Saturday, 22 May 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Anti-Semitism is Zionism's Bread and Butter

May 4, 2010
by Henry Makow Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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


"ANTI SEMITISM" THE ORIGINAL PROTECTION RACKET

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

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

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


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

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


"ANTI SEMITISM" BECOMES "ANTI AMERICANISM"


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Are Israeli Policies Entrenching Anti-Semitism Worldwide?   


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

by Tony Klug


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

The Other Alleged Culprits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unquestionably Genuine Anti-Semitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Malfunctioning Moral Compass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Immutable Terms of Any Deal

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

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

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

And Failing That ... Jews Must Protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Brazil Slams US Approach to Iran

via Al Jazeera


For background, check out Teymoor Nabili’s recent post on Al Jazeera’s blog section.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Friday, 21 May 2010

Hezbollah mobilises militants for Israel drill

Via Friday-Lunch-Club

AFP/ here
Posted by G, Z, or B at 11:33 AM
"Hezbollah mobilised thousands of militants in southern Lebanon on Friday in response to week-long Israeli defence exercises due to kick off on Sunday, an official from the Shiite militia group said. "The Hezbollah fighters have (been instructed) to be completely ready to confront Israeli manoeuvres on Sunday," Nabil Qaouk told AFP. "Thousands of our fighters will not go to the polls (for municipal elections on Sunday) and will be prepared from today" for any eventuality, he added. "In the event of any new attack on Lebanon, the Israelis will not find anywhere in Palestine to hide," he said......
Dubbed "Turning Point 4," the defence exercises are designed to prepare emergency responses to rocket strikes on Israel, with sirens due to ring out across the country on Wednesday and Israelis head for shelters...."
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

BREAKING NEWS: Israel blocks mail between Gaza, West Bank


Via A4P
May 22, 2010 
Ma’an News Agency -  21 May 2010


Israel has halted the flow of government sector mail between Gaza and the West Bank, causing a delay in the receipt of official documents, officials said on Thursday.
Maher Abu Ouf, Palestinian director for the Erez crossing between Gaza and Israel, said Israel shut-down all mail services last Wednesday after forces detained Gaza-based postal service official Sufian Abu Zubda.
“We do not know the reasons for Abu Zubda’s detention,” Abu Ouf told Ma’an.
The crossings official said they had called on Israel to resume the postal service between Gaza and the West Bank, but had yet to receive an official response.
Said Ash-Sharfa, head of Gaza exports, said only DHL still has permits to operate.
A representative from Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment on the report.
Despite unilaterally withdrawing its forces and citizens living on illegal Gaza settlements, Israel maintains strict control over the Gaza Strip, notably over the passage of goods in and out of the coastal enclave since Hamas’ takeover in 2007.
Until late 2009, all mail sent and received by Palestinians went through the Israeli Postal Service with letters designated for the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem often marked “via Israel.”
However, with support from USAID’s PA Capacity Enhancement Program, implemented by Chemonics International, the Palestine Postal Service was awarded an International Mail Processing Center Code by the Universal Postal Union, allowing the Palestine Postal Service to send and receive mail directly to and from other postal administrations around the world, rather than through Israel.
It also enables the Palestine Postal Service to receive payment from other postal administrations to facilitate delivery of incoming international mail to addresses in the West Bank and Gaza. Previously, the Israeli Postal Service received the payments.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

ABBAS IS AN AGENT

ABBAS IS AN AGENT

I tell you I cannot imagine how horrible it must be for Palestinians to watch Abbas giving any and everything away to the US and Israel. This from a man who has not legally held the office of President for a long time now, due to his fear of elections, and whom does not represent the majority of Palestinians. But rather a man who works for the US and Israel against his own people!! He’s insane, and it’s now confirmed, Abbas has lost his mind.

As we reported on 27 April, he has already caved on

1. the right of return, and
2. not declaring a Palestinian State unless Israel agrees with it!

Then only days later, he tells the Americans he will allow NATO soldiers into any “new” Palestinian state on a PERMANENT basis, and that any new Palestinian state would be demilitarized forever!! Meaning they will NOT be a sovereign state, as they will never be allowed to have their own army, but what they WILL be, is an occupied subdivision of Greater Israel, occupied by foreign soldiers forever, much like Iraq and Afghanistan!! In essence he swaps one occupation for another. Oh, but hes’ not done giving away things just yet. Wait till you see what this insane man offered up to Israel today. But first this reminder of what he’s already given up:
link 'I want to work with Netanyahu' Regarding the 'Law of Return' for Palestinians refugees, the PA leader hinted that he was not asking for an influx of Palestinians into Israel, merely saying, "The Road Map stipulates a 'just solution,' so let's just say, I want a "just solution.'"

He expressed confidence at being able to "explain" the agreed-upon solution to the refugee issue to the Palestinian people.

"Try me," Abbas told (Israeli) Channel 2. "I say on behalf of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, that we are prepared for an agreement."

Abbas played down PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad's stated intention to declare a Palestinian state in 2011, saying, "There will be no unilateral moves, we want an agreement."
And here’s where he offers up making Palestine an occupied state AGAIN, and one that is not allowed to have it's own army!!!
link Abbas to ask int'l troops keep future Palestine demilitarized. The Palestinian Authority is considering allowing the permanent stationing of NATO forces in the future Palestinian state, Under any peace agreement likely to be formulated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Israel would expect the Palestinian entity to remain demilitarized.
And here’s what he is giving Israel today, MORE LAND!!!
link The Palestinians are willing to consider making larger territorial concessions in peace talks with Israel than have been offered in the past, According to the report, concessions could reach 4% of the West Bank,

Officials briefed on the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians told the newspaper that the Palestinians notified Mitchell that they are willing to extend Netanyahu the same offer they made to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and are even willing to consider doubling the territory to be transferred to Israel as part of a peace deal.

Posted by I4P Writers Group at 2:24 PM
ABBAS IS AN AGENT
2010-05-21T14:24:00+01:00
I4P Writers Group
abbas and the PA are working for Israel|abbas caves into israel|abbas guilty of treason|more land for israel|nato to occupy palestine|
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Who is tolerating ???.....and what ??

Frustrated Arab's Diary

 
http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/tolerance/images/tolerance.jpg
http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/tolerance/images/tolerance.jpghttp://www.un.org/depts/dhl/tolerance/images/tolerance.jpghttp://www.un.org/depts/dhl/tolerance/images/tolerance.jpg
Tolerating only a colour , is not Tolerance,  itself.....


The Western-cultures are somehow protecting their values
against all the more valuable civilisations
coming from the East.......

Indeed, from East once came Judaism and Christianity.
Judaism ended in Auschwitz,  while Christianity ended
in all the Royal-palaces of Europe.

Today Judaism moved out of the Ghettos
to reside in all the central-banks and universities
while Christianity became a hostage in the hands
of the western-politicians .

Islam who also came from the East,
is being fought back
and blocked by many irrational, populist
hysterical and childish-counter- measures.


In Switzerland ,
you can build a Mosque but without a Minaret !
In Belgium,
you can visit any nudist-club if you do not wear a Burqa !!
In Holland ,
you may become the Mayor of the biggest city ,
if you are a moderate-muslim !!
In France,
you may finish all your studies, 
if you show your hair !!
In Denmark, 
a man can marry another man ,
if he accepts the blasphemous- caricatures. ......... .


Tolerance is the rule........ but Islam is its exception !!
Tolerance is applied to what resembles one self.......only.

My daughter, studying "Orientalism" at the University
has had ,this winter, 6 lectures on (the values of)  Zionism
and none about Baathism nor Nasserism nor the Nahdat.


Yes Tolerance is nice , but it all depends on:
who is tolerating.. ...and what ???

http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/tolerance/images/tolerance.jpghttp://www.un.org/depts/dhl/tolerance/images/tolerance.jpghttp://www.un.org/depts/dhl/tolerance/images/tolerance.jpghttp://www.un.org/depts/dhl/tolerance/images/tolerance.jpghttp://www.un.org/depts/dhl/tolerance/images/tolerance.jpg
Raja Chemayelto become tolerant , start by tolerating !! 
PS :
In Israel where nobody is tolerated,
unless if being a Jew ,

they are building a "Museum for Tolerance ". !!


Posted by Тлакскала at 2:17 PM
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Emanuel – Like father like son

Rehmat's World

May 21, 2010 ·

Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter in his book The Promise describes volcanic temper of White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, as “F-bombing” – using the word for Bill Clinton to Barack Obama’s dog ‘Bo’.
According to Israel daily Jerusalem Post – On Thursday, Rahm Emanuel invited 15 Rabbis at the White House for the second time to apologize for Obama administration’s screwing up its relation with the Zionist entity during the last 14 months.

He told the Rabbis that it will take more than one month to make up for those 14 months. Dennis Ross who runs Obama’s Iran policy – also attended the meeting. He assured the Rabbis that by calling for a nuclear-free Middle East – doesn’t mean that Washington’s policy toward Israeli nuclear arsenal was changing. Dan Shapiro, who oversees Obama’s policy for Israel aand its Arab neighboring countries, lso participated in the meeting. The other Obama administration official who were present in the meeting included Susan Sher, the chief White House liaison to the Jewish community and Danielle Borin, special assistant to the Vice-president Joe Biden.

According to British MI6 files, “Rahm Emanuel’s father, Benjamin Emanuel, specialized in the terrorist bombings of buses carrying British troops and policemen during the British Mandate in Palestine. Benjamin participation in the terrorist activities of Irgun Zvai Leumi, a Jewish terrorist organization that targeted British forces, UN officials, and Palestinian Arabs in the lead up to Israeli independence in 1948.

Benjamin Emanuel, a Jew from Russia whose real name was Ezekiel Auerbach, was arrested by British police for terrorist activities in the months prior to Israeli independence. Many of the British policemen killed by Emanuel and his Irgun colleagues between 1947 and 1948 had been transferred to Palestine upon Indian and Pakistani independence in 1947. Irgun saw the increase of British policemen from the Indian subcontinent as a major threat.

The Jewish terrorist murders of British troops and policemen resulted in massive anti-Jewish riots in London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, and Cardiff in 1947. In 1946, Emanuel’s Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people, including 28 British soldiers and policemen.

British intelligence also believed that Benjamin Emanuel may have been related to Vladimir Jabotinsky, a Russian Jew from Odessa who founded Irgun. Jabotinksy, who was an admirer of Benito Mussolini and who secretly negotiated for the expatriation of Jews to Palestine with the Nazi government in Germany and Admiral Miklos Horthy’s pro-Nazi regime in Hungary, died of a heart attack in New York in 1940.

The Zionist propaganda outlet Wikipedia (by Paul Joseph Watson in Prison Planet) deleted Benjamin Emanuel’s entry in 2008, shortly after Rahm Emanuel was designated as President Obama’s chief of staff. Wikipedia is a favorite device for the perception management goals of Dr. Cass Sunstein, Obama’s director of the White House Office of Regulatory Affairs.

With a record of terrorist acts contained in his MI-6 files, Benjamin Emanuel was permitted by U.S. authorities to emigrate to Chicago from Israel in the 1950s, becoming a citizen. Rahm Emanuel was born in 1959.”

Interrestingly, Emanuel’s plan to visit Israel to hold his son’s “bar mitzvah ritual (the boy will be turning 13) over the coming Memorial Day weekend – has been moved away from the traditional spot at the Wailing Wall because of threats of protests by his father’s old radical Jewish allies. The Israeli press has reported that Israeli right wingers consider Emanuel “a traitor to Jewish people and Israel” (not pushing Obama for an immediate war on Iran).
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Rafah municipality suspends campaign against houses built on government land

[ 21/05/2010 - 10:03 AM ]

GAZA, (PIC)-- Rafah municipality announced on Thursday that it was suspending the campaign against houses built illegally on government land until matters are sorted out between residents of those homes and the government land authority.

During a press conference he jointly held with the head of the land authority, Ibrahim Radwan, head of the Rafah municipal council, Isa al-Nashar, said that the government was taking the necessary legal action against those embroiled in the sale of government-owned land to private individuals.

He added that the municipality will not allow any new structures on those lands, pointing out that some 422 dunums (1dunum= 1000 sq. meters) in the Barahma neighbourhood to the west of Rafah district have been illegally arrogated by private individuals.

He also said that the former head of the land authority, Fraih Abu Maddeen, [during Fatah rule of the Strip] had taken the decision to take over the arrogated land, adding that inaction encouraged others to build on government land, that is why the municipality had to take action.

Ibrahim Radwan, for his part, said that the decision to restore all arrogated government lands to the government was a decision taken since the time of president Arafat.

According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza, bulldozers, protected by Palestinian police, moved in on Sunday into the Barahma neighbourhood and demolished 20 homes making 150 people homeless.

The move has upset Hamas supporters who said that despite the fact that the legal process took its course, it was wrong to make 150 people homeless, and unless alternative accommodation for these families was made available, then demolitions should not have taken place.

Detractors of Hamas had field day with some news agencies claiming that 40 Palestinian homes were destroyed by Hamas in Gaza.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Growing Homelessness in America

by Stephen Lendman

In the world's richest country, the trend is shocking, disturbing and appalling. In its 2009 report on "Hunger and Homelessness in US Cities," the US Conference of Mayors stated:

"Hunger and homelessness (are) at record levels in US cities," citing an overall 26% demand increase over the past year and 19% more homelessness. Yet worsening conditions leave millions on their own and out of luck because Washington has other priorities excluding them.

"At a time of historic economic crisis, the issues of hunger and homelessness in America are more prevalent than ever." Cities are hard-pressed to handle them, and planned budget cuts and revenue shortfalls will strap them well into the future.

Definitions

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a homeless person:

-- "lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence."

Others having them are in:

-- "a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);

-- an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or

-- a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings."

The last category includes people sleeping in vehicles, garages, bus stations, store fronts, campgrounds, on streets, or other suboptimal places not fit for human habitation.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH)

NAEH "works collaboratively with public, private, and nonprofit partners to develop, analyze, and advocate for policy solutions" for a growing national problem, poorly addressed, and rarely, if ever, mentioned by the dominant media.

Besides the chronically homeless, comprising about 18% of the total, homelessness results from factors including poverty, job loss, home foreclosure, loss of public assistance, divorce, domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, serious illness, mental illness, unaffordable housing, the lack of emergency help, and a federal government that doesn't give a damn.

Youth homelessness is another major issue, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office of Applied Studies (OAS) estimating in 2004 that about 1.6 million youths ran away from home and slept on the street in the past 12 months. Other estimates range up to 2.8 million annually, many on streets or in places unfit for human habitation.

About two-thirds were older teens from 15 - 17, key causal factors being domestic physical or sexual abuse or substance dependency. Many were thrown out by their parents. According to YouthCare studies, 33% were in foster care, 51% had been physically abused, and 60% of girls and 23% of boys had been sexually violated. Another YouthCare study cited two-thirds of youths with diagnosable mental illness, including disruptive behavior disorder, attention deficit disorder, depression, or post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

In 2000, the National Health Care for the Homeless Council reported that youths on their own are at higher risk for anxiety, suicide attempts, and multiple disorders, including depression, PTSD, and numerous other physical and emotional problems.

While mainly an urban problem, homelessness is about 9% rural for the above cited reasons compounded by fewer public services and a lack of public transportation.

Veterans comprise one-fourth of the homeless, the result of readjusting challenges, few job skills, lack of available jobs, little government help once discharged, and for growing numbers, disabling injuries and PTSD.

In February 2009, NAEH's president, Nan Roman, projected "an additional 1.5 million people will experience homelessness over the next two years if we don't do anything." Others agree, foreseeing continued large increases as economic conditions deteriorate with little help for the poor, disadvantaged, and growing numbers losing their jobs, homes and savings.

In its four-part "Geography of Homeless" series, NAEH defined the problem, its prevalence, sub-populations affected, and urban homelessness. It can affect anyone, anytime, and be unexpected, the result of millions one paycheck away from vulnerability, and many others from a life-changing event.

Precise numbers are hard to assess, the best estimates ranging from:

-- HUD's lowballing in its latest July 2009 "2008 Annual Homeless Report to Congress" that "On a single night in January 2008 (before the worst of the current crisis), there were 664,414 sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons nationwide," 42% of them "on the street or in other places not meant for human habitation;"

-- the National Law Center on Homeless and Poverty (NLCHP) and Urban Institute estimated (in 2007) 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year (at least 4.5 million if those finding temporary shelter with family or friends are included), based on an earlier National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers study stating on a given night in February, 842,000 are homeless; the total numbers are much higher as only sheltered people were included; many others on streets are uncounted, and the calculations were made before the current economic crisis; and

-- NLCHP used other measures as well, including a 1991 study showing homeless rates tripled from 1981 - 1989, and a 1997 research review from 1987 - 1997 in 11 communities and four states, finding shelter capacity more than doubled in nine communities in three states, and more than tripled in two communities and two states - at a time of strong economic growth.

While precise estimates are inexact, available data suggest a much higher homelessness rate than earlier believed, a growing national problem, and one greatly exacerbated by the current economic crisis. Yet it's unaddressed nationally, leaving hard-pressed states and local communities on their own when they're least able to handle it - never mind growing numbers of affected people discarded like garbage.

The National Center on Family Homelessness (NCFH) says:

"Families (and individuals) experiencing homelessness are under considerable stress," moving frequently, forced to get aid if available or sleep in cars, campgrounds or wherever they can under "difficult, uncomfortable circumstances....Homelessness increases the likelihood of family separations or breakups," adds to their intolerable circumstances, and creates a barrier to family reunifications.

A typical family is "comprised of a mother in her late twenties with two children:

-- 84% of families experiencing homelessness are female-headed;

-- 42% of children in homeless families are under age six;

-- more than half of all homeless mothers do not have a high school diploma;

-- 29% of adults in homeless families are working; (and the homeless)

-- have much higher rates of family separation than other low-income families."

Mothers are especially vulnerable, many the victims of domestic violence compounded by homelessness on their own. Over 92% experienced "severe physical and/or sexual abuse during their lifetime," two-thirds of the time by "an intimate partner." They also struggle with mental health issues, half having experienced depression while homeless. They have three time the PTSD rate and double the drug and alcohol abuse incidence. They're often in poor health, have four times the rate of ulcers as other women, and among industrialized nations, America has the largest women and children homeless population.

Background on Federal Housing Policy

During the Great Depression, it began with the 1934 National Housing Act, creating the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to underwrite and insure mortgages and provide security to lenders in case of default. It also established the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, abolished because of insolvency in 1989 by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, returning deposit insurance responsibility to the FDIC, now itself approaching bankruptcy.

The 1937 Wagner-Steagall Housing Act provided subsidies to local agencies (LHAs) to construct low-cost housing for poor families.

The 1934 and 1937 acts began a dual federal housing policy - public rental housing and subsidies for the poor (mostly inner city) and subsidized credit for middle-income family homeownership (much of it suburban).

Public housing was established to provide acceptable, low-cost, safe rental housing for low-income families, older persons, and the disabled. Later they were stigmatized by crime, drugs, extreme poverty, violence, segregation, and government neglect.

Initially, minorities comprised about one-fourth to over one-third of public housing residents, rising to a level of over 60% by 1978. From 1950 - 1980, high-density public housing units were built, mainly for African-Americans. At the same time, middle income home ownership rose, facilitated by federal financing. It increased the rate from 30% in 1930 to over double that in 1960.

From 1934 - 1968, 98% of federal loans went to whites, the result of segregation, discriminatory laws and practices in both northern and southern states.

In 1974, the Housing and Community Development Act effectively ended public housing construction and began the Housing Choice Voucher Program (called Section 8) for project and tenant-based rental subsidies, the former for specific housing developments, the latter for individuals to choose private housing from landlords willing to accept vouchers.

Section 8 shifted funding from public to private hands. In 1986, the Tax Reform Act established the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC), provided to developers to build affordable housing.

In 1989, Congress appointed a National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing to evaluate its condition nationally. It found most units well maintained and managed but a growing number in "the most distressed and notorious urban developments in the nation, where crime, poverty, unemployment, and dependency were solidly entrenched."

Based on the Committee's recommendations, HOPE VI (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) was established in 1992 to revitalize public housing, end low-income family concentrations, and create sustainable communities by replacing large numbers of public housing units. As a result, lower density, mixed-income developments were built, including public and private units, and responsibility shifted from Washington to communities and the private sector.

Federal housing policy achieved a high home ownership rate but also decreased the public housing supply, now at 1.2 million units, far below needed amounts, to promote private ownership at the expense of the nation's poor who could only afford fraudulent subprime mortgages causing many to default and be foreclosed since late 2007.

Earlier in 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act passed to reduce discriminatory credit practices, called redlining, by requiring banks to sell mortgages where they operated. As a result, low-income families got them while home values rose, mostly with low or nothing down. That ended, however, when the housing crisis began along with the home ownership dream for millions.

Today, government help for affordable housing is needed more than any time since the 1930s. Then it was forthcoming. Now it isn't or not enough to matter for millions losing their homes, victims of predatory lenders and Wall Street bandits creating a crisis that persists and worsens at a time nearly two-thirds of low-income households face severe housing cost burdens, and about 12.7 million children (over one in six) live in households spending more than half their income on housing, leaving little for other essentials.

In addition, since the 1980s, low-income housing assistance was significantly cut, and by the 1990s, hundreds of thousands of public housing units were dilapidated, resulting in 170,000 abandoned. Yet from 1999 - 2006, federal public housing funding dropped 25% while, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

"Each year, the federal government spends more than three times as much on tax breaks for homeowners - with a large share....going to upper-income households - as it spends on low-income housing assistance."

In other words, wealth is being redistributed up the food chain to those least needing it, leaving others on their own and out of luck because federal low-income funding cuts led to a decrease in quality subsidized housing when it's most needed.

Chicago's Cabrini Green is instructive, about a mile from this writer's residence. When completed in 1962, it had 3,114 units for 15,000 people. Now it's mostly demolished. What remains will be gone before yearend 2010. Other projects are also disappearing, and only 305 new units have been built in mixed-income developments, leaving many of Chicago's poor on their own with no aid forthcoming.

The 2009 Making Home Affordable program has been largely ineffective for lack of teeth, so banks do as they wish because provisions are voluntary. In addition, few modified loans are permanent, most ending after five months so foreclosures remain high, homelessness increases, and two other federal programs are doing little - the Emergency Food and Shelter program (EFSP) and Emergency Shelter Grant.

The Bush and Obama administrations' one-sided priorities (for Wall Street and imperial wars) leave little for America's poor and disadvantaged when they're most in need, including the growing hungry and homeless populations, largely invisible because little about them is reported and nothing on television where it counts most.

Short of recognizing the problem, pushing back for real change, knowing government is the enemy not an ally, realizing reforms always come from the bottom up, never the top down, and it's up to ordinary people to create them, social justice won't happen, including ending hunger, relieving poverty, and helping the homeless, making America work for the many, not the privileged few alone like today under governments that don't care.

A follow-up article will address the problem of homeless children - over 1.5 million each year without safety, privacy, adequate health care, decent education, sustaining relationships, a sense of community, and hope for a better future.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian