Tuesday, March 30, 2010


“There isn’t one I haven’t heard” or so goes one of the lines in a well-known American musical. Yet, this time the world is imbuing the words with new meaning when it comes to US/Israel relations. The hope is that at long last the US is going to discipline Israel.

Alas, in the flurry of words, the music has not changed. America seems as much bedazzled by Israel as a parent who is blind to the antics of an over-indulged, demanding child. No amount of insults seems to shatter their illusion that the precious being is in fact a monster.

In their attempts to convince the rest of us not so enamoured, they fail to see that they have allowed their symbiotic relationships to become abusive. Just as the parent can no longer control a child’s obnoxious behaviour, so too America finds itself hamstrung by Israel’s illegal settlement expansion into Palestinian territory and its determination to take and Judaise all of Jerusalem. And while this time there have been some firm admonishments, there have been no follow-up consequences, America lapsing into the same old routine of placating Israel with promises to keep the faith.

The AIPAC conference in Washington DC provided the meeting place for the usual Israel love-in. There, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu plumbed the depths. He lied when he said that Jews had built Jerusalem 3,000 years ago. He lied when he said it was theirs to build again. He lied when he said “it is our capital”.

No one pulled him up over those lies. Instead Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waffled on about how Israel’s behaviour exposes the daylight between them that others in the region hope to exploit – the same daylight that US Vice-president Biden vowed did not exist between the two countries – and how it endangers the proximity talks and America’s essential role in bringing those to fruition. But, not before she had told the audience that America’s commitment to Israel was “rock solid, enduring, unwavering and forever”.

Her prime concern was not that Israel’s behaviour denies millions of Palestinians the right to live in their own homeland and cruelly oppresses those who still do, but rather that America’s credibility as an honest broker in a long-defunct peace process might be at risk.

Nothing was said about Jerusalem being a corpus separatum under UN trusteeship since the Partition of Palestine in 1947 or that Israel does not have sovereignty over Jerusalem, despite its military conquests. Not a mention was made that East Jerusalem is occupied territory and that Israel is in breach of international law.

Netanyahu’s claims over Jerusalem presuppose an “eternal connection” between Jews and the land. But the historical record on that is clear. Not only are there non-Jewish groups who ruled Jerusalem for centuries rather than the brief 170 years of likely Jewish rule, but also the city existed long before Judaism took form.

On any reading, Jerusalem is no more Jewish than it is Christian or Islamic. Yet, if anyone can lay claim to it by an “eternal connection”, it is the Palestinians whose history goes back millennia to the Canaanites who worshipped pagan deities and then to those who converted to emerging Judaism, Christianity and centuries later to ascendant Islam. Thus, the three monotheistic religions believe they too have a claim. For this reason, the 1947 UN Partition resolution sought to give Jerusalem international status as a separate body.

To this day, the international community has refused to officially recognise Israeli sovereignty of Jerusalem. Notwithstanding this, Israel has pursued an aggressive policy of “unification” and “reunification” of Jewish Jerusalem by pushing out the boundaries of Palestinian East Jerusalem to some 73 sq km, well into the military-occupied West Bank where Israel has illegally settled some 300,000 Jews.

Secretary Clinton’s “no to settlements” and “no to natural growth” at the end of last year were empty words. Within days, she had eagerly announced that Netanyahu’s guarantees of no new settlement building and no new land grabs were “unprecedented” concessions. Nothing was said about the building going on in East Jerusalem, let alone the forced evictions of Palestinians, the demolition of their homes and Israeli building policies, which are deliberately skewed towards Jewish population growth.

One has to wonder what meaning words have at all when carefully considered ones are ignored. A United Nations report of May 2009 put as many as 60,000 Palestinians at risk of eviction from their homes and called for a freeze on demolitions in East Jerusalem. Yet, the most that Secretary Clinton could say then – 10 months ago – was that Israel’s actions were “unhelpful” in advancing the peace process.

As has happened innumerable times in the past, the chiding words of US emissaries and government officials, are always quickly followed up with other words to reassure Israel of “the unbreakable bond” between the two countries, and more significantly, actions that belie the reprimands. In the midst of all the recent hoo-ha about chilling relations, a $210 million arms deal with Israel and paid for by US military aid nevertheless went ahead with an estimated massive $3 billion F-35 warplane deal still in the offing.

In other words, regardless of the song-sheet, America never misses a beat to give Israel what it wants. It will be interesting to see if the US does withdraw support for Israel in the United Nations on any resolutions before the Security Council critical of Israel’s settlement policies in occupied East Jerusalem. The rumours are fulminating amongst denials from both sides. While to many this signifies a change of heart in America’s love affair with Israel, it may be no more than the stuff of gossip columns to re-make America’s image as honest broker in the Middle East.

The disconnect between words and actions might please those who want peace more than they want justice for the Palestinians, but for many, the words have been done to death. By the time proximity talks morph into full negotiations, there will be no Jerusalem left to negotiate and no Palestinians left in Jerusalem. All words will then be meaningless.
by Sonja Karkar

5 injured while Gaza marks Land day

Israeli occupation forces opened fire today at the Gazans who marked the Palestinian Land Day as they organized many demonstrations in all the Gaza Strip cities.

The Israeli solders opened fire toward the peaceful demonstrations and injured five protesters. Two were injured in east of Al-Burij camp and other three in Khan Youins, in middle of Gaza Strip. The injuries were participating in popular demonstrations organized by the Popular Committee to Resist the Security Fence in marking the Palestinian Land Day.

The injured protesters were delivered to Diar Al-Blah Hospital to receive treatment. The three inured protestors in Khan Youins are from Al-Najar family. One of them is in critical condition, medical sources said.

March 30 is the anniversary of the day back in 1976 when the Israelis seized Al-Jalil, sparking an all-out exhibition. Israeli forces in Sekhnin, Kfar Kana, Al-Teiba, Dir Hanna, Al-Taira, and Arraba used inconsistent force against stone-hurling protestors. Six Palestinians were martyred and many others injured.

Since that day Palestinians mark this day annually to stress their right to freedom and their determination to continue resistance against the Israeli occupation.

В Москве день траура. Отменены все увеселительные мероприятия, кроме иудейских...

Все увеселительные мероприятия в Москве отменены сегодня в связи с днем траура по погибшим в результате серии взрывов в московском метрополитене, сообщила РИА Новости в понедельник руководитель пресс-службы столичного департамента культуры Ирина Аверкиева. Передает интернет-портал IslamNews .

Взрывы прогремели в понедельник утром на станциях "Лубянка" и "Парк культуры" Сокольнической линии столичной подземки с разницей в 45 минут. В общей сложности погибли 39 человек, более 60 получили ранения. Возбуждено уголовное дело по статье "терроризм". В связи с этим 30 марта объявлен в Москве днем траура.

"Учреждения, подведомственные департаменту, в том числе некоторые московские кинотеатры, 30 марта отменят все мероприятия увеселительно-развлекательного характера", - отметила Аверкиева.

Однако праздничные мероприятия, посвященные наступившей еврейской Пасхе, отменять не планируется, сообщил РИА Новости пресс-секретарь главного раввина России Андрей Глоцер. В день плача и скорби всего российского народа иудеи намерены пировать...

"Никто не отменял необходимость служить Богу", - демагогически заявил Глоцер. По его словам, ритуалы не меняются несмотря ни на какие произошедшие события.

Не собираются отказываться от праздничных мероприятий и в Федерации еврейских общин России (ФЕОР), руководит которым гастарбайтер из Италии Берл Лазар. Ему ли, чуждому до российских реалий, лить слезы! В общей сложности на торжества в Московский еврейский центр соберутся несколько тысяч человек. Среди них ожидается немало известных политиков, бизнесменов, деятелей культуры.

В Британии хотят закрыть крупнейший мусульманский телеканал

Правительство Британии проводит расследование в отношении самого популярного мусульманского телеканала страны «Islam Channel», подозревая его в трансляции передач экстремистского толка.

Управление связи при британском правительстве начало проверки на «Islam Channel», получив результаты исследования, проведенного группой экспертов Quilliam Foundation, выступающей якобы от имени «умеренных мусульман».

Понаблюдав за вещанием телеканала в течение 3-х месяцев, фонд сообщил: «Нежелание «Islam Channel» противостоять экстремизму вызывает у нас серьезную озабоченность».

В частности, в своем докладе Quilliam Foundation обвиняет руководство телеканала в «унижении женщин». Причиной этому послужила программа для мусульманок, в которой сообщалось, что ислам запрещает жене отказывать своему мужу в интимной близости. А это, по мнению докладчиков, противоречит британским законам, согласно которым жена может подать на мужа в суд за изнасилование, если тот принудит ее к сексу. Также авторы доклада были возмущены тем, что в одной из программ разъяснялись положения шариата, запрещающие женщине выходить из дома без разрешения мужа и без сопровождения махрама (мужа или близкого родственника-мужчины). Кроме того, им не понравился упомянутый в эфире хадис о том, что «большинство обитателей ада составляют женщины». Комментируя слова Пророка (мир ему) телеведущий предположил, что это произойдет по причине того, что западные женщины приносят «бедствия, трудности и страдания» всему обществу, что вызвало серьезную озабоченность «группы экспертов».

Автор доклада Талаль Раджаб заявил: «К сожалению, за три месяца нашего наблюдения за эфиром, мы постоянно видели пропаганду реакционных взглядов в отношении женщин. Хотя канал не призывает к насилию напрямую, он создает атмосферу ненависти и нетерпимости. Вместо того, чтобы использовать свои возможности для создания позитивного образа ислама на Западе, «Islam Channel» проповедует течение ваххабизма». Докладчики также обвинили телеканал в трансляции выступлений шейха Анвара Авлаки и распространении взглядов Партии освобождения, которая, однако, не запрещена в Британии.

Председатель Quilliam Foundation Маджид Наваз посетовал, что с момента начала вещания в 2004 году «Islam Channel» завоевывает все большую популярность среди мусульман Британии и играет важную роль в развитии британского ислама». Три года назад Управление связи уже оштрафовало мусульманский телеканал на 30000 фунтов стерлингов за «нарушение политической беспристрастности». Однако впервые на телеканале проходят широкомасштабные проверки.

В ходе расследования был допрошен исполнительный директор «Islam Channel» Мухаммад Али Харрас, который разыскивается у себя на родине в Тунисе якобы за участие в экстремистской организации.

В ответ на обвинения представители телеканала сообщили, что «они, наоборот, поощряют активное участие женщин в общественной жизни», и что большинство сотрудников “Islam Channel” женщины. «Мы категорически отвергаем любые проявления экстремизма и не приемлем насилие и убийства людей, независимо от их этнической и конфессиональной принадлежности», -заявили на исламском телеканале.

Сорокашестилетний Мухаммад Али Харрас основал 24 года назад «Тунисский исламский Фронт». Правительство Туниса признало эту организацию «террористической» в связи с тем, что она якобы добивается установления исламского государства «путем вооруженного переворота». «Тунисский исламский Фронт» также признан террористической организацией во Франции. Однако г-н Харрас утверждает, что его партия стремится к достижению своей цели исключительно мирным путем, и что власти Туниса преследовали его и подвергали пыткам за несогласие с однопартийной системой правления в этой стране.

Сейчас 59% двухмиллионной мусульманской общины Британии смотрят «Islam Channel». Телеканал вещает также в странах Европы и Африки, сообщает портал из ОАЭ "National".

Теракты в Москве вызовут очередную волну исламофобии и ксенофобии в стране

Жители Кавказа высказывают опасения, что теракты в Москве вызовут очередную волну исламофобии и ксенофобии в стране.
Произошедшие 29 марта утром взрывы в московском метро, жертвами которых стали десятки человек, могут в очередной раз вызвать кавказофобские настроения в российском обществе и вылиться в преследования выходцев с Кавказа в Москве и других крупных российских городах. Такого мнения придерживаются многие жители в Чечне. Ряд местных экспертов считает, что за взрывами в московском метром могут стоять как боевики, так и определенные силы в самой России.

Вчерашняя трагедия в московском метро, когда в результате двух взрывов, осуществленных, по версии следствия, двумя террористками-смертницами, погибли 39 и были ранены около 70 человек, вызвали в Чечне шок. Люди, чьи родственники находятся в Москве, всерьез опасаются, что они могут подвергнуться преследованиям по национальному признаку, и вспоминают в этой связи события 11-летней давности в российской столице.

"У меня в Москве учится сын, который живет у своего дяди. Я с ними вчера связывалась, они тоже сильно встревожены. Говорят, что уже были случаи нападений на выходцев с Кавказа и даже женщин. На станциях метро, автовокзалах и других местах дежурят усиленные наряды милиции, которые тщательно проверяют людей, в первую очередь кавказцев", - говорит жительница Грозного Совман Магомадова.

Она отмечает, что в 1999 году, после того, как в Москве были взорваны два дома, на чеченцев буквально велась охота. "Задерживали на улицах, устраивали обыски в квартирах, где они проживали, во многих случаях подбрасывали оружие и наркотики, а затем судили. Я очень боюсь, что сейчас повторится то же самое, но теперь это будет касаться не только чеченцев, но и других выходцев с Северного Кавказа", - говорит женщина.

С ней согласен и другой местный житель Жалавди Бексултанов. "Как только произошли эти два теракта в Москве, так сразу же следователи нашли в них "кавказский след". Упомянули Ингушетию, Кабардино-Балкарию и Чечню как возможные места, откуда террористки прибыли в Москву. Понятно, что теперь только и будет разговоров, что о чеченских, ингушских или кабардинских смертницах. В таком многонациональном государстве, каким является Россия, говорить о национальной принадлежности террористов или преступников крайне вредно и опасно, но почему-то российские власти и СМИ постоянно делают упор именно на это", - говорит собеседник корреспондента "Кавказского узла".

Monday, March 29, 2010

Anthony Lawson – A Little Known Fact About the 9/11 Planes

Extract: …it would be a remarkable irony, and quite possibly a unique circumstance in the annals of American jurisprudence, if the assumptions used as reasons for launching wars against two sovereign nations, as well as the more generalised 'War on Terror' would not stand up as evidence in either a criminal prosecution or a civil damages suit in an American court of law.

It is not a theory but a fact-one that is well known within the 9/11 truth movement-that the 9/11 Commission failed to ensure that at least one of the appropriate government agencies: the NTSB, the FBI or the FAA was commissioned to positively identify the aircraft which were allegedly involved in the murders of nearly 3,000 people, on September 11, 2001.

One does not need to be a Harvard Law School graduate to know that the first and most important requirement in any murder investigation is to determine the cause of death, which often leads to a requirement to identify, and trace to its origins, a murder weapon, or, in the case of 9/11: weapons. And there can be no doubt that each of the four planes which were allegedly hijacked on the morning 9/11 was posited as being a murder weapon, by the U.S. administration and the 9/11 Commission, yet there is absolutely nothing which firmly connects the four allegedly-hijacked planes to any of the 9/11 crash sites.

In fact it is not fanciful to suggest that if a lawyer, even of a far lower calibre than that of an Alan Dershowitz, were engaged to defend the airport security companies that allegedly allowed 19 box-cutter-carrying Arabs to get onto those planes, he would immediately call for the dismissal of such an action on the grounds that the planes which allegedly hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the one which crashed near Shanksville had never been forensically identified as the planes which, allegedly, had been hijacked that morning.

And such a motion could not possibly be denied, as I will explain.

The planes in question were alleged to have been: American Airlines flight 11 (Tail Number: N334AA), North Tower; United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), South Tower; American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), the Pentagon, and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA), which supposedly crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. But the truth is that they could well have been different planes that had arrived on the scenes from quite different locations, because the crash debris recovered from those four crash sites has never been forensically linked to the planes that allegedly took off from Logan International, Boston; Dulles International, Washington and Newark International, New Jersey, and which were, allegedly, hijacked shortly thereafter. Therefore they cannot possibly be linked, without a reasonable doubt, to breaches of security at those airports.

So, it would be a remarkable irony, and quite possibly a unique circumstance in the annals of American jurisprudence, if the assumptions used as reasons for launching wars against two sovereign nations, as well as the more generalised 'War on Terror' would not stand up as evidence in either a criminal prosecution or a civil damages suit in an American court of law.

Air-crash investigations in the United States are normally carried out by the NTSB's air accident investigation division, and there are several documentary television series featuring this government agency's painstaking approach when investigating the causes of air crashes. During many such investigations, serial numbers from recovered parts are cross checked with the airline-in-question's purchase and maintenance records, to try and identify the reason for an accident, when it is suspected that mechanical failure may have been the cause.

However the NTSB has confirmed that-apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents-it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001. So the world has been asked to take it on faith and hearsay that the four planes involved were normal scheduled flights which were hijacked by Arab terrorists, some of whom, are, allegedly, still alive.

Even more disturbing is the fact that documentation exists, and is available on the Internet, which indicates that the FBI, backed up by a separate letter from the Justice Department has refused to release any information, under the Freedom of Information Act, about any debris recovered from the crash sites, including the serial number of the "Black Box" Cockpit Flight Data Recorder allegedly found near the alleged crash site of United Airlines Flight 93. It may be recalled that a transcript taken from this recorder formed the basis for several TV dramas and one Academy-Award winning feature film.

By no means finally, but just as disturbing, the core of a jet engine, which can been seen in several 9/11 videos falling out of the northern face of the WTC's South Tower, and which hit a building on its way down, and was photographed and videoed-in the presence of FBI personnel and at least one FBI vehicle-where it came to rest at the junction of Church and Murray streets, was later photographed, prior to its burial in a land fill on Staten Island. So much for what murder investigators are usually so concerned about: The chain of custody and preservation of important evidence, pending its identification.

The events of 9/11 had consequences far beyond the destruction of life and property in the United States; they were the reasons for the launching of three wars. Yet it is obvious that a leader writer of an influential newspaper, the Washington Post, could not spare the time to look into such a serious matter-one that people with far fewer resources than he or she has access to have managed to do-before launching a scathing attack on a member of the Japanese parliament and the world-wide 9/11 truth movement, in general.

Just because the 9/11 Commission did not do its job properly is no excuse for newspaper writers not to do theirs. Unless, of course, newspapers such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are playing a conscious role in a conspiracy to prevent the truth about these events from surfacing. In which case their editors and owners would almost certainly be guilty of misprision of felony.

I would like to stress that the identity of the planes is not the only reason why the 9/11 Commission's findings should be regarded as invalid, and its members found guilty, at the very least, of gross oversights in the collection of the evidence which was used in the writing of its Final Report. Even a cursory look at the visual evidence of the collapsing World Trade Center's Twin Towers and WTC 7 should have instilled grave doubts about the findings of some of the experts from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST.

But, for my money, the real smoking guns were, and still are, the four aircraft that were used as weapons on that terrible day, and for them not to have been identified breaks every rule in any book which seeks to teach the art of solving crimes.

Boys disappearing from Hebron Old City

I am most concerned these recent weeks in Hebron. Young teens and even smaller children are disappearing from our neighbourhood in the Old City of Hebron. It’s not by kidnapping. It’s not by trafficking. It’s not an unknown person with a criminal record perpetrating the crimes. Rather, the Israeli military is again pressing its boots down harder on the heads of the Palestinian people. If restrictions on travel and commerce, land confiscations, home invasions, and forced business closures have not succeeded in convincing Palestinian families to leave their land, then MAYBE taking their children will.

Our Palestinian neighbor sent her 15 year old son to buy bread. Fifteen minutes later, Israeli soldiers blindfolded and handcuffed him, accusing him of throwing stones. The boy insisted he did not throw stone/s at the soldiers. Nevertheless, he is now spending time in the Israeli prison system. Having spent the first 17 days in Ofir Prison among men who may/ may not have committed serious crimes, he continues to insist on his innocence. He will spend four or five months in another Israeli prison until his court case is completed. All for the “crime” of supposedly throwing a stone at soldiers!

Mohammed, and Eissa too, were walking with the 15 year old. Mohammed is 14 and Eissa is 19. The Israeli authorities held Mohammed in Ofir Prison until a donor contributed 2000 shekels. (This amounts to $500 approximately.) Eissa is also serving time in Ofir. Both these boys insist they did not throw a stone.

Near our CPT apartment soldiers accused a 12 year old boy of throwing stones. He too spent one week in Ofir prison.

Soldiers recently blindfolded and handcuffed an eight year old boy for stone throwing. They forced him to spend eight hours with a dog behind a military gate.

A 14 year old neighbor boy was helping his dad in his store, cutting cardboard boxes filled with wares. The soldiers saw him with a knife, blindfolded him, whisked him away behind the military gate, holding him for two hours while the father pleaded at the gate.

A 15 year old boy in the neighbourhood ran an errand for his father. The soldiers saw him running, grabbed him, and likewise detained him behind the military gate for 2 hrs. as his father also insisted his son did no wrong.

Besides the issue of the boys’ ages, and the severity of the sentences imposed, there is also the persistent need of the parents to travel two hours to the prison, their consequent loss of work, and their travel expenses involved. (Approximately $15 each trip) Sometimes before a child’s case is settled, the parents must travel four or five times to the courtroom.

I have only begun to enumerate the stories of children recently taken from our midst. Though the people’s patience has been great and their will to resist persists; yet anyone who witnesses these actions firsthand will call them insanity, dehumanization, oppression, collective profiling. From my point of view, this problem in Hebron and throughout the West Bank is a matter of conscience, an embarrassment to humanity, and a horrid usage of tax dollars. It is urgent that the international community pressure the state of Israel and each one’s own government to put a stop to this madness.

Obama goes to WAR!


Главный либераст "Израиля" предпочитает бывших военных

«Израильский» кабинет должен проголосовать за предложение, внесенное министром иностранных дел Либерманом о том, что бывшие военные должны иметь преференции при назначении на дипломатические посты.

Тель-Авив обсудит в воскресенье новый законопроект, который будет отдавать предпочтение тем кандидатам, кто отслужил в «израильской» оккупационной армии, при назначении на дипломатические посты.

Если кабинет одобрит это предложение, то у арабов и евреев, которые отказались служить в армии, возникнут сложности в получении работы в ведомстве главного либераста.

««Израиль» должен последовать примеру западных демократий, например, США и Франции, где принятие бывших военных на госслужбу закреплено законодательно», - объяснил свое предложение Либерман.

Европа: От запрета минаретов - к запрету мечетей

Запретить строительство исламского центра в столице страны требует польская организация «Европа для будущего». В своей кампании протеста активисты организации используют несколько видоизмененный швейцарский плакат против минаретов.

На плакатах, появившихся вчера в разных районах Варшавы, швейцарский флаг заменен на польский, а надпись гласит: «Остановить строительство мечети радикалов», сообщает «Expatica».

Напомним, в ноябре прошлого года большинство жителей Швейцарии проголосовало на референдуме за запрет строительства новых минаретов в стране. Сам факт подобного голосования вызвал волну негодования во всем мире, обвинения в исламофобии и нарушении прав человека.

Польский плакат призывает жителей страны принять в субботу участие в демонстрации на месте будущей мечети и культурного центра в Варшаве, передает «Аль-Арабия».

Организаторы протеста подали заявление в муниципалитет города, в котором требуют «немедленного прекращения строительных работ» и обвиняют занимающуюся возведением мечети Исламскую лигу Польши в «связях с радикальными движениями» (данная организация входит в Федерацию исламских организаций Европы –IN).

Президент Исламской лиги Самир Исмаил считает, что инициаторы кампании протеста «сеют ненависть».

«Это будет не обычная, классическая мечеть, - рассказал он вчера корреспонденту «Gazeta Wyborcza». – Это будет культурный центр, открытый как для мусульман, так и для немусульман. В нем планируется проводить уроки арабского и занятия по исламу на польском языке».

Молитвенное помещение рассчитано на 10 тысяч человек. К зданию будет пристроен 18-метровый минарет.

Сейчас в этой преимущественно католической стране проживает 30 тысяч мусульман. При этом в Варшаве уже есть небольшая мечеть, но она давно уже не может вместить всех желающих.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Talk about US/Israel Crisis

During the last two weeks people were faced with a propaganda campaign trying to convince them that there developed a crisis in the American Israeli relationships due to Israel's announcement of approving the building of 1600 Jewish only housing units in occupied east Jerusalem Palestinian suburb of Shu'fat on the day of Joe Biden's visit to Israel March 9th.

Major media sources and many politicians declared this announcement as an Israeli slap on Biden's face, especially after the Palestinian Authority, backed by Arab leaders, had just accepted American mediation in indirect talks (proximity talks as per Hillary's description).

The announcement, in reality, was an Israeli gift to Biden that also included a framed document announcing the planting of several trees in Jerusalem in memory of Biden's mother; a loyal supporter of Israel. This was an excellent gift, rather than a slap, for the ardent self-proclaimed Zionist Biden. During his visit Biden went to Tel Aviv University to tell his audience that he is a Zionist. He proclaimed: "Throughout my career, Israel has not only remained close to my heart but it has been the center of my work as a United States Senator and now as vice president of the United States." Israel, rather than the United States, seems to be closer to Biden's heart. Biden is a living proof that one does not have to be Jewish in order to be a Zionist, as he stated in a televised interview on Shalom TV.

Zionist's main tenets are the genocide of Palestinians, the confiscation of their land, the building of more Jewish only residents, especially in Jerusalem, and the erection of the third temple in place of Al-Aqsa mosque.

The announcement also confirms the Zionist plan for the region that had been adopted by every successive Israeli leader. Every time the Palestinians and Arab leaders make another step towards peace with Israel, its leaders take a more aggressive step such as driving their tanks into Palestinian cities, confiscating more land, or building more colonies. Netanyahu's government had destroyed the Salman Al-Farisi mosque in the Palestinian village of Burin, had added the Islamic Ibrahimi and Bilal Mosques to Israel's heritage list, and besides the 60 synagogues surrounding the Islamic Al-Aqsa Mosque had announced the completion of the Hurva Synagogue (The Ruin Synagogue) few meters away from Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is seen by Moslems as another closer step towards the destruction of their Mosque.

The American/Israeli relationship has never been stronger than what it is today. The United States had supported Israel since her bastard birth in 1948 in the midst of the Arab World as an expansionist colonial state. It took the then American President, Harry Truman, only eleven minutes to recognize Israel as a state, and he did it even without consulting the Congress.

Israel constituted an important military base and a military mercenary army for the West, especially for France, UK and US. Joe Biden, in his interview on Shalom TV (previous link), had explained this fact very clearly. In 1956 Israel was a mercenary army for United Kingdom and for France against Egypt after Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized Suez Canal taking it away from British control, and had supported the Algerian revolution against the French occupation. For this service Israel received French technological help to build its nuclear reactor in Dimona, and received heavy water to contain nuclear rods from United Kingdom.

For the United States Israel served as a military base for testing new American weapons against the Palestinians. Palestine is used by Israel as the testing ground, and Palestinians as the test subjects for the new American made weapons. Many NGOs has documented the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons against Palestinians and Arabs during Israel's wars against Lebanon and against Gaza Strip.

Israel was also used by the successive American administrations as an existential threat to Arab countries especially the oil rich Gulf States. This threat has facilitated the sale of large amounts of American weapons, although ineffectual and obsolete, to the Gulf States. Such sale helped American weapon manufacturers to thrive, and also helped to siphon the oil money into the American banks. The Israeli threat to the Gulf States helped justify the building of American military bases in the Gulf States under the pretense of protecting these states.

Israel was also considered the Western frontal defense line against Communist expansion in the Middle East. Yet after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Israel lost this usefulness. Israel, though, had regained its usefulness as an American partner in war against terror after the attacks of 911. Many investigations had pointed the finger towards special Mossad demolition squad as the possible planner and executor of this attack.

Bush's alleged "global war on terror" had flipped the American/Israeli military equation upside down. The United States had become Israel's free mercenary army fighting Israel's wars in proxy. The invasion of Iraq is one clear example. The two major Iraqi oil pipe lines, one from northern Kurdish Iraq to Turkey's coast through Syria and the other from southern Iraq to the Persian Gulf, were cut off. They both were directed to Israel's Haifa ports through Jordan.

The cold war against Iran and the graduating pressure to subdue the Iranian regime through economic sanctions and incitement of internal conflict and terror attacks serve only Israel. To keep Israel the strongest military power in the region this cold war is waged under the pretense of Iran's nuclear program aimed at developing a nuclear bomb, a pretense refuted several times by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and by Iran's willingness to exchange its rich uranium. Meanwhile the Western countries are ignoring the very well established fact of Israel's stockpiling at least 200 nuclear bombs, and that France and US had signed agreements with some Arab countries, such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and UAE to build nuclear reactors similar to that in Iran.

Thanks to AIPAC the American administration has become zionized. Israel's interests and welfare had gained higher priority than American interests and welfare. At the expense of the American tax payers the US had supported Israel with technology and most sophisticated weapons to attack Lebanon and Gaza Strip. Israel's terrorists and war criminals are protected and shielded by American political support and intimidation of other countries at the UN. The Congress had backed Israel's 2008 war crimes against Gaza and condemned Goldstone's Report by a vote of 334 to 36.

The Congress had approved the $3 billion annual military assistance to Israel. Using American tax money the administration is paying for free complete medical coverage for every Israeli citizen, and is subsidizing Israeli residential projects while those American tax payers lack necessary medical coverage and are losing their homes.

The Zionized American administration had ignored General Petraeus's warnings to the US Senate Armed Services Committee that the unconditional biased American support to Israel foments anti-American sentiments, and endangers the lives of American soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in the Moslem World in general. The administration seems to care about the lives of Zionist Israelis, for they are allegedly god's chosen people, more than they care about the lives of their own soldiers; some worthless goyims.

In a sign of support to Israel by the States Senate and under the initiative of Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) a letter was sent to Secretary Clinton urging her to do what she can to undermine the effects of what they call "the untimely announcement of housing construction in East Jerusalem". They also blame the Palestinian intransigence for failure to restart the peace negotiation, and asking that the administration should not publicly criticize Israel even when Israel does things to publicly embarrass the administration.

On the other hand at the Congress more than 250 members have signed onto a declaration sent to Hillary Clinton reaffirming their commitment to "the unbreakable bond that exists between the U.S. and the State of Israel … we believe, as President Obama said, that Israel's security is paramount in our Middle East policy and that it is in U. S. national security interests to assure that Israel's security as an independent Jewish state is maintained."

In her speech at AIPAC's March 22nd Conference Hillary Clinton gave an enthusiastic speech praising what she alleged Israel's commitment to peace and pledging America's perpetual support to Israel. "The future of both countries (US & Israel) are bound together … our commitment to Israel's security and to Israel's future is rock solid" Hillary affirmed.

Obama's approach to Israel is reflected in his speech to AIPAC on June 3rd 2008, while still a presidential candidate, when he stated: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided … I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything and I mean everything."

So, what is the fuss about this so-called US/Israeli crisis? This is a double stick-and-carrot approach to the Arab leaders, who are having their summit this weekend (March 27 & 28). It is meant as a face saving for the US and giving the illusion that the administration might pressure Israel providing the Arab leaders do not come up with any strong resolutions and give the administration the time to deal with Israel. The stick comes in the Congress's commitment to Israel's security.

The ball is now in the Arab's court. What will the Arab leaders decide in their summit; the usual empty condemnations or real action this time?

Israeli invasion into southeastern Gaza kills 4, injures 8, destroys a home and ravages farmland

On 26 March, fighting erupted between Palestinian resistance and invading Israeli soldiers when IOF jeeps, tanks, and bulldozers invaded, supported by F-16s, Apache helicopters and unmanned drones from above.

Two Israeli soldiers were reported killed and 2 more injured. Medics with the Red Crescent report that three Palestinian resistance fighters were killed, along with 1 civilian, Haitam Arafat, 22 years old, shot on his land.

Eight more Palestinians were injured, according to Muawiyya Hassaniin, director of emergency services in Gaza. The injured include Osama Abu Dagga, a child of 6 years, shot in the head while in his home 2 km from the border. He is in critical condition.

While the invasion was underway, locals reported several F-16 Israeli warplanes, Apache helicopters, drones, roughly 20 tanks and 6 bulldozers.

During the Israeli invasion, Palestinian ambulances were unable to reach the injured, delayed and unable to attain coordination from Israeli authorities to retrieve the injured, although international law obligates Israel to accord this permission.

Long after the fighting between the resistance and invading Israeli soldiers, 3 Israeli bulldozers destroyed the home of Hashem Abu Daggma and surrounding farmland, all well over 500 metres from the border.
Jaber Abu Rjila, a resident of Faraheen in the greater Abassan area, watched the Israeli invasion from a rooftop in the village a kilometre away.

“There were up to 20 tanks at the height of the invasions. The F-16, Apaches, drones and tanks were firing rockets, missiles and machine gun fire. I really felt that they might come into Faraheen again.”

Rjila’s house and chicken farm, 500 metres from the border, was ravaged in May 2008, his chicken barn destroyed, all but a percentage of the birds, farm equipment, and crops.

Rjila and other farmers in the border regions are constantly subject to Israeli soldier gunfire from border jeeps and towers.

“Many people are worried that Israel might come back and do something worse,” said Rjila. Today, the day after the invasion, Israeli bulldozers were visible waiting along the border.

"Cabbing" for Israel?

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

A question every voter should ask candidates in the coming UK general election

There can be few sights more pathetic than ex-ministers and chums of Tony Blair offering to use their government contacts to help influence policy on behalf of business clients.

"I'm like a cab for hire," said Stephen Byers when secretly filmed by a Channel 4 TV 'Dispatches' programme. Byers could be "hailed" for £3,000 to £5,000 per day.

And so a new expression was born into the sleazy world of Westminster: "political cabbing".

The latest revelations come only a few months after another Channel 4 'Dispatches' report, by Peter Oborne, showed how large numbers of MPs were stooging (or "cabbing") for Israel.

Mr Oborne reported that a majority of Conservative MPs and half the shadow cabinet are signed-up Friends of Israel, and £millions flow into the bank accounts of MPs and parties although only a fraction of these "contributions" are visibly accounted for. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British diplomat who served as consul-general in Jerusalem, observed: "I don't believe, and I don't think anybody else believes, these contributions come with no strings attached."

Mr Oborne showed how Labour and Conservative Friends of Israel take dozens of MPs on free trips to Israel, where they are guests of the Israeli government.

Few, if any, declare this interest when speaking in Parliament.

He showed how one of the Conservative Party's big donors has vested interests in illegal settlement development in the West Bank and in Bicom, an Israeli public affairs outfit, and how the party's leadership is subjected to foreign pressure.

What harm does "cabbing" for Israel do?

Large numbers of MPs (and many parliamentary candidates) are exposed to the Israel lobby's influence, and its message is carried through into parliamentary work causing great damage to our parliamentary democracy, harm to Britain's reputation throughout the world and risk to our security because a just solution in the Holy Land is prevented by such partisanship.

The majority of Conservative MPs and MEPs are Friends of Israel. The lobby also claims a very large number of Labour MPs and ministers. Membership is said to be a necessary step to high office.

The Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel website brazenly states that its first aim is to maximise support for the State of Israel within the party and Parliament, and develop and maintain a broad-based LDFI membership inside and outside of Parliament…

Conservatives Friends of Israel have a 'Fast Track' group for parliamentary candidates fighting target marginal seats. 

Senior Conservatives try to justify their support for the foreign military power by insisting that Israel is "a force for good in the world" and "in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel's enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together".

This partisanship undermines a number of the Principles on which our standards in public life are founded. One of these requires holders of public office not to place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Nowhere is this disregard for principle more dramatically demonstrated than in the appointment of Israel flag-wavers to the chairmanship of our most important security bodies – the Intelligence & Security Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee and Defence Committee.

Prime minister Gordon Brown told Labour Friends of Israel that they were "one of the great influences on the whole of the Labour movement… I will continue to do what I can both to defend Israel and to protect the security of Israel's borders… I count myself not only a friend of Israel but someone who wants to support the future of Israel…. we will do everything that we can to work with Israel."

Conservative opposition leader David Cameron has said: "The belief I have in Israel is indestructible – and you need to know that if I become Prime Minister, Israel has a friend who will never turn his back on Israel."

Both leaders are patrons of the Jewish National Fund, an organisation with a sinister purpose.

Lobbying will be the "next political scandal", says Cameron blissfully unaware of the irony of his remark.

"Cabbing" to change the law and protect Israel's thugs

When Tzipi Livni, leader of Israel's main opposition party Kadima and foreign minister during the murderous blitzkrieg on Gaza civilians a year ago, recently cancelled a visit to Britain after an arrest warrant was issued against her by a British court, Israel complained that "we have to put an end to this absurdity, which is harming the excellent bilateral relations between Israel and Britain."

Gordon Brown responded by insisting that Livni was welcome and promising to change the law that allows British courts to issue warrants for war crimes suspects.

Foreign secretary David Miliband reinforced this by saying the British government was determined that arrest threats against visitors of Ms. Livni's stature would not happen again. "Israel is a strategic partner and a close friend of the United Kingdom. We are determined to protect and develop these ties," he said. "Israeli leaders – like leaders from other countries – must be able to visit and have a proper dialogue with the British government."

Livni is not even a serving minister. And far from apologizing for the slaughter of Gazans a year ago, this odious individual declared: "I would make the same decisions all over again." For decent people she is beyond the pale and unwelcome.

Nevertheless the attorney-general has told the world that the government intends to protect high-ranking Israeli officials from arrest in the UK. Speaking at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Baroness Scotland said Israeli leaders should not face arrest for war crimes under the law of universal jurisdiction. "The government is looking urgently at ways in which the UK system might be changed to avoid this situation arising again. Israel's leaders should always be able to travel freely to the UK."

Why? There can be no hiding place for those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, extra-judicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances.

States that are party to the Geneva Conventions – there are 194 of them, including Israel itself – are obliged to seek out and either prosecute or extradite those suspected of having committed "grave breaches" of the Conventions and "bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case."

The Geneva Conventions are treaties, solemnly entered into, that contain universal rules limiting the barbarity of war. "Grave breaches" means wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, the causing of great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and other serious violations of the laws of war. Israel is well practised in all of these.

Brown and Miliband, "cabbing" like fury, are happy to dismantle our obligations under international law in order to save their unsavoury friends and allow Israel's worst thugs to walk the streets of our capital.

"Cabbing" for Israel even extends to making light of the theft by Mossad agents of the passport ID of several British citizens in a mission to assassinate a Hamas operative in Dubai. It was not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Mr Miliband announced the expulsion of an unnamed individual on the Israeli embassy staff. This feeble slap on the wrist was not nearly enough to wipe the smirk off Ambassador Prosor's face.

George Galloway MP called for a more robust response – the closing of the embassy. "Every British citizen travelling in the Middle East has been endangered by the actions of Mossad operating from the Israeli embassy in London. Protecting British citizens abroad demands nothing less than closing that centre of espionage at home."

That's more like it.

Miliband's and Brown's friends are not my friends… or anyone else's as far as I can see. The idea that Israel and the gangsters who run it have any value to us as strategic partners, is a figment of their tiny imagination. George Washington's warning of years ago seems all the more appropriate today: "The nation which indulges towards another a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave…a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils."

Who , if they had any integrity, would "cab" for a regime that thieves, murders, assassinates, carries out ethnic cleansing and shows utter contempt for international law, human rights, UN resolutions and the normal codes of human conduct?

Who would "cab" for a regime that, by using overwhelming military might, has systematically impoverished its neighbours and resorted to starvation tactics to make them submit?

Who, if they had a shred of honour, would "cab" for a regime whose leaders are wanted for war crimes?

Be warned, you parliamentary candidates, when you come a-knocking for my vote. The first question will be "Are you cabbing for Israel?"

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Restaurant attacked for barring armed Israeli soldier

An Arab-owned restaurant in the Israeli city of Haifa has been caught in a whirlwind of legal action and threats of violence after staff refused to serve a soldier in uniform, an incident that is rapidly tarnishing the city's reputation as a model of good Jewish-Arabs relations.

The soldier, Raviv Roth, has launched a damages claim for $16,000 over his treatment at Azad, a restaurant located in a bohemian neighborhood of the northern port city.

Roth's lawyer alleges that the restaurant broke anti-discrimination laws and humiliated the soldier, while Azad's owner says he only wants to ensure a relaxed and non-partisan atmosphere for all his customers.

Since the incident occurred late last month, soldiers and right-wing students have staged a large demonstration outside Azad demanding a boycott of the restaurant, and Azad's staff have received dozens of calls threatening to kill them or burn the premises down.

A Facebook group demanding Azad's closure has attracted tens of thousands of supporters. The local municipality has launched its own legal action to close the restaurant, arguing it has violated licensing conditions in refusing to serve the soldier.

"I can't believe what's been happening," said Anas Deeb, Azad's owner. "The soldier and municipality have been waging a vendetta campaign against me ever since they learned we have a dress code that does not allow uniforms. Our policy is not 'against' the army -- it covers every uniform, even the boy scouts.

"Everyone is talking as if we refused to serve the soldier, but that's not true. He was told he was welcome here any time but only if he first changed out of his army uniform."

One in 10 residents of Haifa, the third-largest city in Israel with a population of 270,000, is Arab. The city is often cited as a unique example in Israel of a multicultural community that has sought to integrate, rather than marginalize, its Arab population.

But the rapid escalation of tensions over the Azad incident risks creating a deep ethnic fissure, as has occurred in other mixed cities in Israel. In Acre, 20 kilometers up the coast, ethnic strains led in late 2008 to clashes between groups of Arab and Jewish youths. Several Arab families were chased out of mixed neighborhoods and had their homes set on fire.

Orna Sasson-Levy, a sociologist at Bar Ilan University, near Tel Aviv, said the Haifa restaurant had violated one of Israel's "great taboos" in refusing to welcome a soldier.

"The army is the symbol of the Israeli nation," she said. "Although it is okay not to serve in the army -- and many Jews don't -- it is definitely not okay to show that you are in any way against the army."

In Israel, where most of the secular Jewish population is conscripted for three years and many men continue to do annual reserve duty until their 40s, soldiers expect to be treated as heroes.

Buses give soldiers discounted tickets, those who have served in the army are entitled to lower tax rates, cheap mortgages and preferential rights to buy land, and employers often specify that only former soldiers will be considered for jobs.

Almost all of Israel's Arab citizens, who comprise a fifth of the country's population, are exempted from the army and do not receive such benefits.

Deeb, 30, said he established his restaurant -- whose Arabic name means "Free man" -- to offer a space where the city's Jews and Arabs could "mix as equals and without intimidation."

"Haifa is famous for being a multicultural city," he said. "Many of my clients are Jews, so this case has nothing to do with discrimination. All I want is peaceful dialogue.

"Places all over the world have dress codes, including requirements to wear a tie or a jacket, and no one makes any fuss. Why is an army uniform any different?"

Roth's lawyer, Pinhas Weller, said Deeb must pay compensation to the 23-year-old soldier or he would be sued in the courts. Roth, he said, had been told not talk to the media by the army.

Weller added that the refusal to allow the soldier entry to Azad was no less discriminatory than refusing to serve someone because of his skin color or his religion.

"In Israel, most people at some stage in their life wear a military uniform and the army is seen as protecting our way of life," he said. "If you refuse to serve someone in the army, it says something about your attitude to the country."

Similar sentiments were expressed at a demonstration outside Azad this month. Police had to stop protesters breaking into the restaurant as they waved Israeli flags and held banners saying "Don't discriminate against soldiers" and "Soldiers keep us safe."

One man was filmed shouting at customers and staff inside: "Until you're shut down, we won't leave this spot and we'll give you trouble. The soldiers protect you and me too. It's because of them that you exist ... All of Israel, all businesses, will welcome the army and those in uniform with respect."

However, human rights lawyers say the restaurant has broken no laws. Anti-discrimination legislation, introduced in 2000, covers race, religious affiliation, nationality and sexual orientation, but not military service.

Sawsan Zaher, of the Haifa-based Adalah legal center for the Arab minority, said the involvement of the municipality was of particular concern.

"We regard this as a case of harassment by city officials," said Zaher. "In arguing that the restaurant should have its license revoked because it discriminated against the soldier, the municipality is including a licensing criterion that is not authorized by the law."

But Reshev Cheyne, the City Attorney, maintained that barring a soldier in uniform did constitute discrimination and was not a justifiable dress code. "Soldiers are obliged to dress the way they do. If you say no to the uniform, you're saying no to the soldier."

Jafar Farah, head of Mossawa, a Haifa-based advocacy group for the Arab minority, said his organization had been monitoring a growing number of cases in which public places in Haifa refused Arabs entry.

"There is a smell of hypocrisy in this case," he said. "Bars and discos in Haifa are turning away Arab customers but the municipality never seeks to prosecute them, even though it is clear that in these cases laws against discrimination are being broken."

Farah said the city's climate of coexistence was breaking down, partly as a result of an influx during the 1990s of right-wing immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Today, a quarter of Haifa's population is Russian-speaking.

The city's deputy mayor, Yulia Shtraim, a member of the far-right party of Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, which is popular with Russian speakers, made headlines during last year's local election when she barred Arab reporters, but not Jewish journalists, from party rallies.

"Unfortunately, the soldier in this case is being backed by far-right groups who want to present this incident as an example of Arab disloyalty to Israel," said Farah. "That is dangerous because it could play well in parts of Haifa where Lieberman's party has attracted voters with its slogan of "No citizenship without loyalty."

Two years ago, an Arab lecturer, Nizar Hassan, was suspended from his job at Sapir College in the Negev after he admonished a student who arrived at his class armed and in uniform. The college president threatened to dismiss Dr. Hassan if he did not apologize to the soldier and publicly express his "respect for the IDF [Israeli military] uniform."

An Arab professor at Haifa University was ejected from a city restaurant last year when he objected to a military-style T-shirt worn by a waiter that advocated the killing of Palestinian children.

Jonathan Cook

Reham Alhelsi – Targeting Palestinian Mothers

Targeting the weakest and the most vulnerable is neither new nor surprising when it comes from an entity that stands on the ruins of Palestinian villages and is swimming in the blood of its Palestinian victims. It is the mentality of Zionists who in cold-blood aim to kill Palestinian children, who write on their helmets: Born to Kill and who wear T-Shirts with images of dead Palestinian babies and guns aimed at Palestinian babies. It is an entity that is proud of slogans showing images such as that of a pregnant Palestinian woman with a target sign on her belly and the inscription: 1 shot, 2 kills.

During the Nakba, the Zionist usurpers committed countless massacres. Often it was the women and the children who were first targeted and brutally murdered as a warning and to frighten others and force them to leave. Accounts of the Deir Yassin massacre (9-10.4.1948) mention that among the 254 Palestinians victims were 25 pregnant women who were bayoneted in the abdomen while still alive. Another 52 children were maimed in front of their mothers before having their heads cut off by the Zionist terrorists. After the village of Beit Darras had been surrounded by Zionist terror groups and further Zionist mobilization was on the way to occupy the village, the Zionist terror groups called on the Palestinian residents to leave the village safely from the south side. The villagers decided that it was safer for the women and children to leave, since it was the village the Zionists wanted. Upon leaving the village, all the women and children were massacred by the Zionist terrorists. During the Khisas massacre (18.12.1947) the 12 victims killed by the Zionist terrorists were all women and children. Other massacres such as Sa’sa’, Balad Il-Sheikh, Abu Shusha, Beit Daras, Tantoura, Dawaymeh and many others show the same pattern of killing unarmed pregnant women, mothers and their children. Targeting mothers and children continued after the Nakba. During the Kufr Qasem massacre (29.10.1956) whole families were massacred, and women were butchered with their children. In Qibya (14-15.10.1953), after the Zionist terrorist militia ordered the residents to remain in their homes, it blew up these homes, killing entire families. On 07.02.1951, Zionist terrorists killed 10 unarmed residents of Sharafat, including 3 women and 5 children. Similar patterns follow in the massacres of Azazmeh, Beit Jala, Qalqilia, Gaza and others more.

During the first Intifada several mothers were shot dead by the IOF. Also pregnant women were targeted and a number were killed mainly by the poisonous gas used by the IOF against unarmed Palestinians:

1. Wujdan Hafith Rajab Faris (35 years old) from Khan Younis, Gaza, suffocated by gas fired by Israeli soldiers on 10.1.1988, she was pregnant in 7th month.

2. Amira Ahmad Omar Abu Askar (35 years old) from Jabalia, Gaza. On suffocated by gas fired by Israeli soldiers on 11.1.1988, she was pregnant.

3. Nabila Ali Al-Yaziji (35 years old) from Ash-Sheikh Ridawn, Gaza, suffocated by gas fired by Israeli soldiers on 26.3.1988, she was pregnant.

4. Dawlat Daoud Al-Masri (18 years old) from Jabalia, Gaza, suffocated by gas fired by Israeli soldiers on 27.9.1988, she was pregnant in 6th month.

5. Aziza Salim Jabir (27 years old) from Hebron, was shot dead by a Zionist settler on 06.08.1990, she was pregnant.

Another Zionist method of murdering Palestinian mothers is the network of over 630 Israeli military checkpoints/roadblocks in the West Bank, aka the "traps of death". Patients in need of urgent treatment and medics rushing to save lives are often delayed at Israeli military checkpoints, constituting another war crime added to the ever-growing list of war crimes committed by the Zionist entity. Alone between 2000 and 2005 137 Palestinian patients, including 37 women, died at checkpoints because Israeli soldiers either prevented ambulances from passing and reaching the patients or prevented them from transporting patients to hospitals beyond the checkpoints. In many incidents, Palestinian mothers, including the elderly, the sick and the pregnant, were stopped and humiliated at checkpoints. Pregnant women are delayed at checkpoints and often prevented from reaching hospitals, causing many to give birth at these checkpoints. The deliberate delays at checkpoints have resulted in several premature births, stillborns and even the death of some of the mothers as Israeli Soldiers ignore the cries of suffering women and demand they get a special permit. Because of these checkpoints, Palestinian mothers are forced to deliver on the road or inside cars at the checkpoint. Many have to travel up to 4 hours and longer to reach a medical centre. One example is baby Zaid who died only moments after his birth when the Israeli soldiers refused to let his mother Nahil Abu Raja (21 years old) from Qasra, south of Nablus, to pass the Huwwara checkpoint and go to Nablus hospital. The medics who reached the checkpoint one hour after Nahil gave birth could only declare the baby dead. Around 6 pregnant women were also beaten or shot at by Israeli soldiers at checkpoints. Many mothers are forced to give birth at home, despite fear of complications because they fear they will be stopped at checkpoints and won’t make it in time to the hospital. In Azzun Atma near Qalqilya pregnant women are even forced to take up residence outside the village until they deliver out of fear that they might not be able to get the necessary medical treatment. The village, encircled by the apartheid wall, is separated by a gate from the rest of the West Bank. This gate is not manned at night, making the village a prison to its residents. According to a B’Tselem report, alone during 2006 some 20 out of 30 pregnant women from Azzun Atma were forced to relocate outside of the village because of their pregnancy.

Since the beginning of Al-Aqsa intifada in 2000 and till 2006 at least 69 Palestinian women gave birth at Israeli checkpoints in front of Israeli soldiers. This led to 35 miscarriages and the death of five mothers:

1. Rana Adel Abdel-Rahim Al-Jayyousi (17 years old) from Qour, Tulkarim: went into labor on 09.03.2002 and because of the closure of roads she was forced to give birth at home. Her baby was stillborn and when her condition deteriorated her family tried transporting her to hospital in Qlaqilia. They were stopped at an Israeli checkpoint for half an hour and when the ambulance arrived, Rana was already dead.

2. Aisha Abdel-Kairm Nassar (28 years old) from Al-Janyeh, Ramallah: on 23.1.2001 was in a critical condition after giving birth, but was stopped at an Israeli military checkpoint and delayed for 45 minutes. She died before reaching the hospital.

3. Rihab Nofal (30 years old) from Husam, Bethlehem: she went into labor on 18.10.2001 but Israeli soldiers stopped her at a checkpoint and prevented her from reaching the nearest hospital. She died.

4. Umayyah Hamad-Allah Imran (25 years old) from Azzoun, Qalqilia: on 24.09.01 she suffered from heavy internal bleeding after she had given birth, but was stopped at an Israeli checkpoint and her transport to the hospital was delayed. She left to hospital at 3 pm and reached it at 8 pm although the hospital lies only 20 km away. When she finally got there, Umayyah was dead.

5. Laila Husam Baheiri (18 years old) from Qalqilia: went into labor on 31.07.2002 but was prevented by Israeli soldiers at a military checkpoint from reaching hospital which led to her death.

Египтяне требуют разорвать отношения с израильтянами

Сотни египтян собрались на митинг у здания МИДа в Каире в знак протеста против преступлений Израиля в отношении палестинского народа и мусульманских святынь, потребовав от властей разорвать с еврейским государством дипломатические отношения.

Демонстранты размахивали палестинскими флагами и поднимали высоко вверх фотографии мечети Аль-Акса и оккупированного Иерусалима. Также они скандировали лозунги, критикующие молчание лидеров арабского мира в свете продолжающейся преступной политики Израиля на Святой земле.

Активисты движения "Борцы за Палестину", ставшего организатором демонстрации, потребовали от египетских властей выполнить пять основных требований: выслать израильского посла, отказаться от арабской мирной инициативы, прекратить поставки газа в Израиль, разорвать дипотношения с ним и ликвидировать все формы нормализации отношений с Тель-Авивом в экономической, политической, культурной и социальной сферах.

В интервью корреспонденту "Аль-Джазиры" один из членов движения заявил: "Нам стало известно, что на рассмотрение всеарабского саммита в Ливии будет представлен специальный доклад о планах Израиля разрушить священную мечеть Аль-Аксу. Мечети грозит опасность обвала, так как незаконные еврейские раскопки (подкопы) сильно повредили её основание. Чего же ещё ожидают арабские лидеры для принятия решительных действий?"

Другой активист "Борцов за Палестину" отметил в свою очередь, что арабы должны сплотиться вокруг сил сопротивления. "Намеренное ослабление сопротивления некоторыми силами развязало руки сионистам, позволило им ускорить процесс выполнения их преступных замыслов и раскрыло их грязные намерения. Стало очевидно, что они пытаются уничтожить арабо-мусульманский облик Иерусалима и сделать из него иудейско-сионистский город", - цитирует его слова "Аль-Джазира".

"Израиль" и американская помощь

10 июля 1996 г. на совместном заседании Конгресса США «израильский» премьер Натаняху получил овации стоя за следующие слова:

«С помощью Америки «Израиль» превратился в могущественное, современное государство... Но я полагаю, что не может быть большего взноса в долгосрочную экономическую помощь США нам, чем сказать: мы собираемся стать экономически незавимимыми. Мы собираемся сделать это. В следующие четыре года мы начнем долгосрочный процесс постепенного снижения уровня вашей щедрой экономической помощи «Израилю»».

С 1996 г. американские налогоплательщики продолжают направлять в сионистское образование три миллиарда долларов ежегодно, а также предоставляют различные заемы, новые технологие и другие виды непрямой помощи. Прежде чем Буш-младший покинул свой пост, был подписан меморандум между США и «Израилем», который предусматривал 30 миллиардов долларов помощи в следующие 10 лет иудо-нацистскому режиму, которая выплачивается единовременно в начале каждого фискальног года. Сионистские войны и колонии финансируются за счет американских налогов.

Так что же случилось с торжественным обещанием г-на Натаняху Конгрессу? Ответ прост: Конгресс никогда не требовал его выполнения.

В последние годы «Израиль» превратился в алтарь экономических, технологических и военных жертв США. Его ВВП выше, чем у Египта, хотя население «Израиля» не составляет и одной десятой части от самого крупного государства арабского мира. На бирже NASDAQкомпании «Израиля» занимают второе место, превосходя числом компании из Японии, Кореи, Китая и Индии вместе взятые. Инвестиции в их венчурные фонды превышают инвестиции подобного рода в США, Европе и Китае в пересчете на душу населения.

«Израиль» превратился в пятую сильнейшую военную силу в мире, и претензии сионистов на последние американские военные разработки и технологии смерти никто не осмеливается отклонить. И это помогло иудо-нацистскому режиму превратиться в крупнейшего экспортера оружия.

«Экономическое чудо» расистского анклава и технологические инновации породили море статей и книг в последнее время. Рост ВВП в «Израиле» превысил те же показатели большинства западных стран за последние пять лет. «Израиль» предоставляет полное медицинское обслуживание для всех, в отличие от ситуации в США, где решается вопрос, кто должен кому помогать.

Следует помнить, что американская экономика застряла в рецессии, растет процент бедных, безработных, должников, государственный бюджем имеет огромный дефецит. Государственные школы закрываются, система здравоохранения рухнула, университеты урезают свои программы. Продаютсядажегосударственныездания.

Согласно американскому законодательству, военные поставки в «Израиль» не могут быть использованы для агрессивный целей, а только для «обоснованной самообороны».

Тем не менее, «Израиль» неоднократно нарушал Контрольный Акт о поставках оружия. Даже достаточно индифферентный госдепартамент время от времени заявляет, что кассетные бомбы являются, «скорее всего, нарушением».

Нарушения привели бы к уменьшению объемов поставок помощи, но полностью про«израильский» климат, царящий в Белом Доме, никогда не позволял, чтобы данные заключения что-либо решали.

Подобное безразличие можно увидеть и в отношении Закона США о внешней помощи, который запрещает предоставлять помощь странам, систематически нарушающим права человека. Это включает в себя оккупацию, колонизацию, блокаду, военные нападения на гражданское население на Западном берегу р. Иордан и в Секторе Газа, что подробно задокументировано таким влиятельными правозащитными организациями, как «Бцелем», «Международная Амнистия» и «HumanRightsWatch».

На этой неделе Натаняху встречался с президентом США после объявления Тель-Авивом плана о строительстве 1600 жилых объектов в Иерусалиме во время визита в «Израиль» вице-президента Америки Джо Байдена.

Откровенно разъяренный журналист «NewYorkTimes» Том Фридман писал, что Байден должен был упаковать чемодан и сразу же улететь, и добавил: «Вы думаете, что вы можете ударить своего единственного настоящего союзника в мире, для того чтобы удовлетворить какую-то местную политическую нужду, без всяких последствий? Вы полностью утратили чувство реальности».

Но до последних дней правительство США не имело никаких рычагов давления на «израильское» правительство. Вопрос об урезании помощи сионистам боялись даже прошептать в залах Конгресса. Поднятие этой проблемы могло еще сильней раздражить «израильских» лоббистов, в первую очередь, AIPAC.

Единственный инструмент, оставшийся у США, внезапно оказался в СМИ несколько недель назад. Генерал Дэвид Петреус заявил Сенату, что палестино-«израильский» конфликт негативно влияет на внешнюю политику и национальную безопасность Америки.

Он сказал: «Конфликт порождает антиамериканские настроения из-за нашего фаворитизма «Израилю». Гнев арабов относительно палестинского вопроса ограничивает силу и глубину американского партнерства с правительствами и населением в Зоне Ответственности.. А в это время «Аль-Каида» и другие военные группировки используют эти настроения для мобилизациии своей поддержки».

Несколько дней ранее вице-президент США Байден сказал Натаняху в «Израиле», что «то, что вы делаете, подрывает безопасность наших солдат, сражающихся в Ираке, Афганистане и Пакистане».

Представители администрации Обамы начали открыто говорить, что мир в этой многострадальной части света является одним из жизненных интересов США на Ближнем Востоке и, в конечном итоге, означает безопасность американских солдат и персонала.

Как прокомментировал один вышедший на пенсию дипломат, «это может поменять правила игры».

Ральф Надер – трижды кандидат в президенты США.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

International Campaign in Support of Palestinian Political Prisoners

The Free Palestine Alliance and Addameer are calling for days of action during the week of April 11 – 17 in support of Palestinian Political Prisoners.

(Arabic translation follows) April 17, 2010 marks the 34th anniversary of Palestinian Political Prisoners Day. As this historic and important day approaches, several Palestinian organizations and solidarity partners feel it is a critical time, now more than ever, to shed light on the unsung and sometimes forgotten heroes of the ongoing struggle to liberate Palestine. There are a total of 7,300 Arab prisoners. Among them are 33 women and 300 children. 400 are from Jerusalem and the 1948 occupied Palestinian areas, 745 from Gaza Strip, and 6,155 from the West Bank.

Commemorate Palestinian Political Prisoners Day

April 17, 2010

We encourage all to organize local events to spread awareness on this critical issue by holding workshops, teach-ins, film screenings and various activities throughout the week.

On Saturday April 17, 2010, bring together community and allies to fly kites in support of the thousands of Palestinian political prisoners.

For more information visit:


Bibi Netanyahu's Babe: Kneepad Diplomacy Lives!

By Dr. Alan Sabrosky* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

There has been something verging on the surreal in the US-Israel interplay over the past year or so, culminating in the kick in – er, the face delivered to Vice President Biden two weeks ago with Israel's surprise announcement of yet more new settlement construction, and capped by Secretary of State Clinton's groveling submission to Netanyahu at a recent AIPAC conference. Her speech was the verbal equivalent of what a White House intern allegedly did for her husband once (or more) upon a time, supposedly earning "Presidential kneepads" thereby.

Israeli officials have repeatedly not only ignored but also openly insulted in word or deed the persons or policies of almost every senior American official with whom they have dealt, including Clinton, Biden, Middle East Envoy George Mitchell, and President Obama himself.

And they have taken it, one and all, occasionally with brief bursts of verbal anger that rapidly subsided into yet another steadfast affirmation of the eternal, undiminished, unchallenged and unchallengeable US willingness to underwrite the security of Israel, and especially to its absolute unwillingness to deny Israel a single dollar, bomb or bullet. God knows, I wish they had even half the same demonstrated commitment to the security of the United States and the well-being of the American people — but then, no one can easily serve two masters.

Creating a Shambles and Calling it Policy

Sure, America's Middle East policy is a shambles. America's standing is much lower now than when Obama came into office. The Iraq war is winding down, with no certainty at all how that country will go. Afghanistan is a mess, but then, Alexander the Great couldn't do much with it either, so that's no surprise. And Israel — not wanting America to be bored with only one and a half wars — evidently is trying to help by encouraging us into war with Iran, to spare them the cost of attacking it. Such a friend!

Then there are the long-suffering Palestinians, a people whose situation Obama himself declared in his one bright moment in Cairo last June to be "intolerable." Hello? Mr. Obama, did you sleep through so many classes that the meaning of that word slipped past you? Something that is "intolerable" needs to be put right, and by any objective measure, the US has the power on absolutely every dimension needed to do just that.

Ah, but that would mean actually doing something to Israel, or at least withholding something from it, or perhaps even voting against it in the UN. And that would mean bypassing Congress and going to the American people. And that isn't going to happen, at least with this Administration. Obama just isn't the man to do that job.

From Bad to Worse

The whole thing almost reminds me of a turnabout "battered spouse" exercise, in which the stronger lets the weaker do the beating, murmuring "now, dear" at intervals but letting the beatings continue. And as usual, whenever anyone else dares to point out what is happening, the battered spouse staunchly affirms a determination to stand by the battering partner, no matter what happens.

What is manifestly going to happen is that a demonstrably bad situation is going to get worse, and more than a few people are making that abundantly clear. Probably the only thing that might jolt the Israeli-dominated train of US Middle East mismanagement off its tracks, would be a catastrophe following a US strike against Iran producing US casualties way beyond those from the Vietnam War — something that could happen all too easily. And then, yet again, there is Gaza and the rest of the Palestinian Bantustan….

More dangerously, Clinton's hat-in-hand, I-love-you-now-and-forever verbal burlesque at the AIPAC conference makes two things abundantly clear. One is the extraordinary extent of Zionist control within and over the US Government — when you hurt someone or some Administration and it comes back for more, you have them. The other is how little the members of AIPAC themselves, at least nominally US citizens, care about the US itself — there isn't any longer even a facade of "dual loyalty," only loyalty to Israel alone.

I am very old-fashioned, and a decade in the US Marines gave me an odd affinity for qualities such as pride and loyalty and duty and honor. I'd like to hope that somewhere way down deep these supposed "leaders" of the most powerful country on earth would find something of those qualities in themselves, or at least acquire a sense of shame, and understand that they are there to safeguard America and Americans, and not to sustain Israeli militarism, racism and colonialism.

If they did, then Israel would find itself confronting sanctions and embargoes, its aid from the US would end, and the illegal blockade of Gaza would be forcibly broken — and that would be just for starters.

But that, too, isn't likely in the here and now. In the Middle East, as in so many other areas of public policy, the US Government and its so-called "leaders" simply are not a part of any workable solution. So perhaps we should just send them all some diplomatic kneepads emblazoned with the Star of David — although I do wonder what kind of a cigar Netanyahu will flash.

Взрыв народного гнева может произойти в любой момент!..

«Бригады имени шахида Изз эд-Дина Аль-Кассам», вооруженное крыло ХАМАС, заявили о своей приверженности курсу сопротивления в Палестине и предупредили, что ситуация в Секторе Газа может взорваться в любой момент на фоне продолжающихся преступлений «Израиля» на оккупированных палестинских землях.

Пресс-секретарь «Бригад» Абу Обейда не исключает взрыва негодования, в результате «израильской» эскалации в оккупированном Иерусалиме и на Западном берегу реки Иордан. «Всю полноту ответственности за последствия будет нести «израильская» оккупация», - подчеркнул Абу Обейда.

Движение ХАМАС выразило сожаление по поводу неправильного толкования некоторыми СМИ слов высокопоставленного представителя ХАМАС д-ра Махмуда аль-Заххара о ракетных обстрелах в последние дни.

В своем заявлении, сделанном в воскресенье, Движение пояснило, что неверные толкования замечаний д-ра Заххара является на самом деле заказными публикациями заинтересованных лиц, желающих принизить роль ХАМАС.

Телеканал «Аль-Алам» процитировал д-ра Захара, сказавшего, что заявления, сделанные членами ФАТХ о ракетных обстрелах «Израиля» противоречат направлению деятельности его Движения в Секторе Газа и на Западном берегу.

Он добавил, что есть партии, которые хотят дать сионистам шанс сионистам и отвлечь СМИ от происходящего в Аль-Кудсе.

Пресс-секретарь «Бригад» также сказал, что есть фракции сопротивления, которые самовольно запускают ракеты по «Израилю», чтобы привлечь к себе внимание со стороны СМИ.

Бойцы палестинского Сопротивления в городе Эль-Халиль внезапно напали на «израильские» войска в районе деревни Бейт Ава. Эта акция возмездия стала ответом на убийство четырех палестинских граждан в деревне Ирак Бурин в районе города Наблус два дня назад.

Еврейские СМИ сообщили, что палестинские бойцы Сопротивления открыли огонь по «израильским» войскам к югу от города Эль-Халиля вечером в воскресенье, а затем быстро скрылись до прибытия военного подкрепления сионистов.

Another bump in the road for

By Paul Reynolds
The British government is expected to announce the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat in connection with Israel’s alleged misuse of British passports – a number of which were carried by a hit squad that assassinated Palestinian Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai.

In February, the government set up an investigation into the matter.

At the time, official language in announcing that the Israeli ambassador in London Ron Prosor would be going to the Foreign Office was notably moderate.

A statement said simply that “given the links to Israel of a number the British Nationals affected, there will be a meeting between the FCO Permanent Under Secretary and the Israeli Ambassador tomorrow”. This was an invitation not a summons.

It was, in February, a matter of Britain asking questions, not making protests and taking retaliatory action (such as demanding an apology, restricting official contacts or even expelling the ambassador for a time).

During his meeting with Mr Prosor, the permanent under-secretary Sir Peter Ricketts asked for full Israeli co-operation with the British inquiry. This may have proved problematic if Mossad was involved. Israel would not want to reveal too much. So a lot depends on how the word “cooperation” is defined. A total failure to cooperate would trigger a British response.


One complicating factor is that in 1987, the Israelis promised Britain that it would not use British passports in secret operations again.

On that occasion, eight British passports reckoned to be for Mossad agents were found in a bag in a West German telephone booth.

The then Israeli ambassador in London, Yehuda Avner, did find himself on the receiving end of a British protest.

If it turns out that the assurance given then has been broken, the British diplomatic reaction will be more severe.

Britain might also press other European countries whose passports have surfaced in this affair – Ireland, France and Germany – to take a firm line.Ritual element

However, these events have a certain ritual about them. New Zealand got angry with Israel in 2004 when two Israeli agents were found to be using New Zealand passports. Diplomatic ties were frozen, but were quietly resumed a year or so later after an Israeli apology.

In 1987, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did order the closure of the Mossad station in London for a time – though no doubt it carried on in different ways – after the kidnapping of the Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu.
But that did not affect her support for Israel and in due course, normal service resumed.

If it finds the evidence this time, Britain will no doubt demand satisfaction. But neither Britain or Israel will want this to escalate into a full-scale row.

The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is sympathetic to Israel and there is a delicate intelligence relationship that needs to be preserved as far as possible in view of the threat to both countries from Islamist extremists.

Difficult relationship

This might well be one of those bumps in the road that have dogged British-Israeli relations for decades, going back even beyond the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.

It has rarely been an easy relationship and has been marked by contradictions, resentment and touchiness on both sides.

The historic promise from Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour in 1917 that Britain would establish a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, while also promising that the “civil and religious rights” of the “existing non-Jewish communities” would not be prejudiced, proved impossible for Britain to deliver.

Britain found itself having to put down a Palestinian-Arab revolt in 1936 only to be attacked by Jewish groups wanting Britain out of Palestine after World War II (though during the war there was strong Jewish support through the formation of the Jewish Brigade of the British army). Britain pulled out of Palestine in anger and chaos.

The Israelis complain that Britain reneged on the Balfour promise in a White Paper in 1939 which rejected the concept of a two-state solution and severely restricted Jewish immigration at a time when Jews were being murdered by the Nazis.

Reliance on US

For years, there was a strand in the British Foreign Office that was hostile to Israel.

Britain delayed recognising Israel as a state for eight months. The US did so within minutes. You can occasionally hear echoes of that hostility in London, but there are really only echoes, not policy.

Things improved in the 1950s and 60s. In fact, Britain and France were Israel’s main weapons providers then, not the United States. Israel won the 1967 war with French aircraft and British tanks. And in the Suez operation in 1956, Britain and France colluded with Israel in the invasion of Egypt, until the US pulled the plug.

Then, Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath slapped an arms embargo on Israel and other combatants in the 1973 war, and Israel has relied on the US ever since.

It no longer puts its trust in any European government, though it likes their goodwill.

The Europeans try to balance their support for Israel as a state with their sympathy for the Palestinians as a people. They also have to be mindful of their relationship with the Arab world as a whole.

Relations at the best of times can turn touchy. There is currently a row over the British system of allowing magistrates to issue arrest warrants for alleged war crimes and, according to Israel, the British government has been too slow in changing this.

Incidents like Dubai make maintaining a balance more difficult.

Anti-Semitism – What is it?

by Jeff Gates
Several of us among the incurably curious asked ourselves a simple question: what is anti-Semitism? That it must be written with a capital “S” says a lot.

Then we realized it also morphs. To that feature I can attest. In November 2002, I met a “John Doe” in London who proposed a research challenge. While meeting that challenge, I encountered various versions of anti-Semitism.

A colleague advised against this challenge. First he fretted at the criminal nature of what the research has since confirmed. Then he inquired about my safety. That said a lot.
The colleague was M.I.T. Professor Noam Chomsky. For his criticism of Israeli policy, he was attacked as a self-hating Jew. Were he not Jewish, doubtless he would have been an anti-Semite. For critics of Israel, those are the only two options. He cautioned me:
You’ll get the same thing: anti-Semitic, Holocaust denier, want to kill all the Jews, etc. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Bear in mind that you are dealing with intellectuals, that is, what we call ‘commissars’ and ‘apparatchiks’ in enemy states.

Is anti-Semitism a geopolitical strategy? If so, for what purpose? Character assassination?
Ten months ago, I met with Professor William Robinson on the University of California Santa Barbara campus. We met soon after he was attacked by the Anti-Defamation League and its network.
Robinson had read Guilt By Association, the first release based on this research. His question mirrored Prof. Chomsky’s concern: “Are they going to kill me?” he asked. Who are They? Those who attack anyone critical of Israeli policy.

Anti-Semitism—A License to Kill?

For his class on globalization, Robinson provided an email link to a photo essay critical of Israeli policy. The essay had been circulating online for weeks. When two students complained to the ADL, its attack troops insisted on Robinson’s removal while its national network urged alumni to threaten the withholding of gifts and bequests to the university.

Word quickly spread among academics nationwide. That time-critical ADL strategy silenced on-campus criticism of the Israeli assault on Gaza. Is it anti-Semitic to suggest that’s how anti-Semitism works?

When the Anti-Defamation League intimidates on a national scale, does anti-Semitism morph into something even more sinister? The Gaza assault killed 1,400, including 400 Palestinian children. That slaughter was scheduled during America’s political and media “down time”—between Christmas 2008 and the January 2009 inaugural of Barack Obama.

Is it anti-Semitic to suggest a strategic motive behind the timing of Israel’s latest savagery?

Then there’s the motive for 911. Is it anti-Semitic to raise that taboo subject? Ask those members of the 911 Commission who objected—successfully—when the chair and vice-chair proposed hearings on the motivation for that high-profile provocation.

Instead, Americans were left to cope with the results of an overwrought reaction to an unexplained mass murder too quickly blamed on “Islamo” fascism. Only now can we see the full costs in blood and treasure of a war waged on fixed intelligence and false pretenses.

The fiscal tab alone is projected to total $3 Trillion. That includes the future costs of military pensions, disabilities, record-level post-traumatic stress, suicides and so forth.

All that money is borrowed, a first for an American war. The interest cost could reach $700 billion. Is it anti-Semitic to mention here that debt is always the prize?

At the end of WWII, the victorious U.S. was home to 50% of the world’s productive power. Our bonds were gilt-edged and remained so for two generations. Now we are widely hated, our credibility is shot, our credit rating is slipping and our economy teeters on a meltdown.

Is it anti-Semitic to ask, “What happened?”

Is it anti-Semitic to report that the so-called “mastermind” behind 911 cited as his motive the U.S.-Israeli relationship?

Would it be anti-Semitic to ask for an accounting of the “but for” costs of this relationship?

But for this “special relationship” what would be the current condition of the U.S.—financially, militarily, diplomatically, geopolitically? Would the computation of those costs be an exercise in anti-Semitism? How about future costs?

Is it Anti-Semitic to call for a New 911 Commission?

America was misled to wage war in Iraq. Who had a relationship with us privileged enough to succeed with such duplicity in plain sight?

Who had the means, motive, opportunity and—importantly—the stable nation state intelligence to deceive us from inside our own government? Is that question anti-Semitic?

We were betrayed. Does that betrayal trace to those who befriended us?

We were defrauded. Does that treason trace to those we were induced to trust?

As counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (1980-87), I crafted federal tax law governing funds under management. Those funds surged from $800 billion in 1980 to more than $17,000 billion by the spring of 2007.

Those tax policies created a vast pool of “money-on-autopilot.” Today’s consensus belief can be simply put: money should be allowed to pursue more of itself—freely.

The unspoken assumption is that money is smarter than people. That’s the generally accepted truth behind the finance-fixated obsession we now know as “economics.”

Legions of consensus-touting consultants insist that this One True Faith guide lawmaking worldwide. By law, financial freedom became a proxy for personal freedom. Tribunals under the World Trade Organization may yet enforce that worldview globally.

How did such a narrow perspective become a widely agreed-to mindset? How were we induced to set America’s course by those values peculiar to money?

Rather than the civil rights refrain, “Let my people go,” the consensus refrain is “Let my money go.” Were we induced by a subculture within a subculture…within a subculture to freely embrace the very money myopic mindset that now endangers our freedom?

This mindset first surfaced as the “Chicago model” before morphing over decades into the “Washington” consensus.

How were we as a nation induced to brand democracy with a point of view that, by law, displaces those values not denominated in money? Is that an anti-Semitic question?

Shutting Down Debate

Early on in this challenge, I included the noun “Jew” in a Google search. I received in return an automated response from the Anti-Defamation League implying I was an anti-Semite.


More importantly, how did a Google response appear in my email inbox—automatically—from the Anti-Defamation League?

The ADL network conducts trainings for law enforcement under recently enacted federal hate crimes legislation. By my use of a common noun in an online search, am I now identified in a database as wanting to kill all the Jews?

Mark Yudoff, president of the University of California, could have intervened in the on-campus events that caused Professor Robinson to fear for his life. He declined. Richard Blum, chair of the state’s Board of Regents, could have intervened. He too declined.

Judith Yudoff is the immediate past international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism representing 760 synagogues. Blum’s wife, U. S. Senator Diane Feinstein, chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Is it anti-Semitic to report these facts?

My apologies. Clearly I don’t yet grasp what anti-Semitism is. Thus I throw the challenge to you the reader: what is it? Together perhaps we can sort this out.