1998 and 2000, the Committee obtained a lot of decisions for the return of lands to Palestinians.

We asked Hanatsh what he thinks about the connection between the peace process and land confiscation. He said that the aim of the settlement project is to take the remaining 55 percent of Palestinian lands. Moreover, he was very pessimistic about the real intention of the Israeli government.

“Whoever believes that they want the peace is mad. They say that they want peace, but we want to see facts to support this on the ground. We want to put an end to the bloodshed and we want to live as a free people. But giving a hand to Israel is the same as putting snakes in our pockets. Not one of them dares to say: ‘we want to stop confiscating the land, demolishing houses, building the Wall, etc.’ And the occupation goes on and on, with the robbery of hundreds of dunam.”



Book review: Avraham Burg and the denying of denial




Raymond Deane, The Electronic Intifada, 23 February 2009


Western liberals have a great need of "good Israelis." Hitherto, the novelists Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and David Grossman have fit the bill: they are against the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they dislike the settlers, they are "for" peace and "against" violence ("on both sides"). In approvingly citing their names, western liberals both attest to their own philosemitic credentials and perpetuate the illusion that Israel is a "vibrant liberal democracy" with a robust diversity of opinion. Of late, however, these bellicose peaceniks have blotted their copybooks by supporting one or two of Israel's wars too many. A new "good Israeli" was urgently required, and he may have arisen in the shape of Avraham Burg.

The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), published in Hebrew in 2007 as Defeating Hitler and now translated by Israel Amrani, claims that the Shoah (the Nazi holocaust) has been "nationalized" and "privatized" and seeks to reclaim its memory for a universalist vision. Only thus, claims Burg, can Israelis be rescued from their obsession with spurious victimhood, and Hitler finally be defeated. Burg's concerns, unlike those of, say, political scientist Norman Finkelstein, are ultimately theological: the English title is taken from his penultimate chapter -- "Make God Smile Again" -- which may make the secularist frown.

As chair of both the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization in the 1990s Burg had precociously scaled the heights of the Zionist pyramid; he subsequently became speaker of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, and even interim president of Israel for 20 days after Ezer Weizman's resignation in 2000. Having published articles in the UK's Guardian and Israel's Yediot Ahronot in 2003 that were frankly heretical from a Zionist point of view, he resigned from politics in 2004 to devote himself to business. For western liberals, aghast at Israel's refusal to behave liberally, Burg is a plump catch indeed. Not surprisingly, therefore, The Holocaust Is Over has gleaned plaudits both from liberal Jewish commentators (Tony Judt, J.J. Goldberg) and gentiles (John Mearsheimer, Rupert Neudeck, Eric Rouleau). And yet both this book and the homages paid to it fill me with despair. At the heart of Burg's vision is an egregious denial of reality, most blatantly exposed in Chapter 6, "Lessons from the Holocaust":

"Although the creation of Israel led to the problem of [Palestinian] refugees, it does not mean that Israel's existence prevents the solution. Yet the refugee problem haunts us relentlessly and is used to justify the harshest criticism of Israel ... The heirs and descendants of our old European persecutors, who had slaughtered us and expelled us from Europe beaten and injured, take advantage of Israel's toughness ... to continue persecuting us by other means. They use the refugee problem to denounce our leadership in every possible way ..." (p. 84).

This passionate outburst, quite different in tone from the rest of the book, does not suggest that Burg has progressed very far from the "lacrimose" interpretation of Jewish history that he elsewhere criticizes as a counter-productive embrace of victimhood. The phrase "persecuting us" implies a self-pitying inability to confront soundly-based criticism on its own terms, even if it emanates not only from "our old European persecutors" but from Jews like Ilan Pappe or Richard Falk. Yet it gets worse:

"The state was born, some refugees were taken in and others were forced out ... The victims of this war became political persecutors, using propaganda as a weapon against us everywhere on the planet. They torment us in the major capitals, in the diplomatic arenas and in the media" (p. 84)

Leaving aside the preposterous obfuscation involved in the claim that "some refugees were taken in," this passage shamelessly transfers the role of persecutor from wicked Europeans to Arab refugees, tormenting poor little Israel "everywhere on the planet," presumably from the comfort of their miserable camps in Lebanon, Jordan or Gaza. And there is more:

"Only a comprehensive recognition by Israel, the Arab states and the international community regarding the moral responsibility for this necessary historical event will enable the opening of hearts and minds" (p. 85).

The Nakba (or Palestinian catastrophe) was apparently "a necessary historical event" in order to facilitate the establishment of what Burg calls "the Jewish people's state." One might even overlook this self-seeking sharing and disavowal of responsibility were the universalist Burg's "opening of hearts and minds" to point towards a just resolution of the Israel/Palestine issue in the shape of a single democratic state shared by Jews, Muslims, Christians and others. But nothing is further from his mind: "Restitution will be discussed in lieu of the refugees' return to their properties. My mother will not return to her home in Hebron ... Likewise the Naqbas [sic] and the refugees of 1948 will not return to Jaffa, Jerusalem, Majdal or Acre."

For Burg, 1948 was "a stunning national enterprise" and "an epic achievement on a mythical scale," marred only by the unfortunate but "necessary" ethnic cleansing of the natives. Burg's vision of a new Israel that will have "left Auschwitz behind" and will have truly become "a light unto the nations," seat of the "International Court of Crimes Against Humanity" and the "World Religion Organization," becomes less inspiring in view of the fact that this utopia will apparently continue to sit smugly on the spoils of dispossession. It is unclear to me, therefore, how Avraham Burg can claim to be a "post-Zionist" or indeed an "anti-Zionist," given how comfortably his views of history and historical responsibility sit alongside those of, say, the earlier Benny Morris. There is much to admire in The Holocaust is Over. Many of its criticisms of the Israeli polity and of US Jewry are incisive to the point of savagery. And yet, it is a book premised on self-deception and denial. Burg's admirers display culpable irresponsibility in failing to confront and analyze these flaws, having apparently learned nothing from their earlier misplaced adulation of Oz and company.

As a small but growing number of good Israelis (without quotation marks) know, only when the Palestinians find justice will Hitler truly be defeated.

Raymond Deane is an Irish composer and activist (www.raymonddeane.com).


Related Links
Purchase The Holocaust is Over on Amazon.com
BY TOPIC: Book reviews and features

When Will Real Americans Stand Up To The Zionist Power Configuration?

Source


I don't think that the average American knows what has and continues to go on in the Middle East, let alone understands the threat posed by what Professor James Petras refers to as the Zionist Power Configuration. Because there is no likelihood that our mainstream news media will ever broach this topic, I have decided to present the circumstances that Palestinians face daily in a way that average Americans can understand. This hopefully will create empathy for the worlds real Semites and the descendants of Jesus, the Palestinians.

Red Hatfield, Jr. (pictured above) is a proud American engaged in the transportation business. Red resides with his lovely wife Clementine, his grade school sweet heart, on forty acres in Hazard County Kentucky. Red inherited the property from his father Red Sr. after he died prematurely due to cross complications from liver and venereal diseases. Red is also very proud of his two sons, Red III and William Robert who unlike he went on to receive advanced degrees from Hazard Junior High School. Red III is now one of the top distributors of pharmaceuticals in State of Kentucky. His top product of course Oxycontin(Hillbilly Heroin). Billy Bob is the assistant manager of the Blue Grass Bait Shop and is one of Red III's best customers according to Red III.

Until recently Red Jr. had been living the American dream. He was the envy of Hazard County with his double wide trailer. Red earned almost $40,000 each year at his job with Yellow Freight. In addition, he had accumulated over $150,000(now worth about $35,000) in his 401k . Red of course could have reached the pinnacle of his profession, chief dispatch operator at Yellow, but declined this opportunity many times over his career. No desk job for Red, he felt that he belonged to the highway. Red was also well aware that those hardwoods on his forty acres were coming into there prime. The value of the white oak alone could carry he and Clementine well into their old age. Red was relying heavily on this stumpage for his retirement.

But something horrible was happening in Hazard while Red and the other citizens of Hazard County were a sleep at the wheel. Capitalizing on Indian holocaust sympathies as well as generous political contributions from their many casino holdings, a group of diasporad Punkapog Indians "Special Praying Indians" received a land grant from Congress for a tract of land in Kentucky already inhabited called Hazard County. Although Congress intended that the Punkapogs share the land with its indigenous inhabitants, the Punkapogs were not sharing kind of people. The clanish Punkapogs had long frowned upon inter tribal assimilation and immediately declared war on the indigenous inhabitants of Hazard driving many from their homes in what was called the Hazard County Nakba. To add insult to injury the Punkapogs who were originally from Massachusetts claimed an ancestral right to the land in Kentucky because many years ago their forefathers converted to the religion of the Yuchi, an Indian tribe actually indigenous to Kentucky. Now most Punkapogs simply refer to themselves as Yues. The Yues now claim that biscuits and gravy was a product of their Yueish culture.

And now the problem is on Red Jr.'s door step. Weaponized IOF Caterpillar tractors are now clearing Red's back forty for new Yueish settlements. Down came the olive...I mean white oaks and other hardwoods that Red was counting on. Just last week while on the road Red's home was invaded by the IOF (Indian Occupation Forces). Because Red's double wide sits on the top of a hill over looking the countryside it provides the perfect vantage point for the IOF to watch for Hazard militants out to defeat their Yueish occupiers. Red is still outraged over the last time his home was occupied. The IOF stold his Grandfather's banjo and vandalized his special Dale Earnhardt memorial he kept in his spare bedroom(it used to be an Elvis memorial but Red is a progressive Kentuckian and thought it was time to move on) over turning candles and defacing Dale's pictures and other collectibles. These IOF bastards even urinated in his tobacco spittoon and defecated on his shag carpeting as a show of disrespect for he and his people. Clementine still trembles each time she tells Red how disrespectful the Yues had been to her. More

31.5 million Hungry Americans
Israel and the ‘Exodus’ Of America’s Wealth
Bush's Zionist War Caused The US Financial Crisis
America's Top 15 Booming Cities now Empty
Money's tight, baby. City's in trouble. State's deep in the hole. Nation's broke.

Out of the Overflow of the Heart–Jesus and Mary as Vulgar Comedy In The Holy Land

Link


Considering the wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth drama to which the entire world was recently subjected as a result of Bp Richard Williamson’s refusal to accept as gospel truth Jewish claims concerning that “sancta sanctorum” known as the Holocaust, one would assume that a television program featuring Jesus as a fat, balding, Jonathon Pollard look-alike and his mother Mary as a Sarah Silverman act-alike should have made headline news all around the world, not only for its outrage but as well for its obvious hypocrisy.

And indeed it would have made headline news and ESPECIALLY had the Picassos responsible for this masterpiece in anti-Christian vulgarity been Muslims. As luck would have it however the program in question was not the brainchild of Imams, jihadists, Iranian president Ahmadinejhad nor Osama Bin Laden. Nor did the highly-offensive program air in Iran, Syria, Pakistan or any other Muslim enclave said by Jewish interests to be devoted to Christianity’s “utter destruction”.

Rather, it aired in the country said to be–not only the headquarters of God himself but as well, Christianity’s bestest buddy in the whole wide world, Israel. In addition to polluting the air waves of the land made holy by the life and death of Jesus Christ, the said piece was also written, produced and directed by Jews who–claiming their typical divine right of kings–used it as an opportunity in defaming not only Jesus Christ but as well the woman held by 2.5 billion Christians and Muslims to be the purest woman ever created, His mother Mary.

Airing February 18th on Israel’s Channel 10, a skit entitled “Like A Virgin” was run on popular late-night comedian Lior Shlein’s program to predictably raucous, rowdy applause. In addition to classical paintings of the Virgin Mary and Jesus, it also featured a line-up of sexual gratification devices said to have been used by the mother of Jesus along with a montage of other scenes characterizing her more like the foul-mouthed Hollywood Jewess Sarah Silverman than as the saintly woman revered and loved by Christians and Muslims. With the typically-insolent tone all-too-common these days among Jewish supremacists who know they have nothing to fear from an emasculated Christian world held prisoner by Jewish money, media and the threat of nuclear annihilation, Shlein the Swine’s shtick proceeded as follows–

“You hear every week someone new denying the holocaust, whether it is a Cardinal, patriarch, bishop, priest or some boy molested by the other members of the group, they deny it. Well, instead of getting mad I decided to get even and mention Christianity. Yes, I’m not kidding, they must be taught a lesson and this is what we are going to do now…”

“Tonight we’re going to mention some things the church has taught. Christians tell you that Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin but this isn’t true…The proof of that is very simple–John the Baptist used to surprise her when he would put his 2 fingers near the top of her thigh and she never jumped or flinched. In addition to that, if she was really a virgin she would not have shown off her dildos every night when she was with Josephus Flavius…”

“The truth is that Mary got pregnant when she was 15 by her classroom boyfriend…Her parents wanted to put her in the convent, but since Jesus wasn’t born yet and there was no Christianity, there was no convent and so her parents left her in a soccer stadium where she spent a hot night in a hotel with the Canaan Club…”(?)

“Christians say that Jesus used to walk on water in the Sea of Galilee but this is not true. Jesus was very fat and too ashamed to leave the house in his swim suit and go to the sea of Galilee. Starting at the age of 3 he started eating sacred bread and wound up one of those fat boys. He spent all his life trying to lose weight and for him every supper was the last supper. He was always saying “On Sunday I will start my diet” which is why Sunday is a sacred day for Christians…”

Of course those not familiar with the typically Jewish business of dealing with the memory of Jesus as insolently as Israel’s forefathers dealt with Him violently, the obvious question is “Why?”. Why would they–the “light among nations” and “God’s chosen people” do such a thing when the golden rule these days is “tolerance” for other religions? In a day and age when so much effort has been put in convincing Christians of their duty in going and fighting the enemies of the Jewish state on the premise that Jews and Christians are “kissing cousins” why the “sudden betrayal”?

Well, the answer given by Shlein was simple–revenge, and in particular because certain ideas held sacred by God‘s chosen people concerning the particulars of what they consider to be the main pillar of Jewish religiosity (Jewish suffering that culminated in the Holocaust) had been “disrespected” weeks earlier with the skepticism of one Bp. Richard Williamson.

One can just imagine the resulting noise pollution to which the tired, fragile ears of humanity, sick of all the constant Jewish shrieking over “this and that” would have been subjected if instead of being a Jewish program blaspheming Jesus and Mary it was a Gentile program featuring the “Joan of Arc” of Holocaustianity–Anne Frank–as she displayed the kinds of sexual toys with which she pleasured herself when she was not busy hopping from bed to bed with Nazi guards. Likewise with any of the great patriarchs of the modern state of Israel such as Theodore Herzl being depicted as some lying, money-grubbing, syphlitic child-molester with lice running through his beard. Like some deadly plague sent by the Old Testament deity Yahweh, angry that His favorite people had been mistreated, a giant tidal wave of hissing, cursing and threats would erupt from the Jewish world from every corner with the same kind of madness as recently took place following the calm, measured comments of one Bp Richard Williamson who has learned by trial and error that the boy who cries wolf cannot be believed anymore.

As can be expected however, Jewish groups (yes, the very same ones constantly lecturing the rest of the non-Jewish world on moral issues such as ‘tolerance’ and ‘sensitivity’ for others’ beliefs) have had absolutely nothing to say concerning this most recent demonstration of the nastiest and most well-funded/well-organized form of “anti-Semitism” alive today–meaning the institutionalized hatred for Jesus Christ by Jewish interests. The ADL, dedicated to fighting ‘hate and bigotry’ and whose director Abe Foxman never misses an opportunity in getting his big beak in front of any tv camera he can find whenever someone dares delineate the organic hatred for all things Christian on the part of organized Jewish groups has been as silent as death on the matter. Likewise with all the other ‘High Priests’ of Jewish moralizing such as Eli Weisel et al. But then, why should anyone be surprised at this, since it was Abe Foxman himself who was nightly fare in the days and weeks leading up to the release of Mel Gibsons’s Passion of the Christ and who predicted a new holocaust was right around the corner if such a movie favorable to Jesus Christ were released for public viewing?

Thus far the only Christian entity (outside the Middle East itself) voicing even mild protest is the Vatican, which is said to be “irked” at the blasphemous depiction of Jesus and Mary. This from an organization whose influence over her flock at one time was so fearsome that presidents, prime ministers and princes dared not get sideways with the Bishop of Rome for fear of the power of his word. When considering the embarrassing, ridiculous lengths traversed by not only Pope Benedict XVI but the entire Vatican apparatus in trying to ameliorate the anger of worldwide Jewry over the comments of Bp Williamson, compared to the limp-wristed protest over the blaspheming of Christianity’s two most-important persons, it is obvious now that there is more worry over offending the Jews than there is over the disrespect shown to Jesus and His mother. All the other “heavy hitters’ out there, including but not limited to the infamous John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Rod Parsley et al have offered no condemnations over the skit and have refused to comment on it after being contacted by this reporter.

By contrast, Muslims worldwide are outraged over such blasphemous depictions. Organized groups throughout the entire world have reacted to this latest blasphemy with the same emotion as took place with the infamous cartoons published in Europe disrespectful to the prophet Mohammed. Hezbollah, which fought Israel in a 33 day war during the summer of 2006 and credited with driving Jewish forces out of Lebanon was the first organized entity to issue a statement condemning the program. In an interview with Iran’s Press TV, Hezbollah called it ‘a grave offense against a holy messenger of God’, adding that “It was not surprising to see the Zionists broadcasting such sacrilegious material, given their history, which is filled with the massacre of prophets, destruction of mosques and churches and offensive behavior toward Islamic and Christian sanctities.’ Truer words have never been spoken.

As already mentioned, the “inspiration” for this disgusting, grotesque display of raw Jewish hatred for the sanctity of Jesus and His mother is said to be an exercise in “tit-for-tat”, meaning revenge on the part of God’s chosen people whose collective nose was rubbed raw by the comments of one individual–Bp Williamson–and the refusal on the part of his boss–the Catholic Church–to burn him at the stake as the Jews demanded. What this displays is that the virtue of “turning the other cheek” obviously has no merit amongst those who live by the maxim “an eye for an eye” and who will hear nothing of “rising above it all”, but instead insist upon wallowing in the sewer of hatred and vengeance for all enemies of the Jewish state, real or contrived.

The fact is though that there is more to this recent event than simple revenge on the part of some sexually-obsessed degenerate Jewish comedian who wears his hair like Bozo the clown. And although of vital importance in the greater scheme of things. It is not likely to be brought up at the next AIPAC meeting when for-the-most-part Christians in America are fleeced of their economic and political power in feeding a beast that will likely one day devour them, literally as well as figuratively.

In the first case, whatever denouncements that may (stress, MAY) come from any organized Jewish groups (in addition to being affected and without any substance) will at the same time be tempered with the defense similar to the one used in perpetrating the most recent holocaust against the Palestinians (Christian and Muslim) in Gaza, namely that the offending program was just the natural outcome of all the “persecutions” endured by Jews at the hands of Christian anti-Semites for millions and millions and millions of years.

Secondly, what will be assiduously avoided is any discussion of the fact that the most recent blaspheming against Jesus and His mother was not an aberration or accident by any means. Nor will there be any talk of the fact that the particulars of the blasphemous statements made against them have a traceable, verifiable, predictable source, in this case the ultimate “book of hate” known as the Talmud, considered Judaism’s holiest book. Despite assertions by certain Jewish groups that it is but a “harmless collection” of opinions about various things as innocuous as what kind of literature a Jew is allowed to read while on the toilet, (or, in the case of the now-infamous rabbis of Neturei Karta that the Talmud is a book of “peace and love”) the truth is that the inspiration for such ideas featured on the recent Israeli program were lifted right out of its pages. Desperate to cast Judaism’s greatest nemesis in the worst possible light, within the pages of this work Jesus is referred to as a sorcerer and sexual deviant and his mother Mary as a prostitute who conceived Him while menstruating. Gloating over his death and the fact that it was the Jews who were responsible for causing it, it also consigns Jesus to an eternity in hell where He remains in a vat of boiling excrement for the unforgivable sin of opposing the rabbis of His day.

In short, would be a mistake for Christian supporters of Israel who have bought into the farcical notion that Jews and Christians are “mostly the same” to assume this latest outrage was an oddity of sorts. The only thing “odd” about it is that it does not happen with more frequency, given Judaism’s historic and organic hatred for all things Christian.

However (and particularly for those who underwent some sort of sick pleasure from this latest blasphemy) all can be rest assured it certainly will not be the last. As Israel becomes more sure of herself and more confident of the fact that she has the Christian world by the short hairs she will drop the mask bit by bit and reveal herself for what she truly is and always was–the institutionalization of anti-Christianity.

When once confronting His enemies, Jesus exclaimed that “out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks”, and with regards to this latest display of raw, distilled Jewish vulgarity for the persons of Jesus Christ and His mother (as well as the absence of any outrage on the part of the Jewish community over it) what all persons can rightly assume is that it is but the tip of an iceberg that remains carefully hidden below the waterline…for now.

In the meantime, Christians should come to grips with what is already known by the Muslim world in toto–that by its very nature there can be no ‘peaceful co-existence’ with a religion such as Judaism that holds all other religions with utter hostility. In the case of Jewish “respect” for other faiths (and in particular those of Christianity and Islam) it is a case of “kill or be killed” and the sooner Christians realize this fact the safer from defamation will be the persons of their faith they hold most dear.

(c) 2009 Mark Glenn

Correspondent, American Free Press Newspaper

www.americanfreepress.net


Vatican, Catholic bishops and Hizbullah allied in condemnation of Israeli TV show


Vatican, Catholic bishops, and Hezbollah unite in condemnation of Israeli TV show. Israeli Jewish TV comedian suggested that Jesus died at young age because he was too fat. Now Christians understand how Muslims were upset when a Zionist-controlled Danish newspaper published cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a bomb-carrying terrorist.

Catholic bishops in the Holy Land expressed outrage on Friday over what they called "repulsive attacks" on Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary after an Israeli TV program spoofed them. Hizbullah issued a statement on Thursday condemning the show. "We, the members of the Assembly of the Catholic Bishops in the Holy Land deplore and condemn with utter dismay the repulsive attacks on our lord Jesus Christ and on his mother, the blessed Virgin Mary, carried out on Channel 10 of the Israeli television," a statement by the bishops said.

Hizbullah said it was "deeply concerned with the insults against the blessed Virgin Mary and one of our great prophets Jesus Christ."

"Hizbullah puts this heinous offense in the hands of all defenders of human rights and freedom of belief," it said. "Zionists should put an end to their racism and their ridicule of religious symbols."

Earlier this week, the private channel broadcast a series of skits, one of which suggested the Virgin Mary "was impregnated at the age of 15 by a school friend." Another said Jesus died at a young age "because he was fat" and that his excess weight would have made it impossible for him to walk on water.

In the program, Israeli comedian Yair Shlein joked that since Christians "deny the Holocaust, then I want to deny Christianity." Following protests, he later apologized to Arab Israeli Christian dignitaries.

The bishops said they viewed "this recent incident in the larger context of continuous attacks against Christians throughout Israel over the years" and called for an official investigation.


"It is unconceivable that such incidents have to occur in Israel which hosts some of the holiest shrines of Christianity," said the statement, signed by the Latin patriarch of Occupied Jerusalem as well as Armenian, Chaldean, Greek, Maronite and Syrian Catholic bishops.

The pontiff is scheduled to visit Israel in May. But the Vatican said Friday it has formally complained to the Israeli government over what it called an "offensive act of intolerance."

A statement from the Vatican press office said its representative in Israel complained to the government about the show, which was broadcast recently on private Channel 10, one of Israel's three main TV stations.

The statement said the government quickly assured the Holy See that it would intervene to interrupt the transmission and get the broadcaster to publicly apologize. - AFP, with The Daily Star

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=99529


Out in the cold


Out in the cold

Weeks after Israel curtailed its massive offensive on Gaza, thousands remain homeless, including children, sheltering in fragile tents in the brutal winter, writes Saleh Al-Naami

When heavy rain poured into the tent and awakened her, 38-year-old Hanan Al-Attar rushed out in a state of hysteria with her three children. Her husband Ahmed pulled at the tent poles, trying to secure them after fierce winds had knocked them over, and her oldest son filled bags with sand, placing them along the sides of the tent in a desperate attempt to keep it from collapsing. Hanan took refuge with her shivering children in the first house she came across.

The situation this family was in late last week was shared by most of the other families living in Al-Karama Camp, near Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip. The camp is composed of tents that families erected after the Israeli army destroyed their homes in the Al-Atatira and Al-Salatin areas during the recent war on Gaza.

Hajja Fatima Al-Attar, for example, was in the same situation as Hanan -- she couldn't do anything to keep her tent up since she and her family were asleep when cold rains suddenly poured in. The only thing they could do, she told Al-Ahram Weekly, was to leave their belongings behind and head to houses nearest the camp, seeking refuge from the cold and the rain. Camp residents, who lack basic services, can see the ruins of their homes in nearby neighbourhoods.

Some of those left out in the cold, in particular children, had their health compromised as a result, suffering from fatigue, diarrhoea and stomach aches. Aisha, a 33-year-old widow whose husband was killed by occupation soldiers in 2007, says she is still treating her children for severe colds in the health clinic of Beit Lahiya. The main problem facing camp residents is a lack of warm covers, since charitable organisations that distributed blankets there did not provide enough for all families. Silman Khalil, 66, told the Weekly that his family consists of 10 members but that they only received five blankets. Many of the camp's families tried to find blankets among their homes' ruins, but most failed, either because their belongings were incinerated or because what remains is trapped under blocks of crumbled walls.

Since the tents were blown down, children can no longer sleep in the camp. Families with children have placed them with relatives living elsewhere in order to keep them from falling ill, and for fear that more storms will ravage the camp and collapse their tents once again.

Camp residents do not show much enthusiasm for the aid offered by charitable organisations, for they are focussed on rebuilding their homes and dismantling the camp that has reawakened memories for some of leaving their original homes in 1948. Yet even those who found other houses to live in are feeling that their lives have been turned upside down.

For example, 51-year-old Saleh Al-Ayad looks out- of-sorts when his neighbours debate future expectations for the Gaza Strip with regard to the truce, the Shalit case, and the Israeli elections. Al-Ayad, a university guard who loves to discuss politics, has found that he is out of touch because he no longer has a television or the Internet with which to follow the news. Al-Ayad lost his home on the eastern edge of Al-Maghazi Refugee Camp in the central Gaza Strip, including all of his furniture and belongings.

Al-Ayad's three-storey house in which 10 people lived, and which cost him $150,000, was turned into rubble when three Hellfire missiles fired from an Israeli Apache helicopter hit it. By luck no one was home at the time and so the family was saved, but a woman in a neighbouring house was killed when she was struck by flying shrapnel. Abu Ali -- as Al-Ayad is called by his neighbours -- told the Weekly that his family spent several days in the only sports club in the village, and then one of his sisters invited them to stay with her since she has spare rooms. Abu Ali agreed, but soon realised that his family is just too large. He then rented an apartment belonging to his brother who lives abroad.

Abu Ali says that he has lost all of his money, which was stored in the house, as well as his wife's jewellery. His children's official papers and school and university records were also lost. But what pains Abu Ali most is that he lost the only photograph of himself with his father. He had taken special care of it, and had hoped to find it, but when he searched among the house's ruins, he discovered that it had been burnt.

Al-Ayad's oldest son, Ali, is affected by their situation for reasons in addition to the destruction of their home and family belongings. Just a few days prior to the attack, Al-Ayad's parents were busy looking for a bride for him, since his father had finished building his linked apartment and fully equipping it. The building gone, Ali will no longer be able to marry. Yet this is a small sacrifice compared to the suffering of many others. "When I see or hear about people who were killed by their collapsing houses, I sense that God wanted me to keep my family," Abu Ali says.

About a month since the ceasefire began, it is still difficult to take in the scope of suffering that Israel's war has caused Palestinians. One sign of this suffering is the disrupted movement of vehicles in the Gaza Strip, caused by the destruction or damage to many of its roads. Garage mechanic Nur Abu Naim, on Salaheddin Street that connects the north and south of Gaza, can barely fit in all the cars that need repair. He has an influx of customers whose cars have been damaged by potholes dug by Israeli bulldozers.
Anyone who goes to Salaheddin Street will see cars broken down on the side of the road and youth pushing other cars to the nearest mechanic. As Nur told the Weekly, most drivers move slowly so as to be able to brake before driving into holes that pit the streets.

Due to the immense damage wrought to nearby roads, the only way to reach the eastern neighbourhoods of Al-Qarara village in the central Gaza Strip and the town of Khazaa in the southeast is by donkey- drawn cart or by walking. Awad Sulaysil, who lives in Al-Qarara village and walks several kilometres each time he leaves, told the Weekly that the occupation army made a point of bulldozing the beginning of streets and crossroads so as to limit their use.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Source


Land theft in Beit Furiq

Link


Another roadblock between Nablus and Beit Furiq.


I reported in an earlier post how I had been invited to the village of Beit Furiq, east of Nablus, to witness damage done to a children's out-of-school facility by marauding Israeli storm troopers. The centre had just been refurbished using funds donated by AusAid - aid contributed by Australian taxpayers.

This week the Israeli army of occupation ordered five village families to vacate their homes which, they were told, are to be demolished. They will join 25 other families who have had their homes demolished and lands confiscated. Now, of the 18,000 dunums* of arable land belonging to the village, just 6,000 dunums remain.

The gradual ethnic cleansing of Beit Furiq will facilitate the expansion of several nearby colonial settlements, home to some of the most rabid and aggressive Zionist settlers in the West Bank.

* One dunum is approximately 1,000 square metres.

The Never Before Campaign

Link


I have been really busy as of late and I was interested in what this Campaign was all about, I have seen the following videos below and needed some background info on them and a online buddy Andrew was so nice to send me a message he had received about this Campaign. Thanks alot, really appreciate it! :)

These videos are part of a larger communications campaign which was launched during the Gaza war. Preparations for it had begun before that to be launched in due time, so basically we had to launch it during the war.

The campaign is based in Beirut and is expected to grow to encompass interested people and groups all over the world.

Some of the main points of this campaign go as follows:


- Never before has the an injustice been done to a people to this extent for this long, and the Palestinian people's and resistant and resilient like never before
- No more apologetic attitude in the name of garnering sympathy - it is the world who has to apologize to the Palestinian people
- Supporting the resistance, violent or not (regardless which faction), is an integral part of the campaign
- The Palestinian cause is not a humanitarian issue, it about justice and rights

I hope I answered some of your questions. More clips and more found
here

Video One


Video 2



Video 3


Palestine-Hostage-Today I Stand Up


Jerusalem's Continued Nakba

Link






Israel continues to expel Palestinian Jerusalem residents- this time around 1500 Palestinians will be losing their Jerusalem IDs and be forced to leave as their houses will be demolished to make way for a public park for settlers. This will be largest expulsion of Palestinians from Jerusalem since 1967. This is israeli policy: the maximum amout of land, with the least amount of palestinians (apartheid). Playing with demographics and creating new realities on the ground. The Nakba continues...