Sunday, 14 March 2010

Zionism – the antithesis of historical truthfulness

Redress

Gilad Atzmon argues that truth and truth seeking are alien to Jewish collective ideology and identity politics and that, therefore, unless we redouble our commitment to rigorous and unconditional historical research, “we will be subjected to Zionists and their neo-conservative agents’ plots”, “continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering” and “maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity”.

LINK

TRUTH, HISTORY AND INTEGRITY BY GILAD ATZMON


LINKSATURDAY, MARCH 13, 2010 AT 2:02PM GILAD ATZMON


Back in 2007 the notorious American Jewish right-wing organization, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), announced that it recognized as genocide the events in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were massacred. The ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, insisted that he made the decision after discussing the matter with “historians”. He did not, however, say who the historians were, nor did he say anything about their credibility or their field of scholarship. However, Foxman also consulted one Holocaust survivor who supported the decision. It was Elie Wiesel, not known for being a leading world expert on the Armenian ordeal.

The truth
Jewish history transcends itself beyond factuality, truthfulness or correspondence rules with any given vision of reality

The idea of a Zionist organization being genuinely concerned, or even slightly moved, by other people’s suffering could truly be a monumental transforming moment in Jewish history. However, this week we learned that the ADL is once again engaged in the dilemma of Armenian suffering. It is not convinced anymore that the Armenians suffered that much. It is now lobbying the American Congress not to recognize the killings of Armenians as “genocide”. This week saw the ADL “speaking out against congressional acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide and is, instead, supporting Turkey’s call for a historical commission to study the events.”

How is it that an event that took place a century ago is causing such a furore? One day it is generally classified as”genocide”, the next, it is demoted to an ordinary instance of one man killing another. Was it an “historical document” that, out of nowhere, popped out on Abe Foxman’s desk? Are there some new factual revelations that led to such a dramatic historical shift? l don’t think so.

The ADL’s behaviour is a glimpse into the notion of Jewish history and the Jewish understanding of the past. For the nationalist and political Jew, history is a pragmatic tale, it is an elastic account. It is alien to any scientific or academic method. Jewish history transcends itself beyond factuality, truthfulness or correspondence rules with any given vision of reality. It also repels integrity or ethics. It by far prefers total submission, instead of creative and critical thinking. Jewish history is a phantasmic tale that is there to make the Jews happy and the goyim [gentiles] behave themselves. It is there to serve the interests of one tribe and that tribe only. In practice, from a Jewish perspective, the decision whether there was an Armenian genocide or not is subject to Jewish interests, i.e. is it good for the Jews and is it good for Israel?

Interestingly enough, history is not a particularly “Jewish thing”. It is an established fact that not a single Jewish historical text has been written between the first century (Josephus Flavius) and early 19th century (Isaak Markus Jost). For almost 2,000 years Jews were not interested in their own or anyone else’s past, at least not enough to chronicle it. As a matter of convenience, an adequate scrutiny of the past was never a primary concern within the rabbinical tradition. One of the reasons is probably that there was no need for such a methodical effort. For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there was enough in the Bible to answer the most relevant questions to do with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand puts it, “a secular chronological time was foreign to the ‘Diaspora time’ that was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah”.

However, in the mid 19th century, in the light of secularization, urbanization and emancipation, and due to the decreasing authority of the rabbinical leaders, an emerging need of an alternative cause rose among the awakening European Jews. All of a sudden, the emancipated Jew had to decide who he was and where he came from. He also started to speculate what his role might be within the rapidly opening Western society.

This is where Jewish history in its modern form was invented. This is also where Judaism was transformed from a world religion into a “land registry” with some clearly devastating racially orientated and expansionist implications. As we know, Shlomo Sand’s account of the “Jewish nation” as a fictional invention is yet to be challenged academically. However, the dismissal of factuality or commitment to truthfulness is actually symptomatic of any form of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politics. The ADL’s treatment of the Armenian topic is just one example. The Zionist’s dismissal of a Palestinian past and heritage is just another example. But in fact any Jewish collective vision of the past is inherently Judaeo-centric and oblivious to any academic or scientific procedure.

When I was young

When I was young and naïve I regarded history as a serious academic matter. As I understood it, history had something to do with truth seeking, documents, chronology and facts. I was convinced that history aimed to convey a sensible account of the past based on methodical research. I also believed that it was premised on the assumption that understanding the past may throw some light on our present and even help us to shape a prospect of a better future.

I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs “a past” accordingly. Interestingly enough, this exact method is also prevalent among Marxists. They shape the past so it fits nicely into their vision of the future. As the old Russian joke says, “when the facts do not conform with the Marxist ideology, the Communist social scientists amend the facts (rather than revise the theory)”.

"I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs 'a past' accordingly."

When I was young, I didn’t think that history was a matter of political decisions or agreements between a rabid Zionist lobby and its favorite Holocaust survivor. I regarded historians as scholars who engaged in proper research following some strict procedures. When I was young I even considered becoming an historian.

When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our “collective” Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade*, the death march, the six million.

As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative, for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a “soap” or a “lampshade”*. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even in a mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough. But it was not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. “Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews,” writes Zionist Sever Plocker on the Israeli news website Ynet, while disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involvement in this colossal crime, probably the greatest crime of the 20th century. The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. One million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short, the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all.

It doesn’t make sense

It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on:

If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein – free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and learnt from Israeli Holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book:
One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory... The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate " (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: The Auschwitz-Birkenau Book, Merhavia 1957).
I am left puzzled here. If the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?

I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we are entitled to start asking the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the Holocaust of its Judaeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place.

Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East – surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the Holocaust denial laws serve? What is the Holocaust religion trying to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their neo-conservative agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity.

As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its “factuality” was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. However, far more concerning is the fact that it robs humanity of its heritage, it is there to stop us from looking into our past with dignity. Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the Holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail.


*During and after World War II it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations.

Evening clashes between Palestinians and Israeli troops take place near Aqsa


[ 14/03/2010 - 10:41 AM ]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- Violent clashes broke out Saturday evening between Jerusalemite citizens and the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) in the neighborhoods of the Old City near the Aqsa Mosque because of the Israeli escalation against the Islamic holy sites.

Local sources in the holy city told the Palestinian information center (PIC) that clashes took place between Palestinians and IOF troops following the sunset prayer and concentrated around the Aqsa Mosque especially in the neighborhood of Ras Al-Amud.

Two Palestinians suffered breathing problems due to tear gas inhalation and two others were rounded up, according to the sources.

In a related context, the association of Palestinian scholars on Saturday called on the Palestinian citizens to frequent the Aqsa Mosque and be ready to confront any Israeli attempt to open a synagogue near the Mosque next Tuesday.

The association urged Muslim scalars to mobilize their peoples and direct their attention to the dangers threatening the Aqsa Mosque.

It also expressed hope that the Arab leaders would put the issue of Islamic holy sites in Palestine on their agenda during upcoming summit in Libya.

For its part, the Hamas Movement hailed some Palestinian resistance factions for holding and participating in marches in Gaza and abroad against the settlement expansion and Judaization activities.

Hamas, at the same time, condemned other Palestinian factions and forces for refraining from holding or partaking in events in support for the Islamic holy sites because of pressures made on them by Fatah faction and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah.

For his part, Palestinian minister of religious affairs Dr. Taleb Abu Sha’ar appealed to the Arab and Muslim nations and the world’s free people to break their silence and move to defend the Aqsa Mosque, especially after Israeli settlers’ threats to storm the Mosque in the coming days.

In a statement on Saturday, Dr. Abu Sha’ar said that Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu, through such actions, wants to embellish his image in the eyes of his entourage and to rally the largest number of supporters around his right-wing party.

In a new development, the IOF troops continued for the fourth consecutive day to impose tight restrictions on the movement of Palestinians and their attempts to reach the Aqsa Mosque to perform their daily prayers.

The Hebrew radio reported on Sunday that the Israeli occupation authority (IOA) will only allow the Palestinians over age 50 who hold blue ID cards to enter the Aqsa Mosque.

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

MEMO REPORT: Isn’t it time for America to re-evaluate its “special relationship” with Israel?

MVia A4P
 March 12, 2010 

re-evaluateing-americas-special-relationship-with-israel
by Dr Hanan Chehata and Samira Quraishy  -  MEMO Middle East Monitor -  11 March 2010

Introduction: A call for the normalisation of relations
A mere eleven minutes after Israel declared its independence in 1948, US President Harry Truman recognised the newly created state.  That instantaneous public support has never really wavered and ever since then the two countries have shared a “special relationship”, one that is unlike any other. America has stood by Israel through thick and thin; right or wrong; supporting it on all fronts: financially, politically, diplomatically and militarily. However, many observers have for a long time now believed that this has become a toxic association, whereby America’s entrenched and unwavering support for Israel is actually doing the United States more harm than good. In 2003 the European Commission conducted a poll across Europe in which 59% of those interviewed said they felt that Israel, America’s staunchest ally, was in fact the greatest threat to world peace.

Seven years on, a slow realisation finally seems to be dawning on Americans that it is time for a serious re-evaluation of their country’s “special relationship” with Israel; at last, the discourse is beginning to take place where it really counts, in the United States of America. On 9th February 2010 there was an Intelligence Squared debate at New York University in which the motion was, “The US should step back from its special relationship with Israel”. At the start of the debate the audience poll was 33% in favour of pulling back on the special relationship; by the end of the debate that figure was 49%.

This is by no means a new call. In their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that Israel is now “increasingly a strategic liability” (p15) which has done considerable harm to US interests and that, as such, “It is time for the United States to treat Israel not as a special case but as a normal state, and to deal with it much as it deals with any other country…” (p341) In that respect, “treating Israel as a normal state means no longer pretending that Israel and America’s interests are identical, or acting as if Israel deserves steadfast US support no matter what it does”. (p341) There is nothing particularly radical about this call for the normalisation of relations and yet when the book was published in 2007, the thesis was met with widespread hostility and aggression.

Today, however, public perception has shifted incrementally and powerful ripples seem to be spreading throughout the political, academic, media and public arenas. It seems as though people are far more ready now than ever before to discuss the danger that Israel poses to world peace, and are far more willing to examine critically the role that America plays in supporting the Zionist state. This change seems to have come about largely as a result of the negative public perception of Israel’s horrific attack on the civilian population of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9. Perhaps for the first time, people saw Israel for what it was capable of and the lengths it was willing to go to in order to advance its own aims. The result is that more people appear to be more open to having the moral legitimacy of Israel and its actions brought into question, as well as asking why America sits back and lets Israel act with such apparent impunity. Serious discourse on this subject is long overdue and action is required immediately if America is to repair the damage to its international standing and credibility, especially if it hopes to maintain its role as a legitimate global leader.
This report looks briefly at how the special relationship between the two countries manifests itself, how this relationship affects America adversely and where the call for change is coming from.

Download the full report

Also in the report:

2. How deep is the special relationship and how does it manifest itself?
3. How is the US-Israel alliance harming America?
4. The call for a change in policy towards Israel; where is it coming from and how is it manifesting itself?

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

JUSTICE FOR RACHEL CORRIE?

DesertPeace

March 14, 2010 at 9:42 am (Activism, Assassinations, Gaza, Humanitarian Aid, Israel, Rachel Corrie, War Crimes, zionist harassment)

Following the letter from Rachel’s parents is a video bringing you up to date with the situation….


Friends,

As many of you know, a civil lawsuit in the case of our daughter Rachel Corrie is scheduled for trial in the Haifa District Court beginning March 10, 2010. A human rights observer and activist, Rachel, 23, tried nonviolently to offer protection for a Palestinian family whose home was threatened with demolition by the Israeli military. On March 16, 2003, she was crushed to death by an Israel Defense Force (IDF) Caterpillar D9R bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza.
The lawsuit is one piece of our family’s seven-year effort to pursue justice for our daughter and sister. We hope this trial will illustrate the need for accountability for thousands of lives lost, or indelibly injured, by occupation—in a besieged and beleaguered Gaza and throughout Palestine/Israel; bring attention to the assault on nonviolent human rights activists (Palestinian, Israeli, and international); and underscore the fact that so many Palestinian families, harmed as deeply as ours, cannot access Israeli courts.
Download this letter: Call To Action: Corrie Tri

al in Israel (pdf, 89.03 KB)

In order to deliver these interconnected messages as effectively as possible, we are asking for large-scale participation in the trial itself as well as in the events surrounding it. We hope you will join us for all or some of the events listed below and help us to put the call out to others.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10

FRIDAY, MARCH 12

If you are not with us in Palestine/Israel, please think about how you and your group/community can be visible/audible on March 16. We expect this to be a challenging time, but we know the friendship we have felt from so many of you over the years will help us navigate the weeks ahead. Though the course and outcome of the trial are unknown, we welcome the opportunity to raise and highlight many of the critical issues to which Rachel’s case is linked. Thank you for your continuing support.
In solidarity and with much appreciation,
Cindy & Craig Corrie


River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Israel tortures Jerusalem minors

Pal Telegraph

minors33_copy.jpg

Loai Rujby and Mahmoud Dweik

Occupied Jerusalem, March 13, 2010 (Pal Telegraph)- Jerusalem Center for Social and Economic Rights revealed Saturday that Israeli police tortured Jerusalemite children, who were arrested before by Israelis.

The Center published two statements made by Loai Rujby, 14, and Mahmoud Dweik,12, both residents of Al-Yemen area of the Silwan neighborhood, who were arrested on January 10, 2010 and in November, last year. Both statements provide accounts of how Israeli soldiers tortured the two children.

The center said that the children's accounts were clear-cut evidence of the torture policy adopted by Israeli occupation against the Palestinian minors, which increased by recent arrest campaigns that target children and minors.

In his testimony submitted to the Research and Documentation Center in Jerusalem, the 14-year-old Rujby confirmed that he was beaten harshly, tied up and denied access to food or bathroom.

Loai Rujby is a seventh grade student at the orphanage school in Al-Thoury area. He has been arrested 7 times, twice of which while being in the classroom, and every time he is accused of "throwing stones at the settlers' house."

Child Dweik, who was arrested in November 2009, his testimony was congruous with what Rujby said, that he was beaten and threatened during his detention.


Jumblatt: Inappropriate Statements against Assad Came in Moment of Anger

Jumblatt: Inappropriate Statements against Assad Came in Moment of Anger

14/03/2010 “My inappropriate and illogical statements about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad came in a moment of anger and loss,” this is what Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt said during an interview with Al-Jazeera television on Saturday.

After years of alliances with Western-leaning politicians and fierce anti-Syrian rhetoric, Jumblatt voiced hope that Assad would move past the instance, in reference to the time following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Should Syria move past the moment of anger, Jumblatt said he would respond to an invitation from Damascus, however questioned whether Assad would turn the page. The PSP leader voiced readiness to build a relationship with Damascus according to the Taif Accord and framework established with Assad, saying, “following my father Kamal Jumblatt’s assassination in 1977, I said I would forgive but not forget; today, I say I forgive and forget.”

“Two weeks after the assassination, I was still calling on Lebanese to not engage in aggressive behavior against Syrians in Lebanon,” said Jumblatt.

This comes in reference to Al-Watan’s report on Wednesday that “Damascus tells Jumblatt that it will not forget his past offenses,” in a reference to “Jumblatt’s instigation against Syrian nationals in Lebanon, his call for Syria’s invasion and his attempts to mislead the investigation of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL).”

“I tell the Syrian people that we share the same destiny. We are one people, one land. There won't be two states,” he stressed.

In his Al-Jazeera interview, the Progressive Socialist Party said he hoped that his son, Taymour, “would see a new Middle East, a Middle East that is secular.” “The grounds of confrontation have not changed,” he added, pointing to “an Israeli and US aggression in the region.” He also said that the region’s situation was better in the past.

Concerning the Islamic resistance, Jumblatt voiced his support and questioned whether Lebanon would be left alone in confronting regional threats. He reiterated his call for gradually integrating the Resistance into the state and Lebanese army, which he said requires certain “Arab, regional, and international conditions.” Until then, work should focus on strengthening Lebanon, he said.


River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

“Israel” Lands in Public Relations Nightmare

Via Silver Lining

Posted on March 14, 2010 by realistic bird
by Hasan Idelbi
By Mel Frykberg
JERSUSALEM, Mar 14, 2010 (IPS) – Israeli riot police and soldiers have, since Friday, sealed off the Al Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest shrine, restricting entry to women and Palestinian men over 50.

Outside the walled Old City, where the Al Aqsa mosque is situated, and in several West Bank villages, clashes were reported between Palestinian protestors, their Israeli and international supporters, and the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), leaving at least 20 Palestinians wounded.

Following a security assessment Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak ordered security forces to stop tens of thousands of Palestinians from entering Jerusalem.

The tense situation on the ground has coincided with a diplomatic crisis of sorts with the Israeli government in confrontation with visiting United States Vice-President Joe Biden.

An announcement on Tuesday by the Israeli interior ministry to build 1,600 new homes for illegal Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem provoked strong rebuke from the U.S. administration as well as international condemnation.

Israeli officials followed the announcement by stating that in the next few years, perhaps decade, approximately 50,000 new homes would be built in the occupied East Jerusalem – mostly for Jewish settlers.
Earlier in the month Barak had stated that an additional 140 new housing units would be built in one of the West Bank settlements.

Following Biden’s censure, U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton put a call through to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday, reiterating the administration’s disapproval.

The Mideast Quartet – the United Nations. Russia, the European Union (EU) and the United States – further slammed Israel’s unilateral moves and called for the resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians.
However, the Palestinian Authority (PA), backed by the Arab League and the international community, has immediately called off the talks.

The PA had recently decided to resume negotiations with Israel after breaking them off several months ago due to Israel’s continued settlement expansion in the occupied East Jerusalem.

Following the mild showdown with Biden, Netanyahu went into damage control and apologised profusely to the vice-president who seemed to be placated with being told that the intended settlement expansion would only begin in several years.

The Israeli government’s collective reasoning appears to be that the only issue at hand is the forthrightness and timing of the settlement building announcement.

The continued Judaisation of East Jerusalem, the expulsion of Palestinians, the demolition of their homes and expropriation of their land are apparently insignificant.

Israeli group Peace Now says that many settlements in the West Bank continue to defy the alleged settlement freeze.

Simultaneously, construction of public buildings, such as schools and those housing units with their foundations already established, proceed unabated in the settlements.

But analysts are questioning why Israel would deliberately shoot itself in the foot with the latest in-your-face announcements, especially taking into consideration the country’s slick and well-oiled publicity machine.
Israeli journalist and commentator from the daily ‘Haaretz’, Bradley Burston, explained that the hard-right in Israel sees this confrontational and provocative behaviour with the Palestinians and the international community as an effort to “expunge any trace of grovelling to the colonial master.”

“People are laughing at you. Who is advising you on your brand? This is not good, this is pretty bad,” Jonathan Gabay, a London-based marketing and branding expert, told ‘Haaretz’.

Gabay was commenting on Israel’s ramped up Hasbara, or public diplomacy, efforts to counter the growing international criticism.

The Israeli information and diaspora ministry recently launched a new website called Masbirim which encourages Israelis travelling abroad to defend Israel.

However, one of its advertisements ridicules the significant foreign press corps based in the country by portraying them as naïve and incompetent in their coverage of the conflict – A move hardly bound to win over an increasingly sceptical foreign media.

The foreign media, too, has been covering the civil trial of the unlawful killing of Rachel Corrie.

Corrie, a 23-year-old American activist, was crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip in 2003, as she stood in front of a Palestinian home, trying to protect it from being levelled.

The IDF claims the driver never saw her. However, eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence dispute this version of events.

Additionally, last week the parents of Tristan Anderson launched an appeal on an Israeli decision to close the investigation into the IDF shooting of their 38-year-old son.

Anderson remains in an Israeli hospital with serious brain damage after he was shot in the head with a high-velocity tear gas canister by Israeli soldiers while attending a protest against the separation barrier in the Palestinian village of Nilin near Ramallah on Mar. 13, 2009.

Again the IDF’s version of events and its subsequent investigation have been derided as inept and unprofessional by both witnesses and the Andersons’ attorney.

Eyewitnesses claim that Anderson was not involved in the confrontation and at the time of his shooting all protests had ceased. Human rights organisations accuse the Israeli authorities of using lethal and excessive force on a regular basis.

Meanwhile, to add to Israel’s public relations nightmare the European Parliament on Wednesday passed a resolution supporting a report by U.N. -appointed Justice Richard Goldstone which calls for further investigations into war crimes committed during Israel’s war on Gaza at the end of 2008 and the start of 2009.

Last December the EU passed another resolution which called for Jerusalem to be the shared capital of Israel and a future Palestinian state. The EU accused Israel of trying to block the resolution.
River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Who’s to blame for the Iraq war?

Source

Maidhc Ó Cathail names and shames the top 19 politicians, academics and policy makers – all con men and all Zionist Jews – who lied and conspired to steer the US toward aggression against the Iraqi people.

This month marks the seventh anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Despite the passage of time, there is still much confusion, some of it deliberate, about why America made that fateful decision. The following questions are intended to clarify who’s to blame for the Iraq war.

1. Ahmed Chalabi, the source of much of the false “intelligence” about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, was introduced to his biggest boosters, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz ,by their mentor, a University of Chicago professor who had known the Iraqi conman since the 1960s. Who was this influential Cold War hawk who has an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) conference centre named in his honour?

2. In 1982, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s” appeared in Kivunim, a journal published by the World Zionist Organization, which stated: “Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel.” Who wrote this seminal article?

3. “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a report prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in 1996, recommended “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”. Which then member of the Pentagon’s Defence Policy Board was the study group leader?

4. A November 1997 Weekly Standard editorial entitled “Saddam Must Go” stated: “We know it seems unthinkable to propose another ground attack to take Baghdad. But it’s time to start thinking the unthinkable.” The following year, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neo-conservative think tank, published a letter to President Clinton urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil”. The co-founders of PNAC were also the authors of the “Saddam Must Go” editorial. Who are they?

5. In Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein, published by AEI Press in 1999, he argued that Clinton policies in Iraq were failing to contain the country and proposed that the US use its military to redraw the map of the Middle East. Who was this Middle East adviser to Vice-President Dick Cheney from 2003 to mid-2007?

6. On 15 September 2001 at Camp David, the deputy defence secretary attempted to justify a US attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan because it was “doable”. In the lead-up to the war, he said that it was “wildly off the mark” to think hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to pacify a postwar Iraq; that the Iraqis “are going to welcome us as liberators”; and that “it is just wrong” to assume that the United States would have to fund the Iraq war. Who is this chief architect of the Iraq war?

7. On 23 September 2001, which US senator, who had pushed for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that there was evidence that “suggests Saddam Hussein may have had contact with Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network, perhaps [was] even involved in the 11 September attack”?
8. A 12 November 2001 New York Times editorial called an alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague an “undisputed fact”? Who was the columnist, celebrated for his linguistic prowess, who was sloppy in his use of language here?

9. A 20 November 2001 Wall Street Journal op-ed argued that the US should continue to target regimes that sponsor terrorism, claiming, “Iraq is the obvious candidate, having not only helped al-Qaeda, but attacked Americans directly (including an assassination attempt against the first President Bush) and developed weapons of mass destruction”. Who is the professor of strategic studies at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, who made these spurious claims?

10. George W. Bush’s January 2002 State of the Union address described Iraq as part of an “axis of evil”. Who was Bush’s Canadian-born speechwriter who coined the provocative phrase?

11. “Yet whether or not Iraq becomes the second front in the war against terrorism, one thing is certain: there can be no victory in this war if it ends with Saddam Hussein still in power.” Who is the longtime editor of Commentary magazine who made this assertion in a February 2002 article entitled “How to win World War IV”?

12. Which Pentagon Defence Policy Board member and PNAC signatory wrote in the Washington Post on 13 February 2002: “I believe that demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk”?

13. “If we win the war, we are in control of Iraq, it is the single largest source of oil in the world… We will have a bonanza, a financial one, at the other end, if the war is successful.” Who is the psychiatrist-turned-Washington Post columnist who tempted Americans with this illusory carrot on 3 August 2002?
14. In a 20 September 2002 Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled “The Case of Toppling Saddam,” which current national leader claimed that Saddam Hussein could be hiding nuclear material “in centrifuges the size of washing machines” throughout the country?

15. “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel.” Despite this candid admission to a foreign policy conference at the University of Virginia on 10 September 2002, he authored the National Security Strategy of September 2002, which provided the justification for a preemptive war against Iraq. Who was this member of President Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board?

16. According to a 7 December 2002 New York Times article, during Secretary of State Colin Powell’s efforts to negotiate a resolution on Iraq at the United Nations, this Iran-Contra conspirator’s role was “to make sure that Secretary Powell did not make too many concessions to the Europeans on the resolution’s wording, pressing a hard-line view.” Who was this senior director of Near East and North African affairs at the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration?

17. Who was Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff, until he was indicted for lying to federal investigators in the Valerie Plame case, who drafted Colin Powell’s fraudulent 5 February 2003 UN speech?

18. According to Julian Borger’s 17 July 2003 Guardian article entitled “The spies who pushed for war,” the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) “forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel” to provide the Bush administration with alarmist reports on Saddam’s Iraq. Who was the under secretary of defence for policy who headed the OSP?

19. Which British-born professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, whose 1990 essay “The Roots of Muslim Rage” introduced the dubious concept of a “Clash of Civilizations”, has been called “perhaps the most significant intellectual influence behind the invasion of Iraq”?

20. Apart from their key role in taking America to war against Iraq, what do the answers to questions 1 to 19 all have in common?

Answers: 1. Albert Wohlstetter 2. Oded Yinon 3. Richard Perle 4. William Kristol and Robert Kagan 5. David Wurmser 6. Paul Wolfowitz 7. Joseph Lieberman 8. William Safire 9. Eliot Cohen 10. David Frum 11. Norman Podhoretz 12. Kenneth Adelman 13. Charles Krauthammer 14. Benjamin Netanyahu 15. Philip Zelikow 16. Elliott Abrams 17. Lewis “Scooter” Libby 18. Douglas Feith 19. Bernard Lewis 20. They are all Jewish Zionists.

Anti-Semitism rising worldwide, US report finds-I wonder why?

I wonder why? "Anti-Semitism" of course has now come to mean opposition to genocide, ethnic cleansing, land theft, apartheid, racism and the notion of a master race
Anti-Semitism rising worldwide, US report finds


Telegraph.co.uk – March 12, 2010

"Traditional and new forms of anti-Semitism continued to arise, and a spike in such activity followed the Gaza conflict in the winter of 2008-2009," the State Department said in an annual report.

"Often despite official efforts to combat the problem, societal anti-Semitism persisted across Europe, South America, and beyond and manifested itself in classic forms," it said.

Such incidents, it said, involved attacks on Jews or places of worship as well as desecration of cemeteries and accusations of undue Jewish influence on government policy and media.

"New forms of anti-Semitism took the form of criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that crossed the line into demonising all Jews, and in some cases, translated into violence against Jewish individuals in general," it said.

It accused some governments - like those in Iran and Egypt - of fuelling anti-Semitism rather than combating the scourge.

TRUTH, HISTORY AND INTEGRITY BY GILAD ATZMON

SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 2010 AT 2:02PM GILAD ATZMON

Back in 2007 the notorious American Jewish right-wing organization, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) announced that it recognised the events in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were massacred as "genocide." The ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, insisted that he made the decision after discussing the matter with ‘historians’. For some reason he failed to mention who the historians were, nor did he refer to their credibility or field of scholarship. However, Foxman also consulted with one holocaust survivor who supported the decision. It was Elie Wiesel, not known for being a leading world expert on the Armenian ordeal.
The idea of a Zionist organization being genuinely concerned, or even slightly moved, by other people’s suffering could truly be a monumental transforming moment in Jewish history. However, this week we learned that the ADL is once again engaged in the dilemma of Armenian suffering. It is not convinced anymore that the Armenians suffered that much. It is now lobbying the American congress not to recognize the killings of Armenians as ‘genocide. This week saw the ADL speaking out against Congressional acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, and is, instead, advocating Turkey’s call for a historical commission to study the events.”
How is it that an event that took place a century ago is causing such a furor? One day it is generally classified as ‘genocide’, the next, it is demoted to an ordinary instance of one man killing another. Was it an ‘historical document’ that, out of nowhere, popped out on Abe Foxman’s desk? Are there some new factual revelations that led to such a dramatic historical shift? l don’t think so.
The ADL’s behaviour is a glimpse into the notion of Jewish history and the Jewish understanding of the past. For the nationalist and political Jew, history is a pragmatic tale, it is an elastic account. It is foreign to any scientific or academic method. Jewish history transcends itself beyond factuality, truthfulness or correspondence rules with any given vision of reality. It also repels integrity or ethics. It by far prefers total submission, instead of creative and critical thinking. Jewish history is a phantasmic tale that is there to make the Jews happy and the Goyim behave themselves. It is there to serve the interests of one tribe and that tribe only. In practice, from a Jewish perspective, the decision whether there was an Armenian genocide or not is subject to Jewish interests: is it good for the Jews or is it good for Israel.
Interestingly enough, history is not a particularly ‘Jewish thing’. It is an established fact that not a single Jewish historical text has been written between the 1st century (Josephus Flavius) and early 19th century (Isaak Markus Jost). For almost 2 thousand years Jews were not interested in their own or anyone else’s past, at least not enough to chronicle it. As a matter of convenience, an adequate scrutiny of the past was never a primary concern within the Rabbinical tradition. One of the reasons is probably that there was no need for such a methodical effort. For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there was enough in the Bible to answer the most relevant questions to do with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand puts it, “a secular chronological time was foreign to the ‘Diaspora time’ that was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah.”
However, in the mid 19th century, in the light of secularisation, urbanisation, emancipation and due to the decreasing authority of the Rabbinical leaders, an emerging need of an alternative cause rose amongst the awakening European Jews. All of a sudden, the emancipated Jew had to decide who he was and where he came from. He also started to speculate what his role might be within the rapidly opening Western society.
This is where Jewish history in its modern form was invented. This is also where Judaism was transformed from a world religion into a ‘land registry’ with some clearly devastating racially orientated and expansionist implications. As we know, Shlomo Sand’s account of the ‘Jewish Nation’ as a fictional invention is yet to be challenged academically. However, the dismissal of factuality or commitment to truthfulness is actually symptomatic of any form of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politics. The ADL’s treatment of the Armenian topic is just one example. The Zionist’s dismissal of a Palestinian past and heritage is just another example. But in fact any Jewish collective vision of the past is inherently Judeo-centric and oblivious to any academic or scientific procedure.
When I was Young
When I was young and naïve I regarded history as a serious academic matter. As I understood it, history had something to do with truth seeking, documents, chronology and facts. I was convinced that history aimed to convey a sensible account of the past based on methodical research. I also believed that it was premised on the assumption that understanding the past may throw some light over our present and even help us to shape a prospect of a better future.
I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Interestingly enough, this exact method is also prevalent amongst Marxists. They shape the past so it fits nicely into their vision of the future. As the old Russian joke says, “when the facts do not conform with the Marxist ideology, the Communist social scientists amend the facts (rather than revise the theory)”.
When I was young, I didn’t think that history was a matter of political decisions or agreements between a rabid Zionist lobby and its favorite holocaust survivor. I regarded historians as scholars who engaged in adequate research following some strict procedures. When I was young I even considered becoming an historian.
When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade*, the death march, the six million.
As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’*. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. “Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews” writes ZionistSever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involvement in this colossal crime, probably the greatest crime of the 20th century. The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all.
It Doesn’t make sense
It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on:
If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book
"One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. …The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate " (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz - Birkenau, Merhavia 1957).
I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?
I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place
65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity.
As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. However, far more concerning is the fact that it robs humanity of its heritage, it is there to stop us from looking into our past with dignity. Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail.
*During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations.

Abu Zuhri: Fatah's statements indicate rejection of reconciliation


PIC

[ 14/03/2010 - 08:30 AM ]

GAZA, (PIC)-- Hamas said that the statements by Fatah leaders and the practices of Abbas's militias on the ground all point that Fatah does not want to end the internal division.

Dr. Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, told the PIC on Saturday evening that the recent statement by Fatah official Nabil Shaath was "imbalanced and illogical".

Shaath said that Hamas was refusing to sign the Egyptian reconciliation document out of fear of revenge and of holding elections before reconstruction of Gaza. He also said that Hamas leaders outside Palestine did not support signing the document while those inside Gaza were keen on signing it.

Abu Zuhri said that Shaath's statement aimed at drawing the public opinion's attention away from Fatah's scandals topped by their insistence on negotiations with the Israeli occupation authority despite the latter's escalation of construction of Jewish settlements in occupied Jerusalem.

The statement is part of a campaign aimed at covering up for this scandal, the spokesman said, noting that "reconciliation is not mere ink on paper but rather practices on the ground."

Abu Zuhri pointed out that the wave of arrests in lines of Hamas cadres and supporters in the West Bank was another indication that Fatah was not serious about reconciliation.

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

“... an emasculated White House” that lacks “Mideast muscle”

Via Friday-Lunch-Club

The Leveretts in the RFI/ here

Vice President Joseph Biden set out to massage U.S.-Israeli relations this week, but instead ran up against the reality of Israeli politics, manifested in the Netanyahu government’s announcement of the construction of 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem. The result, as described by the normally rhetorically sober Financial Times, has been to expose “an emasculated White House” that lacks “Mideast muscle.This criticism is completely deserved, because Biden’s debacle in Israel is the fruit of the Obama Administration’s fatally flawed approach to the Middle East.
The first and most fundamental flaw in that approach is President Obama’s failure to pursue strategic realignment with the Islamic Republic of Iran with the kind of strategic focus and political determination with which President Nixon pursued strategic realignment with the People’s Republic of China in the early 1970s. By allowing the Iran issue to drift, President Obama has given Prime Minister Netanyahu an ideal excuse for not acceding to effective American mediation on the Palestinian issue. “How can Washington ask me to take both strategic and domestic political risks on the Palestinian issue,” Netanyahu can ask rhetorically, “when I have to marshal every bit of the Israeli government’s bureaucratic and national security capacity and my own political capital to deal with the Iran issue?”
Furthermore, the Obama Administration’s current default policy for dealing with Iran—namely, to pursue further sanctions and work to forge a regional coalition to “contain” Iran—will do nothing to resolve the Iran problem. This only reinforces Netanyahu’s excuse for pursuing policies toward the Palestinians that are deeply damaging to whatever prospects might still remain for a two-state solution and, by extension, to America’s strategic position in the region. As we wrote in a New York Times Op Ed in May 2009 (and were criticized in some quarters for being too critical of the Obama Administration too early in its tenure):
“President Obama and his team should not be excused for their failure to learn the lessons of recent history in the Middle East—that the prospect of strategic cooperation with Israel is profoundly unpopular with Arab publics and that even moderate Arab regimes cannot sustain such cooperation. The notion of an Israeli-moderate Arab coalition is not only delusional, it would leave the Palestinian and Syrian-Lebanese tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict unresolved and prospects for their resolution in free fall.”
And that is exactly where prospects for resolution of the Palestinian and Syrian-Lebanese tracks are today—in free fall. As we noted in our May 2009 Op Ed, “These tracks cannot be resolved without meaningful American interaction with Iran and its regional allies, HAMAS and Hezbollah”. Beyond the failure to deal in a genuinely strategic way with Iran, the second fundamental flaw in the Obama Administration’s approach to the Middle East is a failure to define any appreciable limits for Israeli actions. This is particularly devastating on the Palestinian track.
As we wrote in an article, “A Roadmap to Nowhere: Obama’s Refusal to dub Israeli settlements illegal is undermining any hope of Middle East peace”, that we published on ForeignPolicy.com in July, President Obama missed a critical opportunity in his June 2009 Cairo speech to take U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory back to what is was under the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations, when U.S. policy actually achieved meaningful progress towards a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict—namely, a clear-cut stance the such settlements were illegal, in that the settlement of Israeli civilians in occupied territory violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Instead, Obama stuck with the same tired and useless stance that has enabled Israel to expand settlements in occupied Palestinian territories by orders of magnitude over the past quarter century;in Cairo, Obama said only that “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements”. When the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler asked the State Department to clarify whether Obama’s rejection of the “legitimacy” of continued Israei settlements meant that the U.S. government considered settlement activity in itself to be a violation of international law, the State Department repeatedly declined to answer.....
And that is precisely what is happening today. In addition to the 1,600 East Jerusalem housing units announced by the Netanyahu government in conjunction with Biden’s visit, Haaretz reports that “some 50,000 new housing units in Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the Green Line are in various stages of planning and approval”.
But bad strategy on Iran and Arab-Israeli issues, in and of itself, does not account for descriptions of the Obama Administration as “emasculated”. For that, we must consider the third flaw in President Obama’s approach to the Middle East—his determined position to enable Israel to act without cost or consequence, no matter how damaging its actions might be to regional peace prospects and America’s own strategic interests. Writing in POLITICO today, Laura Rozen reports that people who heard what Biden said to Israeli officials behind closed doors “were ‘stunned’, the centrist Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported. ‘This is starting to get dangerous for us’, Biden castigated his interlocutors. ‘What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace.’”
One hopes that Biden did indeed use those words. But what do such behind closed-doors words mean, really, if they are not backed up by a willingness to withhold some part of America’s aid to Israel over behavior that, as Biden reportedly said, puts the lives of American soldiers at risk? What do those fine words mean if they are not backed up by a willingness to let Israel begin appreciating the consequences of such behavior in the United Nations Security Council? What do those words mean if President Obama does not inform Prime Minister Netanyahu that he is prepared to use those words himself, addressed to the American public, if Israel does not reverse course on the settlements issue? ..."
Posted by G, Z, or B at 10:22 AM
River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Bedouins fight state for land near Dead Sea

Haaretz

By Amira Hass

"Unless immediate action is taken to destroy the public buildings at the site, the illegal settlement there will be a fait accompli and could effectively dictate the status of the whole huge area between Ma'aleh Adumim and the Dead Sea ... It is easy to anticipate the complications the authorities would face when coming to implement demolition orders against a religious place of worship and a school, once their construction is completed and they begin to fulfill their functions."

This is not a warning from the Palestinian Authority or Peace Now about a Jewish settlement in the West Bank: It is a petition, submitted in September 2009, to the High Court of Justice to order Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the head of the Central Command Maj. Gen. Gadi Shamni and the area's Civil
Administration chief, Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, to exercise their authorities as representatives of the sovereign power in the West Bank to destroy structures that the Bedouin-Palestinian Jahalin tribe has built.

About two weeks ago, the High Court had its say on the matter. Actually, Justices Uzi Vogelman, Esther Hayut and Isaac Amit ruled simultaneously on two petitions. One urged the legal authorities to immediately order - or at least set a timetable for - the demolition of the structures, on the grounds
that they constitute unauthorized construction on state-owned lands. That petition was filed by attorney Amir Fischer on behalf of the Kfar Adumim settlement, together with the Regavim association. The other petition was filed by attorney Shlomo Lecker on behalf of the Jahalin residents who seek to have their school left intact, and to take measures which would remedy decades-old discrimination against the Bedouin in that area. While the Civil Administration had issued demolition orders, the High Court of Justice ruled in its decision that the structure could remain in place until the end of the school year.

The issue began last summer when Bedouin in the are built a school from used car tires, sand and mud in Khan al-Ahmar, southeast of Jerusalem, alongside the highway to Jericho. It was very cheap, environmentally friendly and provided natural insulation - unlike the other structures that Regavim also
wants to see demolished: tin huts that are stifling in the summer and freezing cold in the winter, or the windswept tents and flimsy sheds that typify the residents' dwellings.

Some 90 children, aged 6 to 10, have been studying since August 2009 in this ecologically friendly facility, which has made it possible for Bedouin youngsters, especially girls, to comply with the Palestinian Authority's laws regarding compulsory education. Some parents cannot afford the daily
bus ride to the school in Azzariyeh or to the one in Jericho. Furthermore, many are afraid of the children being involved in accidents along the busy highway while they wait for transportation.

However, the issue at hand far exceeds the problem of destroying a homemade building or preventing girls from dropping out of school.

First of all, Regavim - which submitted its petition along with Kfar Adumim and its Alon and Nofei Prat suburbs - describes itself as a "nonpolitical movement that seeks to preserve the nation's lands and assets, to prevent various groups from illegally seizing control of these territorial assets and to monitor the way the administrative authorities handle such matters so as to ensure that they follow proper procedures."

In its petition, Regavim wrote: "Within the area of jurisdiction earmarked for Kfar Adumim and its future development, there used to be a few Bedouin tents ... [However,] in recent years many Bedouin Palestinians migrated there and, within Kfar Adumim's bounds, erected solid structures, prepared
[land for] agriculture, and illegally seized [land] on a massive scale, in violation of the law ... [They] severely harm the appellants' natural and public spaces, and the areas designated as reserves for natural growth."

Moreover, the appellants claimed that in recent years, the Jahalin tribe erected 257 illegal structures on state-owned land, and that the area "along this strategic axis [Route 1, which links Jericho to Tel Aviv via Jerusalem] is being taken over, on a daily basis, by the owners of the structures - Palestinian Bedouin who behave as though they own that area ... which all Israeli governments treat as an inseparable part of the State of Israel."

Shlomo Lecker is one of the veteran Israeli lawyers who represent Palestinians - in particular, Bedouin in Area C. His efforts, for example, have enabled hundreds of cave dwellers to return to some 30,000 dunams of land (four dunams is approximately one acre) in the southern Hebron Hills. Another of his appeals led to the cancellation of a 70-kilometer-long stretch of the security barrier in the Ma'aleh Adumim area, which would have deprived Palestinians of 66,000 dunams of land.

In rebutting the Regavim and Kfar Adumim petition, which was submitted to the High Court last February, Lecker reminded the judges that the village of Khan al-Ahmar existed long before the establishment of Kfar Adumin in 1979. Now it is a collection of tin shacks, covered with burlap and boards, on the outskirts of the luxurious neighborhoods of Kfar Adumim and Ma'aleh Adumim. He added: Ma'aleh Adumim's area of jurisdiction covers 48,000 dunams, that of Kfar Adumim is 16,000 dunams, and the entire area targeted by Regavim's petition is a meager 150 dunams.

Moreover, Lecker claimed: "There are no 'migrants' in the tents there; all the people are the original residents and their offspring, and any additional huts are because of natural population growth." He stressed that the school, the rickety dwellings and the adjacent animal pens are located on recognized, privately owned lands leased from the residents of the nearby village of Anata.

In addition, there has been no "massive seizure" of lands, Lecker declared. Quite the contrary: In the past, the Bedouin's herds used to graze in areas that have been turned into a military firing range or have become part of a Jewish settlement's jurisdiction, so now their movements and livelihood are restricted.

Lecker appended to his petition a formal opinion drafted by Bimkom - Planners for Planning Rights, a nonprofit human rights organization, which outlines the history of the Jahalin people in the area in question since 1948, when they were forcibly relocated from the Negev to the West Bank. Two of the 12 sections of the document relate to the history of the Jewish settlements there, particularly Kfar Adumim.

According to that document, which is based on official data, Kfar Adumim's detailed master plan was only approved nine years after its establishment. When the Regavim petition was submitted to the High Court, there were 300 illegally built structures in Kfar Adumim and its suburbs.

Referring to Lecker's claim of discrimination, Justice Vogelman declared:
"Even if we assume, for argument's sake and without even ruling on this matter, that the petitioners [the Jahalin] have a case when they argue that the respondents did not seek to obtain a master plan that would make it possible for them to receive building permits - that should not halt the process of enforcement [of rulings] in light of the illegal construction. However, the High Court expects the state to fulfill its promise to initiate proper planning procedures which facilitate the issuance of building permits for permanent structures for Bedouin residing in Area C."

As for the Regavim/Kfar Adumim petition, Vogelman ruled that there was no basis for court intervention in Civil Administration enforcement of the law, after the latter had issued demolition orders for the school and some 40 structures. Since the court trusted the authorities' judgment, he added, it would not address the state's claim that Kfar Adumim's petition ought to be rejected because it is "generalized." Nor did it address Lecker's contention that the petition ought to be rejected outright "for lack of good faith and lack of integrity" because of the hundreds of illegal structures built in and around Kfar Adumim.

The attorney representing Regavim and Kfar Adumim did not respond to Bimkom's document. Responding to a request for comment from Haaretz, Regavim's media adviser, Amnon Shomron, said: "Every other day, extreme-left organizations make appeals against resumption of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria. If attorney Lecker has complaints about the establishment of the Kfar Adumim settlement, and seeks to join these organizations, then he surely knows how to do so."

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

European campaign against siege meets Buzek, urges him to move for Gaza

PIC

[ 13/03/2010 - 04:49 PM ]

BRUSSELS, (PIC)-- A delegation of the European campaign to end the siege on Gaza met with Jerzy Buzek, the president of the European parliament, in Strasbourg to urge him to make serious moves to end the blockade on Gaza and pressure Israel in this regard.

The delegation, which included head of the campaign Dr. Arafat Madi and six European lawmakers who visited Gaza lately, stressed during the meeting held at the parliament's premises the need for serious and active moves to end the siege and the tragic humanitarian situation in Gaza.

The delegation affirmed that the roots of Gaza crisis is not as much humanitarian as it is political and thus the financial and material aid given by the European Union will not end the problem, calling for political action to pressure Israel to end its blockade.

The delegation also emphasized the need for respecting the results of the last Palestinian elections and talking with all parties to find a way out of the crisis. The delegates also asked Buzek to visit the Gaza Strip.

For his part, Buzek promised to visit Gaza in the near future and follow up what took place during the meeting with Catherine Ashton, the high representative for EU foreign affairs.

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Egypt’s Mufti: Establishing a temple near Al-Aqsa will explode the region

Egypt’s Mufti: Establishing a temple near Al-Aqsa will explode the region

[ 13/03/2010 - 04:22 PM ]

CAIRO, (PIC)-- Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Juma’h stated Saturday that the Israeli intention to storm the Aqsa Mosque during this month and establish a huge synagogue near it would aggravate the crisis and lead to the explosion of the whole region.

Juma’h said in a statement that such a step does not only provoke the feeling of Muslims around the world, but also it flagrantly violates heavenly religions and the international law.

He called for taking judicial moves with international courts against Israel to curb its violations against the Islamic holy sites, warning that the Israeli decisions to seize Palestine Mosques would threaten international peace and security.

For his part, Hamas spokesman Yousuf Farahat also warned on Friday of Israel’s intents to open a synagogue close to the Aqsa Mosque next Tuesday and called on the Muslim Nation to urgently move to defend the Mosque before it is too late.

He called on the Palestinian people to participate in the massive popular sit-in to be held next Tuesday outside the legislative council.

In a related incident, Al-Bayarik foundation said on Saturday that it organized a march of more than 30 buses boarded by hundreds of Palestinians from the 1948 occupied lands to the Aqsa Mosque, but the Israeli occupation police prevented most of these buses from reaching their destination.

For its part, the Aqsa foundation for endowment and heritage reported that the IOF troops are still imposing a tight siege on the Old City of Jerusalem and the Aqsa Mosque and bar Palestinian worshipers under the age of 50 from praying in the Mosque.

Information director of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt Hamdi Hasan, for his part, strongly denounced the Egyptian security apparatuses for quelling marches held in different areas of Egypt in protest at the Israeli violations against the Islamic holy sites in Palestine.

“As the Zionist forces prevent the Muslims in Palestine from heading to the Aqsa Mosque, the Egyptian security forces have launched a campaign of attacks on those who protested the violations against the Islamic holy sites, and arrested dozens of them,” Hasan said.

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian