Middle East atemporal

Mai 5, 2013

Syria: Attack on military facility was a ‘declaration of war’ by Israel

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 2:54 pm
Damascus, Syria (CNN) – A Syrian official called an attack Sunday on the nation’s military research facility a „declaration of war” by Israel.
 

 

In an interview with CNN, Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al Mekdad said the attack represented an alliance between Islamic terrorists and Israel.
 
He added that Syria would retaliate against Israel in its own time and way.
 
Early Sunday morning, a series of massive explosions illuminated the predawn sky in Damascus, prompting more claims that Israel has launched attacks into the war-torn country.
 
Syria accused Israel of firing rockets into the Damascus suburb of Jamraya, striking the research center, Syrian state-run TV reported. The report claimed that the rocket attack on the research center aided rebels, who have been battling government forces in the region.
 
The Israeli military would not confirm or deny the Syrian TV claim that Israel had launched rockets.
 
„We do not comment on these reports at all,” an Israeli military spokesperson said.
 
The report comes shortly after U.S. officials first told CNN that the United States believes Israel conducted an airstrike against Syria. Two U.S. officials told CNN on Friday that Israel apparently launched an airstrike into Syria on Thursday or Friday. Based on initial information, the United States does not believe Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace to conduct the strike.

The Israeli military did not comment on the U.S. claim of an airstrike. But Israel has long said it would target any transfer of weapons to Hezbollah or other terrorist groups, as well as at any effort to smuggle Syrian weapons into Lebanon that could threaten Israel.

 

„We are watching everything when it comes to the movement of these types of weapons. We have the means to do that,” a senior Israeli defense official told CNN’s Sara Sidner. The official is not authorized to speak to the media.

Shaul Mofaz, a lawmaker with Israel’s Knesset, told Israeli Army Radio that Israel isn’t meddling with Syria’s civil war. But Israel must protect itself from Lebanese militants, he said.
 
„For Israel, it is very important that the front group for Iran, which is in Lebanon, needs to be stopped,” Mofaz said.

„Everything that goes into the hands of Hezbollah is not directly related to the rebels. Israel never interfered in the past or today in their actions. Nevertheless, I need to say that Hezbollah is deeply involved up to its neck in what is happening in Syria. Hezbollah helps the Iranians navigate against the rebels.”

Neither Hezbollah nor the Lebanese government commented immediately after Sunday’s claims.

Syria: Israel has targeted the defense facility before

Sunday’s report is the second claim by Syria this year of a strike against the government defense research facility,

In January, reports surfaced that Israeli warplanes targeted the Jamraya research facility. The Syrian government has said that airstrike killed two workers and injured five others.

A U.S. official told CNN at the time the Syrian claims were false. The official said Israeli fighter jets targeted a Syrian government convoy carrying surface-to-air missiles bound for Hezbollah. But Syria denied there were such shipments.

Lebanon reports Israeli warplanes overhead

Claims of Israeli foreign presence was not limited to Syria; the Lebanese army said Israel flew warplanes over Lebanon on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
 

Lebanese President Gen. Michel Sleiman condemned the violations as „an attempt to shaken Lebanese stability,” the state-run National News Agency reported Saturday.

The Israeli military had no comment on the Lebanese claim. But an Israeli defense source said, „We will do whatever is necessary to stop the transfer of weapons from Syria to terrorist organizations. We have done it in the past, and we will do it if necessary the future.”

Sectarian violence continues

The latest report of rocket attacks comes as sectarian violence erupted in northwestern Syria. Three consecutive days of killing by mostly Alawite forces have left hundreds of predominantly Sunni residents dead, opposition groups said Saturday.

State media have said their forces were seeking only to clear the area of „terrorists,” the term they have routinely used when referring to rebel forces.

But the U.S. State Department said it was „appalled by horrific reports that more than 100 people were killed May 2” in Beyda, a suburb of Baniyas.

Several opposition groups said largely Alawite regime forces used tanks, battleships and missile launchers to target largely Sunni neighborhoods in and around the coastal city of Baniyas.

Government forces killed at least 200 people on Friday and Saturday in Baniyas and its suburbs, the opposition Local Coordination Committees said Saturday.

But reliable information has been difficult to obtain because government forces controlled access to the village, the LCC said.

A graphic video posted by activists who said it was shot in the Ras al-Nabaa neighborhood showed people, including an infant, lying lifeless on the ground. Many bore what appeared to be bullet wounds, and some appeared burned. CNN has not been able to confirm the video’s authenticity, as access to Syrian war zones has been severely limited by the government.
 
State-run Syrian TV reported that government troops and the National Defense militia – an armed Alawite group loyal to the government, „have cleaned the area from armed terrorists” after „they burned civilians’ homes and terrorized the population.” The report was supported by interviews with members of the Syrian army.
 
U.S. President Barack Obama told reporters on Friday that he did not foresee a scenario of „American boots on the ground in Syria” that would be good for that country or the region. Obama said other leaders in the region want to see al-Assad out of power.
http://privateinvesigations.blogspot.ro/2013/05/syria-attack-on-military-facility-was.html

ISRAEL ATTEMPTS TO PROVOKE HEZBOLLAH

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 2:48 pm
By Damian Lataan | May 05, 2013

It’s clear that Israel’s strategy is to use the Syrian Civil War to deliberately provoke Hezbollah. The provocation is designed to goad Hezbollah into retaliation for over-flying Lebanon while on their way to apparently destroy weapons that the Israelis say are bound for Hezbollah.

The strategy has worked before. In 2006 the Israelis flew low level high speed jet sorties over Lebanon. Hezbollah responded by launching rockets into Israel. The situation then quickly escalated when the Israelis prepared reconnaissance patrols into south Lebanon. This resulted in an Israeli patrol unit being attacked close to the Lebanese border when three Israelis were killed and two others taken either dead or mortally wounded. The result was a war that the Israelis hoped would put an end to Hezbollah once and for all. However, Hezbollah turned out to be far more tenacious than the Israelis imagined and the war ended when the US under Bush and Condoleezza Rice were no longer able to support Israeli aggression due to international pressure to stop the war as hundreds of Lebanese civilians were being killed. 44 Israeli civilians were killed and 121 Israeli military personnel died. While many Lebanese civilians lost their lives and there was horrendous damage done to Lebanon’s infrastructure, Israel, considering its war aims were to destroy Hezbollah and occupy south Lebanon up to the Litani River, suffered a humiliating defeat. Now the Israelis are trying a different tack except this time their war aims are far grander and they hope to include the US.

The Israelis are clearly hoping that Hezbollah will retaliate in some way to Israeli provocation. So far, Hezbollah have resisted the temptation to launch any anti-aircraft missiles at Israeli aircraft overflying Lebanon and/or launch rockets against Israel in an attempt to deter Israel from further aggression.

As for Israel’s claims that their raids against weapons dumps in Syria are aimed at preventing weapons from reaching Hezbollah, this too is simply part of an overall strategy designed to demonise the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance for propaganda purposes for when a wider regional war breaks out. It also provides a reasonable casus belli for when such a full on regional war does break out. The fact is, there would be no way that President al-Assad would want to provoke Israel by allowing any WMDs to be transferred to Hezbollah and Israel knows this. There is also no way that al-Assad would want to incur America’s wrath by using chemical weapons against anyone. Again, the Israelis know this. Yet it is the Israelis that are pushing this right to the very edge.

Israel is desperate to initiate a regional confrontation with all of their enemies that will allow them to pursue their territorial expansionist ambitions which will result in the long term in realising their dreams of a Greater Israel. There are a number of doors through which Israel can pass through in order to kick off their long sought after war. The civil war in Syria is just another door.

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/israel-attempts-to-provoke-hezbollah/

Israeli aggression in Syria is provoking a war

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 2:41 pm

How long can Israel’s luck hold out? How many more times can it attack Syria without Assad or Hezbollah hitting back?  

People in this country have been worried that the fighting in Syria is going to “spill over the border,” and now Israel, unprovoked, unattacked, has gone and bombed Syria twice in the last 72 hours. Is anyone in this vibrant democracy protesting? I haven’t heard it.

That’s because the missiles from Syria and/or Hezbollah haven’t started falling here. So far so good, people figure. As long as we get away with it, hooray. If, however, our neighbors to the north start retaliating with some of their tens of thousands of rockets and missiles on the Israeli home front or other targets, maybe then people here will wonder why we decided now of all times to punch Syria and Hezbollah in the nose.

What was the Air Force trying to do – stop Assad’s chemical weapons from falling into the hands of global jihadists, the same ones who supposedly can’t be deterred because they have no address? No. Both times, the Air Force reportedly hit not chemical weapons but caches of long-range, accurate, conventional missiles that came from Iran and were meant not for “undeterrable” global jihadists without an address, but for Hezbollah, which has an address and is being deterred very nicely by Israel – so far.

Why did Israel take out these missiles? The Israeli official quoted after Friday morning’s attack said it was to prevent Hezbollah from obtaining “game-changing” weapons. Which game was in danger of being changed? The game of Israeli military superiority, of the Israeli “qualitative edge.” The rules of this game are that Israel continually flies spy planes over Lebanon, bombs Syria now, and may bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities later, secure in its belief that the targets can’t do much in return – like bring down Israeli spy planes over Lebanon with anti-aircraft missiles (which were hit in January), or terrorize the home front with long-range, accurate missiles (which were hit Friday and yesterday).

In other words, Israel’s air strikes in Syria were meant to maintain its ability to carry out continued acts of aggression against its enemies without fear of challenge. This is the game, and this is what Israel doesn’t want anyone to change.

The strange thing, though, is that Hezbollah and Syria, as noted, already have tens of thousands of rockets and missiles, some of which can hit anywhere in Israel. How much of a difference would these Fateh-110 missiles that Israel destroyed in the last couple of days have made in Hezbollah’s hands? It doesn’t seem there was anything so urgent about bombing them; it seems Israel did it because it believes there was no real risk involved, as former Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin told Army Radio, as quoted in Haaretz.

Yadlin said that he doesn’t expect Syria to retaliate. “A confrontation with Israel would bring more danger, not responding would let Assad maintain the upper hand in the fight against the rebels.”

So far, there are no reports of people being killed in the Israeli attacks, although there are reports of injuries from last night’s strike on a military research center. But how long can Israel’s luck hold out? How many more times can it attack Syria without Syria or Hezbollah hitting back?

Could that be what Israel wants? Could Israel also be trying to draw Iran into the fray and give it an excuse to hit Tehran? At any rate, is the possibility of a regional war something that doesn’t scare Israel, so it sees no risk in taking out a few batches of advanced weapons before Hezbollah gets them?

One thing is sure – Israel is provoking a war. (Imagine what this country would do if some enemy attacked its weapons sites.) Meanwhile, the Obama administration is backing Netanyahu and the generals 100 percent. As for this country, there isn’t a word of protest from anyone, certainly no one who matters. Israel may or may not be at war in the very near future, but if it isn’t, it won’t be for lack of trying.

http://972mag.com/israeli-aggression-in-syria-is-provoking-a-war/70471/

Unprovoked Attack on Syria: US-backed Israel Commits Egregious International Crime

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 6:13 am

Unprovoked Attack on Syria: US-backed Israel Commits Egregious International Crime

 
The US feigns disassociation with Hitlerian act of Israeli aggression – as was planned since 2007. 

Image: The West has carefully cultivated Israel into „regional bully.” Immune from international condemnation, it is now being used to commit egregious war crimes against neighboring Syria, in hopes of provoking a retaliation and giving the US and its regional axis the justification it has long sought to militarily intervene. 

….

May 5, 2013 (LD) – Unprovoked, Israel has attacked Syria numerous times over the past 2 days, including attacks on the Syrian capital of Damascus, in what appears to be a series of intentional provocations designed to drag the region into a wider conflict its US sponsors can then enter militarily. Neither attacked directly by Syria, nor able to cite credible evidence in regards to perceived threats Israel claims to be reacting to, the assault on Syria represents a Chapter VII breach of the United Nations Charter.

What’s more, is that while the US feigns disassociation with Israel’s breach of international peace, after jointly fueling a genocidal sectarian conflict within Syria’s borders for the past two years, it is documented fact that the US and Saudi Arabia planned to use Israel to conduct military attacks against Iran and Syria, they themselves could not justify politically, legally, or strategically.

What is now hoped is that Syria and Iran retaliate militarily, allowing the „other shoe to drop,” and for the US, UK, France, and their regional axis to directly intervene in Syria, and with any luck, Iran.

Insidious Ploy Engineered and Documented in 2007-2009

As early as 2007, it was reported that a US-Saudi-Israeli conspiracy to overthrow the governments of Iran and Syria by arming sectarian terrorists, many linked directly to Al Qaeda, was already set in motion. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker article, „The Redirection,” stated (emphasis added):

„To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

Of Israel and Saudi Arabia’s partnership it specifically stated: 
 
„The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations.”

Additionally, Saudi Arabian officials mentioned the careful balancing act their nation must play in order to conceal its role in supporting US-Israeli ambitions across the region. It was stated even then, that using Israel to publicly carry out attacks on Iran would be preferable to the US, which would ultimately implicate the Saudis. It was stated: 

„The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.””

 This ploy was further developed in 2009 by the Fortune 500-funded (page 19) Brookings Institution in their document, „Which Path to Persia?” In regards to Iran, and now clearly being utilized against Syria, the gambit was described as follows (emphasis added): 

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ” –page 84-85, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.

And: 

„Israel appears to have done extensive planning and practice for such a strike already, and its aircraft are probably already based as close to Iran as possible. as such, Israel might be able to launch the strike in a matter of weeks or even days, depending on what weather and intelligence conditions it felt it needed.  Moreover, since Israel would have much less of a need (or even interest)  in securing regional support for the operation, Jerusalem probably would feel less motivated to wait for an Iranian provocation before attacking. In short, Israel could move very fast to implement this option if both Israeli and American leaders wanted it to happen. 

However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion).” page 91, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.

And Israel not waiting for a plausible justification to attack Syria is exactly what has just happened. It should also be noted in particular, the last paragraph which gives insight into what the US-led axis plans to do after this egregious international crime – that is – to incrementally engulf the region into a conflict it finally can justify its own entry into open military aggression. 

What Should Syria and its Allies Do? 

Syria, Iran, Russia and other nations that support the besieged nation most certainly were aware of the Brookings document „Which Path to Persia?” and familiar with this strategy. It would be hoped that anything of value that the Israelis would seek to attack in order to provoke a much desired retaliation and subsequent war, would have been provided additional protection, or moved entirely out of range of potential Israeli attacks.

A media campaign to illustrate the hypocritical and very revealing convergence between Al Qaeda (the so-called Free Syrian Army or FSA) and Israeli interests would undermine whatever remaining support the battered and failing Western-backed terror campaign inside Syria may still have.

Additionally, Israel’s selection by the US to carry out this attack was done specifically because Israel has long-ago exhausted its international legitimacy. What it is doing in Syria is a blatant international crime, in direct violation of international law. Currently, Syria and its allies hold the moral high ground against an enemy who is no longer fooling the world. If it is calculated that Syria can survive Israel’s unprovoked brutality, it would be best to do little or nothing, and incur internationally the same outrage that accompanies Israel’s brutality against the Palestinians.

In light of the US using Israel as its proxy against Syria, should Syria and its allies retaliate, it would be best to do so through any proxies they themselves have at their disposal. Just as Hezbollah and the Palestinians now routinely defeat Israel both strategically and politically, Syria now faces an opportunity to do so again, only on a much bigger scale. 

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ro/2013/05/unprovoked-attack-on-syria-us-backed.html#more

The outrageous actions of Israel, the despicable double-game the US attempts to play by feigning disassociation with its regional beachhead in Tel Aviv, and the silent complicity of the UN, has people around the world desperately seeking retaliation from Syria, or Iran, or both. In reality, this is precisely what the West hopes to achieve – a wider conventional war in which they hold the advantage. By refusing to retaliate directly, Syria cripples the West politically, highlighting the unprovoked nature of their attacks on a nation they claim is a threat, yet fails to strike back even when its capital is under bombardment. By responding through its own plausibly deniable proxies, tactical and political pressure can be put on Israel to end its aggression.

It appears that the Western-backed terrorist front in Syria has been dealt a fatal blow and is in the process of complete collapse. The attack by Israel is a sign of desperation, seeking to expand a conflict that is about to end. Syria and its allies face difficult decisions and dangerous desperation in the coming days and weeks – with an axis of rogue states committing increasingly heinous atrocities in search of a response.

 
 

Final Thoughts on Zionism’s Success and Arab Failure Will Masada II be the endgame? By Alan Hart

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 5:52 am

May 04, 2013 „Information Clearing House” -„Alan Hart” – I am withdrawing from the battlefield of the war for the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, and the following is an explanation of why.

More than three decades ago when I made my commitment to this war effort, in the full knowledge that it would make me persona non grata in the eyes of the mainstream media I had served with some distinction, I believed that the single most amazing thing about the conflict was Zionism’s success in selling its propaganda lies – lies which were told not only to justify anything and everything the Zionist (not Jewish) State of Israel did and does, but also to establish and fix the boundaries of what could and could not be discussed in public discourse about Israel’s policies and actions. (I mean what could and could not be discussed by non-Jews, Europeans and Americans especially, if they didn’t want to be terrorized by smears and false charges of anti-Semitism which could result in them losing their positions and jobs).

What could be called the Mother and Father of Zionism’s propaganda lies is the assertion that all the Jews of the world are descended from the ancient Hebrews and therefore have a common ethnic origin and national heritage. In other words, according to Zionism’s assertion, Palestine is by definition the ancestral homeland of all the Jews of the world; and this, it is further asserted by Zionism, means that Israel has the right to sovereignty over all the land it occupies today and Jews from anywhere have the right to settle on it.

As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand explains in his book The Invention of the Jewish People, that is simply not true. And as I noted in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews (which was published before Sand’s work), almost all if not all the Jews who went to Palestine in answer to Zionism’s call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews. They, like almost all Jews, were the descendants of peoples from many homelands (mainly in Eastern and Western Europe) who converted to Judaism centuries after the brief rule of the ancient Hebrews ended and who, after their conversion, had only their religion and its rituals in common.

Though they subsequently converted to Islam and Christianity, it is possible that when Zionism declared itself to be in existence 1897 there were more Palestinian Arabs than Palestinian Jews who were descended from the ancient Hebrews.

Zionism’s claim that the Jews of the world have a right to the land now occupied by Greater Israel does not bear honest examination.

One of the most influential of Zionism’s follow-up propaganda lies asserted that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus its legitimacy by the United Nations Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. As I document in detail in my book and have indicated over the years in more than a few articles and presentations of public platforms of all kinds, that is propaganda nonsense.

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote (rigged by Zionist pressure amounting to blackmail on the leaders and governments of some member states), the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid), and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine after the occupying British had been driven out it by Zionist terrorism was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what to do next that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community as it then was, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel had no right to exist. It came into existence because Ben-Gurion had done everything necessary to guarantee that his Jewish forces would be more than sufficient in numbers and well enough armed to roll back and defeat any Arab military response to Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence, and that Zionist might would prevail over Palestinian right.

Thereafter Zionism was successful in convincing the Western world that poor little Israel lived in constant danger of annihilation, the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. The truth is that Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab military force. Despite some stupid, face-saving Arab rhetoric to the contrary, which played into Zionism’s hands, the Arab regimes never, ever, had any intention of fighting Israel to liberate Palestine. (When elements of the armies of the frontline Arab states went to war with Israel in 1948, their objective was not to destroy the “Jewish state” but to hold the land that had been assigned to the Palestinian Arab state by the vitiated partition plan, and they failed miserably, as Ben-Gurion was confident they would, to do that. Also true is that Jordan, whose king had been in secret dialogue with Zionism’s in-Palestine leaders, would not have been a serious party to the Arab war effort if Ben-Gurion had not tried to grab Jerusalem; if, in other words, he had been content for the Holy City not to be part of either the Jewish or Arab state of the vitiated partition plan).

Israel always was the aggressor and oppressor, not and never the victim.

Its assertion, repeated over and over again, that it didn’t have Arab partners for peace was also a big, fat, propaganda lie (as the documented truth of history, including de-classified Israeli state papers, which are ignored by the mainstream media, proves).

When I made my commitment to the war for truth more than three decades ago, I believed that calling and holding Israel to account for its crimes, in order for there to be peace based on justice for the Palestinians and security for all, would remain a mission impossible unless the citizens of the Western nations, enough of them and Americans especially, were informed about the truth of history.

That seemed obvious to me because it was clear that, unwilling to confront the Zionist lobby in all its manifestations, the governments of the major Western powers were not going to use the leverage they have to oblige Israel to end its defiance of international law unless and until they were pushed to do by informed public opinion – by manifestations of real democracy in action. THE problem was that most citizens of the Western nations, Americans especially, were too mis-informed and uninformed to do the pushing. In other words, because they had been conditioned by Zionist propaganda, peddled without question by the mainstream media, most citizens were too ignorant to make their democracies work for justice and peace in the Middle East.

So my starting point was the belief that the real conflict is an information war between Zionism’s masters of deception on the one side and the truth tellers on the other.

The truth tellers were few in number but among those who produced major truth-telling works (books) were Jews of real integrity including, for example, the Jewish-American Alfred M. Lilienthal, the first two Israeli “revisionist” meaning honest historians – Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe, the Jewish-American Norman Finkelstein and Auschwitz survivor Hajo Meyer. (In such company the Gentile me felt secure in the frontline trenches of the war for truth. There was also comfort in knowing that we were taking on Zionism from the moral high ground).

Over the last 20 years or so, with their books, articles and public speaking, the truth tellers have made an impact but not on a big enough scale to change the outcome of the war.

The truth today is that the situation of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians is worse than it has ever been and is worsening as Israel continues its defiance of international law and gobbles up more and more Palestinian land and water resources.

Also true today is that there is a rising, global tide of anti-Israelism, but it has little or nothing to do with the work of the truth tellers. It is being provoked by Israel’s policies and actions.

Some people (including perhaps President Obama) hope that Israel’s growing isolation will bring a majority of Israeli Jews to their senses and cause them to insist that their government be serious about peace on terms the Palestinians could accept. That has to be a possibility, but I think it is much more likely that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism will have an opposite effect. I mean that it will assist Zionism’s deluded leaders to reinforce the message that what is happening is proof of what they have always said – that the world hates Jews, and that Israel’s leaders must therefore do whatever is necessary to preserve and protect their state as an insurance policy, a refuge of last resort, for all Jews everywhere, even if that means telling an American president and the whole world to go to hell.

On reflection today I believe that Zionism could have been contained and defeated by now if the resources (yes, I do mean money) had been available to assist the promotion and spread of the truth of history on the scale necessary to empower the citizens of the Western nations, Americans especially, to make their democracies work for justice and peace, by demanding that their governments end their unconditional support for Israel right or wrong. (In my view, which is based on my own engagements with audiences across the U.S., Americans in great numbers would have been open to the truth of history if they had also been made aware that unconditional support for Israel right or wrong is not in their own best interests).

Because the resources were not made available, the war for the truth of history has remained the most asymmetric of all information wars. Zionism’s masters of deception have, as they always have had, virtually unlimited funds for the co-ordinated promotion of their propaganda lies. The truth-tellers are, as they always have been, without the resources needed to put together and implement a co-ordinated, winning campaign strategy.

The main providers of the resources necessary for winning the information war ought to have been seriously wealthy Arabs in general and seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinians in particular. They ought to have done for Palestine what seriously wealthy Jews did and still do for Zionism.

There are two main reasons why seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinians declined to play their necessary part in funding promotion of the truth of history.

Those who live in Western Europe and America are frightened that any association with the work of people who credibly challenge Zionism’s version of history would invite Zionist retribution which could result in their businesses being damaged and perhaps even destroyed.

Those who live in the Gulf States are frightened that assisting the truth-tellers could put their very comfortable positions and relationships with the rulers of those states at risk because they, the rulers, would not take kindly to blow back hassle from Zionism. (Zionist heavyweights in America do sometimes call Gulf Arab rulers directly to tell them what they should not do or allow. One such call was made to tell a ruler that he should not support Alan Hart and Ilan Pappe. The call was made after Ilan and I had made a joint presentation in the particular state, at its invitation, and had been promised support for our work)

Another possible reason why some seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinians have not assisted the promotion of the truth of history could be that they don’t understand (at all or well enough) that Western governments are not going to confront the Zionist monster unless the citizens of nations, the voters, are informed enough to demand that they do.

It’s also not impossible that some seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinians have not contributed to the information war effort because they believe but dare not say that Palestine has long been a lost cause.

The brutal truth about seriously wealthy non-Palestinian Arabs is that most of them don’t care about the occupied and oppressed Palestinians and the many others, refugees still living in camps, who were dispossessed of their homes, their land and their rights. The Arab masses do care but their elites don’t. (That statement is something of an exaggeration to make a point but it contains much truth).

Today I can quantify the cost of my own commitment to the war for truth.

If I had written a pro-Zionist book, I would have had wealthy Jews throwing money at it and me for global promotion of all kinds. But with Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, (which is a complete re-writing of the entire history of the conflict exposing Zionist propaganda for the nonsense it is and replacing it with the documented truth of history), I was on my own. To fund the research and writing over nearly five years, then the printing and publication of the original, two-volume hardback edition, and then some promotion, I took out a loan against the security of the home my wife and I owned outright and have lived in for a quarter of a century.

At the time I decided to do so (with my dear wife’s complete understanding and support), I didn’t think I was being stupid. My previous book (Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker?) had earned me significant income from the sale of the Arabic newspaper serialization rights, and I assumed that my latest book would do the same, enabling me to clear the re-mortgaged debt on my home.

I was, of course, aware that there were truths in Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews that would be more than uncomfortable for the Arab regimes and which they would not want their newspapers to publish. (When I was writing the book I had to be guided by the fact you can’t tell the truth about Zionism with telling the truth about why the Arab states were never a threat to Israel’s existence). But newspaper serialization of a two-volume book (which became three volumes in its updated American edition) would have taken only a relatively small amount of total content. Arab editors doing the serialization could have left out everything that offended their political masters and still had more than enough material to inform and entertain their readers.

But it was no go. My book was not only red-flagged by Zionism and therefore all the major Western publishing houses, this despite the fact that my extremely well connected and respected literary agent had on file letters from the CEO’s of some of them with rare praise for my manuscript. (One of the letters, which I quoted in the Preface to the original hardback edition, described my manuscript as “awesome… driven my passion, commitment and profound learning.” It added, “There is no question it deserves to be published.”). For their part the Arab regimes were at one with Zionism in wanting the full truth of history to be suppressed to the maximum extent possible. They effectively endorsed Zionism’s strategy for dealing with me and my work – “Alan Hart and his book do not exist.” (I think my dear friend Ilan Pappe may well have been right when he said that Zionism was more frightened of my book than any other because of its title, which he described as “the truth in seven words.”)

Today I have to face the cost consequences of my commitment to the truth of history. To avoid being dispossessed of my home and land in the not too distant future because I don’t have the money to pay the principal sum of the outstanding re-mortgaged debt (I have been paying only the interest on it), I now have to sell and downsize. Preparing to downsize will require, among other things, months of my fulltime to sort through and dispose of much of what has been accumulated over decades and could not be accommodated and stored in a much smaller property with little or no land. And that in the proverbial nutshell is why I am withdrawing from the battlefield of the war for truth. The days when I could serve causes beyond self in order to feel that I was doing something useful with my life are gone. Like seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinians and other Arabs, I must now put my own interests, and above all those of my dear wife, first.

Back in the early 1970′s when I was making Five Minutes To Midnight, my documentary on global poverty and its implications for all, I had a verbal boxing match with Mother Teresa in Calcutta. After a day of filming with her as she collected some of those dying from poverty on the pavements to give them a few more days of life with shelter and loving care, she invited my camera crew and I to a frugal evening meal with some of her sisters. The question I posed for discussion over the meal was this: Which is the most important word in any language – love or justice?

Mother Teresa argued with passion, sometimes angry passion, for love. I argued, with equal but not angry passion, for justice. If she was alive today I would say to her, “Mother Teresa, it’s justice not love that is required if the countdown to catastrophe in Palestine that became Israel is to be stopped.”

But it was not only my complete identity with the Palestinians’ irrefutable claim for justice and my admiration of the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed that inspired, drove and sustained my commitment to the war for the truth of history.

I feared, as I do even more so today, that if the information war that probably could have been won by now is lost, the end-game will most likely be a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine, followed, quite possibly, by another great turning against the Jews, provoked by Zionism’s insufferable self-righteousness and contempt for international law

For three decades I have done my best to contribute to the understanding needed to prevent both obscenities from happening, but I have now reached and passed the outer limits of what I can do when there’s a lack of will on the part of seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinian and other Arabs to assist the promotion and spread of the truth of history.

In the days and weeks to come I will no doubt find myself wondering if I was naive to believe that Palestinian right could be assisted to triumph over Zionist might.

To those all over the world who down the years have expressed appreciation for my books, articles and presentations on public platforms of all kinds – Thank You, your moral support helped to sustain my commitment.

Final Footnote

A Palestinian friend once asked me if, on matters to do with Palestine, I was aware of the main difference between Arabs and Jews. He didn’t wait for me to respond. He said: “Arabs almost never do what they say they will do. Jews often do what they say they will not do.”

I said I thought there was an element of truth in that.

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews: The False Messiah (Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews). He blogs on www.alanhart.net

Note from Tom – If you appreciate Alan’s efforts, then please support him

See also

Zionism’s Jewish Enemy – Video Alan Hart Interviews Professor Ilan Pappe, Israel’s leading “new” or “revisionist” historian.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34817.htm

Mai 4, 2013

Israel Discloses Politruk Protocols

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 5:40 am

Economists have a singular method of procedure…Every religion which is not theirs is an invention of men, while their own is an emanation from God.Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy

By www.roytov.com

“Boorgani” is how the word “bourgeois” was adapted to Hebrew. In the kibbutz, it was used to design the politruks and technocrats living well at our expense. They would sit on red coaches and travel in cars while the proletariat fought the “eshel” trees infesting the Valley’s fish pools.

Professor Manuel Trajtenberg knows nothing about this. His bourgeois parents escaped Ukranian Communism; he was born in Bourgeois Argentina, the only USA’s Major Non-NATO Ally in South America and member of honor of CIA’s bestial Operation Condor. Soon afterwards, he was chosen by wealthy Zionists as a future leader of their unholy enterprise. Sitting in a comfy red coach, this Israeli economist is nowadays Chair of the Planning and Budgeting Committee of the Council for Higher Education in Israel. On August 8, 2011, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appointed him Head of the Trajtenberg Committee, which was to analyze and propose solutions to the social protests that eventually forced Netanyahu to declare early elections. Following this logic, Baron Rothschild would head a committee exploring better money-collecting techniques for beggars. Are you comfortable in your coach, Honorable Mr. Trajtenberg ?

Manuel

Manuel “Bourgeois” Trajtenberg Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise And Fall Of Suburbia

An Oddly Bourgeois Committee Explores Why Paupers Protest

Trajtenberg Committee
Trajtenberg Committee How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions?The appointed Trajtenberg Committee had fourteen members, all of them prominent members of the Israeli Jewish elites. All of them Jewish, the vast majority Ashkenazim. No Druzes, no Palestinians, no Bedouins, no Circassians; neither Muslims nor Christians. Not even one of the hundreds of thousands of protesters that forced Netanyahu to create the committee. Netanyahu appointed a team that would exonerate him automatically. “Saint Netanyahu was attacked by the paupers,” was the result that Netanyahu expected. Unsurprisingly, he got almost that.

The Committee worked fast. Four months after its creation, the Israeli Parliament approved its conclusions. However, their implementation has not ended by May 2013 because Netanyahu decided to divide them instead of approving them as one package. This was the first sign something had gone wrong.

The Committee recommendations are not essential to this article; thus I will just mention their headlines. In December 2011, the Knesset approved a series of amendments to Israel’s tax law, including an increase in the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 25%. A plan to sell land at a discount to build 5,000 units of affordable housing was proposed; this is far from the actual need. The mandate of the anti-trust commissioner was to be increased, opening the Israeli market to competition, especially in the market of basic foods. Recommendations still not adopted include reducing the defense budget, opening up parallel imports, implementing free compulsory education for children aged 3 and 4 and providing more affordable housing.

Everything looks democratic and nice, despite the delay in the recommendation’s implementation. However, there was a tiny problem. The Committee meetings were not open to the public, and its protocols were kept secret.

The Art of Faking It: Bourgeois Socialism

Eugène Delacroix – La liberté guidant le peuple

Did you know?       Israeli Man Sets Himself on Fire

Technocrats Dictatorship

For some time, the protocols were unaccessible. Strangely, a public committee denied access to the public to its work. On May 3, 2013, Calcalist, an economic newspaper affiliated to Yediot Ahronot, won a long battle against the government attempt to censor, and published an analysis of the former secret protocols. Israel, which likes to portray itself as a Bastion of Democracy, emerges there as a Police State run by manipulative politruks (Soviet political officers). My phrasing of this article is not random; modern Hebrew is plagued with Communist terms, the explanation is in the Stalin’s Jews box at the bottom of this page. Netanyahu probably hid the protocols out of shame.

Over the years, Israel has become a dictatorship of technocrats, where civil servants ignore politicians and public as one. Several prominent cases have been analyzed in the State Corruption and other sections of this website. However, the current event provides for the first time the Politruks Protocols.

According to the protocols, Committee Member Avraham Simhon asked from the other members not to leave any recommendation open to interpretations or negotiations out of fear that this would be used by the politicians to render the issue useless; over time this proved truth as much of the recommendations were delayed or neutralized by the Knesset. He said: “This is a closed room; thus I will say things that maybe are better left unsaid. You have already seen the reaction of the Knesset’s Finances Committee, if we leave everything to negotiations, the the housing criteria would be tampered… they will take what they want and will inverse what they don’t want…”

It may look naive, but it is not. This was a public committee supposed to give recommendations. Instead, they want to set policy. The people never gave them that power.

In the same spirit, Yehuda Nassardishi, Head of the Taxation Authority, added that the he is “worried of the government capability to balance between different groups of interests.” Again, a complaint about the lack of dictatorship capabilities of the government paying his salary.

Shlomi Frizet, Antitrust Authority Chief Economist, said “the main problem is the public bargaining capabilities,” he kept complaining about the “focused lobbying of the business sector.” Dear Shlomi, you truly miss Stalin!

Michal Abadi-Boiangiu, the Finance Ministry’s Accountant General, said: “The bottom line is that the Government and the Knesset decide… an item is taken out of government control… and after five or six years you have a monster.” Dear Michal, you truly miss Lenin!

Many similar quotations were published now. The most disturbing one comes directly from Netanyahu’s bureau. Eyal Gabai, Director-General of the Prime Minister’s Office, said, “Let’s say that aloud. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to show that there are people with a hand on the faucet (meaning that they can stop society). We are a force group in a significant junction.” This is on the very verge of declaring a technocrats revolution, formalizing the existing situation.

A few months ago, I published Instead of Statistics, Israel published Racistics, where I analyzed biased publications by the Central Bureau of Statistics.  I was happy to find that the Committee agrees with my analysis. The abovementioned Mr. Simhon showed how the Central Bureau of Statistics had manipulated the data regarding the price of olive oil in order to hide that in Israel, where it is basic food, it is among the most expensive in the world. The Trajtenberg Committee transformed itself into a gold mine on Israeli corruption and anti-democratic practices.

Another astonishing point was mentioned by Eugene Kandel, Head of the National Economic Council of the Prime Minister’s Office, he said: “There is consensus not to touch this topic. Not because we think it is good in its actual shape, but because from an operative viewpoint it is clumsy.” Dear, dear Eugene, this is call foreign interests. Your claim is not relevant to the task assigned to the committee. I would explain this in further detail, but it will add clumsiness to this article.

A public committee of civil servants appointed by the government denied access of the public to its meetings and protocols. During the encounters, they openly discussed how they can manipulate public and government into fulfilling their private views of society. Embarrassed by the Ukrainian-Communism displayed by these crypto-Politruks hiding in his declared Rightist Government, clumsy Netanyahu failed to censor the document. Bibi, Stalin is ashamed of you!

Poisoned by Bolivia

The The 4th Media Asks for Help         

In its efforts to call for Peace in Korea and the Northeast Asia Region, The 4th Media and other friends are going to run a full-page ad on a progressive popular daily newspaper in Seoul on May 18. This year is the 60thAnniversary of the Armistice Agreement, signed on July 27, 1953.

The ad calls for “No More War Games,” in an attempt to promote peace in Korea and Northeast Asia by signing a Peace Treaty between US, DPRK and other responsible parties. The Peace Treaty will permanently replace the fragile Armistice Agreement.

The 4th Media is asking individuals and organizations willing to sign the add to contact its Chief Editor, Prof. Chung, at chiefeditor@4thmedia.org

Stalin’s Jews was published by Sever Plocker in Yedihot Ahronoth, the leading paid Israeli newspaper, on December 21, 2006.

Stalin’s Jews

We mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish

Here’s a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.

Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.

We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, “opposition members” who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.

In his new, highly praised book “The War of the World, “Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University’s Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally.

Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined “terror officials,” cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate.

All these things are well-known to some extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union’s archives have not yet been fully opened to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the NKVD’s and KGB’s service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores the question of “How could it have happened to us?” As opposed to Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their Stalinist past.

And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the “bloodthirsty dwarf.”

Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book “Stalin: Court of the Red Star”, Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.

Stalin’s close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the “first Stalinist” and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao’s terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.

Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We’ll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD’s special department and the organization’s chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and “Soviet people.” Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and “play dumb”: What do we have to do with them? But let’s not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.

Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of “our hangmen,” who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.

This horror is true is even before commenting on Marx et al and the kibbutzim concentration camps.

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/03/israel-discloses-politruk-protocols/

 

Mai 2, 2013

PAPPE’S DISCOMFORT

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 5:37 pm

 By Gilad Atzmon

Ilan Pappe is an important voice. One of those courageous historians, brave enough to open the Pandora box of 1948.  Back in the 1990s Pappe, amongst a few other Israeli post-Zionists, reminded Israelis of their original sin – the orchestrated, racially-driven ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of Palestine – the Nakba.

But like many historians, Pappe, though familiar with the facts of history, seems either unable to grasp or reluctant to address the ideological and cultural meaning of those facts.

In his recent article, When Israeli Denial of Palestinian Existence Becomes GenocidalPappe attempts to explain the ongoing Israeli dismissal of the Palestinian plight. Like Shlomo Sand, Pappe points out that Israeli President Shimon Peres’ take on history is a “fabricated narrative.”

So far so good, but Pappe then misses the point. For some reason, he believes that Peres’ denial of the Palestinian’s suffering is a result of a ‘cognitive dissonance.’ i.e. a discomfort experienced when two or more conflicting ideas, values or beliefs are held at the same time.

But what are those conflicting ideas or values upheld by Israelis and their President which cause them so much ‘discomfort’? Pappe does not tell us. Nor does he explain how Peres has sustained such ‘discomfort’ for more than six decades. Now, I agree that Peres, Netanyahu and many Israelis often exhibit clear psychotic symptoms, but one thing I cannot detect in Peres’ utterances or behavior is any ‘discomfort’.

I obviously believe that Pappe is wrong here – expulsion, ethnic cleansing as well as the ongoing abuse of human right in Palestine, are actually consistent with Jewish nationalist supremacist culture and also with a strict interpretation of Jewish Biblical heritage.

Pappe writes, “The perpetrators of the 1948 ethnic cleansing were the Zionist settlers who came to Palestine, like Polish-born Shimon Peres, before the Second World War. They denied the existence of the native people they encountered, who lived there for hundreds of years, if not more.” Here Pappe is correct, but then he continues: “The Zionists did not possess the power at the time to settle the cognitive dissonance they experienced: their conviction that the land was people-less despite the presence of so many native people there.”  But Pappe fails to point at any symptom of such a dissonance. Could it be that the Director of the Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter is just ignorant?

Certainly not, Pappe is far from being ignorant.  Pappe knows the history of Zionism and Israel better than most people. He knows that ‘Zionist settlers’ like ‘Polish-born Shimon Peres’ were ideologically and culturally driven. But then why would a professor of history attempt to turn a blind eye to the ‘ideology’ and the ‘culture’ of those early Zionists?

The early Zionists, were neither blind nor were they stupid. They saw the Arabs in the land of Palestine – in the fields, in the villages and in the towns – but, being driven by a racial, supremacist and expansionist philosophy, they probably regarded the Arab as sub-human and so easily dismissed their rights, their culture, their heritage and indeed, their humanity.[1]

But, even though a cultural and ideological analysis resolves the proposed alleged ‘dissonance’ and illuminates the historical complexity, Ilan Pappe avoids elaborating on those issues. I have a good reason to believe that the truth is just too offensive for Pappe’s audience to digest. So instead, Pappe continues with his psychological model: “They (the Zionist) almost solved the dissonance when they expelled as many Palestinians as they could in 1948 — and were left with only a small minority of Palestinians within the Jewish state.”

Yet again, it could be helpful if Pappe provided the necessary ‘historical’ evidence that would prove that the Nakba, was indeed an attempt to ‘resolve an internal Zionist collective cognitive dissonance’. I assume that Pappe knows very well that it is actually that lack of such a „cognitive dissonance” that drives a few Israeli individuals such as Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy and Pappe himself towards universalism, humanism and pro-Palestinian activism.

I guess that Pappe’s new cognitive analytical model is telling us very little about Zionism, Israel or Shimon Peres but it actually tells us a lot about Pappe and the grave state of the Palestinian solidarity intellectual discourse. The discomfort he talks about is in fact his own: the clash between known and accepted facts and logical conclusions and the task he has accepted of squaring the circle, of wrapping up a racist, supremacist project in psychobabble wrapping and presenting it as nothing less than a pandemic of ‘cognitive dissonance.’

For some reason many of us insist on producing ‘inoffensive’ chronicles of Israeli barbarism and Jewish nationalism that attempt to mask and deflect from rather than pointing to the obvious cultural and ideological kernel of the problem. 

Yet, the question that bothers me is how is it possible that a leading academic exhibits such a problematic understanding of a conflict after studying it for three decades.

The answer is pretty embarrassing. Pappe is actually a serious scholar and a gracious human being.  However, in the current intellectual climate, Pappe, like many others cannot freely explore the truth of Zionism and the Jewish State. The shocking truth is that Pappe was much more provocative and intellectually intriguing while teaching in Haifa University than now when he directs the institute of Palestinian Studies at Exeter University.  It is a fair assumption that telling the truth about the culture that drives the Jewish State would cost Pappe his UK academic career and obviously the support within the Jewish so-called ‘left’, let alone the Soros funded Palestinian collaborators.

So instead of searching for the truth, Pappe and others end up searching for some ‘inoffensive’ models – anything to sustain the image of ‘solidarity.’     

I do not have any doubt that Pappe knows by now that Israelis are far from being tormented by the Palestinian plight. They are not exactly regretting the Nakba either, they certainly do not sob over their past racist assault on the people of the land of Palestine. And as Israeli polls reveal time after time, most Israelis would support a second Nakba as much as they supported the criminal carpet bombardment of civilian population at the time of operation Cast Lead.  Pappe knows very well that Israeli racist policies and collective attitudes are culturally and ideologically, rather than politically driven. Israel is the Jewish State and its politics is dictated by a new Hebraic interpretation of Jewish culture and Judaic heritage.

Pappe is a humanist and I want to believe that in the small hours, he himself feels some discomfort. Deep down, Pappe must know the truth. He knows what drives Zionism and Israeli militarism. He knows it all but, for obvious reasons, he must keep silent and wraps the conflict up with faulty terminology and ‘inoffensive’ cognitive models.

Instead of engaging in an open discourse and digging into the truth of the conflict, we see our leading scholars actively engaged in concealment of the truth. This is actually a tragedy, for the Palestinian Solidarity discourse is now an intellectual desert. We have murdered and buried our most inspirational thinkers[2] and poets. We replaced them with rigid slogans and banal Herem[3] culture.

Interestingly enough, by the time Pappe finished writing his paper, he himself was no longer so convinced by his own model. He writes, “It is bewildering to learn that the early Zionists denied the existence of Palestinians in 1882 when they arrived; it is even more shocking to find out that they deny their existence — beyond sporadic ghettoized communities — in 2013.”

The meaning of this is clear: we are dealing here with a total and categorical dismissal of otherness. This is not a symptom of ‘cognitive dissonance’ but rather a historical continuum of a psychopathological condition that is inherent to the politics of the chosen. It is the direct outcome of Judeocentric supremacy – the very domain Pappe and others prefer not to tackle.

At the end of his paper, Pappe claims that Peres is a ‘madman’ who ignores “millions and millions of people, many of them under his military or apartheid rule while he actively and ruthlessly disallows the return of the rest to their homeland.”  But if Peres is a ‘madman’, he is unlikely to be riddled with discomfort. If Peres is mad he is not in a state of ‘dissonance’, struggling to integrate conflicting ideas. On the contrary, Peres is, in his awfulness, entirely at peace with himself.

As far as I am concerned, Shimon Peres is not mad at all. He is evil, coherent and consistent. He is the president of the Jewish State and it’s high time that Ilan Pappe openly faced up to this – and to what it means.

[1] Interestingly enough, it was actually the notorious right-winger Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky who was amongst the first to deal with the necessity to address the complexity of dealing with the indigenous population within the context of the Zionist dream. It was the rabid ultra-nationalist Jabotinsky, rather than the Zionist ‘left’ who regarded the Arabs as proud, highly cultural people that must be confronted militarily. In that regard, I would recommend reading Vladimir Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall.

[2] Just in the last year we have seen the BDS campaigning against Prof Norman Finkelstein, Greta Berlin, MP George Galloway and many others.

[3] Hebrew word for Excommunication and Boycott

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/pappes-discomfort.html

 

When Israeli denial of Palestinian existence becomes genocidal

by Ilan Pappe

In a regal interview he gave the Israeli press on the eve of the state’s ” Independence Day,”Shimon Peres, the current president of Israel, said the following:

“I remember how it all began. The whole state of Israel is a millimeter of the whole Middle East. A statistical error, barren and disappointing land, swamps in the north, desert in the south, two lakes, one dead and an overrated river. No natural resource apart from malaria. There was nothing here. And we now have the best agriculture in the world? This is a miracle: a land built by people” (Maariv, 14 April 2013).

This fabricated narrative, voiced by Israel’s number one citizen and spokesman, highlights how much the historical narrative is part of the present reality. This presidential impunity sums up the reality on the eve of the 65th commemoration of the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine. The disturbing fact of life, 65 years on, is not that the figurative head of the so-called Jewish state, and for that matter almost everyone in the newly-elected government and parliament, subscribe to such views. The worrying and challenging reality is the global immunity given to such impunity.

Peres’ denial of the native Palestinians and his reselling in 2013 of the landless people mythology exposes the cognitive dissonance in which he lives: he denies the existence of approximately twelve million people living in and near to the country to which they belong. History shows that the human consequences are horrific and catastrophic when powerful people, heading powerful outfits such as a modern state, denied the existence of a people who are very much present.

This denial was there at the beginning of Zionism and led to the ethnic cleansing in 1948. And it is there today, which may lead to similar disasters in the future — unless stopped immediately.

Cognitive dissonance

The perpetrators of the 1948 ethnic cleansing were the Zionist settlers who came to Palestine, like Polish-born Shimon Peres, before the Second World War. They denied the existence of the native people they encountered, who lived there for hundreds of years, if not more. The Zionists did not possess the power at the time to settle the cognitive dissonance they experienced: their conviction that the land was people-less despite the presence of so many native people there.

They almost solved the dissonance when they expelled as many Palestinians as they could in 1948 — and were left with only a small minority of Palestinians within the Jewish state.

But the Zionist greed for territory and ideological conviction that much more of Palestine was needed in order to have a viable Jewish state led to constant contemplations and eventually operations to enlarge the state.

With the creation of “Greater Israel” following the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza in1967, the dissonance returned. The solution however could not easily be resolved this time by the force of ethnic cleansing. The number of Palestinians was larger, their assertiveness and liberation movement were forcefully present on the ground, and even the most cynical and traditionally pro-Israel actors on the international scene recognized their existence.

The dissonance was resolved in a different way. The land without people was any part of the greater Israel the state wished to Judaize in the pre-1967 boundaries or annex from the territories occupied in 1967. The land with people was in the Gaza Strip and some enclaves in the West Bank as well as inside Israel. The land without people is destined to expand incrementally in the future, causing the number of people to shrink as a direct consequence of this encroachment.

Incremental ethnic cleansing

This incremental ethnic cleansing is hard to notice unless one contextualizes it as a historical process. The noble attempt by the more conscientious individuals and groups in the West and inside Israel to focus on the here and now — when it comes to Israeli policies — is doomed to be weakened by the contemporary contextualization, not the historical one.

Comparing Palestine to other places was always a problem. But with the murderous reality in SyriaIraq and elsewhere, it becomes an even more serious challenge. The last closure, the last political arrest, the last assault, the last murder of a youth are horrific crimes, but pale in comparison to nearby or far-away killing fields and areas of colossal atrocities.

Criminal narrative

The comparison is very different when it is viewed historically and it is in this context that we should realize the criminality of Peres’ narrative which is as horrific as the occupation — and potentially far worse. For the president of Israel, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, there were never Palestinians before he initiated in 1993 the Oslo process — and when he did, they were only the ones living a small part of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

In his discourse, he already eliminated most of the Palestinians. If you did not exist when Peres came to Palestine, you definitely do not exist when he is the president in 2013. This elimination is the point where ethnic cleansing becomes genocidal. When you are eliminated from the history book and the discourse of the top politicians, there is always a danger that the next attempt would be your physical elimination.

It happened before. The early Zionists, including the current president, talked about the transfer of the Palestinians long before they actually disposed them in 1948. These visions of a de-Arabized Palestine appeared in every Zionist diary, journal and inner conversation since the beginning of the 20th century. If one talks about nothingness in a place where there is plenty it can be willful ignorance. But if one talks about nothingness as a vision or undeniable reality, it is only a matter of power and opportunity before the vision becomes reality.

Denial continues

Peres’ interview on the eve of the 65th commemoration of the Nakba is chilling not because it condones any violent act against the Palestinians, but because the Palestinians have entirely disappeared from his self-congratulatory admiration for the Zionist achievement in Palestine. It is bewildering to learn that the early Zionists denied the existence of Palestinians in 1882 when they arrived; it is even more shocking to find out that they deny their existence — beyond sporadic ghettoized communities — in 2013.

In the past, the denial preceded the crime — a crime that only partially succeeded but for which the perpetrators were never brought to justice. This is probably why the denial continues. But this time, it is not the existence of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians which is at stake, but that of almost six million who live inside historic Palestine and another five and half million living outside Palestine.

One would think only a madman can ignore millions and millions of people, many of them under his military or apartheid rule while he actively and ruthlessly disallows the return of the rest to their homeland. But when the madman receives the best weapons from the US, Nobel Peace Prizes from Oslo and preferential treatment from the European Union, one wonders how seriously we should take the Western references to the leaders of Iran and North Korea as dangerous and lunatic?

Lunacy is associated these days, it seems, to possession of nuclear arms in non-Western hands. Well, even on that score, the local madman in the Middle East passes the test. Who knows, maybe in 2014 it would not be the Israeli cognitive dissonance that would be solved, but the Western one: how to reconcile a universal position of human and civil rights with the favored position Israel in general and Shimon Peres in particular receives in the West?

The author of numerous books, Ilan Pappe is professor of history and director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/when-israeli-denial-palestinian-existence-becomes-genocidal/12388

Aprilie 27, 2013

Israel, Armenians and the question of genocide

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 7:14 am

Israel, Armenians and the question of genocide

When Israel remembers the Holocaust, why does it think only of Jews?

History has proven time and again that the Jews are not unique for having suffered genocidal policies. The many debates about preventing such tragedies have so far not helped populations that suffered mass killings and expulsions, with intent to destroy them for their national, religious or ethnic identity – even in recentdecades. Therefore the politicization of the Armenian genocide in Israel in the context of Israel-Turkey relations, described with great eloquence by Akiva Eldar in al-Monitor, is not only wrong; it calls into question whether Israel is truly committed to “never again” when it comes to people who are not Jews.

In fact, Jews need not look outside their own community to understand the categorical need to universalize the awful lessons of the Holocaust. Eldar points out that one of the greatest advocates of this position was himself a victim:

The man who coined the term genocide and fought for adoption of the treaty [1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide – ds] was the Jewish-Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, whose entire family was annihilated in the Holocaust. He himself managed to flee to the United States. Lemkin referred specifically to the Armenian annihilation as an act of genocide. This position was never adopted by Israeli governments. The official Israeli position was summed up in 2001 in an interview by then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres with theTurkish Daily News: “The Armenians suffered a tragedy,” he said, “but not genocide.”

Tragically, Eldar’s description of the feeling many Knesset members hold towards this question mirrors what I feel in Israeli society:

For them, any attempt to hint that other peoples were also persecuted and massacred for racist reasons is considered “disrespect for the Holocaust” (they themselves, on the other hand, often use the term “Holocaust,” especially to scare the Israeli public with the Iranian threat). They do not define the Armenian genocide as a human-Jewish-ethical issue.

To the argument that recognition of the Armenian experience threatens very immediate political needs related to Turkey, I hope that Turkish leaders and people see it differently. Remembering horrors suffered by others would say more about Israel’s values than it does about Turkey. Anyone can commit terrible crimes against innocents, Jews included. I wish for a country that rises above its own trauma to recall, support and help victims anywhere.

I can scarcely believe this needs to be said, but apparently it bears repeating: we must acknowledge that all human beings are at risk of falling victims to genocidal acts, or of perpetrating such acts themselves. The same people can be in both positions. To deny this seems to me as awful and dangerous as Holocaust denial itself.

Aprilie 23, 2013

Ion Varlam: “Romanii au salvat vietile a 400.000 de evrei”. Octav Bjoza, presedintele AFDPR, critica Institutul Elie Wiesel, in apararea lui Valeriu Gafencu si Ion Gavrila OgoranuIon Varlam: “Romanii au salvat vietile a 400.000 de evrei”. Octav Bjoza, presedintele AFDPR, critica Institutul Elie Wiesel, in apararea lui Valeriu Gafencu si Ion Gavrila Ogoranu

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 2:45 pm

Foto cu “animalele mai egale decat altele”: Alexandru Florian, un urmas de bolsevic, William Totok, un informator al Securitatii si Adrian Muraru, un falisificator al Arhivelor comunismului

Sala de conferințe a sediului Jockey Club din capitală a devenit neîncăpătoare în seara de 18 aprilie 2013, cu ocazia conferinței organizate de Institutul de Cercetare a Crimelor Comunismului și Memoria Exilului Românesc (IICCMER) în colaborare cu Institutul Național pentru Studiul Holocaustului în România “Ellie Wiesel” (INSHR-EW). Conferința a avut ca temă declarată “Reconsiderarea critică a trecutului – între mit şi minimalizare. Despre Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu şi rezistenţa armată anticomunistă din România”, propunându-și să să analizeze, conform anunțului de pe site-ul oficial al IICCMER, “modul în care societatea românească contemporană înțelege să se raporteze la figuri controversate ale Resistenței anticomuniste, asociate atât în trecut cât mai ales în prezent cu manifestări ale extremei drepte în România”.

Sala a fost plină de un public pe cât de numeros, pe atât de variat: foști deținuți politici și tineri continuatori ai idealurilor lor, cetățeni de naționalitate evreiască, istorici și cercetători – printre care Liviu Pleșa de la CNSAS, Cosmin Budeanca de la IICCMER, Nicolae Videnie de la IIR, Mihael Shafir de la Universitatea din Cluj ș.a., studenți și chiar elevi de liceu, lideri și voluntari ai unor ONG-uri precum Fundația Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu, Asociația Foștilor Deținuți Politici din România, Federația Română a Foștilor Deținuți Politici Luptători Anticomuniști, Fundația Luptătorilor în Rezistența Armată Anticomunistă, Centrul pentru Studii Evreiești, Federația Comunităților Evreiești ș.a.. Dezbaterea s-a desfășurat într-o atmosferă deosebit de încordată, informeazaBuciumul.ro.

De remarcat solidaritatea extraordinară a celor ce îl iubesc și respectă pe Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu, care fără nici o mobilizare prealabilă, au dominat în mod vizibil sala și care în a doua parte a manifestării au intervenit spontan, în dorința contracarării numeroaselor aprecieri defavorabile făcute atât la adresa eroului, cât și la adresa luptei de rezistență anticomunistă în general.

Conferința susținută de cercetătorul Wiliam Totok, reprezentant al Institutului Elie Wiesel, susținută pe fondul derulării unor imagini adeseori tendențioase, a vizat în mod evident câteva obiective precum destrămarea aurei de erou național și știrbirea incontestabilei autorități morale pe care liderul rezistenței armate din munții Făgărașului a căpătat-o în ultimele două decenii în opinia publică românească. Utilizând o logică viciată, bazându-se pe declarațiile date de Ogoranu în ancheta Securității imediat după capturarea sa în 1976, declarații despre care a garantat (pe baza a ce oare?) că ar fi fost date fără nici un fel de constrângere, derulând în mod obsedant imagini cu participanții la comemorările de la Sâmbăta de Sus salutând cu salutul legionar (considerat în mod inexact ca fiind fascist), ori scoțând din contextul unor cărți afirmații considerate antisemite de-ale unor prieteni ai lui Ogoranu, Wiliam Totok a încercat fără succes să relativizeze epopeea rezistenței anticomuniste din Făgăraș. El a afirmat – fără susținere – că grupurile de gherilă precum acela al lui Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu doreau înlocuirea unui totalitarism – cel comunist, cu alt totalitarism – cel fascist.

Wiliam Totok a reproșat lui Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu că după 1990 nu s-a delimitat de trecutul său legionar, ba mai mult decât atât a participat activ la publicistica legionară, a susținut conferințe în acest sens, fiind inițiatorul acțiunilor anuale de la mănăstirea Sâmbăta de Sus, acțiuni caracterizate de Totok ca având caracter legionar. El a exemplificat în acest sens și prin faptul că în 1993 Ogoranu s-a numărat printre întemeietorii Partidului “Totul pentru Țară” (Pentru Patrie), continuator al organizației omonime din perioada interbelică. Pe baza acestor argumente, Totok a concluzionat că Ogoranu a rămas un fascist. Spre deriziunea publicului, Wiliam Totok a încercat să facă o paralelă între Ogoranu și scandalul sterilizării țigăncilor de la începutul acestui an.

Președintele AFDPR, dl Octav Bjoza, a luat cuvântul din sală, evocând calitatea deosebită a legionarilor pe care i-a cunoscut în închisorile comuniste. Deși nu a fost legionar, d-sa a arătat că nu consideră normală generalizarea osândirii tuturor membrilor Mișcării Legionare, subliniind caracterul deosebit al lui Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu care a fost un exemplu de bunătate, de toleranță și dragoste creștină. Dl Bjoza a criticat situația creată de Institutul Elie Wiesel la Târgu Ocna, unde se exercită presiuni asupra consiliului local pentru retragerea calității de cetățean de onoare al orașului fostului deținut politic Valeriu Gafencu, supranumit Sfântul închisorilor, reproșând celor de la institut că “nu ne lasă nici să ne alegem sfinții.”

Prezent în sală, președintele Fundației Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu, dl Coriolan Baciu, executorul testamentar al eroului anticomunist, a evocat figura luminoasă a acestuia, toleranța și deosebita deschidere practicate de acesta. Coriolan Baciu a arătat că Ogoranu nu a încercat monopolizarea rezistenței armate anticomuniste în favoarea Mișcării Legionare, ci dimpotrivă a militat permanent pentru idea că lupta de rezistență a aparținut poporului român, recunoscând contribuția mai multor grupări politice în acastă încleștare cu comunismul. Dl Baciu a reproșat organizatorilor comportamentul din cadrul acestei manifestări prin care se încercă în mod evident deteriorarea imaginii lui Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu, mai afirma Buciumul.ro, sub semnatura lui Florin Dobrescu, inrelatarea pe larg a evenimentului.

La articolul semnalat, cunoscutul militant pentru adevar al exilului romanesc si Ion Varlam a comentat:

Ion VARLAM

21 aprilie 2013 – 19:12

Ìl felicit pe D-l Dobrescu pentru sobrietatea si calmul comentariului sàu, cu atât mai demne de admiratie cu cât nerusinarea cu care D-l Totok si cei care-si arogà dreptul de a-I învinui permanent si din principiu pe cei care au îndràznit sà ridice o privire criticà asupra acelor evrei din România care s’au remarcat prin comportamentul lor arrogant si acaparator, fàcându-se agentii împàràtiilor vecine care urmàreau (si mai urmàresc) cotropirea României si desfiintarea identitàtii nationale a bàstinasilor ei depàsesc limitele tolerabilului. Nu cred cà în Israel s’ar putea conferentia despre miscarea fascistà Irgun (clasatà ca atare de politologii francezi, britanici si americani care se ocupà cu natura si istoria miscàrilor fasciste) si despre membrii ei care au dobândit rangul de eroi prin sacrificiile cu care au contribuit la lupta de eliberare a Palestinei de sub stàpânirea englezà, în felul în care D-nii Totok, Shafir & cie si-au permis sà vorbeascà despre Ion Gavrilà Ogoranu si chiar despre miscarea legionarà. Ca mai toate miscàrile de eliberare nationalà, cea legionarà a fost violentà (revolutionarà) prin vocative: urmàrea emanciparea românilor de sub dominatia celor care luaserà locul fanariotilor atunci când stàpânirii turcesti i-se substituise rivalitatea de interese dintre Rusia si Austria (sustinutà de Germania), ai càror agenti locali au fost în special evreii. Nu individual ci prin organizatiile lor, acestia s’au împotrivit constant îndeplirii aspiratiilor legate de înfàptuirea idealului national al Unirii tuturor românilor. Au fàcut-o la Berlin în 1878, cerând marilor puteri sà conditioneze recunoastere României ca stat suveran si independent de instituirea unui statut discriminatoriu care i-ar fi scos pe evrei de sub legea româneascà. Acelasi lucru l-au fàcut la conferinta de Pace de la Versailles, unde au încercat sà le impunà statelor succesoare ale Dublei Monarhii un “Consiliu al Minoritàtilor” cu rolul de organ de tutelà care sà exonereze pe membrii etniilor fàrà tarà (deci pe evrei) de supunerea fatà de legile statelor ai càrei cetàteni erau, instituind astfel un adevàrat apartheid în favoarea acestora. Toate aceste state au respins cu indignare dreptul de ingerintà pe care si-l menajau pe acastà cale SUA si Franta, promotorii cei mai înversunati ai acestui proiect !

Desi mare si sincer prieten al românilor, Dr. W.Fildermann, reprezentant al evreilor în Senatul României, propunea official în 1937 colonizarea a 1.500.000 evrei în tara noastrà, sub motivul cà numai acestia ar putea-o duce la prosperitatea economicà promise de extraordinarele ei resurse natural (Cf. Ràspunsul, tot public, adus acestei propuneri de càtre Prof. N. Iorga).

Cu privire la gogorita antsemitismului pe care o agità ex-agentii sovietici si fii de agenti sovietici de fiecare data cà este vorba de crimele comunismului – deci si de meritele celor care l-au combàtut – adicà de D-nii Shafir, Totok, si ceilalti promotori ai neo-marxismului disimulat sub pulpanele gândirii politically correct – acesta reprezintà o armà de diversiune mult prea evidentà pentru a revei asupra rosturilor si a mecanismelor ei. Caracterul sfruntat mincinos al acuzatiilor aduse regimului Antonescu în aceastà privintà, este definitive dovedit de urmàtoarea declaratie oficialà a lui Shimon Peres, Presedintele Israelului, fàcutà în August 2010, cu prilejul vizitei pe care fàcut-o în România : ” NU VOM UITA NICIODATA CA, IN PERIOADA CEA MAI INTUNECATA A EUROPEI, IN PERIOADA NAZISTA, ROMÂNII AU SALVAT VIETILE MULTOR EVREI DE AICI, 400.000 DE EVREI, CARE AU VENIT IN ISRAEL SI AU CONTRIBUIT SI CONTRIBUIE LA CONSTRUIREA ISRAELULUI, DAR CARE N-AU UITAT IUBIREA PENTRU ROMANIA, SI-AU PASTRAT CULTURA ROMANEASCA. PENTRU ACEASTA, DORESC SA MULTUMESC POPORULUI ROMAN SI SA-I SPUN CA ACEASTA ESTE O PRIETENIE CARE NU SE VA TERMINA SI CARE VA CONTINUA MULTA VREME IN VIITOR, NU DOAR IN ISTORIE. MA SIMT AICI CA ACASA, MA SIMT CA INTR’O TARA PRIETENA, SI NU VORBESC DOAR DESPRE TRECUT, CI SI DESPRE VIITOR.”

Nciun om serios si de bunà credintà nu poate afirma despre un regim politic care fàcut din România o tarà de azil pentru toti evreii din Europa care ajungeau pânà la granitele ei si care a facilitat si sprijinit în plin ràsboi contra Marii Britanii emigrarea a mii de tineri evrei càtre Palestina, unde aveau sà întàreascà rândurile celor care luptau contra lui Hitler al càrui aliat involuntar era tara noastrà, nu poate, deci, afirma despre un astfel de regim cà a luat parte la distrugerea organizatà a populatiei evreiesti de pe continentul nostrum. Mai mult: un astfel de regim nu poate nici màcar fi acuzat de rasism deoarece màsurile la care i-a supus pe evrei au un caracter cu totul benign dacà sunt comparate cu cele aplicate de unii din dàtàtorii nostril de lectii – SUA spre pildà – cetàtenilor lor de origine germanà sau niponà.

Ion Varlam
Master în Stiinte Politice, IEP, Paris.

Vedeti si:

Un interviu-bomba cu Ion Varlam, boier, diplomat si fost detinut politic: Despre evrei, comunisti, securisti si kaghebisti, de la Antonescu la Basescu. VIDEO

Un interviu exploziv cu fostul detinut politic Ion Varlam, secretar general al Uniunii Mondiale a Romanilor Liberi: “Radu Ioanid, directorul Muzeului Holocaustului, este agent de sorginte sovietica”. Anticomunistul Ion Varlam devoaleaza o retea anti-Romania infiltrata adanc in structurile statului. “Trotkistul Tismaneanu”, “scremutul Liiceanu”, “bufonul Plesu”, “hazaica Mungiu”, “agentul Mihnea Berindei” & Co

Cititi si:

Adresă către Consiliul Local al orașului Târgu Ocna

25 februarie 2013
ASOCIAŢIA FOŞTILOR DEŢINUŢI POLITICI
DIN ROMÂNIA
A.F.D.P.R.
ASSOCIATION DES ANCIENS DETENUS POLITIQUES DE ROUMANIE
FORMER ROMANIAN POLITICAL PRISONERS ASSOCIATION
Str. Mântuleasa nr. 10, 030554 Bucureşti, sector 3, ROMÂNIA, tel/fax. 3172317
Nr. 25/22.02.2013
Către Consiliul Local al oraşului
Târgu Ocna
Domnului Primar Ştefan Şilochi
Spre ştiinţă Institutul Naţional pentru Studierea Holocaustului din România „Elie Wiesel”
Referitor: Retragerea titlului de cetăţean de onoare acordat post-mortem lui Valeriu Gafencu

Comitetul Naţional de Conducere al Asociaţiei Foştilor Deţinuţi Politici şi Victime ale Dictaturii din România (AFDPR) întrunit în şediţa ordinară din 22 februarie 2013, a avut printre punctele cuprinse în ordinea de zi şi acela al contestării de către Institutul “Elie Wiesel” a acordării titlului de cetăţean de onoare lui Valeriu Gafencu, a hotărât cu unanimitate de voturi luarea unei atitudini ferme faţă de solicitarea neîntemeiată a institutului mai sus numit.

Am acceptat ideia că indiferent de culoarea politică, sau fără de culoare, toţi cei ce ne-am aflat în temniţele şi lagărele de exterminare comuniste am constatat la unison că Valeriu Gafencu s-a situat întru totul deasupra noastră a tuturor, fiind considerat ca unul dintre sfinţii închisorilor, o adevărată „sămânţă a sfinţeniei sădită pe al temniţei pământ”.

A fost o „făclie a iubitorilor de adevăr şi ucenic al Adevărului”, dându-ne tuturor o pildă de viaţă şi iubire.

O altă mărturisire ne spune „ai întărit prin faptele tale aceste cuvinte, căci te-ai jertfit din iubire pentru un pastor evreu, rugându-te ca el să devină fiu al Sfintei Biserici şi dându-i lui medicamentele care ţi-ar fi putut salva viaţa trupească”.

Mulţi dintre noi am învăţat de la el ce înseamnă iertarea şi iubirea faţă de aproapele tău.
A avut asupra noastră forţa prin care sufletele noastre se înălţau în văzduhul nepătruns, deşi trupurile ne rămâneau după gratii.
Iată doar câteva considerente pentru care zecile de mii de deţinuţi politici l-au considerat un sfânt şi cer Patriarhiei Otodoxe Române să-l canonizeze.
Istoria religiilor cunoaşte cazuri în care persoane care au greşit, s-au întors la Dumnezeu, devenind mai apoi sfinţi.
AFDPR mai are în prezent peste zece mii de membri cotizanţi din care doar trei mii foşti deţinuţi politici, diferenţa constituind-o deportaţii şi urmaşii decedaţilor.
AFDPR este membră a Asociaţiei Internaţionale a Foştilor Deţinuţi Politici din fostele ţări comuniste europene, numită INTER ASSO.
Preşedintele AFDPR este membru în Comitetul de conducere al INTER ASSO.
Atât conducerea AFDPR, cât şi a INTER ASSO recunoaşte holocaustul produs asupra poporului evreu, dezaprobându-l cu fermitate, precum şi orice altă crimă cu caracter etnic sau politic.
Cu toate că înţelegem grijile, prudenţa, vigilenţa, dar şi promptitudinea cu care acţionează conducerea Institutului „Elie Wiesel”, vă rugăm să reconsideraţi pozitia faţă de cazul în speţă.

Cu mulţumiri şi aleasă preţuire,

Preşedinte al AFDPR
ing. Octav Bjoza

Sursa: Ziaristi Online

Aprilie 18, 2013

How Zionists Manage To Get Away With Their Myths And Lies?

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 5:57 am

Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

by Gilad Atzmon

EXPOSE JEWISH POWER NOW

In his new book, “The Invention Of The Land of Israel”, Israeli academic Shlomo Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of the far fetched nature of the Zionist historical narrative – that the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.

Yet, Sand and many others fail to address the most important question: If Zionism is based on myth, how do the Zionists manage to get away with their lies, and for so long?

If the Jewish ‘homecoming’ and the demand for a Jewish national homeland cannot be historically substantiated, why has it been supported by both Jews and the West for so long? How does the Jewish state manage for so long to celebrate its racist expansionist ideology and at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples?

Jewish power is obviously one answer, but, what is Jewish power? Can we ask this question without being accused of being Anti Semitic? Can we ever discuss its meaning and scrutinize its politics? Is Jewish Power a dark force, managed and maneuvered by some conspiratorial power? Is it something of which Jews themselves are shy? Quite the opposite – Jewish power, in most cases, is celebrated right in front of our eyes. As we know, AIPAC is far from being quiet about its agenda, its practices or its achievements. AIPAC, CFI in the UK and CRIF in France are operating in the most open manner and often openly brag about their success.

Furthermore, we are by now accustomed to watch our democratically elected leaders shamelessly queuing to kneel before their pay-masters. Neocons certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to hide their close Zionist affiliations. Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League (ADL) works openly towards the Judification of the Western discourse, chasing and harassing anyone who dares voice any kind of criticism of Israel or even of Jewish choseness. And of course, the same applies to the media, banking and Hollywood. We know about the many powerful Jews who are not in the slightest bit shy about their bond with Israel and their commitment to Israeli security, the Zionist ideology, the primacy of Jewish suffering, Israeli expansionism and even outright Jewish exceptionalism.

But, as ubiquitous as they are, AIPAC, CFI, ADL, Bernie Madoff, ‘liberator’ Bernard Henri Levy, war-advocate David Aaronovitch, free market prophet Milton Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Haim Saban, Lord Levy and many other Zionist enthusiasts and Hasbara advocates are not necessarily the core or the driving force behind Jewish Power, but are merely symptoms. Jewish power is actually far more sophisticated than simply a list of Jewish lobbies or individuals performing highly developed manipulative skills. Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not ‘right wing’ Zionists who facilitate Jewish power, It is actually the ‘good’, the ‘enlightened’ and the ‘progressive’ who make Jewish power the most effective and forceful power in the land. It is the ‘progressives’ who confound our ability to identify the Judeocentric tribal politics at the heart of Neoconservatism, American contemporary imperialism and foreign policy. It is the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist who goes out of his or her way to divert our attention from the fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and blinds us to the fact that its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. It was the Jewish Left intellectuals who rushed to denounce Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, Jeff Blankfort and James Petras’ work on the Jewish Lobby. And it is no secret that Occupy AIPAC, the campaign against the most dangerous political Lobby in America, is dominated by a few righteous members of the chosen tribe. We need to face up to the fact that our dissident voice is far from being free. Quite the opposite, we are dealing here with an institutional case of controlled opposition.

Emmanuel Goldstein is a character in George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. He is the number one enemy of the state according to the Party.

In George Orwell’s 1984, it is perhaps Emmanuel Goldsteinwho is the pivotal character. Orwell’s Goldstein is a Jewish revolutionary, a fictional Leon Trotsky. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious anti-party organization called “The Brotherhood” and is also the author of the most subversive revolutionary text (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). Goldstein is the ‘dissenting voice’, the one who actually tells the truth. Yet, as we delve into Orwell’s text, we find out from Party’s ‘Inner Circle’ O’Brien that Goldstein was actually invented by Big Brother in a clear attempt to control the opposition and the possible boundaries of dissidence.

Orwell’s personal account of the Spanish Civil War “Homage To Catalonia” clearly presaged the creation of Emmanuel Goldstein. It was what Orwell witnessed in Spain that, a decade later, matured into a profound understanding of dissent as a form of controlled opposition. My guess is that, by the late 1940’s, Orwell had understood the depth of intolerance, and tyrannical and conspiratorial tendencies that lay at the heart of ‘Big Brother-ish’ Left politics and praxis.

Surprisingly enough, an attempt to examine our contemporaneous controlled opposition within the Left and the Progressive reveal that it is far from being a conspiratorial. Like in the case of the Jewish Lobby, the so-called ‘opposition’ hardly attempts to disguise its ethno-centric tribal interests, spiritual and ideological orientation and affiliation.

A brief examination of the list of organisations founded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) presents a grim picture – pretty much the entire American progressive network is funded, partially or largely by a liberal Zionist, philanthropic billionaire who supports very many good and important causes that are also very good for the Jews. And yet, like staunch Zionist Haim Saban, Soros does not operate clandestinely. His Open Society Institute proudly provides all the necessary information regarding the vast amount of shekels it spreads on its good and important causes.

So one can’t accuse Soros or the Open Society Institute of any sinister vetting the political discourse, stifling of free speech or even to ‘controlling the opposition’. All Soros does is to support a wide variety of ‘humanitarian causes’: Human Rights, Women’s Rights. Gay Rights, equality, democracy, Arab ‘Spring’, Arab Winter, the oppressed, the oppressor, tolerance, intolerance, Palestine, Israel, anti war, pro-war (only when really needed), and so on.

As with Orwell’s Big Brother that frames the boundaries of dissent by means of control opposition, Soros’ Open Society also determines, either consciously or unconsciously, the limits of critical thought. Yet, unlike in 1984, where it is the Party that invents its own opposition and write its texts, within our ‘progressive’ discourse, it is our own voices of dissent, willingly and consciously, that are compromising their principles.

Soros may have read Orwell – he clearly believes his message – because from time to time he even supports opposing forces. For instance, he funds the Zionist-lite J Street as well as Palestinian NGO organizations. And guess what? It never takes long for the Palestinian beneficiaries to, compromise their own, most precious principles so they fit nicely into their paymaster’s worldview.

The Visible Hand

The invisible hand of the market is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behavior of the marketplace. In contemporary politics. The visible hand is a similar metaphor which describes the self-regulating tendency of the political-fund beneficiary, to fully integrate the world view of its benefactor into its political agenda.

Democracy Now, the most important American dissident outlet has never discussed the Jewish Lobby with Mearsheimer, Walt, Petras or Blankfort – the four leading experts who could have informed the American people about the USA’s foreign policy domination by the Jewish Lobby. For the same reasons, Democracy Now wouldn’t explore the Neocon’s Judeo-centric agenda nor would it ever discuss Jewish Identity politics with yours truly. Democracy Now will host Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, it may even let Finkelstein chew up Zionist caricature Alan Dershowitz – all very good, but not good enough.

Is the fact that Democracy Now is heavily funded by Soros relevant? I’ll let you judge.

If I’m correct (and I think I am) we have a serious problem here. As things stand, it is actually the progressive discourse, or at least large part of it. that sustains Jewish Power. If this is indeed the case, and I am convinced it is, then the occupied progressive discourse, rather than Zionism, is the primary obstacle that must be confronted.

It is no coincidence that the ‘progressive’ take on ‘antisemitism’ is suspiciously similar to the Zionist one. Like Zionists, many progressive institutes and activists adhere to the bizarre suggestion that opposition to Jewish power is ‘racially motivated’ and embedded in some ‘reactionary’ Goyish tendency. Consequently, Zionists are often supported by some ‘progressives’ in their crusade against critics of Israel and Jewish power. Is this peculiar alliance between these allegedly opposing schools of thoughts, the outcome of a possible ideological continuum between these two seemingly opposed political ideologies? Maybe, after all, progressiveness like Zionism is driven by a peculiar inclination towards ‘choseness’. After all, being progressive somehow implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. It is those self-centric elements of exceptionalism and choseness that have made progressiveness so attractive to secular and emancipated Jews. But the main reason the ‘progressive’ adopted the Zionist take on antisemitism, may well be because of the work of that visible hand that miraculously shapes the progressive take on race, racism and the primacy of Jewish suffering.

We may have to face up to the fact that the progressive discourse effectively operates as Israel’s longest arm – it certainly acts as a gatekeeper and as protection for Zionism and Jewish tribal interests. If Israel and its supporters would ever be confronted with real opposition it might lead to some long-overdue self-reflection. But at the moment, Israel and Zionist lobbies meet only insipid, watered-down, progressively-vetted resistance that, in practice, sustains Israeli occupation, oppression and an endless list of human rights abuses.

They Dare to Speak Out — by Congressman Paul Findley. This is the first book to dare to speak out against the pervasive influence of AIPAC (The America-Israeli Public Affairs Committee)

Instead of mass opposition to the Jewish State and its aggressive lobby, our ‘resistance’ is reduced into a chain of badge-wearing, keffiyeh-clad, placard-waving mini-gatherings with the occasional tantrum from some neurotic Jewess while being videoed by another good Jew. If anyone believes that a few badges, a load of amateur Youtube clips celebrating Jewish righteousness are going to evolve into a mass anti-Israel global movement, they are either naïve or stupid.

In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that current Americans’ sympathy for Israel has reached an All-Time High. 64% of Americans sympathise with the Jewish State, while only 12% feel for the Palestinians. This is no surprise and our conclusion should be clear. As far as Palestine is concerned, ‘progressive’ ideology and praxis have led us precisely nowhere. Rather than advance the Palestinian cause, it only locates the ‘good’ Jew at the centre of the solidarity discourse.

When was the last time a Palestinian freedom fighter appeared on your TV screen? Twenty years ago the Palestinian were set to become the new Che Guevaras. Okay, so the Palestinian freedom fighter didn’t necessarily speak perfect English and wasn’t a graduate of an English public school, but he was free, authentic and determined. He or she spoke about their land being taken and of their willingness to give what it takes to get it back. But now, the Palestinian has been ‘saved’, he or she doesn’t have to fight for his or her their land, the ‘progressive’ is taking care of it all.

This ‘progressive’ voice speaks on behalf of the Palestinian and, at the same time, takes the opportunity to also push marginal politics, fight ‘Islamism’ and ‘religious radicalisation’ and occasionally even supports the odd interventionist war and, of course, always, always, always fights antisemitism. The controlled opposition has turned the Palestinian plight into just one more ‘progressive’ commodity, lying on the back shelf of its ever-growing ‘good-cause’ campaign store.

For the Jewish progressive discourse, the purpose behind pro-Palestinian support is clear. It is to present an impression of pluralism within the Jewish community. It is there to suggest that not all Jews are bad Zionists. Philip Weiss, the founder of the most popular progressive pro-Palestinian blog was even brave enough to admit to me that it is Jewish self -interests that stood at the core of his pro Palestinian activity.

Jewish self-love is a fascinating topic. But even more fascinating is Jewish progressives loving themselves at the expense of the Palestinians. With billionaires such as Soros maintaining the discourse, solidarity is now an industry, concerned with profit and power rather than ethics or values and it is a spectacle both amusing and tragic as the Palestinians become a side issue within their own solidarity discourse.

So, perhaps before we discuss the ‘liberation of Palestine’, we first may have to liberate ourselves.


Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born British jazz saxophonist, novelist, political activist and writer. Atzmon’s albumExile was BBC jazz album of the year in 2003. Also, being a prolific writer, Atzmon’s essays are widely published.  Gilad’s latest book, The Wandering Who? is a study of Jewish Identity politics. More articles by Gilad Atzmon
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/04/16/223201-how-zionists-manage-to-get-away-with-their-myths-and-lies/

 

« Pagina anterioarăPagina următoare »

Blog la WordPress.com.