Sunday, 21 November 2010

Antisemitism on the rise! Hate Must Be Created, But Let Us Be The Victims!

By Nahida

Jewish student caught painting Swastikas on her own door then claiming Anti-Semitic Attack


Creating a false flag anti-semitic attack to get sympathy


Police investigate anti-Semitism in Willliamsburg, and the media runs to witness, document and report this ugly hate crime of unprecedented proportions






Police investigate anti-Semitism in Willliamsburg





BROOKLYN — Police are investigating anti-Semitic messages left on the walls of a Williamsburg apartment building.


Police say someone scrawled Nazi symbols in a building primarily inhabited by Jewish residents.
Residents say they are surprised to see the symbols on the building.
No arrests have been made.

NY Rabbi Caught Up with Hedge Funds, Found Guilty

An Orthodox Jewish rabbi director of a Brooklyn, New York, religious school was found guilty by a jury on Wednesday on charges of trying to extort $4 million from SAC Capital hedge fund billionaire Steven Cohen.




The jury in U.S. District Court in Manhattan reached their verdict against Rabbi Milton Balkany in five hours of deliberations after a trial that began on November 1. Balkany was charged in February with extortion, blackmail, wire fraud and making false statements in an attempt to force Cohen to donate to his school.


Judge Denise Cote ordered Balkany's bail conditions and travel restrictions to remain in place until Monday, when he will be required to begin wearing an electronic monitoring device and be confined to his home. Balkany's sentencing was scheduled for February 18.


“I am pleased to be leaving the building with my client and we will continue to litigate important issues in this case,” the rabbi's lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, told reporters.


Brafman said at the time of Balkany's arrest that his client used bad judgment and did not act with criminal intent.


Allegations that first appeared quietly in the court record of Balkany's criminal case led to news last week that another hedge fund, FrontPoint Partners, might have traded on inside information.


Last week, U.S. prosecutors charged a French doctor, Yves Benhamou, with giving inside information to FrontPoint. Authorities charged Benhamou with tipping the hedge fund about negative results from a clinical trial that biotechnology firm Human Genome Sciences Inc was conducting for an experimental treatment for hepatitis C. The clinical trial took place in late 2007 and early 2008.


The hedge fund has put one of its top healthcare managers, Chip Skowron, on leave and said it is cooperating with authorities.


The rabbi made claims about improper trading by Skowron and FrontPoint in telephone calls with an investigator who was looking into the allegation Balkany was trying to extort money from Cohen. Prosecutors said Cohen did nothing wrong.


Transcripts of the calls were included in Balkany's trial record and partial recordings were played to the jury.


The case is USA v Balkany, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 10-441.
















This is Zionism



nahida

zionists get the hell out of Palestine’
~ Helen Thomas

To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war.
 ~ Ludwig von Mises

Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the little voice at the end of the day that says . . .  I'll try again tomorrow.      
 ~ Anne Henninghake
___________________________________________________________________________________


Nahida Izzat: "I am -Jerusalem born- Palestinian refugee living in exile for over 40 years. I was forced to leave my homeland, Palestine at the age of seven during the six-day war.
I am a mathematician by profession but art is one of my favourite pastimes, I love hand-made things, so I make dolls, cards, and most of my own clothes.
I also write poetry, and participate in dialogues with known and unknown friends as I believe that communication is the first step of understanding, I believe in building bridges not walls.
My shy and extra sensitive nature hinders me from public speaking, so I try to compensate for my shortcomings by writing! I started writing about three years ago when my friends insisted I should write about my memories, experiences, and my feelings as a Palestinian. So I self published two books (I Believe in Miracles and Palestine, The True Story) [Biographical information: Growing Gardens for Palestine]
___________________________________________________________________________________

About anti Semitism

Knesset to vote on bill outlawing Palestinians from living in '48-occupied land

[ 21/11/2010 - 02:52 PM ]

NAZARETH, (PIC)-- The Israeli Knesset will vote Sunday on a racist bill outlawing Palestinians from residing in 1948-occupied Palestinian territories with a majorly Jewish population.

Sources in Israel said the bill is set to grant local committees the power to select the families permitted to reside in Israeli towns.

The draft sparked controversy among Israelis some of whom said it discriminates against Palestinians in Israel, as it allows for the committees to reject residency of Arab families and other residential segments in the territory.

Israeli officials and academics signed a petition demanding that the Knesset refrains from ratifying the proposed bill, arguing that it affects the historic and moral foundation of the country, will be a dark stain on Israel, lead to racial discrimination, and can be used by anti-Semitic parties to legitimize discrimination against Jews in the world.

Israel Our Home party member David Rotem said the law’s objective is to empower Israeli towns to identify themselves as Zionists and prevent non-Jews from residing in them.

The petition said the bill allows for an official and technical cover by using the excuse of lack of compatibility with the social fabric to continue discrimination against other Israeli groups against the backdrop of race, economic status, gender, and personal status.


Israeli authorities planning to eject 100,000 Palestinians from Jerusalem

[ 20/11/2010 - 11:05 AM ]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- Observers say the situation in Jerusalem is likely to explode in light of a decision by Israeli occupation authorities to demolish hundreds of Palestinian homes in the city.

Israeli legal consultant Yahuda Feinstein, during a meeting Thursday between Israel’s planning and construction committee attended by the Israeli mayor of Jerusalem and police force representatives, gave directives to partially close down a settlement outpost in the Arab district of Silwan and demolish hundreds of nearby Palestinian homes.

Silwan defense committee member Fakhri Abu Dhiab told Al-Jazeera that hundreds of residents have already received demolition notices.

Referring to sources inside Israel’s Jerusalem municipality, he added that Jerusalem mayor Nir Barakat received the green light from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to carry out the demolitions.

The committee said 340 homes are threatened to be demolished in Silwan for allegedly being built without a permit.

Israeli authorities approved only 60 building permits since the eastern part of the city was occupied in 1967.

Jerusalem attorney Ahmed Al-Roweidi said in a press release on Thursday that more than 20,000 homes in Jerusalem will be affected by decisions made in Israeli courts, adding that demolition orders against these homes would require 100,000 Palestinians to be ejected from their homes in an attempt to attract more Jewish settlers to reside in new settlements.

Roweidi said the Jerusalem district of Silwan, the Bustan neighborhood in particular, was under the greatest danger as the Israeli government threatened to take down 88 homes and evacuate 1,500 Arab residents to build a new biblical park dubbed the “King’s Park” on its place.

The Israeli occupation government is also expected to approve during a weekly meeting on Sunday a 30 million dollar plan to finish digging and construction in the Buraq Square, known by Jews as the Wailing Wall area.

Sources in Jerusalem said the plan, scheduled to stretch between 2011-2015, includes archaeological excavations in the area and tunnels near the Aqsa Mosque set to make the area accessible to the Jewish public.

The plan was complementary to an earlier 20 million dollar plan that lasted from 2006 to 2010 aimed at developing the Buraq Square and surrounding areas.

[ 21/11/2010 - 02:27 PM ]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- The Israeli occupation authority (IOA) extended the ban imposed on the entry of Hatem Abdulqader, the Fatah-affiliated official in charge of the Jerusalem file, to occupied Jerusalem for six additional months ending in May next year.

Palestinian sources added that the IOA also increased the number of the areas in Jerusalem which cannot be entered by those whose entry was banned by Israeli military courts.

The Israeli intelligence summoned Abdulqader during Eid Al-Adha vacation and warned him of carrying out any activities in Jerusalem and handed him the extension order, plus a map illustrating the new areas he is not allowed in.

Abdulqader, for his part, considered the Israeli decision illegal and non-binding, adding he would pretend he did not receive such an order.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

A Palestinian-American view of NATO strategy paper (Corrected link)‏

A Palestinian-American view of NATO strategy paper
By Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD


The new NATO Strategy was adopted last week at a meeting in Portugal by heads of state of the 28-member NATO alliance while outside over 10,000marchers shouted "no to war, no to NATO". Internally, I heard that career officers of NATO were not happy either. I am a citizen of the USA as well asPalestinian who lives under occupation. The US, the only remaining superpower (although declining rapidly) played the key role in forming theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and still largely shapes its policies.

Thus, as a US citizen, I am entitled to question the document andexamine it in detail. But as a human being we should all care what politicians plan for our ailing planet.

The document states innocuously in the beginning that "NATO member states form a unique community of values, committed to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law" [1].

Many citizens of NATO countries wondered where were these lofty ideals of individual liberties, human rights, and democracy in the past 10 years. Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, secret CIA torture camps around the world, kidnapping, extrajudicial executions and more were practiced by our countries.

All the data are now available for anyone to confirm these. If these were aberrations and mistakes, why has no high officials (Bush, Blair, others) paid for them? And why the strategy paper does not state that member countries are committed to these liberal principles both inside and outside their borders?

Why do many NATO countries fund and support dictators (for example in Egypt) if they are sincere about democracy?

The new strategy affirms that "the Alliance is firmly committed to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and to the Washington Treaty, which affirms the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security."


So how come NATO member countries have not pushed for implementation of any of the passed 35 UN Security council resolutions that deal with Israel?

And how come they allowed one member state of NATO to veto dozens of other security council resolutions that attempt to secure international peace?

Israel regularly violates the UN charter and even its own commitments when it was allowed into the UN (e.g. to accept UN resolutions including the right of return to Palestinian refugees). So if NATO is committed to this charter why not ask the US (the chief sponsor of the rogue state of Israel) to insist that Israel complies with International law? But then again, the US was forced by Israel's lobby to invade Iraq, an act clearly in violation of the charter of the UN [2].

The new strategic concept paper adopted states that "NATO will actively employ an appropriate mix of those political and military tools to help manage developing crises that have the potential to affect Alliance security, before they escalate into conflicts; to stop ongoing conflicts where they affect Alliance security; and to help consolidate stability in post-conflict situations where that contributes to Euro-Atlantic security."


I kept thinking of one word not mentioned anywhere in the document but clearly in the minds of those drafting it: Afghanistan. Any rational reading of the role of NATO in Afghanistan would have to conclude that it decreased not increased stability. The war on this impoverished country was ill-advised from the beginning. The rulers of Afghanistan had simply demanded from the US proof that Osama Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The US refused to put-out any evidence and chose to occupy the country.

Here we are, nearly 10 years later and Osama Bin Laden is supposedly now in Pakistan (itself destabilized by the NATO actions) and the Taliban insurgency is stronger than ever.

Some 2/3rd of Afghanistan is actually now under the rule of the resurgent Taliban. The puppet government of Karzai in Kabul is corrupt and is maintained only by Western support and by bribes to corrupt war lords. Heroin trade, nearly decimated by 2001 under the Taliban rule, is now flourishing.

NATO forces regularly use unmanned aircraft to bomb civilians and hatred of all Western countries increased round the Middle East. Now copy-cat "Al-Qaeda" cells are sprouting like mushrooms in places like Somalia, Yemen, Morocco, Algeria, and sub-Saharan Africa.

An average citizen like me asks the question: is this the employing of "an appropriate mix of those political and military tools to help manage developing crises" or is it what creates crisis?Then the strategy paper gets even more bizarre by noting that "Terrorism poses a direct threat to the security of the citizens of NATO countries, and to international stability and prosperity more broadly." It is bizarre because it does not bother to define what "terrorism" is. One can only deduce that terrorism is left to those with big sticks to define. State terrorism seems excluded. Freedom fighters or even non-violent resisters to occupation and colonization can be labeled as terrorists. International law that guarantees rights of resistance can be dismissed.

NATO leaders add that "Extremist groups continue to spread to, and in, areas of strategic importance to the Alliance, and modern technology increases the threat and potential impact of terrorist attacks, in particular if terrorists were to acquire nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological capabilities." But the paper does not explain WHY "extremist groups continue to spread.

There are really only two scenarios, the one promoted by the Zionist media around the West (that Islam is the cause) and the one academic researchers and strategists showed that it had to do with western policies (pressured by the Zionists themselves).


If Islam is the cause of extremism spreading, then NATO should explain why now (not 400 years ago) and what they plan to do about it other than follow the script prepared for them in Tel Aviv.
Later in the document it states NATO will work to "enhance the capacity to detect and defend against international terrorism, including through enhanced analysis of the threat, more consultations with our partners, and the development of appropriate military capabilities, including to help train local forces to fight terrorism themselves."

But this is what NATO has been doing for 10 years and it does not seem to be working. Is it not time to dig a little deeper in the analysis for example by examining the role of the Western implanted state of Israel and the World Zionist Organization in fostering hatred and anger in the Arab and Islamic world and in false-flag operations that are then blamed in Muslims? 

Then we see these even more vague assertions: "Instability or conflict beyond NATO borders can directly threaten Alliance security, including by fostering extremism, terrorism, and trans-national illegal activities such as trafficking in arms, narcotics and people" and "Crises and conflicts beyond NATO's borders can pose a direct threat to the security of Alliance territory and populations. NATO will therefore engage, where possible and when necessary, to prevent crises, manage crises, stabilize post-conflict situations and support reconstruction."

Indeed, but why does NATO chose to get involved in Afghanistan and its key members (US, Britain etc) choose to get involved in Iraq?

Why not get involved in Israel?

Will NATO strategists objectively examine these interventions to decide what could have happened if alternative strategies were pursued?

Will they objectively examine why most people see the hypocrisy of causing the death of over 1 million civilians in Iraq for alleged violations of a couple of UN Security Council resolutions while giving billions to Israel (a habitual violator of International law)?

Need anyone comment on this next pearl of wisdom from NATO other than to say "show me how, where, and when": "The best way to manage conflicts is to prevent them from happening. NATO will continually monitor and analyse the international environment to anticipate crises and, where appropriate, take active steps to prevent them from becoming larger conflicts." But wait, they maybe giving us a hint: "Where conflict prevention proves unsuccessful, NATO will be prepared and capable to manage ongoing hostilities.

NATO has unique conflict management capacities, including the unparalleled capability to deploy and sustain robust military forces in the field. NATO-led operations have demonstrated the indispensable contribution the Alliance can make to international conflict management efforts." If all you have is a hammer, surely everything looks like a nail.

Is NATO thinking of intervening in Iran and Venezuela instead of Israel and Columbia?

How many areas in the world will NATO be willing to send troops to?

And if NATO keeps misdiagnosing the etiology of the problems they are facing (minor symptoms of a more systemic disease), then how can they design effective therapies or even give people a hope of a reasonably decent prognosis?

More ominous statements are included in the new strategy that is revealing:


"All countries are increasingly reliant on the vital communication, transport and transit routes on which international trade, energy security and prosperity depend. They require greater international efforts to ensure their resilience against attack or disruption. Some NATO countries will become more dependent on foreign energy suppliers and in some cases, on
foreign energy supply and distribution networks for their energy needs. As a larger share of world consumption is transported across the globe, energy supplies are increasingly exposed to disruption."

One wonders what does this mean. Who will determine "threats" to "supplies"?
Where is the mention here of free trade and supply and demand?


Will these NATO countries dependent on getting natural resources from other countries be entitled to NATO defense to ensure their supply is not disrupted if sellers get better offers from other buyers?

The NATO document vagueness gets rather scary:


"Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy. The circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance." and NATO will work to "sustain the necessary levels of defense spending, so that our armed forces are sufficiently resourced".

Madness is indeed continuing on a path that produced more destabilization, doubled the number of countries with nuclear weapons since 1950, and increased global insecurity.

With the economies in Europe and North America struggling, one wonders what is going on in the heads of these politicians as they promise to keep pumping more resources into the bloated military budgets. Even seasoned NATO officers (many retired) are questioning this logic. The US spends half its discretionary budget on its military, a military that already has enough weapons to obliterate life on earth many times over.

The Nonproliferation Treaty that all these countries signed stated that they would work to reduce and then completely eliminate nuclear weapons. Yet, they proliferate them to their client states (Israel, then India and Pakistan as examples). And what does it mean that "as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance"? How will they cease to exist if those with the biggest stockpiles write such bizarre statements?

The document also claims that the alliance will work to foil "cyber attacks". But will this include such cyber attacks as clearly carried out by US and Israeli intelligence agents against Iran's civilian nuclear facilities (facilities regularly inspected by the IAEA and certified annually to be in compliance with international treaties)? And what message is sent to any country (friendly or not-so-friendly to the US and Israel if the rules of the game do not apply to powerful countries and the rules are discarded to punish smaller countries on the whim of the powerful?

Other issues seemed positive but again vague:


-"increased cooperation with UN": Does this mean NATO member states like the US will now obey the UN charter and stop invading and undermining sovereignty of other countries

-" fully strengthen the strategic partnership with the EU, in the spirit of full mutual openness, transparency, complementarity and respect for the autonomy and institutional integrity of both organisations": The EU has human rights and other treaties central to its operations but NATO does not do that. What is the way to reconcile the differences?

The document ends by reiterating that "Our Alliance thrives as a source of hope because it is based on common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and because our common essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members.
These values and objectives are universal and perpetual, and we are determined to defend them through unity, solidarity, strength and resolve."

And what about the most egregious violations of these principles by the fifth strongest army in the world (an army with a state called Israel)?
Where is the insistence on individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law?


Why is a key NATO country giving this rogue nation 20 of the most advanced jet aircraft? [3].

As a colonial apartheid regime, the Israeli violations of all these principles indeed foster instability that affects NATO member state security at every conceivable level.
Further, the presence of strong Zionist lobbies in NATO key members has pushed these states (e.g. Britain and the US) to engage in elective and costly wars (e.g. on Iraq) that undermined global security. And most significantly, where is the honesty about how the misplaced priority of NATO governments makes the rich richer and the poor poorer in these countries? Where is the discussion of people's rights to economic security?

Isn't the job of government to ensure people have a future worth living or is the job of governments to secure corporations and wealthy aristocrats in their endless greed that is already destroying our planet? Isn't global warming a more important threat to our survival than some manufactured threat from a bearded man in Afghanistan (or is it Pakistan or is it Langley base)?

I ask these questions since I am a US citizen (a NATO country). What of non-NATO countries?

I am also a Palestinian citizen and thus can equally criticize the Palestinian government which like many non-NATO countries is intimidated into silence about issues that affect the welfare of people around the world.

Our representatives (whose tenure had ended but still remain in office without elections) are not even allowing a discussion of options going forward [4]. But the more I look into machinations of politicians in this new world order, the more convinced I am of my life long persistence in trying to effect change at the grass-root level.

Cu Chi Tunnels consist of a network of more than
200 km  of underground tunnels used by resistance
 fighters during the U.S./Vietnam War.
After all, that is how real change happens in society not because of political leaders but in spite of them (see women's rights, civil rights, worker's rights, environmental regulations, ending the war on Vietnam - Mr. Mazen, Are you sure??, It is mainly the blood of Freedom fighters that ended the war-  that ending apartheid South Africa etc).

Thus I felt friendship to those 10,000 people on the streets in Lisbon and I felt sorry for those politicians with the body guards and the shiny suits shaking hands in well guarded buildings.

History will show indeed that we, the people, hold the answers.


2] See Connecting the dots: IRAQ & PALESTINE by Mazin Qumsiyeh and read the book by earsheimer and Walt "The Israel Lobby"

3] see
Wait– we are giving who?? 20 F-35 stealth attack jets?? for what??
One possible framework for a single state in Israel/Palestine

4] see for example of good analysis Palestine at the UN: An alternative strategy  here By Mouin Rabbani and here: Palestine at the UN: An alternative strategy

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.qumsiyeh.org/pipermail/humanrights/attachments/20101121/f59464c0/attachment.htm>
_______________________________________________

HumanRights newsletter

http://lists.qumsiyeh.org/mailman/listinfo/humanrights

Hamas: Resistance our Legitimate Right


[ 20/11/2010 - 10:32 AM ]

DAMASCUS, (PIC)-- Hamas said that martyr Sheikh Ezzedin Al-Qassam, who traveled from Syria to fight the British occupation of Palestine, and before him Salahuddin Al-Ayubi, who liberated the Aqsa, posed as sheer proof that Palestine is an Arab, Islamic cause.

Hamas, in a statement on Saturday commemorating the 75th martyrdom anniversary of Sheikh Qassam, said that the attempts to absent the Arab and Islamic depth of Palestine would end up in failure.

It warned that conspiring to liquidate the Palestine cause or to give up an inch of its land would be considered a "national crime" and a stab in the back of those martyrs who died while defending Palestine.

Hamas stressed that resistance is a legitimate right for the Palestinian people as long as occupation remained on Palestinian land, adding that any settlement projects that concede rights and bargain over constants would not bind the Palestinian people.

For his part, Abu Obaida, the spokesman of the Qassam Brigades the armed wing of Hamas, stated in a press statement in Gaza on Friday that the Palestinian Mujahideen would continue along the path of Sheikh Qassam until final victory.

He described those who believe in peace with Israeli occupation and hope to achieve independence through begging "oppressive nations" as "living an illusion", adding that there is no other way than that trekked by Sheikh Qassam namely resistance.

Sheikh Qassam was killed by British occupation soldiers on 20/11/1936 when he was encircled along with 14 of his comrades near Yaabad village, Jenin district.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

PHILIP GIRALDI: LIAR LIAR

Via MCS

- 19. Nov, 2010

Obama’s spin team made a heroic effort to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.

Terima kasih. Terima kasih, thank you so much, thank you, everybody. Selamat pagi. (Applause.) It is wonderful to be here at the University of Indonesia.
President Barack Obama’s speech in Indonesia in which he conceded that the United States must do more to establish a good working relationship with many Muslim nations would have ranked as one of the more pathetic performances by an American president in recent years but for the fact that there have been so many awful performances to choose from.  The president’s grammar and syntax were perfect and the speech was cleverly crafted, exactly what we have come to expect.  It was replete with carefully designed pauses, Indonesian words and phrases, and some self deprecating humor, but it was characteristically bloodless and completely tone deaf.  One almost longed to see Bill Clinton choking up and shedding a tear or two.

Obama’s spin team made a heroic effort to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.  They likened the Indonesia speech to his Cairo offering seventeen months ago, in which he likewise committed his administration to establishing a new, more convivial modality for dealing with Islamic nations.  That speech was received respectfully and even positively in many quarters, but this time no one was fooled.  It’s funny how a year and a half of inaction and even retreat can reshape how someone thinks.  One Indonesian commented afterwards “What will Obama do in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If we don’t see any progress, what he says is just a speech.”

Obama’s offering was full of the usual bromides, about how respectful he is of Islam and its traditions.  He even touched on Israel-Palestine, not surprisingly blaming both sides for not taking the necessary courageous steps to find peace.  It is a familiar argument for American audiences who are used to hearing that the conflict is bilateral, but did not go down well in Indonesia where the listeners are all too aware of the details of the brutal Israeli occupation.

What Obama should have said was that it has now become clear that Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has no desire for any peace agreement that does not provide for perpetual and absolute Israeli dominance over the Palestinians.  He should have added that he knows that Netanyahu has nothing but contempt for him personally in the wake of the midterm election debacle and he might also observe that his ability to act independently is conditioned by the Israel Lobby so he can do nothing to help the Palestinians achieve statehood or even to recover a measure of dignity under Israeli occupation.  He might admit that he has now been reduced to offering multi-billion dollar bribes of military equipment to Israel just to tempt it to suspend some settlement activity for ninety day.  Obama’s words would not have changed reality on the ground, but at least he would have told the truth for a change and the candor would have been refreshing.

If Obama wants to establish some kind of modus vivendi with the Islamic world he must speak to it in language that it understands and not lie about things that all Muslims know to be true.  And it is also past time that he begin to speak the truth to the American people also.  His administration’s retreat from any confrontation with Israel in an attempt to make a recalcitrant Netanyahu conform even to minimal standards of behavior confirms what all the world already knows:  Israel will act and the United States will follow, even if those actions will inflict grave damage on the American people and on the US national interest.

And what will that mean for the United States?  It means that the decision about going to war for the US is essentially controlled by Israel because Tel Aviv can start a conflict with Iran at any time that will quickly draw Washington in.  Those who think that the White House still is managing the situation are completely naïve.  There is no indication that the Obama administration has warned Israel against bombing Iran because the US has no cards to play, having ruled out exerting any sort of economic or military pressure on Netanyahu. And there should be no doubt that an attack by Israel on an Iranian nuclear facility would trigger Iranian retaliation and immediate calls in Congress and the media to support Tel Aviv, leaving the president no option but to enter the conflict.  A third war in the region would mean goodbye to any American ability to disengage from the other conflicts that are bleeding the US white and would possibly lead to even more dire consequences if neighbors like nuclear armed Pakistan and India somehow enter the fray.
Bibi Netanyahu surely understands that the cost to the United States in lives and treasure from war with Iran could potentially be catastrophic but it is a price he is willing to pay as his own people and economy would largely be spared, at least initially.  No American leader should tolerate such a situation but, deplorably, those who have spoken out at all on the Middle East have lined up behind the Israelis as if they were part of the United States, or even more esteemed than any of the fifty states. Vice President Joe Biden told the Jewish Federations of North America annual gathering in New Orleans last week that “the ties between our two countries are literally unbreakable” and described how he is “absolutely certain that our support for Israel must continue … forever,” echoing similar statements made by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama.  Biden knows full well that Israeli and US interests do not coincide and his comments amount to political pandering of the worst sort.  It is even more disconcerting to think that he might actually mean what he says.
Meanwhile Steny Hoyer, who calls himself a Zionist and frequently expresses his love for Israel, and has spoken of “our responsibility to stand by Israel and the Jewish people,” is poised to take over as Minority Whip in the House of Representatives.  On the other side of the aisle, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Eric Cantor are unrelenting advocates of Israel who are about to step into senior positions in the Republican dominated congress.  Cantor recently met privately with Bibi Netanyahu and said the Republican Party would serve “as a check on” the Obama Administration over its policies in the Middle East. Then “He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.” In other words, Cantor was meeting with the leader of a foreign country and promising to do whatever he could to influence and even subvert the foreign policy of his own country.  Think about that one for a minute or two.

Dennis Ross, has been through the revolving door  
between the State Department and the major
 neoconservative  institutions, including the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
(WINEP), an AIPAC think tank

And while Cantor, Hoyer, Biden and company are ceding US national security to the Israelis, who actually is calling the shots on shaping American policy? 

None other than the redoubtable Dennis Ross, perched in the National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Central Region.  Ross, who has been described as Israel’s lawyer, is poison in the very heart of the policy making apparatus.

He recently spoke at an AIPAC Conference in Hollywood Florida where he said “Just last week, I participated in the US-Strategic Dialogue, a biannual event that includes a comprehensive exchange of views on regional issues crucial to both the United State and Israel. But more importantly, the Strategic Dialogue is just one of many, ongoing, and high-level exchanges that occur regularly between the United States in Israel.

I’m not aware of another country that we engage more regularly on such a wide range of issues. These types of exchanges not only provide opportunities for discussion of ideas on policy, but they also help solidify connections between our two governments. Over the last two years, I have seen four-star generals, intelligence officers, and high-ranking diplomats all develop personal relationships with their Israeli counterparts. Frankly, this degree of coordination is unprecedented. I have participated in these types of discussions for the last 30 years, and they have never been as intense or focused, reflecting the serious cooperation that we have today with Israel. But our commitment to Israel’s security is defined not by talk. It is defined by the kinds of actions and deeds that help make both of our countries safer and stronger in the face of common threats.”

So if you doubt that the United States is tied hand and foot to Israel in terms of its ability to take independent action in the Middle East, just listen to what Dennis Ross, Joe Biden, and Eric Cantor are saying.  Does it sound like they are articulating policies beneficial to the US?  They are insisting that Americans have to support Israel unquestioningly no matter what it does and are little more than advocates for monsters like Bibi Netanyahu, pure and simple.  The word Quisling comes to mind when one thinks of them and also Hoyer and Ros-Lehtinen.  If their failure to be truly loyal to the country that has nurtured them brings about a new war in which many of their fellow citizens will die, their actions and posturing should be defined by one and all as treason.  If America is to be taken back in a new revolution that will lead to a restoration of the vision of the Founding Fathers it will only take place after the betrayers of our constitution are removed from government, every single one of them.  When American politicians and senior government officials speak of their love of a foreign government that pursues policies inimical to US values and interests they should be disowned by every true patriot and also by every respectable media outlet.  It should be grounds for their immediate removal.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest.

His “Deep Background” column appears every month exclusively in The American Conservative
See:

Barack Obama’s Speech in Jakarta

http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/obama-bronzed-in-indonesia/


Credit Image: Rehmat's Blog

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

ANTHONY LAWSON: FRIENDS OF ISRAEL – ENEMIES INSIDE THE GATES (video)






 VETERANS TODAY THANKS TONY LAWSON FOR ANOTHER OUTSTANDING EFFORT


TONY LAWSON VIDEO STILL
TONY LAWSON VIDEO STILL
 November 21, 2010

Posted by Gordon Duff · 5 Comments 

…SENIOR EDITOR, GORDON DUFF

Ed: The worldwide popularity of Tony Lawson’s videos has done more to help American veterans and military understand the real issues that confront them and the very real oral failures that have brought America to its dire position in the world. 

As with Vietnam, there have been no parades, no victory, only the dead, the wounded and the damaged, already, not only forgotten but cast aside and turned away as so many had predicted long ago when American entered this path in 2001.

The only thing left, the only thing that is real is truth.  We have had enough lies, enough coddling, enough manipulation and disinformation.  The truth may not set us free, only courage can do that, but it is a start.


YouTube - Veterans Today -

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Israeli fascism, the joker Shlomo Avineri and the tragedy of Peace Now

Via Redress
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Uri Avnery

21 November 2010

Uri Avnery cautions against those in Israel such as Shlomo Avineri who dismiss the increasingly potent fascism tendencies in the country and warns against appeasing racists and fascists, in the way that Peace Now is currently doing.

“A disaster!” the courtiers of the King of Hanover cried, “Seven renowned professors at Göttingen University have published a declaration of protest against you!”

That was 173 years ago. The king had suspended the liberal constitution enacted by his predecessor.

“So what,” the king replied, “Tarts, dancers and professors I can always buy.”

This story was told me to by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who was himself a professor of half a dozen vastly different disciplines, from bio-chemistry to the philosophy of science. He held many of his colleagues in profound contempt.

He told me this story when we were talking about one professor in particular: Shlomo Avineri, who had just agreed to serve as director-general of the Foreign Ministry under Minister Yigal Alon. Alon was the author of the “Alon Plan”, which provided for the annexation of wide stretches of occupied territory.

Preposterous Shlomo Avineri under the shadow of fascism
This week, Avineri published an article under the headline “Fascism? You make me laugh!”

What made him laugh? The ridiculous (for him) argument that there exist fascist tendencies in Israel. He reminded us that fascism means the Gestapo, concentration camps and genocide. How could we forget?

Avineri is a respected professor, an expert on Hegel and Zionism. He is also a valiant warrior against “post-Zionists” and other miscreants who criticize classical Zionism.

I guess that if in 1923 somebody had told his father in the Polish town of Bielsko that in the Bavarian town of Munich an oddball with a funny little moustache was telling people about his plan to become the dictator of Germany and invade Poland, he, too, would have exclaimed: “You make me laugh!”

In those days in Germany many little “völkisch” groups were springing up with similar demands: to annul the citizenship of Jews, to drive the Jews out of their neighborhoods and to introduce oaths of allegiance to the Reich as the nation-state of the German people (including the Austrians, of course.)

At the time, these groups were laughed at. How could anyone imagine that a civilized country, the nation of Goethe, Schiller and Kant – and, indeed, Hegel – would hoist these crazies into power?

Over the next few years, many of those who had laughed found themselves in concentration camps, where they had ample time to meditate and tell themselves: if we had acted to stop the fascists in time, instead of laughing, this would not have happened.

On the day Avineri was struggling not to laugh, another un-funny item was published.

It reported that a delegation of “senior Peace Now members”, led by Director-General Yariv Oppenheimer, had met with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

The occurrence of this meeting gives rise to some questions. Even more so does its aim.

Danny Ayalon captured the attention of the world when he summoned the Turkish ambassador and sat him on a low sofa, while loudly explaining to the Israeli reporters present that his intention was to humiliate Turkey.

It is difficult to probe the depth of foolishness of this infantile deed and of the man who did it. The public humiliation of a proud nation, which holds a key position in our region, set off to a long chain of events: Turkish public opinion turned against Israel, a Turkish ship sailed for Gaza and its violent interception caused a world-wide storm, Turkey is realigning itself with Iran and Syria – and the story is not over yet. True, Ayalon did not cause all this by himself, but he definitely deserves his share of the glory.

So how did it enter the minds of these “Senior Peace Now Members” to meet this man of all people, and thus bestow legitimacy on him?

And not only on him. It could be argued that Ayalon is exposed as the village idiot, so that no amount of legitimacy would stick to him. But behind Ayalon there looms the man who appointed him: Minister for Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman.

Lieberman is an international symbol of racism, a settler and defender of settlers, the principal assistant in Binyamin Netanyahu’s efforts to obstruct peace and eternalize the occupation. At this very moment he is providing Netanyahu with the pretext to object to the freeze of the settlements and torpedo the peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Dozens of foreign ministers refuse to meet Lieberman. No Arab leader agrees to shake his hand. Egyptians loathe him, for Palestinians he is the symbol of evil. He cannot show his face in respectable international society.

Peace Now – PR agents for racist Lieberman
So, for heaven’s sake, what caused the “Senior Peace Now Members” to legitimize this person?

The topic of the meeting is even more amazing. As reported, the Peace Now people proposed “cooperation” with the Foreign Office. It would be good for you, they told their host, to distribute Peace Now material around the world, in order to show that Israel is not only a state of occupation and settlements, but also of peaceniks. That would improve the image of the state and help the Foreign Office to silence the critics.

In other words: the “senior Peace Now members” are prepared to serve as fig leaves for Netanyahu’s government and for Lieberman’s Foreign Ministry. They offer them an alibi.

The Peace Now movement enjoys a very positive reputation all over the world. People remember them for the giant protest demonstration after the Sabra and Shatila massacre. The impression is widespread that it is the sole peace movement in Israel. The world media treat it graciously, while practically ignoring all other Israeli peace forces.

This is what makes this meeting so dangerous. Many across the world will tell themselves: if Peace Now meets with Lieberman’s people and offers them cooperation, they can’t be so bad.

Thus, Peace Now is serving Lieberman as Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak are serving Netanyahu. And as Shlomo Avineri, in his time, served Yigal Alon. The King of Hanover knew what he was talking about.

How did Peace Now reach this point?

I am not against the movement. On the contrary, I appreciate very much its struggle against the settlements. True, they did not join the boycott of the products of the settlements which we started 12 years ago, but they are monitoring the construction activities in the settlements and bringing them to the attention of the world. This is an important and very laudable action.

The trouble is that the movement, which could once call hundreds of thousands onto the streets, finds it hard nowadays to mobilize even a few hundred.

When Peace Now sold its soul

This can be attributed to the general collapse of the Israeli peace movement since 2000, when Ehud Barak declared that “We have no partner for peace”. But the case of Peace Now merits special analysis.

The movement came into being in 1978, when it seemed that Menachem Begin was dragging his feet and was not responding positively enough to Anwar Sadat’s historic peace initiative. Begin, a lawyer by profession and character, haggled over every little detail, and there was a danger that the unique opportunity would be missed. The demonstrations of the young Peace Now helped to push Begin in the right direction.

The zenith of Peace Now’s success was the “demonstration of the 400 thousand” after the Sabra and Shatila massacre in the First Lebanon War. Even though the number is exaggerated, it was a huge demonstration, unique in its way, which expressed a real uprising of Israel public opinion.

But this success had a price. On the eve of the war, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, the leaders of the Labour Party, went to see Begin and urged him to start the war. And here, lo and behold, these two appeared as the main speakers at the Peace Now protest. It was a deal: Peace Now gave the two a kosher certificate, and the Labour Party brought the (then) masses of its adherents to the square.

It reminded me of the deal made by Faust with Mephistopheles: in return for worldly success, he sold his soul.

The strategy of Peace Now was not altogether without logic.

This was explained by Tzali Reshef, who was the real leader of the movement for several decades. In 1992, when Rabin deported 415 Islamic activists to the Lebanon border, a public debate on the proper response took place in Tel Aviv. I proposed setting up protest tents opposite the Prime Minister’s Office and staying there until the deportees were allowed to return. Reshef rejected this, saying frankly: “Peace Now is addressing a large public and we must not do anything that would push them away from us. Avnery can afford to say all the right things, we don’t have this luxury.”

We indulged in this luxury, put up the tents and stayed there day and night in subzero temperatures. (It was in those very tents that Gush Shalom was born.) Throughout the years, Peace Now gradually adopted our positions, but always after a delay of months or years. Thus, they belatedly adopted the two-state solution, the need to talk with the Palestine Liberation Organization, the principle of two capitals in Jerusalem, etc.

This strategy would have been legitimate and even justified – had it proved effective. But in real life, the opposite happened: the masses left Peace Now, and the movement is now, like all of us, engaged in a desperate rearguard battle against the rising rightist tide.

And unlike Professor Avineri – I feel no inclination to laugh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Anti-Semitic roots of Zionism


The justification of Anti-Semitism is a cardinal theme in Theodor Herzl’s book The Jewish State. Herzl poses the question asked by all anti-Zionists: “Will not Zionism provide weapons for the anti-Semites?” He answers: “How so? Because I admit the truth? Because I do not maintain that there are none but excellent men among us.”

Then Patai quotes Herzl’s Diaries: “They (Goyim) could not have let themselves be subjected by us in the army, in government, in all of commerce”. However, Zionists have proven Herzl to be wrong. The Jews now do control all those three sectors of the Western world plus the world media.

Yehezkel Kaufman in article, titled “The Ruin of Soul” collected quotes from some of the Zionist writers (Frishman, Lenni Brenner, Berdichevsky, AD. Gordon, Schawadron, Klatzkin, Pinsker, Israel Joshua Singer, Chaim Kaplan, etc.), which if repeated on air – would get you fired from CNN, BBC, CBS, etc.

Chaim Kaplan, who kept a diary during the Warsaw ghetto uprising, wrote his Jew-hating observation: “Every nation, in its time of misfortune, has conspirators who do their work in secret. In our case an entire nation has been raised on conspiracy. With others the conspiracy is political; with us it is religious and national”.

The Israel TV documentary ‘The Anti-Semitic Side of Zionism’ has explored the hidden Jewish hatred of the Zionist movement. The Zionist leaders distorted biblical texts and Muslim-Jewish history of tolerance and love – and adopted Jewish religious symbols to fool the non-Zionist Jewish majority and the Christian extreme.

Israel-born writer and musician, Gilad Atzmon, has posted a brilliant review of the two-hour Israeli documentary. (watch a video below).

It (documentary) is there to prove that Zionism is deeply anti- Semitic. The film is well made and very well researched, and the shocking quotes it outlines are all genuine.

Just five minutes into the documentary, Herzl is quoted saying: “The wealthy Jews control the world. In their hands lies the fate of governments and nations”.

But it isn’t just money the founder of Zionism is concerned with: Herzl was also very unhappy with what he saw as the role of Jews in setting off wars and world conflicts. Needless to say of course, Herzl couldn’t know about what else was to come, decades later — He didn’t know about Neo-conservatism; he didn’t know about Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby setting the American doctrine of moral interventionism; Herzl couldn’t know that it would be the Labour Friends of Israel who would contribute funds to the Labour Government in 2003; and Herzl couldn’t foresee that people like Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronivitch and Nick Cohen would rally within the British press for further aggression in the Middle East, namely, the Iraq War.

Bravely, the film elaborates on the similarities between Herzl and Hitler. It is rather clear that – at least ideologically — the two political thinkers shared a deep aversion towards Jews.

Zionism was there to erect a ‘new Jew’: It promised to transform the Jews into “civilized people”. The documentary exposes the level of loathing early Zionists felt towards their Diaspora brothers.
“If I should be able to save all the (Jewish) children of Germany via transport to England, and merely half of them via transport to Israel, I will choose the latter,” David Ben Gurion is quoted saying.

The film goes on to review the Zionists’ total betrayal of, and failure to assist European Jews at the time of World War Two.

It also exposes the total political and legal abuse of Yemenite, Arab Jews and the Orthodox community in Israel.

It is important also to note that — as much as this film protests against anti Jewish discrimination in Israel — it hardly mentions the Palestinians or their plight. It totally neglects the crimes committed day by day against the Palestinian people.

As one expects – universal ethics hardly comes into play in Hebrew; not even in a film about Zionist discrimination and human rights abuse.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian