Showing posts with label Zionism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zionism. Show all posts
Friday, October 9, 2015
Friday, April 10, 2015
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Israel to impose economic sanctions on PA
04 April 2014
Source: Middle East Monitor
Israel has begun a series of punitive measures against the Palestinian Authority in response to the Palestinian request to join 15 international UN treaties, Haaretz reported on Wednesday.
The present economic sanctions come in the wake of latest crisis in the political process which reached its climax on Wednesday. During an emergency session between US envoy Martin Indyk and the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams during which Israel's chief negotiator Tzipi Livni demanded the Palestinian Authority back down from its request to go to the United Nations organisations otherwise Israel will not release the fourth group of Palestinian prisoners.
The newspaper quoted an Israeli official as saying that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Moshe Ya'alon asked the Coordinator of Activities in the West Bank Territories Yoav Mordechai to submit proposals of punitive measures against the Palestinians.
According to the paper the suggestions included freezing the Wataniya mobile company, which operates in the West Bank, from entering hardware to the Gaza Strip to deploy its mobile communications network there, and to impose restrictions on the activity of the Palestinian Authority in the Area C in the West Bank which falls under Israeli security and civil control.
The paper said a study of other economic sanctions is being conducted. Options being considered include freezing the tax and customs revenues which Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and collecting the Palestinian debt amounting to hundreds of millions of shekels to the Israeli Electricity Company. No decision has been made as to which measure will be implemented.
Link: www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/10710-israel-to-impose-economic-sanctions-on-pa.
Source: Middle East Monitor
Israel has begun a series of punitive measures against the Palestinian Authority in response to the Palestinian request to join 15 international UN treaties, Haaretz reported on Wednesday.
The present economic sanctions come in the wake of latest crisis in the political process which reached its climax on Wednesday. During an emergency session between US envoy Martin Indyk and the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams during which Israel's chief negotiator Tzipi Livni demanded the Palestinian Authority back down from its request to go to the United Nations organisations otherwise Israel will not release the fourth group of Palestinian prisoners.
The newspaper quoted an Israeli official as saying that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Moshe Ya'alon asked the Coordinator of Activities in the West Bank Territories Yoav Mordechai to submit proposals of punitive measures against the Palestinians.
According to the paper the suggestions included freezing the Wataniya mobile company, which operates in the West Bank, from entering hardware to the Gaza Strip to deploy its mobile communications network there, and to impose restrictions on the activity of the Palestinian Authority in the Area C in the West Bank which falls under Israeli security and civil control.
The paper said a study of other economic sanctions is being conducted. Options being considered include freezing the tax and customs revenues which Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and collecting the Palestinian debt amounting to hundreds of millions of shekels to the Israeli Electricity Company. No decision has been made as to which measure will be implemented.
Link: www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/10710-israel-to-impose-economic-sanctions-on-pa.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Israel to seize West Bank land for settlement projects
March 31, 2014
Source: daijiworld.com
Ramallah, March 31 (IANS): Israeli authorities have issued orders to confiscate around 75 acres of Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank for settlement projects, a Palestinian official said Monday.
"The villagers were told that their lands will be used as a cemetery and a school for two neighbouring Jewish settlements," said Ghassan Daghlas, a Palestinian official in charge of settlement issues in northern West Bank.
Daghlas said the villagers would turn to an Israeli court to appeal against the orders, Xinhua reported.
The orders came as the ongoing US-mediated Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are on the verge of collapse due to grave differences on core issues, including settlement activity.
The talks resumed last July after a three-year halt over Israeli settlement expansion.
The issue of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories is viewed by the international community, including the US, as a hurdle to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Since last July, Israel has planned to build more than 11,700 new settler units in its 137 West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements.
Link: http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=226249.
Source: daijiworld.com
Ramallah, March 31 (IANS): Israeli authorities have issued orders to confiscate around 75 acres of Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank for settlement projects, a Palestinian official said Monday.
"The villagers were told that their lands will be used as a cemetery and a school for two neighbouring Jewish settlements," said Ghassan Daghlas, a Palestinian official in charge of settlement issues in northern West Bank.
Daghlas said the villagers would turn to an Israeli court to appeal against the orders, Xinhua reported.
The orders came as the ongoing US-mediated Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are on the verge of collapse due to grave differences on core issues, including settlement activity.
The talks resumed last July after a three-year halt over Israeli settlement expansion.
The issue of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories is viewed by the international community, including the US, as a hurdle to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Since last July, Israel has planned to build more than 11,700 new settler units in its 137 West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements.
Link: http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=226249.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Palestinians ordered to pay Israel to demolish their own homes
18 March 2014
Source: Middle East Monitor
An Israeli court has not only ruled that a number of Palestinian homes in Haifa have to be demolished but also that the home owners must pay 20,000 shekels (just under $6,000) to the authorities to cover the costs. The buildings belong to Palestinian citizens of Israel who refused to be ethnically cleansed from their land when the state was created in 1948.
Most of the owners belong to the long-suffering Hamid family, which has 65 members. The Israeli authorities want to displace the family and replace them with Jewish settlers. According to Ata Hamid, his family have neither the means to pay for the demolition costs nor anywhere else to go. Despite living in a prosperous city, he said, like other "Arab-Israelis" they suffer grave economic circumstances.
The family has called upon all the Palestinians in Haifa, Lod and Ramle to stand up in their support in the rejection of Israel's discriminatory housing policy. They have asked the municipality in Lod to take appropriate action to freeze the demolition order and protect their homes. Sadly, dozens more Palestinian families and their homes face the same threat.
Link:
www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/10370-palestinians-ordered-to-pay-israel-to-demolish-their-own-homes.
Source: Middle East Monitor
An Israeli court has not only ruled that a number of Palestinian homes in Haifa have to be demolished but also that the home owners must pay 20,000 shekels (just under $6,000) to the authorities to cover the costs. The buildings belong to Palestinian citizens of Israel who refused to be ethnically cleansed from their land when the state was created in 1948.
Most of the owners belong to the long-suffering Hamid family, which has 65 members. The Israeli authorities want to displace the family and replace them with Jewish settlers. According to Ata Hamid, his family have neither the means to pay for the demolition costs nor anywhere else to go. Despite living in a prosperous city, he said, like other "Arab-Israelis" they suffer grave economic circumstances.
The family has called upon all the Palestinians in Haifa, Lod and Ramle to stand up in their support in the rejection of Israel's discriminatory housing policy. They have asked the municipality in Lod to take appropriate action to freeze the demolition order and protect their homes. Sadly, dozens more Palestinian families and their homes face the same threat.
Link:
www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/10370-palestinians-ordered-to-pay-israel-to-demolish-their-own-homes.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
So that Al-Aqsa does not end up like Al-Ibrahimi
04 March 2014
Ali Jaradat
Source: Middle East Monitor
On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly issued Resolution 181 which stipulated the division of Palestine and the establishment of two states, an "Arab" and a "Jewish" state and placed Jerusalem under international protection, meaning that it must be kept as is and none of its population or geographic features can be changed. According to the division map, Jerusalem extended from Bethlehem in the south, to Kofr Akab, near Ramallah in the north, and from Abu Dis in the east to Ein Karem in the west.
However, Israel's leaders forcefully imposed, contrary to the stipulations of the UN resolution, the borders of its state on 78 per cent of Mandatory Palestine, including what became the so-called "West Jerusalem". When he was criticised for going beyond the borders set by the division map, Ben-Gurion said, "Israel's borders end where its last soldier stands".
After the occupation of the rest of Palestine in 1967, the Knesset issued a decision to annex what had been known as "East Jerusalem", although the seizure decision did not include enforcing all Israeli laws upon it, as it continued to be called "Jerusalem Military District" until 1981, when the Knesset signed the Camp David Peace Accords with Egypt, but did not consider the Palestinian Jerusalemites as citizens, but "residents" instead.
This was done in order to implement the plan to Judaise Jerusalem and make it the eternal capital of the State of Israel. It was also an attempt to expel as many of its inhabitants as possible, especially its national political and community leaders, such Abdel Hamid Al-Sayeh, Rawhi Al-Khatib, Bahjat Abu Gharbieh, Dr Subhi Ghosheh, writer Mahmoud Shukair, Ahmed Khalifa, Archbishop Hilarion Capucci and many others.
We must not forget the Israeli decision to move the Jordanian Court of Cassation headquarters from Jerusalem to Ramallah and put the Israeli District Court in its place which led to the strike of an overwhelming majority of lawyers and judges in the West Bank, including Jerusalemite lawyers and judges, who refused to plead before any West Bank or Jerusalem court, or work there until the strike was ended after the Oslo Accords and the emergence of the Palestinian Authority, in accordance with the agreement, in 1994.
Regardless of the case, the sensitivity towards the religious and cultural significance of Al-Aqsa Mosque remained present, posing a mine which all successive Israeli governments avoided pushing too far for fear of igniting a fire that would explode and extend past the borders of Palestine and would be difficult to control and contain. This explains the agreement of the many Israeli governments to Jordan remaining the custodian of Al-Aqsa Mosque and its surrounding holy sites.
This was emphasised in the "Wadi Araba Peace Treaty" signed between Jordan and Israel in 1994. Despite the fact that the Israeli leaders had the upper hand and many strong points, despite their distinguished and unmatched political arrogance and ideological firmness and despite their imposition of settlements and Judaisation, they realise that going too far in attacking Al-Aqsa Mosque was the direct reason for the outbreak of many of the Palestinian uprisings, both those that took place before the establishment of their state in the 1920s, most notably the "Al-Buraq Revolution" in 1929 and those that took place after the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, most notably the "Tunnel Intifada" In 1996 due to the excavation under the Mosque and the "Al-Aqsa Intifada" in 2000 because of Sharon's provocative visit to the mosque courtyards.
However, the events occurring today in Jerusalem and its surrounding areas, including Israel's attempts to pass legislations, unleash the extremist Jewish settlers and their representatives in the government and Knesset to violate the Holy Mosque and the political refusal to negotiate the issue of Jerusalem, all reflect hidden intentions and a new-old desire to seize the Holy mosque. They are encouraged by the Arab powers' preoccupation with their internal affairs and concerns, which has increased the internal Palestinian divide and allowed Israeli misguidance to lead popular Arab uprisings by means of inciting groups that are selling Jerusalem and stabbing it in the heart. Such groups disguise themselves under the name of Jerusalem and commit all sorts of strife and sectarian and denomination wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.
They have reversed the standards of resistance and Jihad, as Palestine and its heart, Jerusalem, no longer have a place in their thoughts and agendas, despite the fact that many hide under names associates with Jerusalem and the Holy Land etc.
It is true that the attempts to pass legislation to divide the Haram Al-Sharif, both in terms of space and time, and ending the Jordanian custodianship over the area have not been translated into law yet, but it is also true that merely daring to do so is a prelude to gradually entering this idea into the minds of the Palestinians, Arabs, and the international community. Making the repeated ground and political violations of the Haram Al-Sharif a normal issue makes it possible to repeat what happened in the case of Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron.
The habit of Israeli leaders to gradually allow the world to get used to their plans has become a feature and main characteristic of their daily policies. It is worth recalling how Golda Meir breathed a sigh of relief, despite her political concern, after the Arab reaction towards the burning of Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1969 was much calmer than she had expected. Meir drew the policy of continued violation of Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa and all the holy sites while being reassured by the weakness of the Arab's response.
We have discovered that there is a market for Jewish citizens located under Al-Aqsa which has taken away custom from the city's old markets.
The subjection of Al-Aqsa Mosque to unprecedented political and ground violations are all part of the escalating and ongoing Judaisation process of Jerusalem. Apart from generalisations, there is now a process of methodical purging of the city by easing Palestinian construction in areas of Jerusalem outside the Separation Wall in order to attract a new generation of Jerusalemites. This has made the city of Kafr Akab, a district of Jerusalem adjacent to Ramallah and which is located outside the Separation Wall, a densely populated residential city, full of Jerusalemites who are sick of the complications and difficulties of obtaining a building permit to build a house in the city.
The danger of this issue lies in the fact that merely declaring that the borders of Jerusalem are dictated by the Wall will deprive all Jerusalemites of their right of life or access to the city with just a stroke of a pen. Hence, the result is ridding the city of tens of thousands of Jerusalemites, as well as the decision of the Israeli Ministry of the Interior to dictate the validity of a Jerusalem ID, setting it at ten years, which would be the first time it has done so since 1967. There is also the decision of the Ministry of Education to apply the Israeli educational curriculum to all schools in Jerusalem after it had allowed schools to teach the Jordanian and then the Palestinian curriculum, after the establishment of the Palestinian Authority.
This article is a translation of the Arabic text published by Al Quds newspaper on 3 March, 2014
Link: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/10101-so-that-al-aqsa-does-not-end-up-like-al-ibrahimi.
Ali Jaradat
Source: Middle East Monitor
On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly issued Resolution 181 which stipulated the division of Palestine and the establishment of two states, an "Arab" and a "Jewish" state and placed Jerusalem under international protection, meaning that it must be kept as is and none of its population or geographic features can be changed. According to the division map, Jerusalem extended from Bethlehem in the south, to Kofr Akab, near Ramallah in the north, and from Abu Dis in the east to Ein Karem in the west.
However, Israel's leaders forcefully imposed, contrary to the stipulations of the UN resolution, the borders of its state on 78 per cent of Mandatory Palestine, including what became the so-called "West Jerusalem". When he was criticised for going beyond the borders set by the division map, Ben-Gurion said, "Israel's borders end where its last soldier stands".
After the occupation of the rest of Palestine in 1967, the Knesset issued a decision to annex what had been known as "East Jerusalem", although the seizure decision did not include enforcing all Israeli laws upon it, as it continued to be called "Jerusalem Military District" until 1981, when the Knesset signed the Camp David Peace Accords with Egypt, but did not consider the Palestinian Jerusalemites as citizens, but "residents" instead.
This was done in order to implement the plan to Judaise Jerusalem and make it the eternal capital of the State of Israel. It was also an attempt to expel as many of its inhabitants as possible, especially its national political and community leaders, such Abdel Hamid Al-Sayeh, Rawhi Al-Khatib, Bahjat Abu Gharbieh, Dr Subhi Ghosheh, writer Mahmoud Shukair, Ahmed Khalifa, Archbishop Hilarion Capucci and many others.
We must not forget the Israeli decision to move the Jordanian Court of Cassation headquarters from Jerusalem to Ramallah and put the Israeli District Court in its place which led to the strike of an overwhelming majority of lawyers and judges in the West Bank, including Jerusalemite lawyers and judges, who refused to plead before any West Bank or Jerusalem court, or work there until the strike was ended after the Oslo Accords and the emergence of the Palestinian Authority, in accordance with the agreement, in 1994.
Regardless of the case, the sensitivity towards the religious and cultural significance of Al-Aqsa Mosque remained present, posing a mine which all successive Israeli governments avoided pushing too far for fear of igniting a fire that would explode and extend past the borders of Palestine and would be difficult to control and contain. This explains the agreement of the many Israeli governments to Jordan remaining the custodian of Al-Aqsa Mosque and its surrounding holy sites.
This was emphasised in the "Wadi Araba Peace Treaty" signed between Jordan and Israel in 1994. Despite the fact that the Israeli leaders had the upper hand and many strong points, despite their distinguished and unmatched political arrogance and ideological firmness and despite their imposition of settlements and Judaisation, they realise that going too far in attacking Al-Aqsa Mosque was the direct reason for the outbreak of many of the Palestinian uprisings, both those that took place before the establishment of their state in the 1920s, most notably the "Al-Buraq Revolution" in 1929 and those that took place after the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, most notably the "Tunnel Intifada" In 1996 due to the excavation under the Mosque and the "Al-Aqsa Intifada" in 2000 because of Sharon's provocative visit to the mosque courtyards.
However, the events occurring today in Jerusalem and its surrounding areas, including Israel's attempts to pass legislations, unleash the extremist Jewish settlers and their representatives in the government and Knesset to violate the Holy Mosque and the political refusal to negotiate the issue of Jerusalem, all reflect hidden intentions and a new-old desire to seize the Holy mosque. They are encouraged by the Arab powers' preoccupation with their internal affairs and concerns, which has increased the internal Palestinian divide and allowed Israeli misguidance to lead popular Arab uprisings by means of inciting groups that are selling Jerusalem and stabbing it in the heart. Such groups disguise themselves under the name of Jerusalem and commit all sorts of strife and sectarian and denomination wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.
They have reversed the standards of resistance and Jihad, as Palestine and its heart, Jerusalem, no longer have a place in their thoughts and agendas, despite the fact that many hide under names associates with Jerusalem and the Holy Land etc.
It is true that the attempts to pass legislation to divide the Haram Al-Sharif, both in terms of space and time, and ending the Jordanian custodianship over the area have not been translated into law yet, but it is also true that merely daring to do so is a prelude to gradually entering this idea into the minds of the Palestinians, Arabs, and the international community. Making the repeated ground and political violations of the Haram Al-Sharif a normal issue makes it possible to repeat what happened in the case of Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron.
The habit of Israeli leaders to gradually allow the world to get used to their plans has become a feature and main characteristic of their daily policies. It is worth recalling how Golda Meir breathed a sigh of relief, despite her political concern, after the Arab reaction towards the burning of Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1969 was much calmer than she had expected. Meir drew the policy of continued violation of Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa and all the holy sites while being reassured by the weakness of the Arab's response.
We have discovered that there is a market for Jewish citizens located under Al-Aqsa which has taken away custom from the city's old markets.
The subjection of Al-Aqsa Mosque to unprecedented political and ground violations are all part of the escalating and ongoing Judaisation process of Jerusalem. Apart from generalisations, there is now a process of methodical purging of the city by easing Palestinian construction in areas of Jerusalem outside the Separation Wall in order to attract a new generation of Jerusalemites. This has made the city of Kafr Akab, a district of Jerusalem adjacent to Ramallah and which is located outside the Separation Wall, a densely populated residential city, full of Jerusalemites who are sick of the complications and difficulties of obtaining a building permit to build a house in the city.
The danger of this issue lies in the fact that merely declaring that the borders of Jerusalem are dictated by the Wall will deprive all Jerusalemites of their right of life or access to the city with just a stroke of a pen. Hence, the result is ridding the city of tens of thousands of Jerusalemites, as well as the decision of the Israeli Ministry of the Interior to dictate the validity of a Jerusalem ID, setting it at ten years, which would be the first time it has done so since 1967. There is also the decision of the Ministry of Education to apply the Israeli educational curriculum to all schools in Jerusalem after it had allowed schools to teach the Jordanian and then the Palestinian curriculum, after the establishment of the Palestinian Authority.
This article is a translation of the Arabic text published by Al Quds newspaper on 3 March, 2014
Link: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/10101-so-that-al-aqsa-does-not-end-up-like-al-ibrahimi.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Coup alleviated Israel's fear of 'Islamist winter'
04 February 2014
Source: Middle East Monitor
Israel's Defence Minister said on Sunday that Egypt's coup last year has alleviated the fears of Israel and several other countries about what he described as an "Islamist winter". Moshe Ya'alon made his remarks during the Munich security conference.
"Ousting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is an important event," said Ya'alon. "The Islamist winter would have spread to several other Arab capitals in the region." He claimed that he could feel a sense of relief to get rid of "this burden" in many Arab capitals, including Amman, Riyadh and the Gulf states. "These regimes feared that the Muslim Brotherhood would form a new wave of Islamisation that controls the Middle East region," he claimed.
According to the Israeli minister, "The Iranian revolution in 1979 led to the emergence of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Hamas movement in the Palestinian arena, and strengthened Muslim Brotherhood elements in the region." Ya'alon then, outrageously, tried to link the resistance movements and the Brotherhood with Al-Qaeda, "which we could see emerging from the Sunni Wahhabi schools following the global jihad movement."
He concluded by saying that Egypt's coup has alleviated the feeling that Islam is the solution. "Nevertheless," he insisted, "the Middle East will be faced with a state of instability over the coming years and even decades."
Link: www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9582-coup-alleviated-israels-fear-of-islamist-winter.
Source: Middle East Monitor
Israel's Defence Minister said on Sunday that Egypt's coup last year has alleviated the fears of Israel and several other countries about what he described as an "Islamist winter". Moshe Ya'alon made his remarks during the Munich security conference.
"Ousting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is an important event," said Ya'alon. "The Islamist winter would have spread to several other Arab capitals in the region." He claimed that he could feel a sense of relief to get rid of "this burden" in many Arab capitals, including Amman, Riyadh and the Gulf states. "These regimes feared that the Muslim Brotherhood would form a new wave of Islamisation that controls the Middle East region," he claimed.
According to the Israeli minister, "The Iranian revolution in 1979 led to the emergence of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Hamas movement in the Palestinian arena, and strengthened Muslim Brotherhood elements in the region." Ya'alon then, outrageously, tried to link the resistance movements and the Brotherhood with Al-Qaeda, "which we could see emerging from the Sunni Wahhabi schools following the global jihad movement."
He concluded by saying that Egypt's coup has alleviated the feeling that Islam is the solution. "Nevertheless," he insisted, "the Middle East will be faced with a state of instability over the coming years and even decades."
Link: www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9582-coup-alleviated-israels-fear-of-islamist-winter.
Abbas proposes demilitarised Palestinian state
04 February 2014
Source: Middle East Monitor
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has proposed to US Secretary of State John Kerry that a state of Palestine would be demilitarised, protected only by a police force. Speaking to the New York Times, he also said that Israeli forces and settlements could remain in the West Bank for five years after a final agreement has been signed.
Abbas told the NYT last week that he agrees that a US-led NATO force could take responsibility for security in the West Bank and Jerusalem. "For a long time, and wherever they want, not only on the eastern borders, but also on the western borders, everywhere," he said." How can Palestinians have any security if the Israelis do not feel secure?"
The NATO force would be responsible for preventing terrorism and weapons smuggling. At the same time, however, Abbas said that he refuses to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, noting that Egypt and Jordan were not required to do so after they signed peace treaties with the Zionist state.
The Palestinian Authority leader showed flexibility about extending the period of negotiations, saying that the proposed deadline of April 29 "is not a sacred date". If there is something promising by that time, he asked, should we just stop? "If there is nothing on the horizon at that time, though, we will stop."
Link: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9568-abbas-proposes-demilitarised-palestinian-state.
Source: Middle East Monitor
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has proposed to US Secretary of State John Kerry that a state of Palestine would be demilitarised, protected only by a police force. Speaking to the New York Times, he also said that Israeli forces and settlements could remain in the West Bank for five years after a final agreement has been signed.
Abbas told the NYT last week that he agrees that a US-led NATO force could take responsibility for security in the West Bank and Jerusalem. "For a long time, and wherever they want, not only on the eastern borders, but also on the western borders, everywhere," he said." How can Palestinians have any security if the Israelis do not feel secure?"
The NATO force would be responsible for preventing terrorism and weapons smuggling. At the same time, however, Abbas said that he refuses to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, noting that Egypt and Jordan were not required to do so after they signed peace treaties with the Zionist state.
The Palestinian Authority leader showed flexibility about extending the period of negotiations, saying that the proposed deadline of April 29 "is not a sacred date". If there is something promising by that time, he asked, should we just stop? "If there is nothing on the horizon at that time, though, we will stop."
Link: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9568-abbas-proposes-demilitarised-palestinian-state.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
In war or withdrawal, Sharon marched to his own drum
16 hours ago
By Dan Williams
Source: Yahoo News
Along with a reputation in the military for
recklessness and disobeying orders, Sharon was hailed for daring
operations that brought victories on the battlefield. He retired a
major-general.
The visit, in a part
of Jerusalem that Israel captured in the 1967 war and annexed in a move
that has never won international recognition, was widely seen as a spark
for the second Palestinian uprising.
"Isn't it clear that Sharon
is bent not only on breaking the Palestinians but on trying to eliminate
them as a people with national institutions?" Said wrote in The Nation
newspaper in 2002, a year before his death.
Sharon was married
twice. His first wife, Margalit, died in a car accident in 1962. They
had one son, who was killed in 1967 when a friend accidentally shot him
while playing with a rifle. In 1963, Sharon married Margalit's sister,
Lily, who died of cancer in 2000. They had two sons.
He noted the varying theories about what motivated the Gaza withdrawal,
including that it aimed to distract from corruption allegations at the
time that dogged Sharon and his sons.
By Dan Williams
Source: Yahoo News
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A maverick
in war and politics, Israel's Ariel Sharon reshaped the Middle East in a
career marked by adventurism and disgrace, dramatic reversals and
stunning rebounds.
Loathed by
many Arabs and a divisive figure within Israel, Sharon left his mark on
the region as perhaps no other through military invasion, Jewish
settlement building on captured land and a shock decision to pull out of
Gaza.
A commander in the
army from the birth of Israel in 1948, he went on to hold many of the
top offices of state, surviving fierce debate over his role in refugee
camp massacres in the 1982 Lebanon war to be elected prime minister in
2001.
Famously overweight, he
suffered a stroke that put him into a coma in 2006, when he was at the
height of his power, and died on Saturday without ever apparently
regaining consciousness.
Some
diplomats believed that had he remained in good health, he would have
secured peace with the Palestinians after overcoming domestic critics to
force through the withdrawal of troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip
in 2005.
"As one who fought
in all of Israel's wars, and learned from personal experience that
without proper force, we do not have a chance of surviving in this
region ... I have also learned from experience that the sword alone
cannot decide this bitter dispute in this land," Sharon said in 2004,
explaining his move.
But critics said the unilateralism he favored helped discredit diplomacy and embolden ideological
hardliners.
As prime minister, Sharon presided over some of the most turbulent
times in Israeli-Palestinian history, a Palestinian uprising that
erupted in 2000 and an Israeli military crackdown after peace talks
collapsed. As Israel's leader, he besieged his arch-nemesis Yasser
Arafat with tanks after suicide bombers flooded Israel from the occupied
West Bank.
Long a champion
of Jewish settlement on land Israel seized in the 1967 Middle East war,
Sharon, serving in 1998 as foreign minister, urged settlers in the West
Bank to "run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge
settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours".
He said the contested decision
to quit the Gaza Strip, which pulled apart his Likud party and persuaded
him to form a new political force, would enable Israel to strengthen
its hold over "territory which is essential to our existence".
It was a reference to the West Bank, where his government began the
construction of a massive barrier during the Palestinian uprising.
Israel called it a security measure - Palestinians condemned the project
as a land grab.
ADVENTURISM
Sharon dominated Israel to a degree not seen since the era of its founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion.
Like many native Israeli leaders, Sharon, born in British-mandated
Palestine, grew up in a farming community. He later lived in a sprawling
ranch in southern Israel, and was often photographed lumbering through
its fields.
Sharon joined the pre-state Haganah Jewish underground at the age of 14.
Wounded as a young officer in the 1948 war of Israel's founding, he
went on to lead key commando units and crafted a policy of reprisals -
even at the cost of innocent lives - for cross-border Palestinian
guerrilla raids.
"It was he who
set out the principle that no one who attacked our troops or civilians
would be immune, no matter where they were," said ex-Defence Minister
Yitzhak Mordechai.
Passed over for chief-of-staff,
Sharon left the military in the summer of 1973. Three months after he
quit, he was back as a reservist-general, commanding troops that
launched a counter-offensive that helped rout Egyptian forces in the Yom
Kippur 1973 Middle East war.
A photo of Sharon in the desert, in battle fatigues and with his head bandaged, became an iconic image of the conflict.
He helped form the Likud party, which courted Israel's underclass of
Jews of Middle Eastern descent and rose to power in the 1977 election,
ending the dominance of the "European" Labour Party.
Appointed agriculture minister, Sharon used that post and his
chairmanship of a ministerial settlements committee to break ground on
new settlements - helping to earn him the nickname "Bulldozer".
As defence minister under Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Sharon
masterminded the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, one of Israel's most divisive
campaigns.
What started as a
stab against Palestinian guerrillas on the border evolved into a murky
and costly bid to install a government more friendly to Israel in
Beirut.
Arab hatred of Sharon
crested with the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in the
Lebanese refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila by Israeli-allied Christian
militiamen.
He denied
wrongdoing but was eventually forced to resign as defence chief in 1983
after an Israeli probe said he bore "personal responsibility" for not
preventing the bloodshed.
MARK OF CAIN
Sharon described those findings as a "mark of Cain", and many thought
that his political career was finished. But after holding a series of
cabinet posts, he was elected as the head of the Likud in 1999 and prime
minister in 2001, serving until his stroke five years later.
As opposition leader, he visited Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque compound in
2000, the third holiest place in Islam, which is also revered by Jews
as the site of the Biblical Jewish Temples.
During the subsequent tsunami of violence, the respected
Palestinian-American academic Edward Said called Sharon a "homicidal
prime minister" who deployed "systematic barbarity" against the
Palestinians throughout his career.
Known in Israel by his popular nickname "Arik", Sharon could charm with
a grandfatherly glint in his eye and a jocular laugh. He could also
flash disapproval with a cold, steely stare. He had a penchant for
Broadway musicals and copious amounts of food.
"Sharon was a mass of contradictions - a peerless cynic and a proven
patriot, a man who built up the Likud and then walked out on it, who
mixed up Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank while pulling out of
Gaza," said Uzi Benziman, author of "Sharon: An Israeli Caesar".
"Whatever the truth, it cannot be denied that Sharon's legacy was to
convey to Israelis that holding on to all of the (Palestinian)
territories would not last," Benziman said. "He was the last of the real
leaders."
(Editing by Crispian Balmer, Jon Boyle and Sonya Hepinstall)
Monday, March 26, 2012
A day in the life of IDF reservists
22/03/2012
Author: Adam May
Source: www.idf.il
In recent months, Israel's long quiet border with Egypt has become an increasingly important area of focus for the IDF. Following the Eilat terror attack in August(2011), the threat of future terror attacks has led to the construction of a new fence with increased IDF presence stationed along the border. However, several times a year, instead of the typical group of soldiers this vital post is manned by an unusual blend of students, fathers, and even a rabbi.
For weeks at a time, a company of men from the Alon Reserve Division, take up their old uniforms, say goodbye to wives and children, and head out to their remote posts and long abandoned army lifestyle.
"It's not too hard to adjust to military life again, but it never feels right. You're here but the outside world keeps going," said SFC (res.) Oz Naor. "Everyone has their individual lives, important jobs, pregnant wives, their studies, a lot of responsibilities- but everyone comes anyway."
“You know why you are here”
Reserve duty is an integral part of life in Israel. After being released from the army and given a one-year break, citizens are assigned to a reserve company. Reservists meet often with their companies and have at least one extended training session or deployment a year until the age of 45. Three months ago, the men of this company received the letter informing them of their service- and then the preparations began. Bosses were called, arrangements were made, and households were prepared, all so these reservists can take up their post along the border and allow the active regular service forces the necessary time to train.
For Maj. (res.) Itamar Ben-Shefer, the commander of this particular reserve company, his job began six months beforehand. "As the company commander, your burden is obviously different," said Maj. Ben-Shefer. Not a day goes by without Maj. Ben-Shefer's phone ringing with army matters. In civilian life, Itamar studies while holding down a job, but these distractions can't get in the way of his service. "After the month is over I'll see if the girlfriend, job and studies are still waiting for me," Itamar said laughing. "When you are here, you just snap into it, only afterwards do you realize the damage, but once you are here you are focused."
And staying focused is essential. The company is responsible for a very volatile stretch of Israel's border, including Egypt, Gaza, and the busy Kerem Shalom crossing. From the company's hilltop position, you can see the nearby towns that dot the desert landscape. "There are towns on the map that are only 500 meters from the border we are responsible for defending. They can see the Gaza Strip. When you see something like that the mission becomes very clear, you know why you are here," said Maj. Ben-Shefer.
Maj. Ben-Shefer's company is always patrolling the border, 24/7. Many times a day, Maj. Ben Shefer will set out with scouts to survey the border. On the far side of the fence, Egyptian outposts tower over the hills while the silhouettes of Egyptian soldiers stand with their back towards Israel, scanning the desert for signs of terrorist activity. Humvees drive past barbed wire fences littered with the clothes of failed intruders, scanning the ground for the footprints of infiltrators.
Finding the balance
With an average age of 28, the difference between reservist and the average soldier is evident. "The soldiers are more responsible, they are at a different point in their lives. The big difference is the need for time to deal with the other parts of their life," says Maj. Ben-Shefer.
Rabbi Dan Segalis, who is both a father of 5 and head of his own Yeshiva, is the man responsible for this delicate balancing act. "My job is to schedule soldiers, to worry about manpower from both an army perspective and a personal one," says Rabbi Segalis. "I want to help make the soldier's life easier. You think about both the numbers that the company needs, and the names of the people who fill those numbers. You can't forget about the people themselves and their names."
While certainly not whom you would expect to find holding an outpost on the border, Rabbi Segalis has been at this for over 15 years. "Doing reserve service is never easy, but you deal with it. My students all enlist in the army, it's important to me to be a good role model," he said. "Reserve service is different, people are different, older. I have more maturity than I did. I have to be here and I want to be here. And that goes for everybody. Yes it's an obligation, but it's also an honor."
Author: Adam May
Source: www.idf.il
In recent months, Israel's long quiet border with Egypt has become an increasingly important area of focus for the IDF. Following the Eilat terror attack in August(2011), the threat of future terror attacks has led to the construction of a new fence with increased IDF presence stationed along the border. However, several times a year, instead of the typical group of soldiers this vital post is manned by an unusual blend of students, fathers, and even a rabbi.
For weeks at a time, a company of men from the Alon Reserve Division, take up their old uniforms, say goodbye to wives and children, and head out to their remote posts and long abandoned army lifestyle.
"It's not too hard to adjust to military life again, but it never feels right. You're here but the outside world keeps going," said SFC (res.) Oz Naor. "Everyone has their individual lives, important jobs, pregnant wives, their studies, a lot of responsibilities- but everyone comes anyway."
“You know why you are here”
Reserve duty is an integral part of life in Israel. After being released from the army and given a one-year break, citizens are assigned to a reserve company. Reservists meet often with their companies and have at least one extended training session or deployment a year until the age of 45. Three months ago, the men of this company received the letter informing them of their service- and then the preparations began. Bosses were called, arrangements were made, and households were prepared, all so these reservists can take up their post along the border and allow the active regular service forces the necessary time to train.
For Maj. (res.) Itamar Ben-Shefer, the commander of this particular reserve company, his job began six months beforehand. "As the company commander, your burden is obviously different," said Maj. Ben-Shefer. Not a day goes by without Maj. Ben-Shefer's phone ringing with army matters. In civilian life, Itamar studies while holding down a job, but these distractions can't get in the way of his service. "After the month is over I'll see if the girlfriend, job and studies are still waiting for me," Itamar said laughing. "When you are here, you just snap into it, only afterwards do you realize the damage, but once you are here you are focused."
And staying focused is essential. The company is responsible for a very volatile stretch of Israel's border, including Egypt, Gaza, and the busy Kerem Shalom crossing. From the company's hilltop position, you can see the nearby towns that dot the desert landscape. "There are towns on the map that are only 500 meters from the border we are responsible for defending. They can see the Gaza Strip. When you see something like that the mission becomes very clear, you know why you are here," said Maj. Ben-Shefer.
Maj. Ben-Shefer's company is always patrolling the border, 24/7. Many times a day, Maj. Ben Shefer will set out with scouts to survey the border. On the far side of the fence, Egyptian outposts tower over the hills while the silhouettes of Egyptian soldiers stand with their back towards Israel, scanning the desert for signs of terrorist activity. Humvees drive past barbed wire fences littered with the clothes of failed intruders, scanning the ground for the footprints of infiltrators.
Finding the balance
With an average age of 28, the difference between reservist and the average soldier is evident. "The soldiers are more responsible, they are at a different point in their lives. The big difference is the need for time to deal with the other parts of their life," says Maj. Ben-Shefer.
Rabbi Dan Segalis, who is both a father of 5 and head of his own Yeshiva, is the man responsible for this delicate balancing act. "My job is to schedule soldiers, to worry about manpower from both an army perspective and a personal one," says Rabbi Segalis. "I want to help make the soldier's life easier. You think about both the numbers that the company needs, and the names of the people who fill those numbers. You can't forget about the people themselves and their names."
While certainly not whom you would expect to find holding an outpost on the border, Rabbi Segalis has been at this for over 15 years. "Doing reserve service is never easy, but you deal with it. My students all enlist in the army, it's important to me to be a good role model," he said. "Reserve service is different, people are different, older. I have more maturity than I did. I have to be here and I want to be here. And that goes for everybody. Yes it's an obligation, but it's also an honor."
Do Jews Dominate in American Media? And So What If We Do?
February 17, 2008
by Philip Weiss
Source: Mondoweiss
At least a half dozen times in recent months, the suggestion has come from serious people that Jews predominate in the American media--that if we are not dominant, we are a major bloc. In a Yivo event on Jews in journalism I've blogged about, a questioner said that Jews' outsize proportion in the media has granted us "a large influence over power." In his groundbreaking paper on the New York Times's role in shaping American policy toward Israel, Jerome Slater spoke of "religious beliefs and identifications" that affected the Times, and cited former executive editor Max Frankel's admission in his memoir (one also cited by Walt and Mearsheimer): "I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert."
Lately broadcast reporter John Hockenberry related that he wanted to do a piece on the hijackers' motivation after 9/11 but that NBC executive Jeff Zucker scotched the notion:
"Maybe," Zucker said, "we ought to do a series of specials on firehouses where we just ride along with our cameras. Like the show Cops, only with firefighters."... [H]e could make room in the prime-time lineup for firefighters, but then smiled at me and said, in effect, that he had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine. [Weiss's emphasis]
Then last month at a forum at the Nixon Center, former Bushie Dov Zackheim said, Jews don't dominate the policy-making process, but the media is a different story...
I don't know that anyone has visited the simple question raised by these statements: Do Jews dominate the media? This is something I know about personally. I’ve worked in print journalism for more than 30 years. I’ve worked for many magazines and newspapers, and for a time my whole social circle was editors and writers in New York. I don’t know television. I don’t know Washington journalism well. I don't know the west coast. My sample is surely skewed by the fact that I’m Jewish and have always felt great comfort with other Jews. But in my experience, Jews have made up the majority of the important positions in the publications I worked for, a majority of the writers I’ve known at these place, and the majority of the owners who have paid me. Yes my own sample may be skewed, but I think it shows that Jews make up a significant proportion of power positions in media, half, if not more.
Before considering what this means, let me make my experience concrete:
My serious journalism began at the Harvard Crimson in the 70s. A friend said the paper was a Jewish boys club; it was dominated by middle class Jews-- as apparently today there are a lot of Asians. Many of these Jews are now powerful presences in the media. Zucker is one of them. My first paying job was in Minneapolis. Five Harvard guys started a weekly; four of them were Jewish, including the publisher paying our meager salaries. I remember our editor walking the halls parodying the jingle we had on the radio. The jingle went: "We’ve got the news, we’ve got the sports…" He sang it as “We’ve got the Jews, we’ve got the sports.” Funny.
I was hired by a Jewish editor at my next job, the Philadelphia Daily News in 1978, and when I started freelancing in 1981, Jewish Harvard friends got me work at the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Monthly. A gentile brought me in at Harper’s and the New Republic. It was at the New Republic, a launching pad for any number of highly-successful journalists, that I briefly associated with Marty Peretz, and did a story for him mocking the United Nations, whose judgment he seeks at every turn to nullify because the U.N. is critical of Israel.
Fast forward. In New York, I have worked for a dozen magazines. Most of my editors have been Jewish. Both my book publishers were Jewish. At one point at one publishing house, the editor, his boss, and her boss were all Jewish, and so was the lawyer vetting the work—I remember her saying she would never travel to Malaysia because of the anti-Semitic Prime minister. Oh--and the assistant editor was half-Jewish.
I should point out that I have worked with many gentile editors and writers, and I have never been aware of any employment discrimination against them (though I may not be the best source). In fact, at Spy, the three top editors were all non-Jews and when I used the epithet WASP it was removed from my copy. But that is the exception. Generally it’s been Jews Jews Jews. When I hear NPR do a piece with its top political team and both are Jews... when a Jewish friend calls me and gossips about lunches with two top news execs at major publications who are both Jewish and who I’ve known for 20 years... when a Jewish editor friend tells me that Si Newhouse would be disturbed if Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter-- who has done such courageous work against the Iraq war-- did anything to expose the Israel lobby... and when I say that my income has been derived overwhelmingly from Jewish-owned publications for years—this is simply the ordinary culture of the magazine business as I know it.
I have some ideas why Jews have predominated, but that’s not the purpose of this posting. Last year Senator Russ Feingold, buttonholed on CSPAN about why so many speakers on air were Jewish, said, “Well, we’re good at talking…” That'll do for now.
The real issue is, Does it matter? Most of my life I felt it didn't. It’s just the way it is, at this point in history. It will change (as Clyde Haberman pointed out at that Yivo event). Jews are the latest flavor of the establishment. In his landmark book, The Jewish Century, Slezkine reports that Jews were the majority of journalists in Berlin and Vienna and Prague, too, in the late 1800s, if I remember correctly.
Now I think it does matter, for two reasons. Elitist establishment culture, and Israel. As to elitism, I worry when any affluent group has power and little sense of what the common man is experiencing. I feel the same discomfort with my prestige-oriented "caste" that E. Digby Baltzell did with his calcified caste, the WASPs--when he called for an end to discrimination against Jews in the early '60s. The values of my cohort sometimes seem narrow: globalism, prosperity, professionalism. In Israel the values are a lot broader. None of my cohort has served in the military, myself included. A lot of our fathers did; but I bet none of our kids do. Military service is for losers--or for Israelis.
So we are way overrepresented in the chattering classes, and way underrepresented in the battering classes. Not a great recipe for leadership, especially in wartime.
Then there’s Israel. Support for Israel is an element of Jewish religious practice and more important, part of the Jewish cultural experience. Even if you're a secular Jewish professional who prides himself on his objectivity, there is a ton of cultural pressure on you to support Israel or at least not to betray Israel. We are talking about a religion, after all, and the pressures faced by Jews who are critical of Israel are not that different from what Muslim women who want greater freedom undergo psychically or by evangelical Christians who want to support gay rights. It is worth noting that great Jewish heretics on the Israel question suffer anger or even ostracism inside their own families. Henry Siegman talked about this on Charlie Rose once, I recall--that even close family were not speaking to him over Israel. And I have seen this for myself on numerous occasions. There is not a lot of bandwidth on this issue. Conversations about Israel even inside the liberal Jewish community are emotionally loaded, and result in people not speaking to one another. I lost this blog at a mainstream publication because the editor was Jewish and conservative on Israel and so was the new owner, and the publisher had worked for AIPAC. And all of them would likely call themselves liberal Democrats.
As former CNN correspondent Linda Scherzer has said, "We, as Jews, must understand that we come with a certain bias ...We believe in the Israeli narrative of history. We support the values that we as Americans, Westerners, and Jews espouse. Thus, we see news reporting through our own prism."
There are many American Jewish journalists who have done great independent work re Israel/Palestine. Richard Ben Cramer and the late Robbie Friedman leap to mind. But both these guys are exceptional, and had to overcome/ignore a ton of pressure that most of us would quail under. They had to step outside the Jewish family to do their work...
The result is that Americans are not getting the full story re Israel/Palestine. Slater says this dramatically in his paper--that the Times has deprived American leadership of reporting on the moral/political crisis that Israel is undergoing, one that Haaretz has covered unstintingly. At Columbia the other night, Jew, Arab and gentile on a panel about the human-rights crisis in Gaza all said that Americans are not getting the full story. Ilan Pappe has marveled in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, that the Nakba is all but unmentioned in the U.S.--while Haaretz has sought at times to document it, for instance a former officer saying in 2004 that if he had not helped to destroy 200 villages in southern Israel in '48, there would be another million Palestinians in Israel. To repeat Scherzer's admission: "We believe in the Israeli narrative of history..."
Why does the American press behave differently from the Israeli press? I think the answer is guilt. The Jewish cohort of which I am a part has largely accepted the duty that Max Frankel felt, of supporting Israel. This duty is rarely interrogated, and yet consciously or not we all know that American public opinion/leadership is critical to Israel's political invulnerability; and we think that if we take their fingers out of the dike, who knows what will happen. That is a ton of responsibility. This responsibility is not executed with special care. Generally, my cohort hasn't been to Israel, hasn't seen the West Bank. But they do feel kinship with Israeli Jews, and--above all--have guilt feelings about the Holocaust, or the American Jewish silence about it during the event, the Jewish passivity; and they are determined not to be passive during Israel's neverending existential crises. And thus they misunderstand Israel and fail to serve their readers.
by Philip Weiss
Source: Mondoweiss
At least a half dozen times in recent months, the suggestion has come from serious people that Jews predominate in the American media--that if we are not dominant, we are a major bloc. In a Yivo event on Jews in journalism I've blogged about, a questioner said that Jews' outsize proportion in the media has granted us "a large influence over power." In his groundbreaking paper on the New York Times's role in shaping American policy toward Israel, Jerome Slater spoke of "religious beliefs and identifications" that affected the Times, and cited former executive editor Max Frankel's admission in his memoir (one also cited by Walt and Mearsheimer): "I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert."
Lately broadcast reporter John Hockenberry related that he wanted to do a piece on the hijackers' motivation after 9/11 but that NBC executive Jeff Zucker scotched the notion:
"Maybe," Zucker said, "we ought to do a series of specials on firehouses where we just ride along with our cameras. Like the show Cops, only with firefighters."... [H]e could make room in the prime-time lineup for firefighters, but then smiled at me and said, in effect, that he had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine. [Weiss's emphasis]
Then last month at a forum at the Nixon Center, former Bushie Dov Zackheim said, Jews don't dominate the policy-making process, but the media is a different story...
I don't know that anyone has visited the simple question raised by these statements: Do Jews dominate the media? This is something I know about personally. I’ve worked in print journalism for more than 30 years. I’ve worked for many magazines and newspapers, and for a time my whole social circle was editors and writers in New York. I don’t know television. I don’t know Washington journalism well. I don't know the west coast. My sample is surely skewed by the fact that I’m Jewish and have always felt great comfort with other Jews. But in my experience, Jews have made up the majority of the important positions in the publications I worked for, a majority of the writers I’ve known at these place, and the majority of the owners who have paid me. Yes my own sample may be skewed, but I think it shows that Jews make up a significant proportion of power positions in media, half, if not more.
Before considering what this means, let me make my experience concrete:
My serious journalism began at the Harvard Crimson in the 70s. A friend said the paper was a Jewish boys club; it was dominated by middle class Jews-- as apparently today there are a lot of Asians. Many of these Jews are now powerful presences in the media. Zucker is one of them. My first paying job was in Minneapolis. Five Harvard guys started a weekly; four of them were Jewish, including the publisher paying our meager salaries. I remember our editor walking the halls parodying the jingle we had on the radio. The jingle went: "We’ve got the news, we’ve got the sports…" He sang it as “We’ve got the Jews, we’ve got the sports.” Funny.
I was hired by a Jewish editor at my next job, the Philadelphia Daily News in 1978, and when I started freelancing in 1981, Jewish Harvard friends got me work at the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Monthly. A gentile brought me in at Harper’s and the New Republic. It was at the New Republic, a launching pad for any number of highly-successful journalists, that I briefly associated with Marty Peretz, and did a story for him mocking the United Nations, whose judgment he seeks at every turn to nullify because the U.N. is critical of Israel.
Fast forward. In New York, I have worked for a dozen magazines. Most of my editors have been Jewish. Both my book publishers were Jewish. At one point at one publishing house, the editor, his boss, and her boss were all Jewish, and so was the lawyer vetting the work—I remember her saying she would never travel to Malaysia because of the anti-Semitic Prime minister. Oh--and the assistant editor was half-Jewish.
I should point out that I have worked with many gentile editors and writers, and I have never been aware of any employment discrimination against them (though I may not be the best source). In fact, at Spy, the three top editors were all non-Jews and when I used the epithet WASP it was removed from my copy. But that is the exception. Generally it’s been Jews Jews Jews. When I hear NPR do a piece with its top political team and both are Jews... when a Jewish friend calls me and gossips about lunches with two top news execs at major publications who are both Jewish and who I’ve known for 20 years... when a Jewish editor friend tells me that Si Newhouse would be disturbed if Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter-- who has done such courageous work against the Iraq war-- did anything to expose the Israel lobby... and when I say that my income has been derived overwhelmingly from Jewish-owned publications for years—this is simply the ordinary culture of the magazine business as I know it.
I have some ideas why Jews have predominated, but that’s not the purpose of this posting. Last year Senator Russ Feingold, buttonholed on CSPAN about why so many speakers on air were Jewish, said, “Well, we’re good at talking…” That'll do for now.
The real issue is, Does it matter? Most of my life I felt it didn't. It’s just the way it is, at this point in history. It will change (as Clyde Haberman pointed out at that Yivo event). Jews are the latest flavor of the establishment. In his landmark book, The Jewish Century, Slezkine reports that Jews were the majority of journalists in Berlin and Vienna and Prague, too, in the late 1800s, if I remember correctly.
Now I think it does matter, for two reasons. Elitist establishment culture, and Israel. As to elitism, I worry when any affluent group has power and little sense of what the common man is experiencing. I feel the same discomfort with my prestige-oriented "caste" that E. Digby Baltzell did with his calcified caste, the WASPs--when he called for an end to discrimination against Jews in the early '60s. The values of my cohort sometimes seem narrow: globalism, prosperity, professionalism. In Israel the values are a lot broader. None of my cohort has served in the military, myself included. A lot of our fathers did; but I bet none of our kids do. Military service is for losers--or for Israelis.
So we are way overrepresented in the chattering classes, and way underrepresented in the battering classes. Not a great recipe for leadership, especially in wartime.
Then there’s Israel. Support for Israel is an element of Jewish religious practice and more important, part of the Jewish cultural experience. Even if you're a secular Jewish professional who prides himself on his objectivity, there is a ton of cultural pressure on you to support Israel or at least not to betray Israel. We are talking about a religion, after all, and the pressures faced by Jews who are critical of Israel are not that different from what Muslim women who want greater freedom undergo psychically or by evangelical Christians who want to support gay rights. It is worth noting that great Jewish heretics on the Israel question suffer anger or even ostracism inside their own families. Henry Siegman talked about this on Charlie Rose once, I recall--that even close family were not speaking to him over Israel. And I have seen this for myself on numerous occasions. There is not a lot of bandwidth on this issue. Conversations about Israel even inside the liberal Jewish community are emotionally loaded, and result in people not speaking to one another. I lost this blog at a mainstream publication because the editor was Jewish and conservative on Israel and so was the new owner, and the publisher had worked for AIPAC. And all of them would likely call themselves liberal Democrats.
As former CNN correspondent Linda Scherzer has said, "We, as Jews, must understand that we come with a certain bias ...We believe in the Israeli narrative of history. We support the values that we as Americans, Westerners, and Jews espouse. Thus, we see news reporting through our own prism."
There are many American Jewish journalists who have done great independent work re Israel/Palestine. Richard Ben Cramer and the late Robbie Friedman leap to mind. But both these guys are exceptional, and had to overcome/ignore a ton of pressure that most of us would quail under. They had to step outside the Jewish family to do their work...
The result is that Americans are not getting the full story re Israel/Palestine. Slater says this dramatically in his paper--that the Times has deprived American leadership of reporting on the moral/political crisis that Israel is undergoing, one that Haaretz has covered unstintingly. At Columbia the other night, Jew, Arab and gentile on a panel about the human-rights crisis in Gaza all said that Americans are not getting the full story. Ilan Pappe has marveled in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, that the Nakba is all but unmentioned in the U.S.--while Haaretz has sought at times to document it, for instance a former officer saying in 2004 that if he had not helped to destroy 200 villages in southern Israel in '48, there would be another million Palestinians in Israel. To repeat Scherzer's admission: "We believe in the Israeli narrative of history..."
Why does the American press behave differently from the Israeli press? I think the answer is guilt. The Jewish cohort of which I am a part has largely accepted the duty that Max Frankel felt, of supporting Israel. This duty is rarely interrogated, and yet consciously or not we all know that American public opinion/leadership is critical to Israel's political invulnerability; and we think that if we take their fingers out of the dike, who knows what will happen. That is a ton of responsibility. This responsibility is not executed with special care. Generally, my cohort hasn't been to Israel, hasn't seen the West Bank. But they do feel kinship with Israeli Jews, and--above all--have guilt feelings about the Holocaust, or the American Jewish silence about it during the event, the Jewish passivity; and they are determined not to be passive during Israel's neverending existential crises. And thus they misunderstand Israel and fail to serve their readers.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Saudi Arabia, Zionism, Peace and the Palestinian Cause
12. Jul, 2011
By Haytham A. K. Radwan
Intifada Palestine.com
(Adelaide, Australia) – The attempts to destroy the Palestinian Cause have been on the drawing board of the Al Saud’s alliance with Zionism and the West for at least 63 years. Today, not only are they fighting against the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to resist occupation, they are doing everything in their power to prevent them from returning to their indigenous land in favour of Israel.
Established as a kingdom without an independent strategic plan or a sense of nationalism, Saudi Arabia has sought to destabilize Billad el-Cham[1] in order to undermine the Palestinian cause in favour of Zionism and the West. Indeed, since the occupation of Palestine in 1948 the kingdom has persevered with it mission to strengthen Zionism by inciting disputes between rival groups. This has had the effect of destabilising the region so that Zionism and Israel’s occupation of the territory of Billad el-Cham continue, though Riyadh disguises its activities and policies under the banner of Islam, peace and its relationship with the West. Today, the mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to strengthen Zionism continues, this being accomplished by undermining popular regional and national resistance movements, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, in order to destroy their confidence and their willingness to resist Israel’s Zionist projects. This paper seeks to shed light on Saudi efforts to undermine the Palestinian cause for the sake of Israel through the propagation of myths, by destroying all forms of resistance, and by instigating peace initiatives which it knows will ultimately be ineffective.
Palestine and the Saudi Myth
This year (2011) marks the 63rd anniversary of the Nakba, the illegal occupation of Palestine by the Zionist movement.[2] However, not all Arab countries have resisted Zionist projects in Palestine, notable among them being Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Al Saud have created the myth that the Saudis have used their position as an oil supplier, as a valuable friend and ally of Western nations, and as the protectors of the most important Islamic sites, Mecca and Medina, to help liberate Palestine. Saudi Arabia’s message to Arab people and to Muslims everywhere is that the kingdom is acting in support of Palestine and its displaced population. Additionally, the kingdom has fostered the notion that it is not in conflict with the establishment of Israel in Palestine and is willing to do everything in its power to restore peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It is argued here that these messages have been accepted uncritically by the media, and this situation has served the House of Saud – as well as Zionism – very effectively. However, many (or most) Palestinians have resisted the message very effectively. Indeed, research into the events of the past 60 years or more reveal a very different situation from the reports provided in the media, and it is evident that there has been a high degree of on-going Saudi cooperation with Israel. Indeed, Saudi Arabia negotiated with the British Foreign Office and with Churchill, expressing its willingness to accept openly the Jewish claim to Palestine in return for Britain withholding support from its Hashemite rivals, and in doing so the Saudis ignored calls by King Ghazi of Iraq to form a common Arab front to defend Palestine. Then, as events unfolded during 1948 Saudi Arabia remained on the sidelines and refused to contribute forces to liberate Palestine. Furthermore, when the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ended, the kingdom withheld financial support from the Egyptian and Jordanian forces still occupying parts of Palestine, and it made every effort to prevent Syria from uniting with Iraq to create a military counterweight to Israel.The kingdom also refused to contemplate the possible use of oil to pressure the US into a more even-handed Palestinian policy.[3]
Since 1948 Saudi conspiracies against the Palestinian cause have continued through secret meetings and communications between Saudi government officials and princes and the Israelis. According to statesmen, senior military officers and former intelligence officers, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, has maintained regular contact with Israel since at least 1990. Moreover, evidence indicates that such contacts occurred much earlier; for example, in 1976 the Saudi government secretly sent a letter, via Tunisian Foreign Minister, Mohammed Masmoudi, to Israel offering a large sum of money in return for withdrawing from the occupied territories.[4]
Saudi efforts to destroy the Palestinian cause even entailed military plans. Accordingly, in 2009 when the Gaza attack occurred, Saudi Arabia was in support of Israel, and repeatedly met the chief of Mossad to plan an attack on Iran, the main supporter of Hamas, the most influential anti-Israeli movement in the occupied land. Similarly, during the conflict along the Israel- Lebanon border in 2006, the Saudis allegedly contacted the Israelis, the top-selling Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot reporting that Israel and Saudi Arabia had been conducting secret negotiations.[5] It appears, then that while Hezbollah was fighting for the interests of both Lebanon and Palestine – and for all Arab countries – the Saudis were conspiring against it by collaborating with Israel.
Secret meetings and military planning between the Saudis and the Israelis have not been the only conspiracies to undermine the Palestinian cause. For instance, in 1958 the Saudis endeavoured to put an end to unity plans between Iraq and Jordan after a pro-Nasser coup d’état succeeded in overthrowing Iraq’s Hashemite monarchy. The Hashemite had long been the strongest traditional Arab force, but they were displaced when Ibn Saud forced them from Mecca in 1924 and Medina in 1925. Then in 1921 the British placed Faisal on the throne in Jordan, and shortly afterwards, in 1923, granted Abdullah control of Iraq. These Hashemite princes were outsiders, but the British used religious differences to justify their actions to the Arab people by asserting that the Hashemite lineage could be traced back to Muhammad. They also worked hard to put an end to the Syrian-Egyptian union (described at the time as the United Arab Republic) which lasted from 1958 until 1961.[6]
The secret relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel has not been intended to help the Palestinian people nor is it to maintain stability and peace in the region. Instead, it has sought to increase the threat of terrorism, a situation which is favourable both to Israel and the House of Saud. Indeed, their relationship can be considered to be lower than that between al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the differences between the two are akin to the differences between the act of war and terrorism. Both have supported terror and war to justify their expansionism. Saudi Arabia has used Islam and its wealth to further its cause. Israel has used Saudi Arabia’s wealth, Islam, its military superiority, and its contacts with the West to achieve its objectives.
Thus, the interaction between the Saudi royal family and the Anglo-American-Israeli alliance has dangerously strengthened anti-secular and national movements in Billad el-Cham. Also it has deepened the divisions that emerged during the period of colonial rule in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Indeed, events show that the Saudi royal family has stood against Syrian nationalism and the liberation of Palestine in order to strengthen Saudi-style religious movements.[7] However, what now concerns the Saudis is the threat that Syrian nationalism can cause to the existence of the royal family and its Wahhabi mission within Billad el-Cham. Similarly, what worries Israel and the West is the threat that nationalism can cause to the existence of the State of Israel.
Unlike the Saudis, who have never realised that Zionism constitutes a threat both to Billad el-Cham and to the kingdom itself, the people of Billad el-Cham have seen the emergence of Israel as a real threat to the security and stability of the entire Middle East. This danger lay in the Zionist endeavour to establish an exclusively Jewish state in Billad el-Cham based on the claim that the Jewish people had an ancient, inherent and inalienable right to Palestine.[8] This endeavour has been founded on the belief that the Jews constitute a nation, yet such a belief is unwarranted because the Jews are very diverse racially, socially, and culturally.[9] Indeed, for the liberation of Palestine in particular, and the existence of Billad el-Cham in general, the Zionist threat cannot be denied. Zionist Jews have claimed an historic title of the Jewish people to Palestine even though they are not descendants of the original inhabitants of the country.[10] Historically, the Jews, or the Israelites, arrived in the land of Canaan as immigrants and they then lived with the Canaanites. However, there was never peaceful coexistence between them and the Philistines, who also came to the land of Canaan almost contemporaneously with them. The Israelites eventually disappeared from Palestine after their deportation by the Romans following their second revolt in AD 132-5. Moreover, the Jews who migrated to Palestine in the twentieth century showed no disposition to share the country or to coexist with the Palestinians. Rather, they were determined to realize the political ambitions defined by the World Zionist Organization, to create an exclusively Jewish state.[11]
Today, like the West, the Saudis continue to do everything in their power to strengthen Zionism and weaken Syrian nationalism. Within Billad el-Cham this is continuing to this day; Israel is using similar tactics in order to justify its wars against the Palestinians, Lebanese and the Syrians in the occupied territories while the Saudis, like the West, have done little to end the crises by putting a stop to Israel’s step-by-step expansionism. However, these policies are having an impact on the behaviour of Muslim sects, on radical organizations, and on US-backed political parties within Billad el-Cham. Similarly they are affecting the behaviour of the Zionists and Saudi Arabia. For example, Israel and the US are using Saudi Arabia’s influence in the Persian Gulf to destabilize Iran. However, there may be unforeseen consequences for these policies will impact on the security of Saudi Arabia itself and not just Iran.
Using Iran as an Excuse to Weaken the Palestinian Cause
Today, the Saudi royal family continues the policy of Ibn Saud in harming the Palestinian cause, although the Palestine question remains important for Saudi policy-makers. This is so not because of the sensitivities of the Palestinian crisis but because of growing Iranian influence in the occupied land. This may explain why Saudi Arabia is opposing the Iranian-backed democratically elected anti-Israel Sunni government led by Hamas while supporting the unpopular Fatah government led by Mahmud Abbas. Indeed, Saudi officials have repeatedly stated that Iranian support for Hamas has widened the rift with Fatah and hampers a resumption of peace talks.[12]
This situation helps explain why, during a meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in February 2010, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal expressed support for United Nation sanctions against Iran because of Iran’s military support for Hamas and Hezbollah. The Foreign Minister commented:
We see the issue [Iran's nuclear program] in the shorter term maybe because we are closer to the threat … So we need an immediate resolution rather than a gradual resolution [sanctions].[13]
However, by June, as the UN Security Council passed a new round of sanctions against Iran, The Times in London published a report stating that:
Defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.[14]
At this point it is relevant to note that Zionism has been successful in influencing policies and events in Saudi Arabia. It has been successful in convincing the Saudi royal family that Iran is a threat to their existence and that the royal family needs to co-operate with Israel to ensure the kingdom’s safety. Indeed, the Saudis have apparently accepted the view that they need Israel as a back-up in any future confrontation with Iran. Israel is still considered to be an enemy in the eyes of Arab and Muslim people, and though Iran is a Muslim country and shares similar values and interests with Arabs nevertheless Saudi Arabia still favours Israel. This is evident today. At present, Saudi policy regarding Iran is aligned with that of Israel, and both are sectarian in nature and publically political. A Saudi/ Sunni war against the Shias would achieve Israel’s aim of destroying Iran’s growing power, but from an Israeli standpoint such a conflict would be to the benefit of Zionism which is hostile to both Shias and Sunnis.
Today, Saudi policy makers are keeping pressure on Iran regardless of the fact that Iran is seeking to counter-balance Israel’s hegemony in the region. It is widely believed that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but this seems to ignore the fact that Israel is already a nuclear state. There is no evidence yet that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction, however Saudi Arabia chooses to insist that Iran is a threat to the region and in so doing is ignoring Israel’s nuclear capabilities.
It seems that Iran’s enmity toward Saudi Arabia has a more immediate strategic cause. Iran is not going to forgive Saudi Arabia’s political stand with the US against Iran’s nuclear interests, nor is it going to forget Saudi Arabia’s support for Saddam Hussein’s forces in the Iran/Iraq conflict in the 1980s. Indeed, Tehran’s main hostility stems from the belief that Saudi Arabia is covertly co-operating with its enemies on three fronts. Firstly, the government in Tehran believes that the Saudis collaborated with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the abduction of an Iranian nuclear scientist in 2009. Iran accused Saudi Arabia of assisting the CIA abduction of Shahram Amiri while he was in Mecca, this view being confirmed by Amiri who stated on his return from the US that the CIA has kidnapped him with the help of Saudis. Secondly, the Iranian regime suspects that the Saudis have agreed to support Israel in planning a’ ‘surgical strike’ against Iran’s nuclear facility, and thirdly, that the Saudi government has been providing ideological support for Iran’s main domestic terrorist group, the Jundallah.[15]
Unworkable Peace Process
Soon after the events of 9/11 King Abdullah negotiated the so-called ‘Arab Peace Initiative’ to avoid criticism from the West because 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. The initiative was produced in the 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut, but in the subsequent ten years Israel has refused to comply, and Saudi Arabia has taken no steps to implement it.
In the light of these events it is reasonable to question whether Saudi Arabia could solve the crises through peace negotiation and whether Saudi Arabia is able to pressure Israel to make peace. It is argued here that there is no evidence to suggest that Israel is dedicated to peace in the region. Nor is there evidence that Saudi Arabia would cease supporting Zionism or reduce its loyalty to the US, especially since the US itself is under Zionist control.
Theoretically, peace is represented in contemporary literature as a ‘liberal peace’: that is, an institutional peace to provide international governance and guarantees, a constitutional peace to ensure democracy and free trade, and a civil peace to ensure freedoms and rights within society.[16] However, these distinctions mean little to people living under occupation and in refugee camps.
But in reality, peace with Israel means recognizing the Zionist state as a sovereign political entity, something Palestinians refuse to accept. Accordingly, the peace process is not welcomed in Billad el-Cham in general and Palestine in particular. For the people of the region there are deep disagreements about the issue of peace with Israel. Additionally, there is a growing awareness among the indigenous inhabitants of the Middle East that Israel has become firmly entrenched, but despite this there has not been a commensurate shift in support for Israel’s presence; to the contrary, opposition to Israel remains as high as ever.[17]
It is proposed here that a peace arrangement between Israel and its neighbours would legitimize injustice because millions of displaced Palestinians still live in refugee camps abroad, a state of affairs in violation of basic human rights. Although much is heard about the plight of the Jews in the holocaust, little is said about the Palestinians who fled from their homeland. It is clear that Israelis have no intention of living peacefully with the Palestinians, and evidence of this can be seen in the relentless extension of settlements on Palestinian land. This process is exacerbating the refugee problem by forcing the remaining Palestinian inhabitants to cross into Jordan. Despite this worsening situation Saudi Arabia is doing nothing except encourage Mahmud Abbas to continue peace talks with Israel and by supporting the Oslo Agreement, although the kingdom’s rulers know that the Oslo process is unlikely to contribute to a lasting peace. In 2002, King Abdullah proposed peace in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. Israel did not accept his initiative. Five years later (in March 2007) that proposal was revived, but, as before, it produced no tangible results, and Saudi Arabia was still unwilling and unable to force Israel’s hand on the matter. Instead, the Saudis are now cooperating with Israel to prepare an air strike against Iran, a new fabricated enemy to replace the original enemy of all Arabs, Israel.
Peace between Israelis and Palestinians may never be achievable regardless of the efforts of the Israelis and Saudis because Israel has no roots in the region. Palestine has been occupied, it has been renamed Israel, and the original inhabitants have been forced to flee their homeland. Consequently, Israel can never really achieve a lasting peace with people who they have displaced. Some may argue that Israel has signed a peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, countries with whom they now enjoy relatively peaceful relationships. But are those treaties sustainable? It is argued that they are not because while Governments may sign treaties those arrangements may never be accepted by the public, especially after so many years of bloodshed and injustice. Public feelings on the matter are becoming more evident today in Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere, where anti-Israeli slogans are appearing more often. Can the Saudi government continue to resist (or ignore) rising public sentiment today, and can its petrodollars, allies, and political advocates, both internal and external, protect the world from growing sectarianism, extremism and terrorism?
Today, although Palestinians have not forgotten the lessons of military power and occupation, Saudi Arabia still believes that peace with Israel is achievable and that Israel itself is serious about making peace and ensuring justice. It is insisting that the Palestinian (and Lebanese) resistance to Israel must be halted in order to resume peace negotiations. Saudi Arabia’s rulers have repeatedly witnessed Israel’s rejection of many offers of peace and Israel’s recourse to violence and expansion of settlement, yet they insist that the Palestinians must negotiate peace with Israel.
Meanwhile, injustice can result in more violence, propelling people to acts of resistance in order to gain justice. In the eyes of the international community, Israel has persistently violated international law which requires it to recognise the rights of the indigenous Palestinian people. The occupation is illegal, the Palestinians have been confined to small areas in Gaza and the West Bank and have remained under siege, and displaced people have been prevented from returning to their native land – all acts being condemned by natural and human laws. In the meantime, Israel, protected by the US, has caused many Palestinian deaths and condemned many others to a life of agony and despair. Thus, a just settlement would require an independent and an honest broker, Western or non-Western, but can this happen?
So far the international community has been unable and unwilling to solve the crisis in Palestine. Similarly, it has demonstrated unwillingness to challenge the Saudis for their tacit support for the status quo. Indeed, for the American government the occupation of Arab and Muslim territory, and the displacement of its population are convenient ways to force the hand of the Saudi, Arab, and Muslim people.
In summary, this paper has examined the Saudi-Zionist efforts to undermine the Palestinian cause. While these policies have succeeded in some places, they have failed to be effective in Palestine, as well as in other places in Billad el-Cham. Failure to win over the hearts and minds of people in the region has caused the Saudi-Israeli-Western policy makers to forge what they called “the New Middle East”. But for this new vision to succeed will entail the destruction of regimes regardless of whether these regimes are secular or Islamic. This also requires the destruction of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and of leaders who are willing to stand in opposition.
Bibliography;
Aburish, SK 1994, the Rise, Corruption, and Coming Fall of the House of Saud, Bloomsbury, London, p: 122-23.
Beshara, A 1995, ‘Syrian Nationalism: An Inquiry into the Political Philosophy of Antun Sa’adeh’, in The Road to Revolution: The First Syrian Social Nationalist Revolution against the Lebanese Government, ed. E Melhem, The SSNP, Melbourne, pp. 36-37.
BakistaniDefence.com 2006, Saudi Arabia and Israel in secret Contacts, viewed 4 July 2011, available at :< http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?showtopic=59375>.
Heydarian, R-J 2010, Iran-Saudi rivalry deepens, updated 16 August, Asia Times, viewed 10 August 2010,.
Karam, S 2010, Hamas in final stage of Fatah reconciliation, updated 16 August, Reuters, viewed 16 August 2010,.
Khashan, H 1994, ‘Are the Arabs Ready for Peace with Israel’ the Middle East Quarterly vol. 1, no. 1.
Melhem E 2007, the Road to Revolution: The First Syrian Social Nationalist Revolution against the Lebanese Government, Melbourne, pp. 36-37.
Richmond, O-P 2008, ‘Reclaiming Peace in International Relations’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, vol. 36, no. 3, p. 439.
Tomlinson, H 2010, Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites, updated 11 July 2011, The Times, viewed 7 July 2011,.
Schwartz, C 2008, Saudi-Israeli alliance not new, updated 11 July 2011, Transatlantic Institute, viewed 7 July 2011,.
[1] The name Billad el-Cham generally referred to geographical Syria (Greater Syria or the Fertile Crescent). Geographical Syria extends from the Taurus Mountains in the north to the Sinai in the south, and between the Mediterranean in the west to the desert in the east. The present-day borders of Billad el-Cham are seen as illegitimate imperial divisions, imposed by the Anglo-French Sykes–Picot Agreement, the Turkish annexation of Alexandretta in 1939, and the creation of Israel in Palestine.
[2] Soon after the end of World War II, there were three basic Para-military Zionist organizations in Palestine working against the Palestinian people with the purpose of driving them out of Palestine. However, with their victory intact, the Zionist brigades – the Haganah – later united with the Irgun terrorist organization to create the Tzva Haganah le Yisrael -the Israeli Defence Forces. Today, the IDF has become the most equipped military in the Middle East. The United States continue to make sure that Israel is equipped with the latest weapons, despite that it’s military started as a terrorist organisation.
[3]Aburish SK 1994, the Rise, Corruption, and Coming Fall of the House of Saud, Bloomsbury, London, p: 122-23.
[4] See Schwartz, C 2008, Saudi-Israeli alliance not new, updated 11 July 2011, Transatlantic Institute, viewed 7 July 2011,.
[5]Quoted in BakistaniDefence.com 2006, Saudi Arabia and Israel in secret Contacts, viewed 4 July 2011, available at:.
[6]Aburish SK 1994, the Rise, Corruption, and Coming Fall of the House of Saud, Bloomsbury, London, p: 122-23.
[7] The ideology of Syrian nationalism views geographical and historical Syria as a one nation state. Today, no Syrian nationalist can forget the list of tragedies caused by the loss of Palestine and the creation of Israel (for details see Beshara, A 1995; Melhem, E 2007).
[8] See Beshara, A 1995, ‘Syrian Nationalism: An Inquiry into the Political Philosophy of Antun Sa’adeh’, in The Road to Revolution: The First Syrian Social Nationalist Revolution against the Lebanese Government, ed. E Melhem, Melbourne, pp. 36-37.
[9] Ibid.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Melhem E 2007, The Road to Revolution: The First Syrian Social Nationalist Revolution against the Lebanese Government, Melbourne, pp. 36-37.
[12]Karam, S 2010, Hamas in final stage of Fatah reconciliation, updated 16 August, Reuters, viewed 16 August,.
[13]Heydarian, R-J 2010, Iran-Saudi rivalry deepens, updated 16 August, Asia Times, viewed 10 August,.
[14]Tomlinson, H 2010, Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites, updated 11 July 2011, The Times, viewed 7 July 2011,.
[15] Ibid.
[16]Richmond, O-P 2008, ‘Reclaiming Peace in International Relations’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, vol. 36, no. 3, p. 439.
[17] Khashan, H 1994, ‘Are the Arabs Ready for Peace with Israel?’ The Middle East Quarterly, vol. 1 no 1.
Haytham A. K. Radwan is a Syrian-Australian citizen living in Adelaide, Australia. He is currently completing Bachelor of Laws at the University of South Australia. He has completed a Masters in International Studies / Relations in 2011, and Bachelor degree in International Studies in 2006 at the University of South Australia. His Masters research examined Saudi Arabia’s Politics, Its Islam, and Its Relations with the U.S. As A Threat to World Stability: Myth or Reality. Haytham also studied Psychology and Education Studies in the early 1990s at Damascus University, Syria. He is been admitted into the Golden Key International Honour Society in 2006, awarded the University Merit Award in 2006, and the Chancellor’s Commendation in 2005 from the University of South Australia. He can be reached at: haustralia@hotmail.com
By Haytham A. K. Radwan
Intifada Palestine.com
(Adelaide, Australia) – The attempts to destroy the Palestinian Cause have been on the drawing board of the Al Saud’s alliance with Zionism and the West for at least 63 years. Today, not only are they fighting against the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to resist occupation, they are doing everything in their power to prevent them from returning to their indigenous land in favour of Israel.
Established as a kingdom without an independent strategic plan or a sense of nationalism, Saudi Arabia has sought to destabilize Billad el-Cham[1] in order to undermine the Palestinian cause in favour of Zionism and the West. Indeed, since the occupation of Palestine in 1948 the kingdom has persevered with it mission to strengthen Zionism by inciting disputes between rival groups. This has had the effect of destabilising the region so that Zionism and Israel’s occupation of the territory of Billad el-Cham continue, though Riyadh disguises its activities and policies under the banner of Islam, peace and its relationship with the West. Today, the mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to strengthen Zionism continues, this being accomplished by undermining popular regional and national resistance movements, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, in order to destroy their confidence and their willingness to resist Israel’s Zionist projects. This paper seeks to shed light on Saudi efforts to undermine the Palestinian cause for the sake of Israel through the propagation of myths, by destroying all forms of resistance, and by instigating peace initiatives which it knows will ultimately be ineffective.
Palestine and the Saudi Myth
This year (2011) marks the 63rd anniversary of the Nakba, the illegal occupation of Palestine by the Zionist movement.[2] However, not all Arab countries have resisted Zionist projects in Palestine, notable among them being Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Al Saud have created the myth that the Saudis have used their position as an oil supplier, as a valuable friend and ally of Western nations, and as the protectors of the most important Islamic sites, Mecca and Medina, to help liberate Palestine. Saudi Arabia’s message to Arab people and to Muslims everywhere is that the kingdom is acting in support of Palestine and its displaced population. Additionally, the kingdom has fostered the notion that it is not in conflict with the establishment of Israel in Palestine and is willing to do everything in its power to restore peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It is argued here that these messages have been accepted uncritically by the media, and this situation has served the House of Saud – as well as Zionism – very effectively. However, many (or most) Palestinians have resisted the message very effectively. Indeed, research into the events of the past 60 years or more reveal a very different situation from the reports provided in the media, and it is evident that there has been a high degree of on-going Saudi cooperation with Israel. Indeed, Saudi Arabia negotiated with the British Foreign Office and with Churchill, expressing its willingness to accept openly the Jewish claim to Palestine in return for Britain withholding support from its Hashemite rivals, and in doing so the Saudis ignored calls by King Ghazi of Iraq to form a common Arab front to defend Palestine. Then, as events unfolded during 1948 Saudi Arabia remained on the sidelines and refused to contribute forces to liberate Palestine. Furthermore, when the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ended, the kingdom withheld financial support from the Egyptian and Jordanian forces still occupying parts of Palestine, and it made every effort to prevent Syria from uniting with Iraq to create a military counterweight to Israel.The kingdom also refused to contemplate the possible use of oil to pressure the US into a more even-handed Palestinian policy.[3]
Since 1948 Saudi conspiracies against the Palestinian cause have continued through secret meetings and communications between Saudi government officials and princes and the Israelis. According to statesmen, senior military officers and former intelligence officers, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, has maintained regular contact with Israel since at least 1990. Moreover, evidence indicates that such contacts occurred much earlier; for example, in 1976 the Saudi government secretly sent a letter, via Tunisian Foreign Minister, Mohammed Masmoudi, to Israel offering a large sum of money in return for withdrawing from the occupied territories.[4]
Saudi efforts to destroy the Palestinian cause even entailed military plans. Accordingly, in 2009 when the Gaza attack occurred, Saudi Arabia was in support of Israel, and repeatedly met the chief of Mossad to plan an attack on Iran, the main supporter of Hamas, the most influential anti-Israeli movement in the occupied land. Similarly, during the conflict along the Israel- Lebanon border in 2006, the Saudis allegedly contacted the Israelis, the top-selling Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot reporting that Israel and Saudi Arabia had been conducting secret negotiations.[5] It appears, then that while Hezbollah was fighting for the interests of both Lebanon and Palestine – and for all Arab countries – the Saudis were conspiring against it by collaborating with Israel.
Secret meetings and military planning between the Saudis and the Israelis have not been the only conspiracies to undermine the Palestinian cause. For instance, in 1958 the Saudis endeavoured to put an end to unity plans between Iraq and Jordan after a pro-Nasser coup d’état succeeded in overthrowing Iraq’s Hashemite monarchy. The Hashemite had long been the strongest traditional Arab force, but they were displaced when Ibn Saud forced them from Mecca in 1924 and Medina in 1925. Then in 1921 the British placed Faisal on the throne in Jordan, and shortly afterwards, in 1923, granted Abdullah control of Iraq. These Hashemite princes were outsiders, but the British used religious differences to justify their actions to the Arab people by asserting that the Hashemite lineage could be traced back to Muhammad. They also worked hard to put an end to the Syrian-Egyptian union (described at the time as the United Arab Republic) which lasted from 1958 until 1961.[6]
The secret relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel has not been intended to help the Palestinian people nor is it to maintain stability and peace in the region. Instead, it has sought to increase the threat of terrorism, a situation which is favourable both to Israel and the House of Saud. Indeed, their relationship can be considered to be lower than that between al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the differences between the two are akin to the differences between the act of war and terrorism. Both have supported terror and war to justify their expansionism. Saudi Arabia has used Islam and its wealth to further its cause. Israel has used Saudi Arabia’s wealth, Islam, its military superiority, and its contacts with the West to achieve its objectives.
Thus, the interaction between the Saudi royal family and the Anglo-American-Israeli alliance has dangerously strengthened anti-secular and national movements in Billad el-Cham. Also it has deepened the divisions that emerged during the period of colonial rule in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Indeed, events show that the Saudi royal family has stood against Syrian nationalism and the liberation of Palestine in order to strengthen Saudi-style religious movements.[7] However, what now concerns the Saudis is the threat that Syrian nationalism can cause to the existence of the royal family and its Wahhabi mission within Billad el-Cham. Similarly, what worries Israel and the West is the threat that nationalism can cause to the existence of the State of Israel.
Unlike the Saudis, who have never realised that Zionism constitutes a threat both to Billad el-Cham and to the kingdom itself, the people of Billad el-Cham have seen the emergence of Israel as a real threat to the security and stability of the entire Middle East. This danger lay in the Zionist endeavour to establish an exclusively Jewish state in Billad el-Cham based on the claim that the Jewish people had an ancient, inherent and inalienable right to Palestine.[8] This endeavour has been founded on the belief that the Jews constitute a nation, yet such a belief is unwarranted because the Jews are very diverse racially, socially, and culturally.[9] Indeed, for the liberation of Palestine in particular, and the existence of Billad el-Cham in general, the Zionist threat cannot be denied. Zionist Jews have claimed an historic title of the Jewish people to Palestine even though they are not descendants of the original inhabitants of the country.[10] Historically, the Jews, or the Israelites, arrived in the land of Canaan as immigrants and they then lived with the Canaanites. However, there was never peaceful coexistence between them and the Philistines, who also came to the land of Canaan almost contemporaneously with them. The Israelites eventually disappeared from Palestine after their deportation by the Romans following their second revolt in AD 132-5. Moreover, the Jews who migrated to Palestine in the twentieth century showed no disposition to share the country or to coexist with the Palestinians. Rather, they were determined to realize the political ambitions defined by the World Zionist Organization, to create an exclusively Jewish state.[11]
Today, like the West, the Saudis continue to do everything in their power to strengthen Zionism and weaken Syrian nationalism. Within Billad el-Cham this is continuing to this day; Israel is using similar tactics in order to justify its wars against the Palestinians, Lebanese and the Syrians in the occupied territories while the Saudis, like the West, have done little to end the crises by putting a stop to Israel’s step-by-step expansionism. However, these policies are having an impact on the behaviour of Muslim sects, on radical organizations, and on US-backed political parties within Billad el-Cham. Similarly they are affecting the behaviour of the Zionists and Saudi Arabia. For example, Israel and the US are using Saudi Arabia’s influence in the Persian Gulf to destabilize Iran. However, there may be unforeseen consequences for these policies will impact on the security of Saudi Arabia itself and not just Iran.
Using Iran as an Excuse to Weaken the Palestinian Cause
Today, the Saudi royal family continues the policy of Ibn Saud in harming the Palestinian cause, although the Palestine question remains important for Saudi policy-makers. This is so not because of the sensitivities of the Palestinian crisis but because of growing Iranian influence in the occupied land. This may explain why Saudi Arabia is opposing the Iranian-backed democratically elected anti-Israel Sunni government led by Hamas while supporting the unpopular Fatah government led by Mahmud Abbas. Indeed, Saudi officials have repeatedly stated that Iranian support for Hamas has widened the rift with Fatah and hampers a resumption of peace talks.[12]
This situation helps explain why, during a meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in February 2010, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal expressed support for United Nation sanctions against Iran because of Iran’s military support for Hamas and Hezbollah. The Foreign Minister commented:
We see the issue [Iran's nuclear program] in the shorter term maybe because we are closer to the threat … So we need an immediate resolution rather than a gradual resolution [sanctions].[13]
However, by June, as the UN Security Council passed a new round of sanctions against Iran, The Times in London published a report stating that:
Defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.[14]
At this point it is relevant to note that Zionism has been successful in influencing policies and events in Saudi Arabia. It has been successful in convincing the Saudi royal family that Iran is a threat to their existence and that the royal family needs to co-operate with Israel to ensure the kingdom’s safety. Indeed, the Saudis have apparently accepted the view that they need Israel as a back-up in any future confrontation with Iran. Israel is still considered to be an enemy in the eyes of Arab and Muslim people, and though Iran is a Muslim country and shares similar values and interests with Arabs nevertheless Saudi Arabia still favours Israel. This is evident today. At present, Saudi policy regarding Iran is aligned with that of Israel, and both are sectarian in nature and publically political. A Saudi/ Sunni war against the Shias would achieve Israel’s aim of destroying Iran’s growing power, but from an Israeli standpoint such a conflict would be to the benefit of Zionism which is hostile to both Shias and Sunnis.
Today, Saudi policy makers are keeping pressure on Iran regardless of the fact that Iran is seeking to counter-balance Israel’s hegemony in the region. It is widely believed that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but this seems to ignore the fact that Israel is already a nuclear state. There is no evidence yet that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction, however Saudi Arabia chooses to insist that Iran is a threat to the region and in so doing is ignoring Israel’s nuclear capabilities.
It seems that Iran’s enmity toward Saudi Arabia has a more immediate strategic cause. Iran is not going to forgive Saudi Arabia’s political stand with the US against Iran’s nuclear interests, nor is it going to forget Saudi Arabia’s support for Saddam Hussein’s forces in the Iran/Iraq conflict in the 1980s. Indeed, Tehran’s main hostility stems from the belief that Saudi Arabia is covertly co-operating with its enemies on three fronts. Firstly, the government in Tehran believes that the Saudis collaborated with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the abduction of an Iranian nuclear scientist in 2009. Iran accused Saudi Arabia of assisting the CIA abduction of Shahram Amiri while he was in Mecca, this view being confirmed by Amiri who stated on his return from the US that the CIA has kidnapped him with the help of Saudis. Secondly, the Iranian regime suspects that the Saudis have agreed to support Israel in planning a’ ‘surgical strike’ against Iran’s nuclear facility, and thirdly, that the Saudi government has been providing ideological support for Iran’s main domestic terrorist group, the Jundallah.[15]
Unworkable Peace Process
Soon after the events of 9/11 King Abdullah negotiated the so-called ‘Arab Peace Initiative’ to avoid criticism from the West because 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. The initiative was produced in the 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut, but in the subsequent ten years Israel has refused to comply, and Saudi Arabia has taken no steps to implement it.
In the light of these events it is reasonable to question whether Saudi Arabia could solve the crises through peace negotiation and whether Saudi Arabia is able to pressure Israel to make peace. It is argued here that there is no evidence to suggest that Israel is dedicated to peace in the region. Nor is there evidence that Saudi Arabia would cease supporting Zionism or reduce its loyalty to the US, especially since the US itself is under Zionist control.
Theoretically, peace is represented in contemporary literature as a ‘liberal peace’: that is, an institutional peace to provide international governance and guarantees, a constitutional peace to ensure democracy and free trade, and a civil peace to ensure freedoms and rights within society.[16] However, these distinctions mean little to people living under occupation and in refugee camps.
But in reality, peace with Israel means recognizing the Zionist state as a sovereign political entity, something Palestinians refuse to accept. Accordingly, the peace process is not welcomed in Billad el-Cham in general and Palestine in particular. For the people of the region there are deep disagreements about the issue of peace with Israel. Additionally, there is a growing awareness among the indigenous inhabitants of the Middle East that Israel has become firmly entrenched, but despite this there has not been a commensurate shift in support for Israel’s presence; to the contrary, opposition to Israel remains as high as ever.[17]
It is proposed here that a peace arrangement between Israel and its neighbours would legitimize injustice because millions of displaced Palestinians still live in refugee camps abroad, a state of affairs in violation of basic human rights. Although much is heard about the plight of the Jews in the holocaust, little is said about the Palestinians who fled from their homeland. It is clear that Israelis have no intention of living peacefully with the Palestinians, and evidence of this can be seen in the relentless extension of settlements on Palestinian land. This process is exacerbating the refugee problem by forcing the remaining Palestinian inhabitants to cross into Jordan. Despite this worsening situation Saudi Arabia is doing nothing except encourage Mahmud Abbas to continue peace talks with Israel and by supporting the Oslo Agreement, although the kingdom’s rulers know that the Oslo process is unlikely to contribute to a lasting peace. In 2002, King Abdullah proposed peace in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. Israel did not accept his initiative. Five years later (in March 2007) that proposal was revived, but, as before, it produced no tangible results, and Saudi Arabia was still unwilling and unable to force Israel’s hand on the matter. Instead, the Saudis are now cooperating with Israel to prepare an air strike against Iran, a new fabricated enemy to replace the original enemy of all Arabs, Israel.
Peace between Israelis and Palestinians may never be achievable regardless of the efforts of the Israelis and Saudis because Israel has no roots in the region. Palestine has been occupied, it has been renamed Israel, and the original inhabitants have been forced to flee their homeland. Consequently, Israel can never really achieve a lasting peace with people who they have displaced. Some may argue that Israel has signed a peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, countries with whom they now enjoy relatively peaceful relationships. But are those treaties sustainable? It is argued that they are not because while Governments may sign treaties those arrangements may never be accepted by the public, especially after so many years of bloodshed and injustice. Public feelings on the matter are becoming more evident today in Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere, where anti-Israeli slogans are appearing more often. Can the Saudi government continue to resist (or ignore) rising public sentiment today, and can its petrodollars, allies, and political advocates, both internal and external, protect the world from growing sectarianism, extremism and terrorism?
Today, although Palestinians have not forgotten the lessons of military power and occupation, Saudi Arabia still believes that peace with Israel is achievable and that Israel itself is serious about making peace and ensuring justice. It is insisting that the Palestinian (and Lebanese) resistance to Israel must be halted in order to resume peace negotiations. Saudi Arabia’s rulers have repeatedly witnessed Israel’s rejection of many offers of peace and Israel’s recourse to violence and expansion of settlement, yet they insist that the Palestinians must negotiate peace with Israel.
Meanwhile, injustice can result in more violence, propelling people to acts of resistance in order to gain justice. In the eyes of the international community, Israel has persistently violated international law which requires it to recognise the rights of the indigenous Palestinian people. The occupation is illegal, the Palestinians have been confined to small areas in Gaza and the West Bank and have remained under siege, and displaced people have been prevented from returning to their native land – all acts being condemned by natural and human laws. In the meantime, Israel, protected by the US, has caused many Palestinian deaths and condemned many others to a life of agony and despair. Thus, a just settlement would require an independent and an honest broker, Western or non-Western, but can this happen?
So far the international community has been unable and unwilling to solve the crisis in Palestine. Similarly, it has demonstrated unwillingness to challenge the Saudis for their tacit support for the status quo. Indeed, for the American government the occupation of Arab and Muslim territory, and the displacement of its population are convenient ways to force the hand of the Saudi, Arab, and Muslim people.
In summary, this paper has examined the Saudi-Zionist efforts to undermine the Palestinian cause. While these policies have succeeded in some places, they have failed to be effective in Palestine, as well as in other places in Billad el-Cham. Failure to win over the hearts and minds of people in the region has caused the Saudi-Israeli-Western policy makers to forge what they called “the New Middle East”. But for this new vision to succeed will entail the destruction of regimes regardless of whether these regimes are secular or Islamic. This also requires the destruction of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and of leaders who are willing to stand in opposition.
Bibliography;
Aburish, SK 1994, the Rise, Corruption, and Coming Fall of the House of Saud, Bloomsbury, London, p: 122-23.
Beshara, A 1995, ‘Syrian Nationalism: An Inquiry into the Political Philosophy of Antun Sa’adeh’, in The Road to Revolution: The First Syrian Social Nationalist Revolution against the Lebanese Government, ed. E Melhem, The SSNP, Melbourne, pp. 36-37.
BakistaniDefence.com 2006, Saudi Arabia and Israel in secret Contacts, viewed 4 July 2011, available at :< http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?showtopic=59375>.
Heydarian, R-J 2010, Iran-Saudi rivalry deepens, updated 16 August, Asia Times, viewed 10 August 2010,
Karam, S 2010, Hamas in final stage of Fatah reconciliation, updated 16 August, Reuters, viewed 16 August 2010,
Khashan, H 1994, ‘Are the Arabs Ready for Peace with Israel’ the Middle East Quarterly vol. 1, no. 1.
Melhem E 2007, the Road to Revolution: The First Syrian Social Nationalist Revolution against the Lebanese Government, Melbourne, pp. 36-37.
Richmond, O-P 2008, ‘Reclaiming Peace in International Relations’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, vol. 36, no. 3, p. 439.
Tomlinson, H 2010, Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites, updated 11 July 2011, The Times, viewed 7 July 2011,
Schwartz, C 2008, Saudi-Israeli alliance not new, updated 11 July 2011, Transatlantic Institute, viewed 7 July 2011,
[1] The name Billad el-Cham generally referred to geographical Syria (Greater Syria or the Fertile Crescent). Geographical Syria extends from the Taurus Mountains in the north to the Sinai in the south, and between the Mediterranean in the west to the desert in the east. The present-day borders of Billad el-Cham are seen as illegitimate imperial divisions, imposed by the Anglo-French Sykes–Picot Agreement, the Turkish annexation of Alexandretta in 1939, and the creation of Israel in Palestine.
[2] Soon after the end of World War II, there were three basic Para-military Zionist organizations in Palestine working against the Palestinian people with the purpose of driving them out of Palestine. However, with their victory intact, the Zionist brigades – the Haganah – later united with the Irgun terrorist organization to create the Tzva Haganah le Yisrael -the Israeli Defence Forces. Today, the IDF has become the most equipped military in the Middle East. The United States continue to make sure that Israel is equipped with the latest weapons, despite that it’s military started as a terrorist organisation.
[3]Aburish SK 1994, the Rise, Corruption, and Coming Fall of the House of Saud, Bloomsbury, London, p: 122-23.
[4] See Schwartz, C 2008, Saudi-Israeli alliance not new, updated 11 July 2011, Transatlantic Institute, viewed 7 July 2011,
[5]Quoted in BakistaniDefence.com 2006, Saudi Arabia and Israel in secret Contacts, viewed 4 July 2011, available at:
[6]Aburish SK 1994, the Rise, Corruption, and Coming Fall of the House of Saud, Bloomsbury, London, p: 122-23.
[7] The ideology of Syrian nationalism views geographical and historical Syria as a one nation state. Today, no Syrian nationalist can forget the list of tragedies caused by the loss of Palestine and the creation of Israel (for details see Beshara, A 1995; Melhem, E 2007).
[8] See Beshara, A 1995, ‘Syrian Nationalism: An Inquiry into the Political Philosophy of Antun Sa’adeh’, in The Road to Revolution: The First Syrian Social Nationalist Revolution against the Lebanese Government, ed. E Melhem, Melbourne, pp. 36-37.
[9] Ibid.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Melhem E 2007, The Road to Revolution: The First Syrian Social Nationalist Revolution against the Lebanese Government, Melbourne, pp. 36-37.
[12]Karam, S 2010, Hamas in final stage of Fatah reconciliation, updated 16 August, Reuters, viewed 16 August,
[13]Heydarian, R-J 2010, Iran-Saudi rivalry deepens, updated 16 August, Asia Times, viewed 10 August,
[14]Tomlinson, H 2010, Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites, updated 11 July 2011, The Times, viewed 7 July 2011,
[15] Ibid.
[16]Richmond, O-P 2008, ‘Reclaiming Peace in International Relations’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, vol. 36, no. 3, p. 439.
[17] Khashan, H 1994, ‘Are the Arabs Ready for Peace with Israel?’ The Middle East Quarterly, vol. 1 no 1.
Haytham A. K. Radwan is a Syrian-Australian citizen living in Adelaide, Australia. He is currently completing Bachelor of Laws at the University of South Australia. He has completed a Masters in International Studies / Relations in 2011, and Bachelor degree in International Studies in 2006 at the University of South Australia. His Masters research examined Saudi Arabia’s Politics, Its Islam, and Its Relations with the U.S. As A Threat to World Stability: Myth or Reality. Haytham also studied Psychology and Education Studies in the early 1990s at Damascus University, Syria. He is been admitted into the Golden Key International Honour Society in 2006, awarded the University Merit Award in 2006, and the Chancellor’s Commendation in 2005 from the University of South Australia. He can be reached at: haustralia@hotmail.com
Friday, December 24, 2010
PSC West London: Report from Inside Zionist Conference on the ‘De-Legitimisation’ of Israel
Published 23 December 2010
The following is a report written by a PSC West London activist who attended the ‘Squaring the Circle? Britain and the De-Legitimisation of Israel’ conference organised by Just Journalism and the Henry Jackson Scoiety in December 2010 in London.
After passing through heavy security requiring IDs, questions about organisational/political affiliation and how far they had travelled about 200 people gathered in a synagogue in Bayswater London to attend a key-note UK Pro-Israel meeting on how to counter the ‘de-legitimisation’ of Israel.
The audience was very largely composed of senior citizens and the late middle-aged. There were few young people.
Israel’s Ambassador to the UK -Ron Prosser- opened the meeting. In his view, Israel’s adversaries in the UK were ‘crossing the red line every day’. By this he explained he means criticism of Israel and its policies as well as calls for boycott and the application of the legal system against Israel and its citizens. Prosser sees the UK as the key battleground for three reasons. Firstly, London is the world hub of the English speaking media and what it reports gets picked up and analysed across the world. Secondly, UK Universities are internationally influential and thousands of students come from all over the world to study in the UK and return to their own countries to become future political and government leaders. Thirdly, the UK is the home of the largest and most influential NGOs such as Oxfam and Christian Aid. Prosser said that UK-Israel inter-governmental relations are much more positive than UK public opinion towards Israel and official pronouncements might suggest. He went on though to warn that whilst the ‘view from the penthouse was amazingly good’ there was ‘increasing structural damage and deterioration to the building’ as a result of what he called the actions of the ‘de-legitimisation network’.
Nick Cohen, Observer Newspaper columnist, spoke in what seemed to be the slot reserved for a token liberal. He opened by asking in a round about way: Perhaps things might improve for Israel’s image if there were to be some acknowledgement by Israel’s supporters about the problems caused by Settlement expansion; and likewise might it not be better to put more stress on the acceptance of an independent Palestinian state. He promised the meeting a radical agenda for countering de-legitimisation. His big idea? Israel’s supporters need to turn ‘liberal arguments against liberal opinions’. He explained this means attacking the human rights record of despotic Arab regimes and attacking the opinions of Islamists. Cohen did not explore this any further and instead switched to speak at length on the history of anti-Semitism in Europe.
Baroness Deach former BBC Governor, a lawyer and life peer in the House of Lords. She said ‘de-legitimisation’ was new and required a solution. Her solution is two-fold. Firstly, use the full weight of
the law and ‘code of conduct on freedom of speech’ to ban ‘de-legitimisers’ from speaking at UK Universities. Secondly, Deach called for a change in the leadership of UK Jewry to address its failings and weakness. She gave a long list of who the new leaders should be and this included Melanie Philips (Daily Mail commentator) and Jonathan Hoffman (UK Zionist Federation Vice-Chair). As she reached her full stride, Deach called for attacks on the UK political left and for a campaign to highlight the ‘influence’ of ‘Arab oil money’ in UK University funding.
Daniel Finkelstein – right wing Times Newspaper commentator. He thinks UK public opinion is largely irrelevant because for example most people do not know where Gaza is. His strategy for countering
‘de-legitimisation’ is not to seek to debate with liberal opponents in the middle ground. Instead he proposes that the debate should always be framed as the need for the existence of Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself. He softened this by going on to say the pro-Israel lobby should seek to support tolerant liberal values as the best protection against the ‘de-legitimisation’ challenge. Finkelstein warned that seeking to ban ‘de-legitimsers’ from speaking at Universities was two-edged sword and would probably lead to pro-Israel speakers being banned also.
Rafael Bardaji – Director of The Friends of Israel Initiative and former advisor to the Spanish Government- was the last speaker. He sees Israel as the front-line against the ‘enemies of the West’, believes any criticism of Israel undermines Western democracies, that Israel is a European country physically located in the Middle East and is the ‘cradle of Judeo-Christian values’ . His suggestions are to stress that Israel is ‘a land of opportunity’ and to campaign for maps of Europe to include Israel.
Audience questions and contributions were varied. Most contributions attacked the Israeli left, Israeli liberal academics and journalists, Israeli NGOs and even ‘left Zioinsts’. The speaker panel largely endorsed these attacks. A few contributors tried to meekly take up the difficulties casued by Israel’s actions but Ambassador Prosser made clear that any criticism of Israel and especially those from
‘left Zionists’ is intolerable.
The biggest and most enthusiastic applause of the entire night was reserved for the lady in the audience who loudly proclaimed that ‘Israel does not occupy Palestine, there is already a Palestinian state and it is called Jordan’. Not one of the distinguished speaker panel challenged this nor did anyone in the audience. I sensed there was no challenge because deep down the overwhelming majority of the
meeting agreed with the lady in question. If this is correct, then the pro-Israel lobby in the UK needs to look no further than inside its own ranks in order to identify those who are driving the ‘de-legitimisation’ of Israel.
The following is a report written by a PSC West London activist who attended the ‘Squaring the Circle? Britain and the De-Legitimisation of Israel’ conference organised by Just Journalism and the Henry Jackson Scoiety in December 2010 in London.
After passing through heavy security requiring IDs, questions about organisational/political affiliation and how far they had travelled about 200 people gathered in a synagogue in Bayswater London to attend a key-note UK Pro-Israel meeting on how to counter the ‘de-legitimisation’ of Israel.
The audience was very largely composed of senior citizens and the late middle-aged. There were few young people.
Israel’s Ambassador to the UK -Ron Prosser- opened the meeting. In his view, Israel’s adversaries in the UK were ‘crossing the red line every day’. By this he explained he means criticism of Israel and its policies as well as calls for boycott and the application of the legal system against Israel and its citizens. Prosser sees the UK as the key battleground for three reasons. Firstly, London is the world hub of the English speaking media and what it reports gets picked up and analysed across the world. Secondly, UK Universities are internationally influential and thousands of students come from all over the world to study in the UK and return to their own countries to become future political and government leaders. Thirdly, the UK is the home of the largest and most influential NGOs such as Oxfam and Christian Aid. Prosser said that UK-Israel inter-governmental relations are much more positive than UK public opinion towards Israel and official pronouncements might suggest. He went on though to warn that whilst the ‘view from the penthouse was amazingly good’ there was ‘increasing structural damage and deterioration to the building’ as a result of what he called the actions of the ‘de-legitimisation network’.
Nick Cohen, Observer Newspaper columnist, spoke in what seemed to be the slot reserved for a token liberal. He opened by asking in a round about way: Perhaps things might improve for Israel’s image if there were to be some acknowledgement by Israel’s supporters about the problems caused by Settlement expansion; and likewise might it not be better to put more stress on the acceptance of an independent Palestinian state. He promised the meeting a radical agenda for countering de-legitimisation. His big idea? Israel’s supporters need to turn ‘liberal arguments against liberal opinions’. He explained this means attacking the human rights record of despotic Arab regimes and attacking the opinions of Islamists. Cohen did not explore this any further and instead switched to speak at length on the history of anti-Semitism in Europe.
Baroness Deach former BBC Governor, a lawyer and life peer in the House of Lords. She said ‘de-legitimisation’ was new and required a solution. Her solution is two-fold. Firstly, use the full weight of
the law and ‘code of conduct on freedom of speech’ to ban ‘de-legitimisers’ from speaking at UK Universities. Secondly, Deach called for a change in the leadership of UK Jewry to address its failings and weakness. She gave a long list of who the new leaders should be and this included Melanie Philips (Daily Mail commentator) and Jonathan Hoffman (UK Zionist Federation Vice-Chair). As she reached her full stride, Deach called for attacks on the UK political left and for a campaign to highlight the ‘influence’ of ‘Arab oil money’ in UK University funding.
Daniel Finkelstein – right wing Times Newspaper commentator. He thinks UK public opinion is largely irrelevant because for example most people do not know where Gaza is. His strategy for countering
‘de-legitimisation’ is not to seek to debate with liberal opponents in the middle ground. Instead he proposes that the debate should always be framed as the need for the existence of Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself. He softened this by going on to say the pro-Israel lobby should seek to support tolerant liberal values as the best protection against the ‘de-legitimisation’ challenge. Finkelstein warned that seeking to ban ‘de-legitimsers’ from speaking at Universities was two-edged sword and would probably lead to pro-Israel speakers being banned also.
Rafael Bardaji – Director of The Friends of Israel Initiative and former advisor to the Spanish Government- was the last speaker. He sees Israel as the front-line against the ‘enemies of the West’, believes any criticism of Israel undermines Western democracies, that Israel is a European country physically located in the Middle East and is the ‘cradle of Judeo-Christian values’ . His suggestions are to stress that Israel is ‘a land of opportunity’ and to campaign for maps of Europe to include Israel.
Audience questions and contributions were varied. Most contributions attacked the Israeli left, Israeli liberal academics and journalists, Israeli NGOs and even ‘left Zioinsts’. The speaker panel largely endorsed these attacks. A few contributors tried to meekly take up the difficulties casued by Israel’s actions but Ambassador Prosser made clear that any criticism of Israel and especially those from
‘left Zionists’ is intolerable.
The biggest and most enthusiastic applause of the entire night was reserved for the lady in the audience who loudly proclaimed that ‘Israel does not occupy Palestine, there is already a Palestinian state and it is called Jordan’. Not one of the distinguished speaker panel challenged this nor did anyone in the audience. I sensed there was no challenge because deep down the overwhelming majority of the
meeting agreed with the lady in question. If this is correct, then the pro-Israel lobby in the UK needs to look no further than inside its own ranks in order to identify those who are driving the ‘de-legitimisation’ of Israel.
Friday, April 2, 2010
SABROSKY INTERVIEW TIES ISRAEL TO 9/11
Veterans Today
March 19, 2010
DR ALAN SABROSKY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF STUDIES AT THE US ARMY WAR COLLEGE
“ISRAEL DID IT”
Meet Dr. Alan Sabrosky, a brave man, a USMC Vietnam vet, an American of Jewish ancestry and someone devoted to the security of the United States at any cost. Ask any Jew what it takes to stand up against the most powerful and ruthless group in the world, the Israeli lobby inside the United States.
Sabrosky has been calling for a new 9/11 investigation for some time. What makes him unique is that we have a Jew who can hardly be called “self-hating” or “anti-Semitic” or against Israel. He is consistent in everything he says. His point is that you are an American or you are an Israeli but you can’t be both, especially now with Zionism turning Israeli foreign policy into a “runaway train.” 9/11, as Sabrosky sees it was the watershed in a relationship between America and Israel that has gone from bad to unsurviveable, especially for America. He contents that AIPAC exercises near total control over the electoral process in America through the ability to outspend any other group and destroy anyone who stands against them.
The unwillingness of the US to stand with the international community on humanitarian and war crime issues where Israel is found in continual violation is, to Sabrosky, a critial issue. In discussion the US and her lack of support for the Goldstone Report, Sabrosky says:
US criticism of the HRC resolution should be disregarded, as Washington only parrots Israel’s wishes here…
… it might have been better to have included Goldstone’s condemnation of Hamas offenses as well, but it is legitimate as it stands for five reasons: (1) Israel committed the great majority of the violations; (2) Israel had an overwhelming preponderance of military power; (3) Palestinians suffered almost all of the death and destruction; (4) Israel has a long, sordid history of ignoring UN commissions and resolutions, and of attacking UN facilities and killing UN staff, as when the clearly marked UNRWA facility in Gaza was bombed; and (5) the HRC focus is properly on the actions of the oppressor (Israel) and not on those of the oppressed (the Palestinians).
Another is that it did not accord Israel the right of self-defense. But Israel’s claim to self-defense in its savaging of Gaza is specious, because Israel — like all occupiers and oppressors — has no inherent right of self-defense against its victims. Who, for instance, would have accepted Nazi Germany’s assertion that its brutal reprisals against the Czechs for their assassination of a Nazi commander named Reinhard Heydrich was an exercise in self-defense? No one, and no one should accept Israel’s claim, either.
A third is that holding Israel accountable for its actions will somehow endanger the Middle East peace process. But there is no peace process, simply meaningless discussions to the dead end (for Palestinians and the rest of the region) of Israeli hegemony, and under Netanyahu or any electable government in Israel, there is not and cannot be one. There will be an enforced peace imposed from outside of the Middle East, over the objections and obstruction of Israel, or there will be none at all.
ZIONISM AND ISRAELI NATIONALISM
This is how Sabrosky describes the nature of Jewish nationalism as described within the term we call “Zionism”:
The differences between Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and that of other countries and cultures here I think are fourfold:
1. Zionism is a real witches’ brew of xenophobia, racism, ultra-nationalism and militarism that places it way outside of a “mere” nationalist context — for example, when I was in Ireland (both parts) I saw no indication whatsoever that the Provisional Irish Republican Army or anyone else pressing for a united Ireland had a shred of design on shoving Protestants into camps or out of the country, although there may well have been a handful who thought that way — and goes far beyond the misery for others professed by the Nazis;
2. Zionism undermines civic loyalty among its adherents in other countries in a way that other nationalist movements (and even ultra-nationalist movements like Nazism) did not — e.g. a large majority of American Jews, including those who are not openly dual citizens, espouse a form of political bigamy called “dual loyalty” (to Israel and the US) that is every bit as dishonest as marital bigamy, attempts to finesse the precedence they give to Israel over the US (lots of Rahm Emanuels out there who served in the Israeli army but NOT in the US armed forces), and has absolutely no parallel in the sense of national or cultural identity espoused by any other definable ethnic or racial group in America — even the Nazi Bund in the US disappeared once Germany and the US went to war, with almost all of its members volunteering for the US armed forces;
3. The “enemy” of normal nationalist movements is the occupying power and perhaps its allies, and once independence is achieved, normal relations with the occupying power are truly the norm, but for Zionism almost everyone out there is an actual or potential enemy, differing only in proximity and placement on its very long list of enemies (which is now America’s target list); and
4. Almost all nationalist movements (including the irredentist and secessionist variants) intend to create an independent state from a population in place or to reunite a separated people (like the Sudeten Germans in the 1930s) — it is very rare for it to include the wholesale displacement of another indigenous population, which is far more common of successful colonialist movements as in the US — and perhaps a reason why most Americans wouldn’t care too much about what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians even if they DID know about it, is because that is no different than what Europeans in North America did to the Indians/Native Americans here in a longer and more low-tech fashion.
Sabrosky is one of the few Americans who sees the nuclear threat of Israel as it is, blackmailing the United States, not only in how it could be used to draw America into an unwanted war, but how it could actually be used at some point to attack the United States itself. Only recently, Israel put Western Europe on notice that it would be attacked if its actions threatened Israel, attacked by nuclear weaons from Israel without warning. Martin van Creveld’s threat combined with Sabrosky’s analysis of Israeli intentions and culpability for 9/11 brings to mind something Sabrosky had once written.
He has always seen Moshe Dyan as a hero. Dyan saw Israel’s military role as that of a “junk yard dog,” ready to bite without warning, attack anything and anyone. Sabrosky notes that, eventually such an animal is always put down or as he puts it, ”the preferred response of everyone else is to kill that mad dog before it can decide to go berserk and bite.”
9/11
Sabrosky makes a case, not just for a coverup of 9/11 but goes much further. He points out as do so many that the physics of the attack are unworkable. He, however, is one of the few to point to a conclusion many find obvious but few have the nerve to admit, that it would have been impossible to stage 9/11 without the full resources of both the CIA and Mossad and that 9/11 served the interests of both agencies quite well.
There was nothing they could have wished for more.
Sabrosky also makes a point involving media coverage of 9/11:
Finally, we need to take a hard look at why the mainstream media (MSM) have paid more attention to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they have to dissecting blatant falsehoods, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the US Government’s treatment of 9/11 and its aftermath.
ZIONISM AND TREASON
The inescapable point isnt the 60,000 Americans killed or wounded in a war started out of treason or the world it threatens to destroy. Americans have been looking away from these glaring realities the way they looked away from Vietnam. Sabrosky leaves Israel and her American Jewish supporters who he sees as traitors with a warning:
If these Americans and those like them ever fully understand just how much of their suffering — and the suffering we have inflicted on others — is properly laid on the doorsteps of Israel and its advocates in America, they will sweep aside those in politics, the press and the pulpits alike whose lies and disloyalty brought this about and concealed it from them. They may well leave Israel looking like Carthage after the Romans finished with it. It will be Israel’s own great fault.
Do we take Sabrosky seriously because he is a Marine or a Jew? Do we wonder why the things he says reach so few? Is American in a shooting war where our biggest enemy sits behind us, killing us off, robbing us blind and whispering gently in our ears how much they love us?
It would seem so.
March 19, 2010
DR ALAN SABROSKY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF STUDIES AT THE US ARMY WAR COLLEGE
“ISRAEL DID IT”
Meet Dr. Alan Sabrosky, a brave man, a USMC Vietnam vet, an American of Jewish ancestry and someone devoted to the security of the United States at any cost. Ask any Jew what it takes to stand up against the most powerful and ruthless group in the world, the Israeli lobby inside the United States.
Sabrosky has been calling for a new 9/11 investigation for some time. What makes him unique is that we have a Jew who can hardly be called “self-hating” or “anti-Semitic” or against Israel. He is consistent in everything he says. His point is that you are an American or you are an Israeli but you can’t be both, especially now with Zionism turning Israeli foreign policy into a “runaway train.” 9/11, as Sabrosky sees it was the watershed in a relationship between America and Israel that has gone from bad to unsurviveable, especially for America. He contents that AIPAC exercises near total control over the electoral process in America through the ability to outspend any other group and destroy anyone who stands against them.
The unwillingness of the US to stand with the international community on humanitarian and war crime issues where Israel is found in continual violation is, to Sabrosky, a critial issue. In discussion the US and her lack of support for the Goldstone Report, Sabrosky says:
US criticism of the HRC resolution should be disregarded, as Washington only parrots Israel’s wishes here…
… it might have been better to have included Goldstone’s condemnation of Hamas offenses as well, but it is legitimate as it stands for five reasons: (1) Israel committed the great majority of the violations; (2) Israel had an overwhelming preponderance of military power; (3) Palestinians suffered almost all of the death and destruction; (4) Israel has a long, sordid history of ignoring UN commissions and resolutions, and of attacking UN facilities and killing UN staff, as when the clearly marked UNRWA facility in Gaza was bombed; and (5) the HRC focus is properly on the actions of the oppressor (Israel) and not on those of the oppressed (the Palestinians).
Another is that it did not accord Israel the right of self-defense. But Israel’s claim to self-defense in its savaging of Gaza is specious, because Israel — like all occupiers and oppressors — has no inherent right of self-defense against its victims. Who, for instance, would have accepted Nazi Germany’s assertion that its brutal reprisals against the Czechs for their assassination of a Nazi commander named Reinhard Heydrich was an exercise in self-defense? No one, and no one should accept Israel’s claim, either.
A third is that holding Israel accountable for its actions will somehow endanger the Middle East peace process. But there is no peace process, simply meaningless discussions to the dead end (for Palestinians and the rest of the region) of Israeli hegemony, and under Netanyahu or any electable government in Israel, there is not and cannot be one. There will be an enforced peace imposed from outside of the Middle East, over the objections and obstruction of Israel, or there will be none at all.
ZIONISM AND ISRAELI NATIONALISM
This is how Sabrosky describes the nature of Jewish nationalism as described within the term we call “Zionism”:
The differences between Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and that of other countries and cultures here I think are fourfold:
1. Zionism is a real witches’ brew of xenophobia, racism, ultra-nationalism and militarism that places it way outside of a “mere” nationalist context — for example, when I was in Ireland (both parts) I saw no indication whatsoever that the Provisional Irish Republican Army or anyone else pressing for a united Ireland had a shred of design on shoving Protestants into camps or out of the country, although there may well have been a handful who thought that way — and goes far beyond the misery for others professed by the Nazis;
2. Zionism undermines civic loyalty among its adherents in other countries in a way that other nationalist movements (and even ultra-nationalist movements like Nazism) did not — e.g. a large majority of American Jews, including those who are not openly dual citizens, espouse a form of political bigamy called “dual loyalty” (to Israel and the US) that is every bit as dishonest as marital bigamy, attempts to finesse the precedence they give to Israel over the US (lots of Rahm Emanuels out there who served in the Israeli army but NOT in the US armed forces), and has absolutely no parallel in the sense of national or cultural identity espoused by any other definable ethnic or racial group in America — even the Nazi Bund in the US disappeared once Germany and the US went to war, with almost all of its members volunteering for the US armed forces;
3. The “enemy” of normal nationalist movements is the occupying power and perhaps its allies, and once independence is achieved, normal relations with the occupying power are truly the norm, but for Zionism almost everyone out there is an actual or potential enemy, differing only in proximity and placement on its very long list of enemies (which is now America’s target list); and
4. Almost all nationalist movements (including the irredentist and secessionist variants) intend to create an independent state from a population in place or to reunite a separated people (like the Sudeten Germans in the 1930s) — it is very rare for it to include the wholesale displacement of another indigenous population, which is far more common of successful colonialist movements as in the US — and perhaps a reason why most Americans wouldn’t care too much about what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians even if they DID know about it, is because that is no different than what Europeans in North America did to the Indians/Native Americans here in a longer and more low-tech fashion.
Sabrosky is one of the few Americans who sees the nuclear threat of Israel as it is, blackmailing the United States, not only in how it could be used to draw America into an unwanted war, but how it could actually be used at some point to attack the United States itself. Only recently, Israel put Western Europe on notice that it would be attacked if its actions threatened Israel, attacked by nuclear weaons from Israel without warning. Martin van Creveld’s threat combined with Sabrosky’s analysis of Israeli intentions and culpability for 9/11 brings to mind something Sabrosky had once written.
He has always seen Moshe Dyan as a hero. Dyan saw Israel’s military role as that of a “junk yard dog,” ready to bite without warning, attack anything and anyone. Sabrosky notes that, eventually such an animal is always put down or as he puts it, ”the preferred response of everyone else is to kill that mad dog before it can decide to go berserk and bite.”
9/11
Sabrosky makes a case, not just for a coverup of 9/11 but goes much further. He points out as do so many that the physics of the attack are unworkable. He, however, is one of the few to point to a conclusion many find obvious but few have the nerve to admit, that it would have been impossible to stage 9/11 without the full resources of both the CIA and Mossad and that 9/11 served the interests of both agencies quite well.
There was nothing they could have wished for more.
Sabrosky also makes a point involving media coverage of 9/11:
Finally, we need to take a hard look at why the mainstream media (MSM) have paid more attention to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they have to dissecting blatant falsehoods, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the US Government’s treatment of 9/11 and its aftermath.
ZIONISM AND TREASON
The inescapable point isnt the 60,000 Americans killed or wounded in a war started out of treason or the world it threatens to destroy. Americans have been looking away from these glaring realities the way they looked away from Vietnam. Sabrosky leaves Israel and her American Jewish supporters who he sees as traitors with a warning:
If these Americans and those like them ever fully understand just how much of their suffering — and the suffering we have inflicted on others — is properly laid on the doorsteps of Israel and its advocates in America, they will sweep aside those in politics, the press and the pulpits alike whose lies and disloyalty brought this about and concealed it from them. They may well leave Israel looking like Carthage after the Romans finished with it. It will be Israel’s own great fault.
Do we take Sabrosky seriously because he is a Marine or a Jew? Do we wonder why the things he says reach so few? Is American in a shooting war where our biggest enemy sits behind us, killing us off, robbing us blind and whispering gently in our ears how much they love us?
It would seem so.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Polish bishop accuses Jews of exploiting Holocaust
Tadeusz Pieronek says, 'Holocaust as such is a Jewish invention used to obtain advantages that are often unjustified,' claims Israel treating Palestinians 'like animals'
AFP and Ynetnews
Published: 01.25.10, 18:14 / Israel News
A retired Polish bishop accused Jews of exploiting the Holocaust for propaganda purposes in remarks that appeared Monday on a Rome-based traditionalist Roman Catholic website.
"While it is undeniable that most of those who died in the concentration camps were Jews, there were also gypsies, Poles, Italians and Catholics on the list," Tadeusz Pieronek wrote on the website pontifex.roma.it.
Int'l Holocaust Memorial Day
PM at Yad Vashem: Stop evil / Ronen Medzini
Prime minister says on eve of International Holocaust Memorial Day, 'There is evil that can spread, which threatens security of Jews.' While he did not mention Iran explicitly, Netanyahu noted: 'There are new haters of Judaism with new reasons to destroy Jewish state. This is our concern'
Full Story
"So it is not permissible to appropriate this tragedy for propaganda," he said in the posting, two days ahead of the 65th International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
"There were lots of Poles, but this truth is often ignored today," added Pieronek, 75.
"The Holocaust as such is a Jewish invention," said the former spokesman of Poland's Bishops Conference. The Shoah is "used as a propaganda weapon and to obtain advantages that are often unjustified," he charged.
Pieronek, who was a friend of the late Polish pope John Paul II, added: "You could speak just as forcefully and establish a day of remembrance for the many victims of communism, persecuted Catholics and Christians and so on."
Accusing Jews of "intolerable arrogance," he said they "enjoy good press because they are supported by powerful financial means, enormous power and the unconditional backing of the United States."
Pieronek also criticized Israel for building a separation wall between its territory and the West Bank, which he called "a colossal injustice against the Palestinians, who are treated like animals and whose (basic) rights are violated, to say the least."
Calling for a day honoring the Palestinians, Pieronek lamented that "with the connivance of international lobbies, we don't talk about these things much."
January 27 marks the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp in German-occupied Poland in 1945.
"Of course all this does not deny the shame of the concentration camps and the aberrations of Nazism," Pieronek said.
The European Jewish Congress said it was "shocked" by Bishop Pieronek's comments.
“We find it unacceptable that an important religious figure in Poland, only a few days away from International Holocaust Remembrance Day, is capable of making such inflammatory and false remarks” stated EJC President Dr. Moshe Kantor.
“The false accusations made by Bishop Pieronek once again show the underlying anti-Semitism that still lingers among some European clergymen in the Catholic Church – especially in regards to the Holocaust,” he said.
AFP and Ynetnews
Published: 01.25.10, 18:14 / Israel News
A retired Polish bishop accused Jews of exploiting the Holocaust for propaganda purposes in remarks that appeared Monday on a Rome-based traditionalist Roman Catholic website.
"While it is undeniable that most of those who died in the concentration camps were Jews, there were also gypsies, Poles, Italians and Catholics on the list," Tadeusz Pieronek wrote on the website pontifex.roma.it.
Int'l Holocaust Memorial Day
PM at Yad Vashem: Stop evil / Ronen Medzini
Prime minister says on eve of International Holocaust Memorial Day, 'There is evil that can spread, which threatens security of Jews.' While he did not mention Iran explicitly, Netanyahu noted: 'There are new haters of Judaism with new reasons to destroy Jewish state. This is our concern'
Full Story
"So it is not permissible to appropriate this tragedy for propaganda," he said in the posting, two days ahead of the 65th International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
"There were lots of Poles, but this truth is often ignored today," added Pieronek, 75.
"The Holocaust as such is a Jewish invention," said the former spokesman of Poland's Bishops Conference. The Shoah is "used as a propaganda weapon and to obtain advantages that are often unjustified," he charged.
Pieronek, who was a friend of the late Polish pope John Paul II, added: "You could speak just as forcefully and establish a day of remembrance for the many victims of communism, persecuted Catholics and Christians and so on."
Accusing Jews of "intolerable arrogance," he said they "enjoy good press because they are supported by powerful financial means, enormous power and the unconditional backing of the United States."
Pieronek also criticized Israel for building a separation wall between its territory and the West Bank, which he called "a colossal injustice against the Palestinians, who are treated like animals and whose (basic) rights are violated, to say the least."
Calling for a day honoring the Palestinians, Pieronek lamented that "with the connivance of international lobbies, we don't talk about these things much."
January 27 marks the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp in German-occupied Poland in 1945.
"Of course all this does not deny the shame of the concentration camps and the aberrations of Nazism," Pieronek said.
The European Jewish Congress said it was "shocked" by Bishop Pieronek's comments.
“We find it unacceptable that an important religious figure in Poland, only a few days away from International Holocaust Remembrance Day, is capable of making such inflammatory and false remarks” stated EJC President Dr. Moshe Kantor.
“The false accusations made by Bishop Pieronek once again show the underlying anti-Semitism that still lingers among some European clergymen in the Catholic Church – especially in regards to the Holocaust,” he said.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
THE ROLE OF ZIONISM IN THE HOLOCAUST
Article by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann - Australia
"Spiritually and Physically Responsible "
From its' inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis.
We were given the Holy Land by G-d in order to be able to study and practice the Torah without disturbance and to attain levels of holiness difficult to attain outside of the Holy Land. We abused the privilege and we were expelled. That is exactly what all Jews say in their prayers on every Jewish festival, "Umipnay chatoenu golinu mayartsaynu" - "Because of our sins we were expelled from our land".
We have been forsworn by G-d "not to enter the Holy Land as a body before the predestined time", "not to rebel against the nations", to be loyal citizens, not to do anything against the will of any nation or its honour, not to seek vengeance, discord, restitution or compensation; "not to leave exile ahead of time." On the contrary; we have to be humble and accept the yoke of exile. To violate the oaths would result in "your flesh will be made prey as the deer and the antelope in the forest," and the redemption will be delayed.
(Talmud Tractate Ksubos p. 111a).
To violate the oaths is not only a sin, it is a heresy because it is against the fundamentals of our Belief. Only through complete repentance will the Almighty alone, without any human effort or intervention, redeem us from exile. This will be after G-d will send the prophet Elijah and Moshiach who will induce all Jews to complete repentance. At that time there will be universal peace.
THE UNHEEDED CRY
Read the gripping story of Rabbi Weissmandl, valiant holocaust leader who battled both Allied indifference and Nazi hatred.
Available in our Bookstore
All of the leading Jewish religious authorities of that era predicted great hardship to befall humanity generally and the Jewish People particularly, as a result of Zionism. To be a Jew means that either one is born to a Jewish mother or converts to the religion with the condition that he or she make no reservations with regard to Jewish Law. Unfortunately there are many Jews who have no inkling whatsoever as to the duties of a Jew. Many of them are not to blame, for in many cases they lacked a Jewish education and upbringing. But there are those who deliberately distort the teachings of our tradition to suit their personal needs. It is self understood that not just anyone has the right or the ability to make a decision regarding the philosophy or law of a religion. Especially matters in which that person has no qualification. It follows then that those individuals who "decided" that Judaism is a nationality are to be ignored and even criticized. It is no secret that the founders of Zionism had never studied Jewish Law nor did they express interest in our holy tradition. They openly defied Rabbinical authority and self-appointed themselves as leaders of the Jewish "nation". In Jewish history, actions like those have always spelled disaster. To be a Jew and show open defiance of authority or to introduce "amendment" or "innovation" without first consulting with those officially appointed as Jewish spiritual leaders is the ideal equation to equal catastrophe. One can not just decide to "modernize" ancient traditions or regulations. The spiritual leaders of contemporary Judaism better known as Orthodox rabbis have received ordination to judge and interpret matters pertaining to the Jewish faith. These rabbis have received their rights and responsibilities and form a link in the unbroken chain of the Jewish tradition dating all the way back to Moses who received the Torah from Almighty G-d Himself. It was these very rabbis who, at the time of the formation of the Zionist movement, foresaw the pernicious outcome that was without a doubt lined up. It was a man possessing outstanding Judaic genius, and a level of uncontested holiness who enunciated the Jewish stance regarding Zionism.
Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum
Grand Rebbe Teitelbaum
This charismatic individual, the Rebbe of Satmar, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, did not mince any words. Straight to the point he called Zionism "the work of Satan", "a sacrilege" and "a blasphemy". He forbade any participation with anything even remotely associated with Zionism and said that Zionism was bound to call the wrath of G-d upon His people. He maintained this stance with unwavering bravery from the onset of Zionism whilst he was still in Hungary up until his death in New York where he lead a congregation numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Grand Rabbi Teitelbaum, scion to a legacy of holy mystics and Hassidic Masters unfortunately had his prediction fulfilled. We lost more than six million of our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in a very horrible manner. This, more than six million holy people had to experience as punishment for the Zionist stupidity. The Holocaust, he wept, was a direct result of Zionism, a punishment from G-d.
IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE SAGES AND SAINTS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF HITLER'S RISE DECLARED THAT HE WAS A MESSENGER OF DIVINE WRATH, SENT TO CHASTEN THE JEWS BECAUSE OF THE BITTER APOSTASY OF ZIONISM AGAINST THE BELIEF IN THE EVENTUAL MESSIANIC REDEMPTION.
But it doesn't end there. It wasn't enough for the Zionist leaders to have aroused the wrath of G-d. They made a point of displaying abysmal contempt for their Jewish brothers and sisters by actively participating in their extermination. Just the idea alone of Zionism, which the rabbis had informed them would cause havoc, was not enough for them. They made an effort to pour fuel on an already burning flame. They had to incite the Angel of Death, Adolf Hitler. They took the liberty of telling the world that they represented World Jewry. Who appointed these individuals as leaders of the Jewish People?? It is no secret that these so-called "leaders" were ignoramuses when it came to Judaism. Atheists and racists too. These are the "statesmen" who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant - but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist "statesmen" forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. Genocide began, but these people, if they can really be classified as members of the human race, sat back.
"No Shame"
President Roosevelt convened the Evian conference July 6-15 1938, to deal with the Jewish refugee problem. The Jewish Agency delegation headed by Golda Meir (Meirson) ignored a German offer to allow Jews to emigrate to other countries for $250 a head, and the Zionists made no effort to influence the United States and the 32 other countries attending the conference to allow immigration of German and Austrian Jews. [Source]
On Feb 1, 1940 Henry Montor executive vice-President of the United Jewish Appeal refused to intervene for a shipload of Jewish refugees stranded on the Danube river, stating that "Palestine cannot be flooded with... old people or with undesirables." [Source]
Read "The Millions That Could Have Been Saved" by I.Domb
It is an historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that: a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.
The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.
The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments: a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees. b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war. c) No ransom will be paid This response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.
These treacherous Zionist leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A perfidy! A betrayal beyond description!
In 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved. The same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).
The British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.
On December 17, 1942 both houses of the British Parliament declared its readiness to find temporary refuge for endangered persons. The British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany. This motion received within two weeks a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures. On Jan. 27, when the next steps were being pursued by over 100 M.P.'s and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion because Palestine was omitted. [Source]
On Feb. 16, 1943 Roumania offered 70,000 Jewish refugees of the Trans-Dniestria to leave at the cost of $50 each. This was publicized in the New York papers. Yitzhak Greenbaum, Chairman of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency, addressing the Zionist Executive Council in Tel Aviv Feb. 18 1943 said, "when they asked me, "couldn't you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said NO! and I say again, NO!...one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance." On Feb. 24, 1943 Stephen Wise, President of the American Jewish Congress and leader of the American Zionists issued a public refusal to this offer and declared no collection of funds would seem justified. In 1944, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People called upon the American government to establish a War Refugee Board. Stephen Wise testifying before a special committee of Congress objected to this proposal. [Source]
During the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weizman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weizman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".
And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist "statesmen" lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.
In 1947 Congressman William Stration sponsored a bill to immediately grant entry to the United States of 400,000 displaced persons. The bill was not passed after it was publicly denounced by the Zionist leadership. [Source]
These facts are read with consternation and unbearable shame. How can it be explained that at a time during the last phase of the war, when the Nazis were willing to barter Jews for money, partly because of their desires to establish contact with the Western powers which, they believed, were under Jewish influence, how was it possible one asks that the self-proclaimed "Jewish leaders" did not move heaven and earth to save the last remnant of their brothers?
On Feb. 23, 1956 the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, Minister for Immigration was asked in the Canadian House of Commons "would he open the doors of Canada to Jewish refugees". He replied "the government has made no progress in that direction because the government of Israel....does not wish us to do so". [Source]
In 1972, the Zionist leadership successfully opposed an effort in the United States Congress to allow 20,000-30,000 Russian refugees to enter the United States. Jewish relief organizations, Joint and HIAS, were being pressured to abandon these refugees in Vienna, Rome and other Europiean cities. [Source]
The pattern is clear!!! Humanitarian rescue efforts are subverted to narrow Zionist interests.
There were many more shocking crimes committed by these abject degenerates known as "Jewish statesmen", we could list many more example, but for the time being let anyone produce a valid excuse for the above facts.
Zionist responsibility for the Holocaust is threefold.
1. The Holocaust was a punishment for disrespecting The Three Oaths (see Talmud, Tractate Kesubos p. 111a).
2. Zionist leaders openly withheld support, both financially and otherwise, to save their fellow brothers and sisters from a cruel death.
3. The leaders of the Zionist movement cooperated with Hitler and his cohorts on many occasions and in many ways.
Zionists Offer a Military Alliance with Hitler
It would be wishful thinking if it could be stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement sat back and ignored the plight of their dying brothers and sisters. Not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, but they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime. Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, "Tel Aviv", while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a "metaphysical absurdity". Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler's Third Reich. In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel", better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist "National Military Organization" (Irgun Zvai Leumi - Etzel) over the group's attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.
This remarkable proposal "for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation on the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany" is worth quoting at some length:
"The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that: 1.Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO. 2.Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry. 3.The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.
"On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.
"This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the "Jewish" men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed.
The Seventh Million
The Seventh Million
The Israelis and the Holocaust
"The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.
"The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England".
(Original document in German Auswertiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E224152 and E234155-58. Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947) pp. 315-317).
On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests.
This is just one example of the Zionist movements' collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine.
And to top it all up, brainwashing!
How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousandfold cry: "Traitor," "Enemy of the Jewish People."
Source for paragraphs marked "[Source]": The Wall Street Journal December 2, 1976
The data presented on this page was prepared by AJAZ.
"Spiritually and Physically Responsible "
From its' inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis.
We were given the Holy Land by G-d in order to be able to study and practice the Torah without disturbance and to attain levels of holiness difficult to attain outside of the Holy Land. We abused the privilege and we were expelled. That is exactly what all Jews say in their prayers on every Jewish festival, "Umipnay chatoenu golinu mayartsaynu" - "Because of our sins we were expelled from our land".
We have been forsworn by G-d "not to enter the Holy Land as a body before the predestined time", "not to rebel against the nations", to be loyal citizens, not to do anything against the will of any nation or its honour, not to seek vengeance, discord, restitution or compensation; "not to leave exile ahead of time." On the contrary; we have to be humble and accept the yoke of exile. To violate the oaths would result in "your flesh will be made prey as the deer and the antelope in the forest," and the redemption will be delayed.
(Talmud Tractate Ksubos p. 111a).
To violate the oaths is not only a sin, it is a heresy because it is against the fundamentals of our Belief. Only through complete repentance will the Almighty alone, without any human effort or intervention, redeem us from exile. This will be after G-d will send the prophet Elijah and Moshiach who will induce all Jews to complete repentance. At that time there will be universal peace.
THE UNHEEDED CRY
Read the gripping story of Rabbi Weissmandl, valiant holocaust leader who battled both Allied indifference and Nazi hatred.
Available in our Bookstore
All of the leading Jewish religious authorities of that era predicted great hardship to befall humanity generally and the Jewish People particularly, as a result of Zionism. To be a Jew means that either one is born to a Jewish mother or converts to the religion with the condition that he or she make no reservations with regard to Jewish Law. Unfortunately there are many Jews who have no inkling whatsoever as to the duties of a Jew. Many of them are not to blame, for in many cases they lacked a Jewish education and upbringing. But there are those who deliberately distort the teachings of our tradition to suit their personal needs. It is self understood that not just anyone has the right or the ability to make a decision regarding the philosophy or law of a religion. Especially matters in which that person has no qualification. It follows then that those individuals who "decided" that Judaism is a nationality are to be ignored and even criticized. It is no secret that the founders of Zionism had never studied Jewish Law nor did they express interest in our holy tradition. They openly defied Rabbinical authority and self-appointed themselves as leaders of the Jewish "nation". In Jewish history, actions like those have always spelled disaster. To be a Jew and show open defiance of authority or to introduce "amendment" or "innovation" without first consulting with those officially appointed as Jewish spiritual leaders is the ideal equation to equal catastrophe. One can not just decide to "modernize" ancient traditions or regulations. The spiritual leaders of contemporary Judaism better known as Orthodox rabbis have received ordination to judge and interpret matters pertaining to the Jewish faith. These rabbis have received their rights and responsibilities and form a link in the unbroken chain of the Jewish tradition dating all the way back to Moses who received the Torah from Almighty G-d Himself. It was these very rabbis who, at the time of the formation of the Zionist movement, foresaw the pernicious outcome that was without a doubt lined up. It was a man possessing outstanding Judaic genius, and a level of uncontested holiness who enunciated the Jewish stance regarding Zionism.
Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum
Grand Rebbe Teitelbaum
This charismatic individual, the Rebbe of Satmar, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, did not mince any words. Straight to the point he called Zionism "the work of Satan", "a sacrilege" and "a blasphemy". He forbade any participation with anything even remotely associated with Zionism and said that Zionism was bound to call the wrath of G-d upon His people. He maintained this stance with unwavering bravery from the onset of Zionism whilst he was still in Hungary up until his death in New York where he lead a congregation numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Grand Rabbi Teitelbaum, scion to a legacy of holy mystics and Hassidic Masters unfortunately had his prediction fulfilled. We lost more than six million of our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in a very horrible manner. This, more than six million holy people had to experience as punishment for the Zionist stupidity. The Holocaust, he wept, was a direct result of Zionism, a punishment from G-d.
IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE SAGES AND SAINTS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF HITLER'S RISE DECLARED THAT HE WAS A MESSENGER OF DIVINE WRATH, SENT TO CHASTEN THE JEWS BECAUSE OF THE BITTER APOSTASY OF ZIONISM AGAINST THE BELIEF IN THE EVENTUAL MESSIANIC REDEMPTION.
But it doesn't end there. It wasn't enough for the Zionist leaders to have aroused the wrath of G-d. They made a point of displaying abysmal contempt for their Jewish brothers and sisters by actively participating in their extermination. Just the idea alone of Zionism, which the rabbis had informed them would cause havoc, was not enough for them. They made an effort to pour fuel on an already burning flame. They had to incite the Angel of Death, Adolf Hitler. They took the liberty of telling the world that they represented World Jewry. Who appointed these individuals as leaders of the Jewish People?? It is no secret that these so-called "leaders" were ignoramuses when it came to Judaism. Atheists and racists too. These are the "statesmen" who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant - but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist "statesmen" forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. Genocide began, but these people, if they can really be classified as members of the human race, sat back.
"No Shame"
President Roosevelt convened the Evian conference July 6-15 1938, to deal with the Jewish refugee problem. The Jewish Agency delegation headed by Golda Meir (Meirson) ignored a German offer to allow Jews to emigrate to other countries for $250 a head, and the Zionists made no effort to influence the United States and the 32 other countries attending the conference to allow immigration of German and Austrian Jews. [Source]
On Feb 1, 1940 Henry Montor executive vice-President of the United Jewish Appeal refused to intervene for a shipload of Jewish refugees stranded on the Danube river, stating that "Palestine cannot be flooded with... old people or with undesirables." [Source]
Read "The Millions That Could Have Been Saved" by I.Domb
It is an historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that: a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.
The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.
The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments: a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees. b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war. c) No ransom will be paid This response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.
These treacherous Zionist leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A perfidy! A betrayal beyond description!
In 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved. The same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).
The British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.
On December 17, 1942 both houses of the British Parliament declared its readiness to find temporary refuge for endangered persons. The British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany. This motion received within two weeks a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures. On Jan. 27, when the next steps were being pursued by over 100 M.P.'s and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion because Palestine was omitted. [Source]
On Feb. 16, 1943 Roumania offered 70,000 Jewish refugees of the Trans-Dniestria to leave at the cost of $50 each. This was publicized in the New York papers. Yitzhak Greenbaum, Chairman of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency, addressing the Zionist Executive Council in Tel Aviv Feb. 18 1943 said, "when they asked me, "couldn't you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said NO! and I say again, NO!...one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance." On Feb. 24, 1943 Stephen Wise, President of the American Jewish Congress and leader of the American Zionists issued a public refusal to this offer and declared no collection of funds would seem justified. In 1944, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People called upon the American government to establish a War Refugee Board. Stephen Wise testifying before a special committee of Congress objected to this proposal. [Source]
During the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weizman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weizman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".
And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist "statesmen" lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.
In 1947 Congressman William Stration sponsored a bill to immediately grant entry to the United States of 400,000 displaced persons. The bill was not passed after it was publicly denounced by the Zionist leadership. [Source]
These facts are read with consternation and unbearable shame. How can it be explained that at a time during the last phase of the war, when the Nazis were willing to barter Jews for money, partly because of their desires to establish contact with the Western powers which, they believed, were under Jewish influence, how was it possible one asks that the self-proclaimed "Jewish leaders" did not move heaven and earth to save the last remnant of their brothers?
On Feb. 23, 1956 the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, Minister for Immigration was asked in the Canadian House of Commons "would he open the doors of Canada to Jewish refugees". He replied "the government has made no progress in that direction because the government of Israel....does not wish us to do so". [Source]
In 1972, the Zionist leadership successfully opposed an effort in the United States Congress to allow 20,000-30,000 Russian refugees to enter the United States. Jewish relief organizations, Joint and HIAS, were being pressured to abandon these refugees in Vienna, Rome and other Europiean cities. [Source]
The pattern is clear!!! Humanitarian rescue efforts are subverted to narrow Zionist interests.
There were many more shocking crimes committed by these abject degenerates known as "Jewish statesmen", we could list many more example, but for the time being let anyone produce a valid excuse for the above facts.
Zionist responsibility for the Holocaust is threefold.
1. The Holocaust was a punishment for disrespecting The Three Oaths (see Talmud, Tractate Kesubos p. 111a).
2. Zionist leaders openly withheld support, both financially and otherwise, to save their fellow brothers and sisters from a cruel death.
3. The leaders of the Zionist movement cooperated with Hitler and his cohorts on many occasions and in many ways.
Zionists Offer a Military Alliance with Hitler
It would be wishful thinking if it could be stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement sat back and ignored the plight of their dying brothers and sisters. Not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, but they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime. Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, "Tel Aviv", while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a "metaphysical absurdity". Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler's Third Reich. In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel", better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist "National Military Organization" (Irgun Zvai Leumi - Etzel) over the group's attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.
This remarkable proposal "for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation on the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany" is worth quoting at some length:
"The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that: 1.Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO. 2.Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry. 3.The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.
"On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.
"This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the "Jewish" men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed.
The Seventh Million
The Seventh Million
The Israelis and the Holocaust
"The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.
"The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England".
(Original document in German Auswertiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E224152 and E234155-58. Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947) pp. 315-317).
On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests.
This is just one example of the Zionist movements' collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine.
And to top it all up, brainwashing!
How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousandfold cry: "Traitor," "Enemy of the Jewish People."
Source for paragraphs marked "[Source]": The Wall Street Journal December 2, 1976
The data presented on this page was prepared by AJAZ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)