Somewhere along the line this all changed. Whether it was because of industrialization, urbanization or adaptations in military strategy, one stark and indisputable fact remains: at the beginning of the twentieth century the ratio of civilian to military deaths in wars was one to eight and by the end of it inverted to eight to one.

Certainly, there were turning points that made us cringe at the destructive power of humanity. Dresden, Nagasaki, Auschwitz and others led us to the conclusion that in today’s wars civilians needed more protection from the world’s most destructive powers–states. The laws of war, specifically those designed to protect civilians, were codified as urban settings increasingly became the locales of industrialized destruction.

There is perhaps no theater of war in a more urban setting than the Gaza Strip. As one of the most densely populated spots on the planet, Gaza is precisely the type of place laws of war were meant to protect civilians. It becomes comical then to even consider the notion put forward by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently. He boldly claimed that the laws of war should be amended so that operations like the one Israel carried out in Gaza this past winter that left over 1,400 dead, mostly civilians, could be legal.

In a war that could have been entirely avoided, Israel chose not only to attack but also to do so in a cowardly way that guaranteed tremendous civilian deaths and destruction to civilian infrastructure. The Israeli leadership, likely wary of upcoming elections and the Israeli electorates intolerance for casualties, decided to strike Gaza from a distance using disproportionate force and illegal weapons to keep their casualty rate down. On their way out of the Strip, the Israeli forces destroyed civilian factories and fields with the clear intention of levying collective punitive damages on the people of Gaza. It is precisely because political leaders in Israel consciously made this decision that they committed war crimes in the Gaza Strip.

The report conducted by Justice Richard Goldstone and his team documents, in gruesome detail, the results of Israel’s cost/benefit analysis. Because of this documentation, some have begun to demand that Israel conduct an independent internal investigation into the allegation levied by the esteemed jurist. But this will not be sufficient. Israel has proven it cannot be trusted to produce justice through its internal investigations.

When thousands of Palestinian refugees were massacred in the Sabra and Shatila camps, for example, an independent Israeli commission was formed to investigate. To their credit, they held their defense minister responsible and recommended that he never be permitted to hold a ministerial position again.

Being banned from the cabinet for playing a role in the murder of 3,000 civilians may seem like a slap on the wrist. Yet, what is even worse, is that the man responsible not only came back onto the political scene, but was elected prime minister! Consequently, Ariel Sharon went on to pursue the largest expansion of Israeli settlements in 20 years. When it comes to war crimes and crimes against humanity, Israel is simply not capable of introspection.

In 1961, an esteemed Jewish writer who had escaped Nazi Germany became embroiled in controversy for criticizing Israel’s decision to try the Nazi Adolph Eichmann. Hannah Arendt’s argument was not that Eichmann deserved mercy but rather his crimes were against humanity, offending all, and that he should be tried before an international tribunal. Disregarding this, the state of Israel tried and executed Adolph Eichmann. That same disregard for international justice exists to this day in the state of Israel. There is an air of arrogance and a determination among the leaders to never let others judge their actions, even other Jews like Richard Goldstone or Hannah Arendt.

The United States has also proven incapable of holding Israel accountable for international law. Instead of upholding the Goldstone report’s recommendations the White House has criticized it. The Congress has begun to tow the usual Likud line by considering a resolution (H. Res 867) slamming the Goldstone report as anti-Israel.

There must come a point when Israel realizes the immorality of its actions in Gaza. But we cannot sit around waiting for that to happen. It was humanity that was targeted in Gaza and it is humanity (all of us regardless to race, nation or creed) that must demand justice.

Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center. This policy brief may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center.

The views in this brief are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.

source: the author and  http://www.palestinecenterblog.org/

The NTNU, a Norwegian University, was presented with the opportunity to vote on a motion that would ask the Board of Directors to consider making it a policy in their University to restrict academic or research partnerships with Israel. There are many who think that this kind of “politics” in “academic institutions” is unfitting, but there are others who have a different point of view, given the South African precedent and today's unanimous opinion that it was vital towards bringing that country out of Apartheid.

Universities are not citadels in the sky, they are often corporations that are financed with a combination of private and public investments. They also have clients who pay for their services in the way of tuition, and some of these tuitions are in the hundreds of thousands of Dollars and Euros for a single cycle of “Education” that results in the granting of a Diploma, which at that point leads the owner of this title to have more access to employment possibilities. In other words, looking at facts and what's at stake, it’s more about money than it is about smarts. Since they have  profit as their purpose, they make decisions for their “investors” so that the balance sheet encourages further investment.

There are others who believe that since these institutions produce “Culture”, they have as their priority a level of standards that should be met so that the product is one of value. Culture is something that can be created autonomously, because it is part of human existence and present in every human activity, although it takes money to promote it and develop it further. Culture is ideas and ideals, it is the possibility to express a thought or sensation that can be shared with others. Culture at that point is quite powerful, and it has the power to create debate upon the quality of a product such as “education”, and if the quality may be enhanced by an establishment of a standard of recognition of the rights of others, including the rights of people under military occupation to academic freedom, this topic is ripe for discussion as to whether the institution should make a vocal stand and act upon a belief that pressure upon an apartheid regime must be fought from the bottom up, from a cultural level, with a common interest in promoting freedom.

The decision the board at NTNU was about to make actually never really hit the table, the motion was not even going to be voted upon. In fact, a motion was made to “throw out the motion” and this was unanimously accepted. There is your debate about “Academic Freedom”!

Why did the board vote to not even vote upon the motion? Why did they unanimously decide that this question should not be dealt with? The words are LOBBYING and PEER PRESSURE. Yes, they buckled under due to lobbying and pressure and probably wanted to protect all their esteemed colleagues from having a finger pointed at them. No motion, of course, no vote, and no one to have to express even a word of criticism about Israel, if any of them felt this might be fitting or worthy of expressing. Session closed and NTNU fades back into splendid oblivion.

I took a look at the rah rah site against Boycotts of Israel, Engage, located in the UK. Evidently, they were going to be very pleased that this precedent was not set, and claim it as a victory, (just as we would have claimed it as a victory if :1- the motion was debated, 2- the motion passed, and as a partial victory if there was dissent from a vote to reject the proposition of the motion.) You see, academic people sell one thing: their reputation, the opinion others have of them. This is how they earn their living, and they are all in the same boat. Perhaps no one wanted to put one of their colleagues on the spot, risking making a statement that would put this person on a side that would then be in some way spotlighted. Being conformist and non-controversial is considered as a guarantee that their institution can continue to bring in investments and make profit.

Now, let’s take a look at the Engage commentary on this. I am highlighting portions of the original, with my own comments in (red and parentheses).

Trondheim academic boycott motion thrown out

November 12, 2009 Mira Vogel

Some days ago I wondered whether a Norwegian university was going to force its employees to boycott Israelis. (This kind of rhetoric automatically creates the “controversy” and puts the spotlight on individuals. It sets the tone as if it is a gag order, as if it is a person-to-person demand. An academic boycott is about economic/research collaboration between institutions that determine the policy and the ways that their investments are going to be utilised. This is always expressed in terms of money and investment. If one invests in academic institutions that have economic-institutional partnerships with others that thrive due to a military occupation of another people and constrict those occupied to martial law due to their ethnic group/religion, then it is a valid issue whether this type of institution is welcome as a partner. Are the Israeli institutions outside the life of Israel, or do they operate in the same sphere? I don't believe Israel is sensitive to pressure of this sort, but other places in the world are, and with the loss of income and partnerships, it could be an incentive to at least open debate on this issue in Israel, rather than wall themselves into moral victimhood. An institution outside Israel actually could and should be pressured to change and analyse the appropriateness of their investments, if they are tied in with organisations or entities that are not in conformance with the goals of the institutions and foundations themselves. It is not such a bizarre request, and the ethical component is present in most business decisions. A complete boycott would be ideal, but this is one step). The answer turned out to be a no from the board, none of whom objected to a proposal to throw out the motion. (The motion does not seem to have been discussed by those who had proposed it. A unanimous acceptance of a motion to reject a motion is not taking a position at all, it is an easy way out.)

Haaretz:

Some of the people in attendance (who? Board members or members of the public?) spoke in favor of scrapping the vote, Alsberg told Haaretz. The main arguments raised were that Norwegian universities should not [make] their own foreign policies, and that a boycott would be harmful to NTNU. (While respecting the right of the Board to feel they cannot make certain decisions that will have international resonance, every university decides its policies within certain limits and selects with whom it collaborates. It often is influenced by foreign policies of the States they are located in, pretending the contrary is almost laughable).

According to Alsberg, who collected signatures from over 100 NTNU scholars against the boycott, the move was prevented due to a combination of factors. He said these included media attention; opposition to the boycott by the Norwegian Ministry for Higher Education; and petitions, including his own. (There it is… the fear of attention and pressure from others. This is certainly not doing any justice to individual or academic freedom).

But Erez Uriely, director of the Oslo-based Center against Anti-Semitism, said the boycott was prevented largely thanks to Alsbergs petition. (Why the “but”… they admit that the decisive factor was the list of names of the esteemed colleagues of the Board. They want to all be able to go out for dinner together after all! And here was one of the worries written on the petition: “To be associated with a controversial opinion in a difficult conflict will have negative consequences for NTNU. It’s a violation at an international level. Do we really want to be known as the first Western University that is in favour of an academic boycott against Israel?”)

Norwegian politicians often take anti-Israeli positions and then renege when this creates an outcry, he said. The petition against a boycott of Israel at NTNU is an unusual event which tipped the scale.

Norway, Israel and the Jews note the disappointment of boycotters and predicts that they will return:

For anyone in doubt, please observe that Mr.Lysestl and his comrades are dedicated, hard working people who honestly believe they are engaged in a battle against ultimate evil. They will regroup and recover. If it had not been for the tremendous effort of people from around the globe in general and professor Bjrn Alsgaard* at NTNU in particular, the motion for boycott might have passed. (And here we have a lesson for all of us. If we want to influence people with power, they listen to the pressure of other people who will judge them on a personal level and who do not want to assume responsibility of having attention drawn to them, as well as the insinuation in the petition that there was going to be some financial difficulties if they stepped out of line, things like losing jobs too. Hardly a realistic threat, but for a group voting on something for economic reasons, this will have its impact. They will avoid discussing an issue rather than disappoint the expectations of someone or be accused of being ineffective financially. The considerations to make are: it’s either hopeless because you simply cannot fight something where what matters is being able to avoid discussion of an issue rather than addressing a motion presented and then voting on it. The reasons for this priority have little to do with the institution itself, I believe, but something more down to earth such as being able to share a cigar at the birth of a grandson, getting a positive review of a book published or being invited to speak at a convention in an exotic site. Should academic institutions be considered as particularly effective starting places? I don't think so. Or – perhaps we have to concentrate our efforts towards MORE pressure and requiring people to actually face issues rather than avoid them.)

Kudos to the academics at Trondheim who spoke out against the boycott by signing Bjrn Alsbergs* petition. (Thus closes the article, remember these names. We also remember the names of those who signed Mohamad Khodr’s petition, and we thank all of them for caring and trying. We won’t give up.)

Many estranged events happened in the last three months which added confusion to the already vague situation in Palestine, a matter which enforces people concerned about  the Palestinian issue to search for what is the optimal solution to these sticky situations, and to find the reasons why the Palestinians had failed to achieve their goals of reconciliation.

The overall ongoing situation in the Gaza Strip, including the delay of the Goldstone Report, and the failure of the reconciliation dialogue in Cairo, within the previous two months, have led to the vagueness of the speculation of the political situation and made the Palestinian political compromise between the two rivals closer to collapse. Furthermore, the most significant outcome of the bad political situation, within the previous three months, was the enhancing of the political and the security divide in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Firstly, the delay of the Goldstone Report has led to a heated controversy in the Palestinian arena, since the two rivals, Fateh and Hamas, spared no effort to gain semi-victory of the elections by inciting their partisans on their own information. The delay of the report has further widened and solidified the political breakdown and made the reach for the reconciliation closer to fantasy and craziness according to the Palestinian monitors and even for the general public.

Secondly, the call for the presidential and parliamentary elections in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, issued by the President, Mahmoud Abbas on 23 October 2009, has led to an additional splintering of the already political and strategic divide among "the factions to reconcile", where the first agreement signed in Mecca had no tangible actions on the ground after 4 months of holding it, the impending signing of the Egyptian document was projected to present the same dilemma due to the lack of looking up the hidden, creative ways of achieving the reconciliation.

Thirdly, The concern that rankles the people of Gaza is that the impending Palestinian elections should not enhance the fact of life in the Palestinian territories in general and Gaza's situation in particular— Elections may be another "bottleneck" of resolving the key issues of the Palestinian cause as the status quo now is different from the past four-years.

Accordingly, just before the failure of the dialogue in Cairo, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, declared the next presidential and parliamentary elections in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, saying that if the reconciliation efforts in Cairo succeeded, the elections might be in June of the next year as envisaged in the Egyptian document.

The dialogue doomed to fail; and the idea of the elections became a new resolution by the Palestinian president, who withdrew his candidacy for the next presidential election.

Now, the Hamas government in Gaza and the PA in the West Bank claimed legitimacy and their right to govern but, in my opinion, the truth has many other facets; Hamas considers itself the main governor of the Gaza Strip and has the credit of the Palestinian people to govern, while Fateh claimed that Hamas seized Gaza by force and thus got out of the Palestinian legitimacy.

If we look here on the term "legitimacy”; we can see it’s very relative and difficult to be absolute among the Palestinian factions who have different ideological and political backgrounds, thus: can Hamas, the Palestinian leading power, cooperate with the PA President to achieve the articles of the constitution; if Hamas agreed to resort to the President's declaration of the elections, can Israel and the U.S.A. respect the outcomes of the election? Is Abbas' move tactical or strategic?

In my opinion, the scenarios of the cynical elections in the Palestinian territories will just enhance the geo-political division between the larger West Bank (for the PA government, and the smaller Gaza Strip (for the Hamas government); boost the culturally different halves of the country; two states within the Palestinian state and proclaimed two-state solution with the Israeli Hawkish regime in Israel. The future of Gaza is frightening.

Elections had led to entrenching the already deep political dispute between the two biggest parties in Palestine, and then what was possible while Hamas was not in the government, now became more complicated due to Hamas’s understanding of the strategic depth of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, as it is the spinoff of this organization. Any corruption, lack of governance in the small Palestinian enclave of Gaza, or a bad reputation of the performance of the movement may lead to an overwhelming defeat of these groups in Jordan and Egypt. Thus, Hamas decided to govern, whatever the obstacles and the challenges, and, it is a fact that they had been elected by the people and accordingly, they must adhere to their promise of "Change and Reform".

Hamas has not selected that slogan in its first election randomly, but because of the bad bureaucracy in the PA institutions, the lack of a Palestinian comprehensive national project, and even the absence of a comprehensive military leadership among the Palestinian factions; Hamas strived to change the deeply bureaucratic political system, repair what can be repaired, and then reform to the Best.

All of these aspirations of the Islamist movement have not been achieved because of the international community's strict measures against allowing them to govern and make relations with the international community. Hamas was ignored by the international community: the result was the Gazan people became prisoners, living in the widest open-air jail in the world.

This jail was transformed to a laboratory for the Israeli troops who tested the most destructive weapons on the people of Gaza without restraint of humanity.

If the world doesn't understand the fact of life in the Gaza Strip, and deal with the outcomes of the elections as it will be, the situation will go from bad to worse, and no one can halt the waves of extremism in the Middle East, or the waves of the frustration wrapped on the people of Gaza. Gazans need actions on the ground to make them alive as the people of the world; they can't comprehend a life with no tangible actions. 

Ayman Nijim is an interpreter and strategic researcher working for Pal Think for Strategic Studies, you can contact him via: ayman_trans@hotmail.com

This fall, I began my first lecture on Eurocentrism by asking my students, How Eurocentric is your day? I explained what I wanted to hear from them. Can they get through a typical day without running into ideas, institutions, values, technologies and products that originated outside the West – in China, India, the Islamicate or Africa?

The question befuddled my students. I proceeded to pepper them with questions about the things they do during a typical day, from the time they wake up.

Unbeknownst, my students discover that they wake up in ‘pajamas,’ trousers of Indian origin with an Urdu-Persian name. Out of bed, they shower with soap and shampoo, whose origins go back to the Middle East and India. Their tooth brush with bristles was invented in China in the fifteenth century. At some point after waking up, my students use toilet paper and tissue, also Chinese inventions of great antiquity.

Do the lives of my students rise to Eurocentric purity once they step out of the toilet and enter into the more serious business of going about their lives? Not quite.

I walk my student through her breakfast. Most likely, this consists of cereals, coffee and orange juice, with sugar added to the bargain. None originated in Europe. Cereals were first cultivated in the Fertile Crescent some ten thousand years BCE. Coffee, orange and sugar still carry – in their etymology – telltale signs of their origins, going back to the Arabs, Ethiopians and Indians. Try to imagine your life without these stimulants and sources of calories.

How far could my students go without the alphabet, numbers and paper? Yet, the alphabet came to Europe courtesy of the ancient Phoenicians. As their name suggests, the Arabic numerals were brought to Europe by the Arabs, who, in turn, had obtained it from the Indians. Paper came from China, also brought to Europe by the Muslims.

Obstinately, my students’ day refuses to get off to a dignified Eurocentric start.

In her prayer, my Christian student turns to a God who – in his human form – walked the earth in Palestine and spoke Aramaic, a close cousin of Arabic. When her thoughts turn to afterlife, my student thinks of the Day of Judgment, paradise and hell, concepts borrowed from the ancient Egyptians and Persians. ‘Paradise’ entered into English, via Greek, from the ancient Avestan pairidaeza.

 Of medieval origin, the college was inspired and, most likely, modeled after the madrasa or Islamic college, first set up by a Seljuk vizier in eleventh century Baghdad. In a nod to this connection, professors at universities still hold a ‘chair,’ a practice that goes back to the madrasa, where the teacher alone sat in a chair while his students sat around him on rugs.

When she finishes college and prepares to receive her baccalaureate at the graduation ceremony, our student might do well to acknowledge another forgotten connection to the madrasa. This diploma harks back to the ijaza – Arabic for license – given to students who graduated from madrasas in the Islamicate.

Our student runs into fields of study – algebra, trigonometry, astronomy, chemistry, medicine and philosophy – that were introduced, via Latin, to Western Europe from the Islamicate. She also encounters a variety of scientific terms – algorithm, alkali, borax, amalgam, alembic, amber, calibrate, azimuth and nadir – which have Arabic roots.

If my students play chess over the weekend and threaten the King with ‘check mate,’ that phrase is adapted from Farsi – Shah maat – for ‘the King is helpless, defeated.’

When she uses coins, paper currency or writes a check, she is using forms of money first used outside Europe. Gold bars were first used as coins in Egypt in the fourth millennium BCE. With astonishment, Marco Polo records the use of paper currency in China, and describes how the paper used as currency was made from the bark of mulberry trees.

At college, my student will learn about modernity, ostensibly the source and foundation of the power and the riches of Western nations. Her professors in sociology will claim that laws based on reasoning, the abolition of priesthood, the scientific method, and secularism – hallmarks of modernity – are entirely of Western origin.  Are they?

During the eighteenth century, many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers were keenly aware that Chinese had preceded them in their emphasis on reasoning by some two millennia. By the end of this century, however, a more muscular, more confident Europe chose to erase their debt to China from its collective memory.

Similarly, Islam, in the seventh century, made a more radical break from priesthood than the Reformation in Europe. In the eleventh century, an Arab scientist, Alhazen – his Latinized name – devised numerous experiments to test his theories in optics, but, more importantly, theorized cogently about the scientific method in his writings. Roger Bacon, the putative ‘founder’ of the scientific method, had read Alhazen in a Latin translation.

When our student reads the sonnets of Shakespeare and Spenser, she is little aware that the tradition of courtly love they celebrate comes via Provencal and the troubadours (derived from taraba, Arabic for ‘to sing’) from Arab traditions of love, music and poetry. When our male student gets down on one knee while proposing to his fair lady, he might do well to remember this.

On a clear night, with a telescope on her dormitory rooftop, our student can watch stars, many of which still carry Arabic names. This might be a fitting closure to a day in the life of our student, who, more likely than not, remains Eurocentric in her understanding of world history, little aware of the multifarious bonds that connect her life to different parts of the ‘Orient.’

M. Shahid Alam is Professor of Economics, Northeastern University, Boston. He is the author of Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism (Palgrave Macmillan: 2009). You may contact him at alqalam02760@yahoo.com .

http://us.macmillan.com/israeliexceptionalism (check out this book!)

Top American intellectual sees no significant change of US foreign policy under Obama. 

As civilised people across the world breathed a sigh of relief to see the back of former US president George W. Bush, top American intellectual Noam Chomsky warned against assuming or expecting significant changes in the basis of Washington's foreign policy under President Barack Obama.

During two lectures organised by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, Chomsky cited numerous examples of the driving doctrines behind US foreign policy since the end of World War II.

"As Obama came into office, Condoleezza Rice predicted that he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style," said Chomsky.

"But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric. Deeds commonly tell a different story," he added.

"There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that we if can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world," explained Chomsky.

Chomsky said that a leading doctrine of US foreign policy during the period of its global dominance is what he termed as "the Mafia principle."

"The Godfather does not tolerate 'successful defiance'. It is too dangerous. It must therefore be stamped out so that others understand that disobedience is not an option," said Chomsky.

Because the US sees "successful defiance" of Washington as a "virus" that will "spread contagion," he explained. 

Iran

The US had feared this "virus" of independent thought from Washington by Tehran and therefore acted to overthrow the Iranian parliamentary democracy in 1953.

"The goal in 1953 was to retain control of Iranian resources," said Chomsky.

However, "in 1979 the (Iranian) virus emerged again. The US at first sought to sponsor a military coup; when that failed, it turned to support Saddam Hussein's merciless invasion (of Iran)."

"The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with sanctions and other means," said Chomsky.

"The US continued, without a break, its torture of Iranians," he stressed. 

Nuclear attack

Chomsky mocked the idea presented by mainstream media that a future-nuclear-armed Iran may attack already-nuclear-armed Israel.

"The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth — unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated along with them," said Chomsky, stressing that this is not the case.

Chomsky further explained that the presence of US anti-missile weapons in Israel are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, and not for self-defence, as it is often presented.

"The systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But …the purpose of the US interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a US or Israeli attack on Iran — that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent," said Chomsky.

Iraq

Chomsky reminded the audience of America's backing of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during and even after Iraq's war with Iran.

"The Reaganite love affair with Saddam did not end after the (Iran-Iraq) war. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States, then under Gorge Bush I, to receive advanced weapons' training," said Chomsky.

This support continued while Saddam was committing atrocities against his own people, until he fell out of US favour when in 1990 he invaded Kuwait, an even closer alley of Washington.

"In 1990, Saddam defied, or more likely misunderstood orders, and he quickly shifted from favourite friend to the reincarnation of Hitler," Chomsky added.

Then the people of Iraq were subjected to "genocidal" US-backed sanctions.

Chomsky explained that although the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was launched under many false pretexts and lies, was a " major crime", many critics of the invasion – including Obama – viewed it as merely as "a mistake" or a "strategic blunder".

"It's probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad," he said

"There's nothing principled about it. It wasn't a strategic blunder: it was a major crime," he added.

Chomsky credited the holding of elections in Iraq in 2005 to popular Iraqi demand, despite initial US objection.

The US military, he argued, could kill as many Iraqi insurgents as it wished, but it was more difficult to shoot at non-violent protesters in the streets out on the open, which meant Washington at times had to give in to public Iraqi pressure.

But despite being pressured to announce a withdrawal from Iraq, the US continues to seek a long term presence in the country.

The US mega-embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama, noted Chomsky.

Optimism

Chomsky stressed that public pressure in the 'West' can make a positive difference for people suffering from the aggression of 'Western' governments.

"There is a lot of comparison between opposition to the Iraq war with opposition to the Vietnam war, but people tend to forget that at first there was almost no opposition to the Vietnam war," said Chomsky.

"In the Iraq war, there were massive international protests before it officially stated… and it had an effect. The United Sates could not use the tactics used in Vietnam: there was no saturation bombing by B52s, so there was no chemical warfare – (the Iraq war was) horrible enough, but it could have been a lot worse," he said.

"And furthermore, the Bush administration had to back down on its war aims, step by step," he added.

"It had to allow elections, which it did not want to do: mainly a victory for non-Iraqi protests. They could kill insurgents; they couldn't deal hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Their hands were tied by the domestic constraints. They finally had to abandon – officially at least – virtually all the war aims," said Chomsky.

"As late as November 2007, the US was still insisting that the 'Status of Forces Agreement' allow for an indefinite US military presence and privileged access to Iraq's resources by US investors – well they didn't get that on paper at least. They had to back down. OK, Iraq is a horror story but it could have been a lot worse," he said.

"So yes, protests can do something. When there is no protest and no attention, a power just goes wild, just like in Cambodia and northern Laos," he added. 

Turkey

Chomsky said that Turkey could become a "significant independent actor" in the region, if it chooses to.

"Turkey has to make some internal decisions: is it going to face west and try to get accepted by the European Union or is it going to face reality and recognise that Europeans are so racist that they are never going to allow it in?," said Chomsky.

The Europeans "keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the EU," he explained.

But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003 when it followed its public opinion and did not take part in the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its population, which opposed the invasion.

But 'New Europe' was led by Berlusconi of Italy and Aznar of Spain, who rejected the views of their populations – which strongly objected to the Iraq war – and preferred to follow Bush, noted Chomsky.

So, in that sense Turkey was more democratic than states that took part in the war, which in turn infuriated the US.

Today, Chomsky added, Turkey is also acting independently by refusing to take part in the US-Israeli military exercises. 

Fear factor

Chomsky explained that although 'Western' government use "the maxim of Thucydides" ('the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must'), their peoples are hurled via the "fear factor".

Via cooperate media and complicit intellectuals, the public is led to believe that all the crimes and atrocities committed by their governments is either "self defence" or "humanitarian intervention". 

NATO

Chomsky noted that Obama has escalated Bush's war in Afghanistan, using NATO.

NATO is also seen as reinforcing US control over energy supplies.

But the US also used NATO to keep Europe under control.

"From the earliest post-World War days, it was understood that Western Europe might choose to follow an independent course," said Chomsky, "NATO was partially intended to counter this serious threat," he added. 

Middle East oil

Chomsky explained that Middle East oil reserves were understood to be "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history," the most "strategically important area in the world," in Eisenhower's words.

Control of Middle East oil would provide the United States with "substantial control of the world."

This meant that the US "must support harsh and brutal regimes and block democracy and development" in the Middle East. 

Somalia

Chomsky tackled the origins of the Somali piracy issue.

"Piracy is not nice, but where did it come from?"

Chomsky explained that one of the immediate reasons for piracy is European counties and others are simply "destroying Somalia's territorial waters by dumping toxic waste – probably nuclear waste – and also by overfishing."

"What happens to the fishermen in Somalia? They become pirates. And then we're all upset about the piracy, not about having created the situation," said Chomsky.

Chomsky went on to cite another example of harming Somalia.

"One of the great achievements of the war on terror, which was greatly hailed in the press when it was announced, was closing down an Islamic charity – Barakat – which was identified as supporting terrorists.

"A couple of months later… the (US) government quietly recognised that they were wrong, and the press may have had a couple of lines about it – but meanwhile, it was a major blow against Somalia. Somalia doesn't have much of an economy but a lot of it was supported by this charity: not just giving money but running banks and businesses, and so on.

"It was a significant part of the economy of Somalia…closing it down… was another contributing factor to the breaking down of a very weak society…and there are other examples." 

Darfur

Chomsky also touched on Sudan's Darfur region.

"There are terrible things going on in Darfur, but in comparison with the region they don't amount to a lot unfortunately – like what's going on in eastern Congo is incomparably worse than in Darfur.

"But Darfur is a very popular topic for Western humanists because you can blame it on an enemy – you have to distort a lot but you can blame it on 'Arabs', 'bad guys'," he explained.

"What about saving eastern Congo where maybe 20 times as many people have been killed? Well, that gets kind of tricky … for people who… are using minerals from eastern Congo that obtained by multinationals sponsoring militias which slaughter and kill and get the minerals," he said.

Or the fact that Rwanda is simply the worst of the many agents and it is a US alley, he added. 

Goldstone's Gaza report

Chomsky appeared to have agreed with Israel that the Goldstone report on the Gaza war was bias, only he saw it as biased in favour of Israel.

The Goldstone report had acknowledged Israel's right to self-defence, although it denounced the method this was conducted.

Chomsky stressed that the right to self-defence does not mean resorting to military force before "exhausting peaceful means", something Israel did not even contemplate doing.

In fact, Chomsky points out, it was Israel who broke the ceasefire with Hamas and refused to extend it, as continuing the siege of Gaza itself is an act of war.

As for the current stalled Mideast peace process, Chomsky said that despite adopting a tougher tone towards Israel than that of Bush, Obama made no real effort to pressure Israel to live up to its obligations.

In the absence of the threat of cutting US aid for Israel, there is no compelling reason why Tel Aviv should listen to Washington. 

What can be done?

Chomsky stressed that despite all the obstacles, public pressure can and does make a difference for the better, urging people to continue activism and spreading knowledge. 

"There is no reason to be pessimistic, just realistic."

Chomsky noted that public opinion in the US and Britain is increasingly becoming more aware of the crimes committed by Israel.

"Public opinion is shifting substantially."

And this is where a difference can be made, because Israel will not change its policies without pressure from the 'West'.

"There is a lot to do in Western countries…primarily in the US."

Chomsky also stressed the importance of taking legal action in 'Western' countries against companies breaking international law via illegitimate dealings with Israel, citing the possible involvement of British Gas in Israeli theft of natural gas off the coast of Gaza, as one example that should be investigated.

In conclusion of one of the lectures, Chomsky quoted Antonio Gramsci who famously called for "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will." 

Mamoon Alabbasi can be reached via: alabbasi@middle-east-online.com .

Can anyone see some ethical flaws with that?

I have no authority to talk in the name of all Palestinians, but I have previously stated that I DO NOT wish the zionist murderers, those of whom were directly or indirectly involved in massacres, theft of land, subjugation and oppression, to remain in Palestine after its liberation from the occupier, except of course for the very few good people amongst them – as no soul should carry the liability of another.

I reiterate, I do not wish the invader, occupier and criminal racists to stay in Palestine, the land that they have incessantly raped, destroyed and disfigured, nor do I desire them to be my neighbours.

They have shown no respect, no appreciation, and no love to this land or to her people.

They do not deserve to live there.

Many of our supporters freak out upon hearing this declaration of mine, they think that I am becoming an uncaring person, or turning into a radical hardliner; and some curiously and attentively listen, then, timidly and modestly, try to understand.

I will try here to elucidate by asking some simple questions, as to why I think it is unreasonable to make the premises of a JUST SOLUTION dependent upon our acceptance –as Palestinians, of giving the right of permanent residency and equal rights of citizenship to all zionist Jewish occupiers in our stolen land of Palestine.

Here are my questions:

•  Why do our supporters, progressives who advocate a one state solution, keep asking us – Palestinians – to share our land with those who acquired it by theft, military force and murder?
•  Would you share your home with the armed robber who came to steal from you?
• Should a thief get to enjoy the same rights of ownership to materials and assets that he acquired by armed robbery, as the person who was robbed?
• Should a colonialist imperialist occupier regime, who keeps hold of countries by terrorizing the indigenous population and perpetrating endless scores of bloodshed, not be severely sanctioned as legislated wisely by International Law ?
• Should the USA decide to move a few tens of millions of its citizens to Iraq or Afghanistan, confiscate Iraqi lands, give it to those colonizers, then demands that those citizens have equal rights with Iraqis or Afghanis; should we support the equal rights of those colonizers?
•  Should the Algerians have waited for the French occupiers to be magnanimous enough to give them "equal rights”?
•  Would Algeria be to the Algerians today, had they not fought for the liberation of their country against colonial France?
• Under International Law; is an occupying entity entitled to ANY rights whatsoever?
•  Why defend the “right” of the barbaric occupier – who has been engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide for over six decades, to stay in Palestine after its liberation, and this while keeping land and houses, villages, archaeological treasures, churches and mosques, libraries, they’ve forcibly stolen at gun point?
•  Why imagine that it is unrealistic to return the stolen land and property to its legitimate owners while ignoring its mode of acquisition by zionists?
•  Why instead of defending the right Palestinians to get ALL their country back; including: homes, orchards and land, supporters ask the victims to keep on giving, by the supposition that returning back stolen property creates "another injustice" to the OCCUPIER?
•  Why are we – Palestinians – continuously pressed to accept this scurrilous logic, by our supporters?
•  Are people so naïve that they don't realize that doing so, invariably corresponds in fact to… a full support – quasi unconditional, of the zionist thieves and their ideological core which deems colonising Palestine as a “Divine and historical right” for the Jewish people ?
•  What does the notion of Justice, social responsibility, fair dealing mean if we are to equate criminals with victims in terms of rights to ownership of stolen property?

My logic is simple:

Supporting "equal rights" in which the occupier gets the privilege of staying in the land they’ve looted and destroyed, while keeping hold of the estate of absentees, would mean a grave violation of the fundamentals of ethical foundations of human social interaction.

The message it gives: bullies, criminals, thieves are allowed to get away with MURDER. literally!

It is a carte blanche for bullies to do what they like, steal, kill, colonize, rape, oppress, torture…

Advocating "equal rights" between the criminal and victim, in which the criminal escapes punishment for his crimes, gets to keep stolen lands, while being rewarded by enjoying the fruits of his aggression in terms of total participation in decision and law making in the land he abused, is an assassination of the concept of justice, on which peaceful Civilization is built and needs to prosper.

Furthermore, I reiterate; any future decision on the status of ILLEGAL COLONIZERS in Palestine should be a PALESTINIAN DECISION; they, and ONLY they, can choose whether to allow their tormentors to stay or not.

فليتكَ تحلو والحياةُ مريرة

وليتكَ ترضى والأنامُ غضابُ

ألا ليتَ الذي بيني وبينكَ عامرٌ

وبيني وبينَ العالمينَ خرابُ

إذا صحَّ منكَ الودُ فالكلُ هينٌ

وكلُ الذي فوقَ  الترابِ ترابُ

يارب علمني ان احب الناس كما احب نفسي

وعلمني ان احاسب نفسي كما احاسب الناس

وعلمني ان التسامح هو اكبرمراتب القوة وان

حب الانتقام هو اول مظاهر الضعف

يارب اذا أسأت الى الناس فأعطني شجاعة الإعتذار

وإذا أساء لي الناس فأعطني شجاعة العفو

http://poetryforpalestine.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!92AA638F9B6EA940!5195.entry

Illustration by Khalil Bendib

His statement was a damning indictment of 344 of his colleagues. The following is the full text of it (my emphasis added).

Today we journey from Operation Cast Lead to Operation Cast Doubt. Almost as serious as committing war crimes is covering up war crimes, pretending that war crimes were never committed and did not exist.
Because behind every such deception is the nullification of humanity, the destruction of human dignity, the annihilation of the human spirit, the triumph of Orwellian thinking, the eternal prison of the dark heart of the totalitarian.

The resolution before us today, which would reject all attempts of the Goldstone Report to fix responsibility of all parties to war crimes, including both Hamas and Israel, may as well be called the "Down is Up, Night is Day, Wrong is Right" resolution.

Because if this Congress votes to condemn a report it has not read, concerning events it has totally ignored, about violations of law of which it is unaware, it will have brought shame to this great institution.

How can we ever expect there to be peace in the Middle East if we tacitly approve of violations of international law and international human rights, if we look the other way, or if we close our eyes to the heartbreak of people on both sides by white-washing a legitimate investigation?

How can we protect the people of Israel from existential threats if we hold no concern for the protection of the Palestinians, for their physical security, their right to land, their right to their own homes, their right to water, their right to sustenance, their right to freedom of movement, their right to the human security of jobs, education and health care?

We will have peace only when the plight of both Palestinians and Israelis is brought before this House and given equal consideration in recognition of that principle that all people on this planet have a right to survive and thrive, and it is our responsibility, our duty to see that no individual, no group, no people are barred from this humble human claim.

See and hear Kucinich delivering that statement on:
http://pulsemedia.org/2009/11/04/rep-dennis-kucinich-blasts-operation-cast-doubt/

The only slight quarrel I have with it is the possible implication that it's the first time Zionism's stooges in Congress have brought shame upon the institution. They've been doing that with knee-jerk and monotonous regularity since the creation of Greater Israel, by a war of aggression not self-defence, in 1967.

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

The issue of continuing and expanding Jewish settlements came back to haunt the Palestinian leadership that negotiated Oslo and continued to negotiate with Israel for the last 16 years while Israeli continued to build and expand its settlements, not to mention building the Apartheid Wall.

Zimbabwe expels U.N. rights investigator

Zimbabwe Deports U.N. Investigator (New York Times, October 29, 2009) 

Zimbabwe Deports U.N. Investigator (Wall Street Journal, October 29, 2009) 

BUT:  This headline is Absent. 

Israel denied entry to Richard Falk, UN Human Rights special rapporteur and deported him from Ben Gurion (December 15, 2008) 

What's the difference between the first three headlines and the last one?   

Simple, the first three headlines that appear in the three Jewish papers don’t deal with Israel (Rupert Murdoch now owns the Wall Street Journal, a staunch Zionist nevertheless), the second headline does, so its persona non grata in “Their/our” media, although both stories deal with the similar expulsion of two U.N. Representatives from Zimbabwe and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. 

U.N. Representatives Manfred Nowak and Richard Falk were to investigate human rights abuses and criminal acts in Zimbabwe and the Occupied Palestinian Territories respectively, but both were expelled, and both called upon the U.N. Human Rights Council to investigate this diplomatic outrage.  

It is axiomatic that "their/our" news media protects Israel from any negative stories that may expose its war crimes; crimes against humanity, its three-year siege of 1.5 million Palestinians denied access to food, water and medicines, its imprisonment and torture of women and children as well as one third of the Palestinian elected representatives. It publicly states with all the chutzpah it only possesses that it does not want peace and let the world go to hell.  And guess what, the world salutes, obeys, and moves on to the main story in “Their/our” media: The balloon boy that turned out to be a hoax, much like all the stories initiated by Israel and its lobby against Islam, Muslims, Arab countries and its soon-to-be-attacked Iran.   

Shockingly, the world just accepts as de facto Israel’s repeated public statements that it will attack Iran, damn the consequences to America and the world. There is no world outrage that this violates the U.N. Charter and International Law, i.e. to attack an innocent sovereign nation on the premise of “what if”, much like Bush/Cheney with Iraq.  IAEA, U.S. Intelligence evidence be damned. 

The only question the world asks is not if Israel will attack Iran but when, never as to how is this possible. If this is the case, then Iran has the right to preemptively attack Israel with or without nuclear weapons and let the chips fall where they may. 

“Their/our” media is the true Apartheid Wall between Israel and our nation. It strangles our capitol like an elastic beltway that it tightens and loosens according to Israel’s directions.

It is the whip that keeps our cowardly politicians in tow and our populace ignorant of the truth about Israel “our ally and only democratic government in the Middle East”.  Israel is the huge sucking sound that drains our money, military, and mind set while we like indoctrinated puppets cheer it on.  We are helping Israel in its strategy to create our own national suicide. 

Just recent examples of the Jewish media’s blanket love fest for Israel at the expense of our own national interest: 

1.  Not reporting on the Goldstone Report condemning Israel for its war crimes, criminal acts, and siege of Gaza, nor on Obama’s AIPAC directed rejection of it.   

2.  Failure by our networks to report on Israel’s newest Jewish spy who sold sensitive national secrets to Israel.  (Only Wolf Blitzer, a former AIPAC employee reported the story briefly, simply to state that Israel is not implicated in any wrongdoing; a way to prepare returning to AIPAC after you’ve left CNN). 

3.  Not reporting on the embarrassing slap to Obama on its continued building of illegal settlements, demolition of homes in Jerusalem, and its military/police attack on Islam's third holiest site, Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.   

4.  Not reporting on Amnesty International’s Report that Israel is controlling and depriving Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza of water to drink.   It reports that the illegal settlers use more than four times the water allocated to the Palestinians. The settlers use that much to fill their swimming pools and water their gardens. This criminal act is deliberately ignored by the west lest it has to issue its usual mild “concern”.  

5.  Not reporting on the quick AIPAC driven retreat by Obama calling for Israel to freeze all construction of illegal settlements including the outrageous claim of “natural growth”.  Obama has now abandoned another of his campaign and policy promises to directly remain involved in the peace process (piece by piece theft of Palestinian land) between the traitor Mahmoud Abbas who should resign if he has any dignity left, or be removed. And Netanyahu, the Nazi from hell. 

A USATODAY report states that Obama’s top fundraisers have received the plumb jobs of Cabinet, Agency, and Ambassadorial appointments.   (Top Obama Fundraisers Get Posts, October 29, 2009). 

The story reports:  “More than 40% of President Obama's top-level fundraisers have secured posts in his administration, from key executive branch jobs to diplomatic postings in countries such as France, Spain and the Bahamas, a USA TODAY analysis finds.  Twenty of the 47 fundraisers that Obama's campaign identified as collecting more than $500,000 have been named to government positions, the analysis found.” 

If you look closely you will find that the vast majority of these donors are Jewish, many from Wall Street, or Pro-Israel activists. 

So why is America silent, confused, and supportive of Israel?   Why do polls show Americans support Israel?   Well, if your only source of information is our Jewish dominated media that inputs Pro-Israel Garbage, you’ll get Garbage out; in addition to the fear Americans feel to opposing Israel, knowing the caller has their phone number and address.   They don’t want to hear a knock on their door, Shalom. 

Why is our Congress so slavishly a doormat for Israel's Lobby?  

Simple:  Jewish money, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Media. 

That's why a shot in the arm of billions is going to Israel and Goldman Sachs while America’s children are left without the Swine Flu shot.

Yes, in this age and time, a country still remains oppressed by another, worse still, they are both African countries. Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (the people are known as Saharawi) is a former colony of the Spanish protectorate which is rich in mineral resources like phosphate mineral rock, it also has some of the best fishing grounds in the world, and its off-shore oil resources are currently being explored.

When Spain pulled out of the colony in 1975, it didn’t finish the decolonisation process and Morocco as its neighbour quickly invaded and took over. Mauritania also seized part of the land but soon returned it to the Saharawi and made peace with the Polisario Front, the political movement that continued to fight against Morocco.

Africa’s Last Colony: Spain’s Error, Morocco’s Sin aptly describes the situation and dire circumstances under which the Saharawi live. Water poisoning, torture, forced disappearances and other inhumane situations are some of the conditions under which the Saharawi live.

The book relays the experience of the author, Ike Abonyi who visited the country; Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic. In his foreword, he laments that the story of the country as being an emotional one which has since been ignored by the rest of the world.
The book is divided into three parts with an easy to read and understandable style.  Its full title is apt; Africa’s Last Colony: Spain’s Error, Morocco’s Sin; An African Journalist’s Diary On Western Sahara.

The foreword was written by Prof. Nuhu Yaqub, the immediate past Vice Chancellor of the University of Abuja who described it as a timely addition to literature on Africa’s decolonization process. Yaqub also agrees that many Africans even enlightened ones are ignorant of a country called Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, not to mention its struggle for independence from Morocco.

His foreword decries the hypocrisy of some of the Western countries who claim to uphold human rights; (France, Germany and Spain) for turning a blind eye to Morocco’s flagrant abuse of human rights. He adds that it is Nigeria’s duty to the African continent to assist Western Sahara secure its independence.

The first part of the book collates the history of Western Sahara, its history with Spain, Spain’s pullout, and Morocco/Mauritania invasion of the country. It also explains how Mauritania returned the land it had seized while Morocco stubbornly held on to its seized part.

Abonyi and other analysts blame Spain for not finishing the decolonisation process i.e., handing over to the Polisario Front, a political group which had been formed in 1973 to fight Spanish colonial rule.

Despite the 1975 ruling of the International Court of Justice that Western Sahara was a country on its own at the time of its colonisation by Spain, its sovereignty still belonged to its people, while Morocco refused to leave the occupied land and the war with the Polisario Front continued. In 1992, the United Nations brokered a cease-fire and passed referendum on self-determination of the Saharawi people but Morocco refused to allow it.

Over 150,000 Saharawi are internally displaced refugees living on a daily ration provided by the United Nations Food Programme while many are hounded into detention without trials or forced into exile.

In the second part, Abonyi narrates his personal experience on the trip to the country; how as a presidential guest, his bed was a six-inch mattress usually used in boarding schools in Nigeria. According to him, the camp has enjoyed some peace in the last 17 years, but most young Saharawi are disillusioned especially since Morocco simply exploits the resources of the country for itself alone, while ignoring the needs of the Saharawi.

The narration by Abonyi would elicit sympathy from every reader; he narrates how young Saharawi have lost their limbs, and in some cases their lives, with explosion of the mines, which Morocco has placed at the 2500km long wall erected on occupied Western Sahara.

He also narrates gory details of about 140 inmates of the Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Mines and War located at the headquarters of administrative headquarters of the Saharawi camp.

The third part of Africa’s Last Colony is a collection of interviews with some dignitaries of Saharawi Government. In the interview, President Mohammed Abdulaziz praised Nigeria’s attitude towards other African nations, and its leadership role in the African continent. Other dignitaries who spoke to Abonyi include Mohamed Salem, the Commander of the Saharawi Military School, and Mohammed Yeslem Beisat, who is the Minister of African Affairs.

The author raises some very important questions; why did Spain not complete the decolonisation process by handing over to the Polisario Front? Why is the commonness of religion, language and geography not helping solve the problem between the two nations? Who manufactures and provides the weapons being used by the Moroccans to unleash terror on the Saharawi?  Which other countries are benefitting from Morocco’s exploitation of the Saharawi? What is the role of France, as the former colonial master of Morocco, in the whole situation?

Some other questions begging for answers are; why is the rest of the Arab world adopting an indifferent approach to the oppression of their ‘brothers’? How much pressure are the African Union and other regional organisations applying to Morocco especially as Western Sahara is also being recognised as a sovereign state.

Africa’s Last Colony brings to fore a true but pitiable situation that, while other people have moved on to battling internal problems such as ethnicity, nepotism and so on, an African nation is being deprived of self-rule by another African nation. The gruesomeness of the situation is that soldiers readily torture and kill, without a war situation in Saharawi, regardless of age or gender.

http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/features/arts/2009/oct/27/arts-27-10-2009-002.html

Israeli officials are right to worry. Gazans too. Yet Americans should worry even more.

Israel's "legitimacy" will not last. Of course, that assumes its legitimacy was deserved. That issue also is now called into question in light of the consistency of Israeli behavior over the past six decades. The emerging issues are these:

When and how will the recognition of Israel's nation-state status be withdrawn? How will Tel Aviv behave in the interim?

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman may have tipped his Masada hand when he reportedly told Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan that Israel may use nuclear weapons against Gaza. The threat to Israel is not the 1.5 million Gazans who reside in the world's largest open-air prison.

The threat is the fast-growing global outrage at the abuse inflicted on Palestinians, commencing with the ethnic cleansing of 400-plus villages six decades ago.

Not since 1948 has this enclave of extremists mounted such a public relations offensive. Christian Zionist President Harry Truman trusted Jewish Zionist lobbyists when he solicited assurances that they would not become what they immediately became: a racist theocratic state with an expansionist agenda destined to create serial crises in the region.

The merciless global agenda pursued by Colonial Zionists is the single greatest threat to world peace, as confirmed yet again by Lieberman's warning. As the primary remaining ally of these Jewish nationalists, the risks to the U.S. increase with each passing day as Tel Aviv works behind the scenes to catalyze yet another conflict.

This entangled alliance was destined to provoke resentments that would eventually endanger their super power ally and foremost arms provider. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the mass murder of 9-11, conceded that the motivation for that attack was to focus "the American people…on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab Muslim people."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Truman 61 years ago that this militant enclave meant to establish Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East. Familiar with the duplicity for which Israel has since become infamous, the Pentagon chiefs warned: "All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders."

Nuclear-Armed Fanatics

With each passing year, Tel Aviv adds a new chapter to the agent provocateur handbook on How To Succeed as a Victim.

Israel's strategic success traces directly to its capacity to radicalize and enrage-as those residing in the Occupied Territories endure a third generation of deprivation, degradation and periodic starvation. Thus the in-depth planning that preceded Israel's brutal "defensive" assault on Gaza between Christmas 2008 and the inauguration of Barack Obama-who said nothing about the attack throughout its 28-day duration.

That silence continues even now after Richard Goldstone, a South African jurist, issued a report describing dozens of Israeli war crimes and evidence of crimes against humanity. In the lead-up to the report's release, a U.S. president gave Tel Aviv a rhetorical gift when, in a U.N. speech, the nation's first Black president used the code phrase "Jewish state" as an implied endorsement of the apartheid policies of this racist enclave. Even Truman did not go that far. But then his administration was not as thoroughly staffed with Zionists and pro-Israelis.

In addition to killing some 1400 Palestinians, one-third of them women and children, Israel destroyed the infrastructure of Gaza including farmlands, factories and schools as well as its water supply and sanitation works. The facts in the Goldstone Report were further confirmed by "Breaking the Silence"-the personal testimony by thirty members of the Israel Defense Forces who described a murderous policy meant to teach the people of Gaza a lesson for their support of Hamas-which came to power in 2006 elections that were universally appraised as free and fair.

As Israel's protector and apologist, the U.S. bears the brunt of the anger as Israeli extremism continues to enrage Muslims and radicalize the Islamic body politic. A systematic assassination campaign ensured that Tel Aviv had "no one to talk to" except known collaborators with the occupation authorities in Tel Aviv and their arms suppliers in Washington. Meanwhile, the steady expansion of Israeli settlements made a Palestinian state impossible-unless indigenous Arabs are happy to reside in an archipelago of isolated ghettos ringed by Israeli checkpoints.

To suggest that the U.S. is culpable only states the obvious. Yet Israeli extremism continues unabated even as Tel Aviv insists that its neighbors accept it as a "Jewish state" even before its borders are fixed and resolution of the occupied territories is known. After six decades of nonstop deceit, Arab states are understandably reluctant to further appease this "state." For Americans endangered by the behavior of Jewish fanatics, the lesson is uncomfortable but inescapable: we enabled this.

By our continued appeasement, Barack Obama is inviting another violent reaction to Israel's serial provocations. By failing to endorse the Goldstone Report, our commander-in-chief is putting U.S. forces at risk. By implying that Israel is above the law, he only emboldens Tel Aviv. By suggesting that Israeli conduct is consistent with the values of a "Jewish state," he endangers the broader Jewish community. That includes those moderate Jews who anticipated this extremist behavior when in May 1948 Truman overruled the strategic objections of Secretary of State George C. Marshall and enabled this fanaticism by extending nation-state recognition.

Small in numbers but large in ambition, this extremist enclave had no choice but to wage war by way of deception. The most insidious deceit was targeted, from within, at its purported ally to induce the U.S. military to lead an invasion of Iraq for its Greater Israel strategy. Absent an Israeli strategy able to sustain serial crises, a long-deceived public will awaken to the common source of the fixed intelligence that led us into the last war-and now seeks to induce the next.

As Americans awaken to how this duplicity proceeds in plain sight, they will see for themselves who and why. That knowledge is the threat that Tel Aviv most fears. As the facts become known, Israeli legitimacy will no longer be an issue. The only issue will be how best to dis-arm these extremists and how to hold accountable those lawmakers who enable this ongoing treason.

* Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide; an adviser to policy-makers worldwide; former counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee; and author of numerous articles and books including his latest book Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War, Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution. See www.criminalstate.com

Gaza City – Song by Johnny Punish:

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVcHmdx7pkE

From: Revealing Gaza, in the eyes of the beholder

I recently was invited to a workshop discussing the Palestinian dialogue and what destiny is waiting for it, I found it very useful for non-political people like me and I thought it would be helpful and eye-opening if I share it with you.  The invitation was from Mr. Omar Shabaan, the president of Pal-Think organization http://www.palthink.org/, and the workshop was held at the organization's headquarters in Gaza.

PAL Think for Strategic Studies is an independent non-profit, non-political, non-governmental and non-sectarian think and do tank that aims to stimulate and inspire rational public discussions and consensus for the well-being of the Palestinians and the Region. PAL Think was established in 2007 in Gaza-Palestine by group of Palestinian researchers and community activists who have intimate relations and diverse knowledge of the Middle East, its current problems, potentials and possibilities. (http:www.//palthink.org.)

Mr. Omar Shabaan is a leading Palestinian figure who is well-known in the world of economics and entrepreneurship and was one of the first Palestinians to shine in those fields. He didn’t stop there but decided to start an organizaton to give back to his community and help this community grow, understand and be aware.

Omar Shabaan is a senior economic advisor, with over 15 years of experience in management consultancy and private sector development. He participated in various international conferences on economic issues. He has developed manuals and published more than 100 articles in local newspapers and on international websites. During the past few years and on a regular basis, he has been invited by local and international NGOs to speak on various economic, social and developmental topics such as; the Israeli disengagement plan, PA national budget, SMEs development, free trade agreement and industrial zones. He has been interviewed by many well-known international newspapers such as Lemonade, New York Times, the TIMES, Al-Ahram weekly, Washington Times, Christian Science Monitor. Also he has given interviews to many TV and radio stations such as Al-Jazeera, BBC, ABC, NBC, Monte Carlo and Nile News, etc.
The workshop was given by two of Mr. Shabaan's friends and main hosts:

1- Mr. Ashraf Jomaa (representing FATAH)

2- Dr. Ismail Radwan (representing HAMAS)

The guests and attendees were leading Palestinian personalities in the world of media, community activists, owners of organizations and people with militant experience.

Mr. Omar Shabaan started the workshop with some strong words of welcoming and a summary about Pal Think Organization:

" We welcome you all, as many local; international, national, and worldwide initiatives are pressuring and supporting the dialogue of reconciliation.

Pal-Think is honored to be one of the leading active organizatons to achieve and support the reconciliation between (FATAH and HAMAS) and played a role in exchanging messages between both parties.

We found real moves and good intentions of both parties to help achieve reconciliation and help the dialogue succeed so we are conducting that workshop because we believe the Palestinian Civil community has the right to know where the is dialogue now, what happened in Egypt, what is the reason behind postponing it and what destiny is waiting for it." The main hosts both agreed on good intentions and on doing the utmost to help this dialogue succeed and that the Palestinian benefit and utility is the main goal of both parties.

Then a debate started between both hosts, each trying to illustrate and express his party's beliefs, goals, points of disagreement, needs, tasks, worries and visions.

The main issues discussed in this workshop were the points of disagreement and here is a glimpse of this debate:

Mr. Ashraf Jomaa: Main issue of disagreement is the elections and everything around it. We want this election to be a listing – percentage elections (you elect a list of people that represent either a certain party or a list of independents or represent a certain political program), this will help everyone join these elections But HAMAS is against this method and demands a mixed election (where many parties could join a list and the percentage of rebate exceeds 2%) which will put us in the same zone of conflict since not everybody will join independently and only HAMAS and FATAH will be the main lists.

Mr. Ismail Radwan: Mixed elections will help all parties more and at the same time help protect HAMAS representives and elected personalities since HAMAS is the number one party that Israel and zionists want to kill and imprison. We entered the listing elections and won it but where are most of the elected people of HAMAS now? They are imprisoned by Israel. It’s our right to protect our people.

Mr. Ashraf Jomaa: Security is also one of the issues we disagree on. We have agreed on hiring only qualified people overlooking their political belonging and start re-constructing all security sections. The disagreement came when we wanted to start with the security sections in Gaza then the West Bank when HAMAS disagreed and demanded the start to be across Palestinians at the same time.

Mr. Ismail Radwan: I think since we will start fixing all security sections why don’t we start fixing all sections whether it’s here or in the West Bank. Why start with here first? FATAH is acting as if the security sections in the West Bank are forbidden to touch or fix and that’s not acceptable.

Mr. Ashraf Jomaa: Assembling the government is something we disagree about, we agree with HAMAS that the government should have the nature of classes and parties (since HAMAS won the elections of 2006) but we disagree on HAMAS demanding the Prime Minister to be from their party so we suggested to have the President as the prime minister.

Mr. Ismail Radwan: We won the elections, so I think we have the right of taking the position of the Prime Minister and anyway this issue will be discussed more with the upcoming dialogue sessions. We also want to discuss the political program that has the political phrase of (respect and commitment). We won’t accept this because we won’t acknowledge Israel or commit with it since they don’t want to respect or acknowldge us.

Also if we unite and assemble a strong government then we will force the whole world to talk to us, cooperate with us and respect us.

At the end of the long debate that I summarized, both hosts agreed on looking forward to the upcoming dialogue sessions and that the postponing comes from the need for more time to work on the points of disagreement and solve them.

Also both agreed on a point that the dialogue came so far and achieved a big advancement that the old sessions lacked.

They were optimistic and believed in announcing the success of the dialogue soon and that good intentions along with good deeds will result to a near reconciliation. They both won’t compromise with any principles but will work on the points of disagreement.

I will end this article with a question I wanted to ask both sides but couldn’t because of the lack of time, this question now is open for everyone to answer:

"I represent a huge class of Palestinian people whom are non-political when I ask, DON’T THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE WHO SUFFERED ALOT IN BOTH CONFLICTS (PALESTINIAN – ISRAELI CONFLICT AND PALESTINIAN – PALESTINIAN CONFLICT) DESERVE FROM BOTH PARTIES TO COMPROMISE AND HELP THE DIALOGUE OF RECONCILIATION SUCCEED NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES SO THEY CAN BREATHE, LIVE AND FEEL SAFE?"

Omar Ghraieb ( Journalist – Translator)

Palestine – Gaza

Source: http://gazatimes.blogspot.com/2009/04/i-recently-was-invited-to-workshop.html

- The ramification of the Goldtone report and growing calls not only to hold Israeli leaders accountable for specific acts that amount to war cries and crimes against humanity (e.g. in Gaza) but to clearly identify Israel as the racist, colonial state at its core (from which emanates all these atrocities tat include ethnic cleansing).

- The intensified Israeli assault on the AlAqsa compound and the whole of the Holy City of AlQuds/Jerusalem in a final push to Judaicize the city and erase Arab Christian and Muslim heritage.  Home demolitions, denial of basic rights of residence, denial of rights of worship and movement, and outright military assaults on the "city of peace" belie a culture of impunity and disregard for International law that has been allowed to grow.  Leaders of Western, Arab, and Islamic world meanwhile oscillate between outright facilitation of the atrocities to collaboration to indifference (and I am not sure those are distinct or meaningful categories).  Many of us began to think that should Israel destroy the holy sites and build a Jewish temple in its place, we would see merely a few more declarations and statements. [Stand-up for Jerusalem is new website to help families being ethnically cleansed http://www.standupforjerusalem.org/ ]

- Self-created weaknesses. The continued split between Gaza and the West Bank with two "authorities" in essence as if two wings of the prison are being ruled by separate prison factions while the jailer is happy watching the prisoners waste time cursing each other.  I looked into this and read and interviewed many people.  My thought is that it is essential to speak the truth regardless of which prison section we are in.  I noted that both leaderships stated things that are patently untrue about the reality of what transpired over the past three years.  But also both ignored the fact that this situation is directly related to the original and huge mistake of signing Oslo and going down the path that led to an "authority" whose job it is to control the local population while the occupation remains.  It is far better to simply state NOW that Oslo was supposed to be an interim 5 year arrangement, it is now 16 and it is time to declare it dead.  Let us not bicker about "elections" in the West Bank and Gaza and instead make an agreement to dissolve those authorities and implement the agreement already signed by all factions on the revival/reactivation of the PLO. If we want to have more courage, these factions would take a political initiative like supporting the one state solution.  We will explore these issues in the Arabic newsletter sent to those who indicated interest/wanted to be subscribed.  

ACTION 1: Join the Gaza Freedom March http://www.gazafreedommarch.org
 
ACTION 2: Petition to create special tribunal for Israeli war crimes (33,300n already signed)
http://www.petitiononline.com/EAFORD09/petition.html

ACTION 3: Join PACBI Listserve to stay abreast of academic and cultural boycott issues
http://www.pacbi.org/mailinglist.php

ACTION 4: Campaign to free Palestinian prisoners held in Egyptian jails, at least one of whom was clearly tortured to death (Arabic)
http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EE154C1C-BE12-4FD6-AEA3-8D757675B2B7.htm  

“Part of the functions of reports such as this is to attempt, albeit in a very small way, to restore the dignity of those whose rights have been violated in the most fundamental way of all –the arbitrary deprivation of life. It is important that the international community asserts formally and unequivocally that such violence to the most basic fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals should not be overlooked and should be condemned.”

–The Goldstone Report, p 524 ¶ 1682 

The tragic tale of the Samouni family of Gaza has become well known. “We feel [we are] in an exile, even though we are in our homeland, on our land,” says Salah Samouni in a recent Haaretz article. “We sit and envy the dead. They are the ones who are at rest.”  The interesting part, though, is not the renewed images of the dead.  The interesting part is the backdrop of suggestion: the Samouni family felt that their longstanding, amicable relationship with the Israeli powers would protect them; they were naively mistaken.  They were to be victims to the Dahiya Doctrine. 

The Haaretz report states that Salah’s father, Talal, ‘had been employed by Jews’ for nearly 40 years and that whenever he was sick, ‘the employer would call, ask after his health, and forbid him to come to work before he had recovered.’”  They had managed to get along. 

Haaretz notes that the “Samounis were always confident that, in the event of any military invasions into Gaza, they could always manage to get along with the Israeli army. Until 2005, before Israel's disengagement from the Strip, the Jewish settlement of Netzarim was located right next door, and several family members worked there from time to time. When the joint Israeli-Palestinian patrols were active, Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security officials sometimes asked the Samounis to ‘lend’ them a tractor to flatten a patch of land or repair the Salah al-Din Road (for example, when a diplomatic convoy needed to pass through). 

While Samouni family members worked on their tractors, gathering sand, the soldiers would watch them. ‘When the soldiers wanted us to leave, they would fire above our heads. That's what experience taught me,’ recalls Salah Samouni. . . . The older men of the family. . . worked in Israel until the 1990s in different localities, including Bat Yam, Moshav Asseret (near Gedera) and the ‘Glicksman Plant.’ They all believed that the Hebrew they had learned would assist and if necessary save them during encounters with soldiers.” 

Even up until the mass killing, the Samouni family still clung naively to the notion that their working relationship with the IDF would protect them.  Haaretz reports that “on January 4, under orders from the army, Salah Samouni and the rest of the family left their home, which had been turned into a military position, and moved to the other, the home of Wael [Samouni], located on the southern side of the street. The fact that it was the soldiers who had relocated them, had seen the faces of the children and the older women, and the fact that the soldiers were positioned in locations surrounding the house just tens of meters away, instilled in the family a certain amount of confidence – despite the IDF fire from the air, from the sea and from the land, despite the hunger and the thirst.”  

And then the IDF shelled that home, killing 21 of the Samouni family.  Their usefulness had expired.  

The Samouni’s had not thrown stones at Israeli tanks and had not waved angry fists at Israeli soldiers.  Instead, they had worked dutifully for the Jewish population and had learned its language.  But they were not spared.  They were not spared because they had not themselves been Jewish.  They were not spared because “peaceful co-existence” is merely a phrase bandied about by politicians seeking camouflage.  

On 18 January 2009, reports Haaretz, “after the IDF left the Gaza Strip, the rescue teams returned to the neighborhood. Wael's house was found in ruins: IDF bulldozers had demolished it entirely – with the corpses inside.”  Evidence destroyed.  When Haaretz questioned Israeli military about the behaviour of the military forces in the Samouni family's neighbourhood, an IDF spokesman said that all of the claims had been examined, and that ‘Upon completion of the examination, the findings will be taken to the military advocate general, who will decide about the need to take additional steps.’”  Whether the Haaretz article intended genuine concern or a subtle sneer, it works both ways. 

The Goldstone Mission, however, was not convinced of the usefulness of Israeli self-investigation.  Paragraph 1629 of the Goldstone Report notes that the “Mission concludes that there are serious doubts about the willingness of Israel to carry out genuine investigations in an impartial, independent, prompt and effective way as required by international law.”  This long-term unwillingness to abide by international law is so thoroughly documented in the Report that the UN Human Rights Council on 16 October 2009 not only expressed “serious concern at the lack of implementation by the occupying Power, Israel, of previously adopted resolutions and recommendations of the Council relating to the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,” but also condemned the “non-cooperation by the occupying power, Israel, with the independent international fact-finding [Goldstone] mission.”   

The common denominator of the Haaretz article and the Goldstone Report and the UN Human Rights Council Report is the challenge to the Israeli military concept known as the “Dahiya doctrine.”  The Goldstone Report states that “The Israeli military conception of what was necessary in a future war with Hamas seems to have been developed from at least the time of the 2006 conflict in southern Lebanon. It finds its origin in a military doctrine that views disproportionate destruction and creating maximum disruption in the lives of many people as a legitimate means to achieve military and political goals.” (¶1209) 

In supporting the Goldstone Report, the UN Human Rights Council has acknowledged the premise that the responsibility for the most recent Lebanon and Gaza wars lies squarely with one unique factor: Israeli political goals.  The UN-welcomed Report notes historical context by underscoring that the “specific means Israel has adopted to meet its military objectives in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Lebanon have repeatedly been censured by the United Nations Security Council, especially its attacks on houses.  The military operations from 27 December to 18 January did not occur in a vacuum, either in terms of proximate causes in relation to the Hamas/Israeli dynamics or in relation to the development of Israeli military thinking about how best to describe the nature of its military objectives.” (¶1189) 

The Goldstone Report, while situated within the Gaza conflict of 2008, found itself striking at the root of that conflict, a root that stretches back at least two years prior: 

“In its operations in southern Lebanon in 2006, there emerged from Israeli military thinking a concept known as the Dahiya doctrine, as a result of the approach taken to the Beirut neighbourhood of that name.  Major General Gadi Eisenkot, the Israeli Northern Command chief, expressed the premise of the doctrine: ‘What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. […] We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. […] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.’ 

After the war in southern Lebanon in 2006, a number of senior former military figures appeared to develop the thinking that underlay the strategy set out by Gen. Eiskenot. In particular Major General (Ret.) Giora Eiland has argued that, in the event of another war with Hizbullah, the target must not be the defeat of Hizbullah but ‘the elimination of the Lebanese military, the destruction of the national infrastructure and intense suffering among the population… Serious damage to the Republic of Lebanon, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people are consequences that can influence Hizbollah’s behaviour more than anything else’.” (¶1191—1192) 

The Report again points to the similarity of goals and strategies of Israeli policies in both Lebanon and Gaza and quotes at length the October 2008 reflections of Col. (Ret.) Gabriel Siboni:

“With an outbreak of hostilities, the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy's actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes. The strike must be carried out as quickly as possible, and must prioritize damaging assets over seeking out each and every launcher. Punishment must be aimed at decision makers and the power elite… In Lebanon, attacks should both aim at Hizbollah’s military capabilities and should target economic interests and the centres of civilian power that support the organization. Moreover, the closer the relationship between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government, the more the elements of the Lebanese State infrastructure should be targeted. Such a response will create a lasting memory among … Lebanese decision makers, thereby increasing Israeli deterrence and reducing the likelihood of hostilities against Israel for an extended period. At the same time, it will force Syria, Hizbollah, and Lebanon to commit to lengthy and resource-intensive reconstruction programmes… This approach is applicable to the Gaza Strip as well. There, the IDF will be required to strike hard at Hamas and to refrain from the cat and mouse games of searching for Qassam rocket launchers. The IDF should not be expected to stop the rocket and missile fire against the Israeli home front through attacks on the launchers themselves, but by means of imposing a ceasefire on the enemy.” (¶1193) 

The Report emphasises that the Dahiya Doctrine of debilitating punishment was far from bluster.  The Mission, states the Report has been “able to conclude from a review of the facts on the ground that it witnessed for itself that what is prescribed as the best strategy appears to have been precisely what was put into practice.” (¶1195)  In fact, the Report continues, the “operations were carefully planned in all their phases. Legal opinions and advice were given throughout the planning stages and at certain operational levels during the campaign. There were almost no mistakes made according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.” (¶1690)  What was born in Lebanon in 2006 as a bombardment of the Dahiya district of Beirut had evolved into the blitzkrieg of Gaza. 

In challenging the Dahiya Doctrine, the UN Human Rights Council confirms the ultimate finding of the Goldstone Report: aggressive annihilation in the quest for political gain violates the rule of law which safeguards the balance of civilised societies.  It is not merely the vicious act which must be condemned, but the concept itself.  It is agreed that the responsibility for these atrocities lies “in the first place with those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations.” (¶1692)  In carrying forward the recommendations of the Report, the UN Human Rights Council supports the principles of international law and that Israel’s “longstanding impunity has been a key factor in the perpetuation of violence in the region and in the reoccurrence of violations.” (¶1761)  These are facts that, unlike the Samouni family home, can not be demolished and reduced to rubble.    

By Brenda Heard
Friends of Lebanon
www.friendsoflebanon.org

Reclaiming words:  identity and thought, We are not Israeli Arabs, we are Palestinians 

WRITTEN BY KHALIL NEKHLEH

The indigenous remnants of the Palestinian people in Israel after the ethnic cleansing of 1947/1948 should be referred to as The Palestinians in Israel, or the Palestinian Minority in Israel.  They should not be labeled as “Israeli Arabs”, or “48 Arabs”.

Personally, I am the remnant of my indigenous Palestinian people who lived in Palestine (nearly 900,000), and who were “ethnically cleansed” in preparation for the establishment of the apartheid Jewish state of Israel in 1947/1948.  Only 160,000 of us remained in what became known as “Israel”. I was, and am, a Palestinian, who fortunately was able to stay on the land of historical Palestine, i.e., Palestine under the British Mandate, and who became a member of a growing and vibrant minority of nearly 1.3 million Palestinians, who is living now in the Israeli apartheid state.  The label “Israeli Arabs” was coined and imposed on us by our enemies, namely, the Israeli racist apartheid state. Many Arab states chose to disregard our existence, or were totally ignorant of our status, as well as the Western World who supported Zionism, and facilitated and sanctioned the creation of the Israeli racist apartheid state, and who persists in justifying its existence.  We were Palestinians before the ethnic cleansing of 1947/1948 and we continue to be Palestinians since, and are proud of it.  Our identity and collective destiny is connected to the rest of the Palestinian people in the Palestinian areas occupied by Israel in 1967 and the rest of the dispersed Palestinians in a state of refuge. We are part of nearly 11 million Palestinians all over the world who aspire for freedom and justice. 

As our “solidarity debt”, we expect you to address us as “The Palestinians in Israel”.  We must purge our and your lexicon of the label of “Israeli Arabs”, the concept of our occupiers and oppressors, that seeks to mould our reality in their own image. 

Khalil Nakhleh, Ph.D.
Independent Researcher and Writer
Ramallah, Palestine/Israel
(Struggling to Transform Our Homeland) 

The First Word War is an initiative of Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala. We welcome our readers to submit entries for publication, translation and dissemination. Send them to contact@palestinethinktank.com or tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

The First Word War

In the name of "Self-defense"
WRITTEN BY REALISTIC BIRD

In the name of "self-defense" they massacred, in the name of "self-defense" they committed ethnic cleansing, and in the name of "self-defense" they stole land. 

The Israelis have hidden behind the concept of self-defense for decades by abusing the word to their advantage. The word self-defense gives off the connotation that the one acting it is the victim under attack from a vicious aggressor.

Have you ever heard the Israelis describing any of their wars or offensives other than in that context? It even led them to call their armed forces, [Israeli] Defense Forces. The duplicity of the situation arises from the nature of the Zionist entity, a colonizing, invading, occupying and racist entity founded on the death and expulsion of the Palestinians. How is it possible for such an entity who was the initiator of aggression to claim its actions are done in self-defense? The one who attacks, who destroys 400 villages, massacres scores of the inhabitants, and occupies the lands of Palestine over more than six decades can't be a victim thus has no right to self-defense.

An occupation is by its very nature a brutal existence and because of this international law admits that any people under it have the right to resist it in all means possible. Yet, looking at the hasbara that the Israelis and their allies spread through the media one thinks that the Israelis are the ones under occupation and not the Palestinians. The Palestinians are always shown as the terrorists, the ones who are attacking but the truth is international and human law gave them the right to fight back aggressors. The Palestinians are the ones under occupation, does anyone deny that? If so how is it possible that the Israelis claim "self-defense" to excuse their crimes when there is an undeniable right to resist them?

In a lopsided world where the meaning of words are taken out of context and contradict the truth and common sense Israelis are allowed to commit their horrendous acts with no one to hold them accountable. 

Visit Realistic Bird’s site at: www.realisticbird.wordpress.com.

The First Word War is an initiative of Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala. We welcome our readers to submit entries for publication, translation and dissemination. Send them to contact@palestinethinktank.com or tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

La Prima Guerra Della Parola – Palestine Think Tank e Tlaxcala dichiarano la guerra contro la disinformazione

Dare di nuovo un senso alle parole: identità e pensiero, Non siamo “Arabi Israeliani”, ma Palestinesi 

WRITTEN BY KHALIL NAKHLEH
Tradotto da Mary Rizzo

La gente, quel che rimane del popolo indigeno palestinese in Israele dopo la pulizia etnica di 1947/1948 dovrebbe essere chiamata solamente con il nome di I Palestinesi in Israele, oppure La Minoranza Palestinese in Israele.  A queste persone non dovrebbero essere addossate l’etichetta “Arabi Israeliani” oppure “Gli Arabi del ‘48”.

Per quanto mi riguarda, sono un pezzo del mio popolo indigeno palestinese che visse nella Palestina (quasi 900,000 persone), che subì la “pulizia etnica” negli anni 1947/1948, per preparare la fondazione di uno stato ebraico basato sull’apartheid, quello stato chiamato Israele. Solamente 160,000 di noi sono rimasti in quel territorio che è diventato “Israele”. Io ero, e sono, un palestinese, che, fortunatamente è potuto rimanere sulla terra della Palestina storica, vale a dire, la Palestina sotto il mandato britannico, e che è diventato membro di una minoranza florida e in crescita che conta quasi 1,3 milioni di palestinesi. Ma ora vivono nello stato d’apartheid che tutto il mondo conosce con il nome d’Israele. L’etichetta “Arabi Israeliani” è stato inventato e c’è stato imposto dai nostri nemici, lo stato razzista d’Israele. Molti stati arabi hanno scelto di non tenere conto della nostra esistenza, oppure sono stati completamenti ignari della nostra situazione, ed il Mondo Occidentale che ha sostenuto il Sionismo, quello che ha facilitato e promosso la creazione dello stato razzista, che applica l’apartheid, quello d’Israele, persiste nella giustificazione della sua esistenza. Noi siamo stati palestinesi prima della pulizia etnica del 1947/1948, e noi continuiamo ad essere palestinesi, e ne siamo ben orgogliosi di ciò. La nostra identità ed il nostro destino collettivo è connesso a tutto il resto del popolo palestinese nelle zone occupate dall’Israele nel 1967 e con il resto dei palestinesi dispersi con lo status di profughi. Noi siamo una parte dei quasi 11 milioni di palestinesi diffusi in tutto il mondo che aspirano alla libertà e alla giustizia.

Come un gesto di dimostrazione della vostra solidarietà, noi gradiremo che ci chiamaste solo “I Palestinesi in Israele”. Dobbiamo eliminare dal nostro e dal vostro lessico l’etichetta di “Arabi Israeliani”, perché è solo un concetto di quelli che ci tengono sotto l’occupazione, i nostri oppressori, in un tentativo di trasformare la nostra realtà nella loro stessa immagine. 

Khalil Nakhleh, Ph.D.
Ricercatore e Scrittore indipendente
Ramallah, Palestina/Israele
(Lottando per la Trasformazione della Nostra Patria)

La Prima Guerra Della Parola è un'iniziativa di Palestine Think Tank e Tlaxcala. I nostri lettori possono partecipare, mandando i loro testi a contact@palestinethinktank.com oppure tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

La Prima Guerra Della Parola – Palestine Think Tank e Tlaxcala dichiarano la guerra contro la disinformazione

Nel nome della “difesa”

SCRITTO DA REALISTIC BIRD

Tradotto da Mary Rizzo 

Nel nome della “auto-difesa” hanno massacrato. Nel nome della “auto-difesa” hanno adoperato la pulizia etnica. Nel nome della “auto-difesa” hanno rubato la terra. 

Gli israeliani si sono nascosti dietro il concetto dell’auto-difesa per decine di anni, abusando di questa parola per il proprio vantaggio. La parola stessa, “auto-difesa”, suggerisce l’idea che quello che agisce lo fa perché è sotto attacco di un aggressore violento e crudele. 

Avete mai sentito gli israeliani descrivere una qualsiasi delle loro guerre (oppure offensive) in una maniera diversa da questo particolare modo? Infatti, questo modo di ragionare gli ha indotti a chiamare le loro forze armate le Forze di Difesa Israeliani (IDF, Israeli Defense Forces in inglese). Il paradosso della situazione nasce dalla natura dell’entità sionista, un entità colonialista, razzista e che adopera l’occupazione di terre altrui, attraverso la morte e l’espulsione forzata dei palestinesi. Com’è possibile per un tale entità che è stato l’artefice delle aggressioni di dichiarare che le sue azioni sono compiute solo per l’auto-difesa? Quello che attacca, che distrugge 400 villaggi, massacrando un gran numero di abitanti, che occupa le terre della Palestina per più di sessant’anni, non può essere una vittima, e quindi, non ha il diritto alla loro presunta “auto-difesa”. 

Vivere sotto un’occupazione, per sua natura, è un’esistenza disumana, e per questo motivo, il diritto internazionale ammette che ogni popolo che vive sotto occupazione ha il diritto a resistere contro l’occupazione stessa con ogni mezzo. Però, sotto l’influenza pesante della hasbara israeliano (ndt: propaganda ufficiale pro-israeliana), che gli israeliani ed i loro alleati diffondono attraverso i mass media, si ha l’impressione che sono invece gli israeliani che vivono sotto l’occupazione e non i palestinesi. I palestinesi sono rappresentati sempre e solamente come “terroristi”, quelli che stanno attaccando gli inermi, ma la verità non ha frontiere, è la legge che gli umani hanno scritto che gli da il diritto di combattere contro gli aggressori. I palestinesi sono quelli che vivono sotto l’occupazione, ci sono delle persone che potrebbero negare questo fatto? Dunque, com’è possibile che l’affermazione israeliana della “auto-difesa” è usata per giustificare i loro crimini quando già esiste il diritto internazionale inderogabile di resistere contro l’occupatore? 

In un mondo sbilanciato dove il significato delle parole manca, e le parole stesse sono usato senza il giusto contesto, contraddicendo la verità stessa, nonché il buonsenso, gli israeliani hanno il permesso di commettere i loro atti orrendi, senza che nessuno gli renda responsabili per le loro azioni. 

Visitate il sito di Realistic Bird (www.realisticbird.wordpress.com). 

La Prima Guerra Della Parola è un'iniziativa di Palestine Think Tank e Tlaxcala. I nostri lettori possono partecipare, mandando i loro testi a contact@palestinethinktank.com oppure tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

On September 2008 South African Bishop Desmond Tutu’s fact-finding delegation submitted to the Human Rights Council its latest report on the Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip in 2006, which led to the death of nineteen civilians. At a press conference in Geneva, Tutu denounced the siege of the Gaza Strip and said it was one of the most pressing concerns influencing the Beit Hanoun bombardment victims at that time. 

The delegation, which was appointed by the Human Rights Commission, stated that the absence of a persuasive Israeli excuse for what had taken place in Beit Hanoun lead the delegation to the possible conclusion that the bombardment was a war crime. It recommended that Israel compensate the victims. Israeli delegate Aharon Leshno-Yaar commented as follows before the Council: 

“The report presented today will take its place in the vast library of UN reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The resolution that it will spawn will take its place on the lost list of one-sided resolutions that this Council has passed against Israel so far.” 

On that day, the Arab Committee for Human Rights and Palestinian NGO’s demanded presentation of the issue before international courts. However, due to American pressure in the last days of the Bush administration and a weak European stance, the Tutu report entered the United Nations’ archive as the Israeli delegate had expected – with no follow-up or accountability whatsoever. 

One year later, I sat in the upper balcony of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, observing and listening to various delegations discussing the Goldstone report, the best report submitted to the Human Rights Council since its establishment on March 15, 2006. On his left was another judge from South Africa, the Honorable Navanethem Pillay. To his right was the committee that accompanied him on this difficult and sensitive journey, Hina Jilani, Professor Kristen Chinkin and Colonel Desmond Travers. 

It did not occur to me that the Israeli delegate would call the Goldstone report a “shameful report”, or that the committee chair would not call to order. It was unfortunate that the “ex-partner” in “Human Rights First”, Michael Bosner, adopted the Authority’s language and defended “human rights last” in his speech. As he spoke about the children of Gaza and the existence of a double standard, it sounded as if Gaza’s children were a superpower. 

We, a group of citizens of the world, have been gathered since January 2009 in an international coalition to denounce the absence of accountability, support the internationalization of Palestinian non-governmental demands for the filing of claims with the International Criminal Court, and to activate criminal prosecution in the Middle East. Lack of accountability has made war a legitimate method of political work per the law of the jungle. We know the extent of independence the Ramallah-based Palestinian authority enjoys. We have seen with our own eyes how Israel has destroyed Palestinian infrastructure in over forty years of occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and how it has denied Palestinians the ability to sustain themselves due to the ongoing war on the environment, industry, agriculture, commerce and humanity. 

International justice must restore people’s faith that Israel cannot remain above law and accountability and that it cannot, even for petty electoral reasons, transgress upon everything in the name of self-defense. It was cautious optimism, but we were certain that there were more than thirty votes in favor of the Goldstone report when we were shocked by the Palestinian Authority’s request that its delegate in Geneva postpone voting on the report for six months. I saw much anger as I headed at noon on 2/10/2009 to the Aljazeera studio in Montparnasse in the French capitol. “I feel like I’ve been poisoned. Nobody has the right to tamper with the victims’ right to justice,” “Abu Mazin, let international justice defend your people.” I received hundreds of messages and phone calls from the Palestinian territories, both Gaza and Ramallah; Hamas and Fatah; and from several Palestinian and Arab human rights organizations. Within seven days, an intifada (uprising) of Palestinian human right against the postponement decision was launched in addition to marches and demonstrations in Palestinian cities, daily rallies for the victims and overall discontent on part of human rights organizations and civil resistance. There was also debate within the circles of Palestinian decision-making regarding peaceful resolution and absence of accountability and the symbolic role that the Human Rights Council played, and the importance of the Goldstone recommendations. For the first time in its history, the Human Rights Council and international justice became at the forefront of mainstream Arabic media until the Palestinian Authority succumbed before the demands of the human rights movement and the “International Coalition to Prosecute War Criminals”: “a Human Rights Council urgent session, a special United Nations session, to pursue the Palestinian case before the International Criminal Court immediately.” The Palestinian Minister of Justice arrived in Paris on Monday morning and we met in order to proceed in three directions: The Hague, Geneva and New York. 

A Palestinian committee for investigation was formed and I immediately submitted my testimony. Progress was made towards international recognition of what had taken place by parties keen to give international justice a voice in a world that had become a jungle ruled by the powerful following years of secret prisons, Guantanamo and arbitrary laws. But again, an over-cautious optimism, as the Israeli Prime Minister said on the evening of Monday 12/10/2009 that Israel is above punishment and that “self defense” and the “Jewish character of the state” are existential Israeli issues. He said he would refuse jurisdiction over any Israeli who defended Israel and that he would do everything in his power to prevent the Goldstone report from returning to the Human Rights Council. This language transformed war crimes and crimes against humanity to legitimate methods for self defense. It is the major product of violence in the Middle East. It obstructs the creation of a broad civil current that defends peace. Peace is a word that has been stripped of all meaning by agreements, from Oslo to Washington. On the day Oslo was signed, there were about one hundred thousand settlers in the West Bank. Today there are over a quarter million. There were around 22 checkpoints. Today there are 600 checkpoints. The apartheid wall didn’t exist, and resources of self-sustenance for Palestinians citizens were three times as high as today. In the collective memory, Oslo is a disaster for the Palestinian and his national and citizenship aspirations. What peace, Mr. Nobel for Peace, if you cannot stop settlements? What peace when the British Foreign Secretary considers the Israeli war a democratic decision by a democratic state?  What peace when European Union countries have refrained from voting to form an investigation delegation, a mere delegation to investigate the murder of 1,400 Palestinians, three quarters of whom were civilians? We are before a western ethical crisis. These countries, which teach daily lessons on the independence of the judiciary and human rights and the importance of accountability, stand naked at Israeli checkpoints, incapable of demonstrating even minimal credibility. International justice in Belgium retreated before Sharon. In Spain, it retreated before the generals of “Operation Cast Lead”. We have no idea where else in the aging continent (as Rumsfeld calls it) it will retreat. Has the Israeli war criminal become stronger than judicial buildings that are over two centuries old? This is the question before judicial, national, regional and international institutions today.

Haytham has lived in exile since 1978 (he was allowed to go back to Syria in 2003). He is an anthropologist and physician specialized in psychosomatics and sleeping and waking disorders.

He is the author of more than thirty books and was the editor of the Short Universal Encyclopedia of Human Rights. He has been an activist for human rights since 30 years.

He is the spokesman for the Arab Commission for Human Rights, which he co-founded.

See full CV and bibliography here

Articles by Haytham Manna at Tlaxcala

The site witnessed violent disturbances two weeks ago when Israeli paramilitary police stormed the Haram Al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) in an effort to arrest Palestinians who had repulsed an attempt by a group of Jewish fanatics who were trying to arrogate "prayer rights" at the Islamic shrine.

Dozens of Palestinians were injured, some quite seriously.

Following the incident, hundreds of Muslims from Jerusalem and also from Arab towns and villages in Israel decided to maintain a constant presence at the mosque in order to repulse new attempts by Jewish extremists to seize a foothold at Al-Aqsa compound. On many occasions, Israeli police forces threatened to storm the Noble Sanctuary if the sit- in didn't end. Meanwhile, they maintained a constant presence outside the compound. But on Sunday, the Israeli government decided to lift the siege, effectively allowing participants in the sit-in to leave peacefully.

The deal apparently was part of a behind-the-scenes understanding between Israel and Jordan whereby Israel agreed to reinstitute the status quo ante at the site and to refrain from provoking Muslim sensibilities. According to the Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty, Jordan retained the role of custodian of Al-Aqsa Mosque. Jordan had harshly criticised Israel for the "standoff", and unconfirmed reports indicated that the Jordanian government threatened to expel the Israeli ambassador from Amman if the provocations continued.

Indeed, King Abdullah II warned in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz last week that the irresponsible Israeli behaviour with regard to Al-Aqsa Mosque could spark off a huge conflagration in the region and "destroy everything". Jordan and other Muslim countries witnessed large anti-Israel protests following Friday congregational prayers.

In addition to Jordan, several Muslim countries also filed protests with Israel, warning the Israeli government that any attempt at a gradual Jewish takeover of Islam's third holiest site would be viewed as crossing an ultimate red line by Muslims, and would also put an end to any semblance of peacemaking efforts in the region. The protests prompted Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to publicly deny that Israel was harbouring hostile intentions with regard to Al-Aqsa Mosque.

"Last week extremist figures tried to undermine Israel's stability. This is an extremist minority that spread lies about Israel digging under the Temple Mount [Haram Al-Sharif]. This is a lie," he said.

Another Israeli official, Trade and Labour Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer warned that Israeli Arabs were beginning to "link up" with Hamas against Israel. "A certain alliance is forming between Israeli Arabs, specifically the Islamic Movement, and Hamas," Ben-Eliezer told Israeli state-run radio, adding that Israel would eventually pay a heavy price if this was permitted to continue. Muslim leaders in Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territories scoffed at these statements, calling them "brash lies".

"Israel is trying to tell the Muslim world that this is a confrontation with Hamas. This is a lie, because Al-Aqsa Mosque belongs to the entire Muslim umma (nation) and Israel is trying to demolish the mosque or at least arrogate part of it in order to build a temple for Jews," said Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the Islamic Movement in Israel.

Salah was arrested briefly last week on charges of "incitement against the state" and of "making contacts with a terrorist organisation" — an allusion to Hamas. Both Salah and his deputy, Sheikh Kamal Khatib, have also been barred from entering Jerusalem for 30 days. Israel has accused Salah and other Muslim leaders of carrying out "subversive activities" and "orchestrating" claims about an Israeli conspiracy against Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The restoration of calm at Al-Aqsa Mosque seems to vindicate the view of Muslim leaders that the main source of tension was Jewish provocations, particularly the repeated attempts by messianic Jewish fanatics to enter the mosque — not as ordinary tourists, but as provocateurs and troublemakers. Sheikh Ikrema Sabri, a chief imam and preacher at Al-Aqsa Mosque, said Muslims in Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine would never stop resisting and protesting efforts by Jewish intruders to establish a foothold or gain "prayer rights" at the Muslim shrine.

The current relative calm is unlikely to last for long, however, given the determination of messianic Jewish groups that are bent on demolishing Islamic holy places in Jerusalem in order to build a Jewish temple on their ruins. Some of these groups, such as the Temple of Faithful, believe that Jews won't attain redemption until Al-Aqsa Mosque is destroyed and a Jewish temple is erected in its place. According to extremist Jewish doctrine, the ensuing violence that would see the death of a huge number of people would expedite the appearance of a Jewish Messiah, or Redeemer, who would bring about salvation for Jews and rule the world from Jerusalem.

Messianic Jewish groups, which exert a lot of influence on the Israeli government and parliament, and even the army, seem to show little deference to any government decision to maintain status quo ante arrangements at Al-Aqsa Mosque esplanade where the Muslim Waqf (religious endowments authority) has been managing the holy site since 1967. A few days ago, a number of Jewish intruders disguised as foreign tourists entered the mosque despite tacit Israeli assurances to the contrary. Similar attempts, coordinated or uncoordinated with the government, are expected in the coming days and weeks.

Moreover, it seems that the current right-wing Israeli government fully identifies with the declared and undeclared goals of the extremists, despite any public stand to the contrary. Indeed, not a single member of the current government has criticised — let alone denounced — the fanatics for their repeated provocations.

This week, Sheikh Salah alluded to Israeli government collusion with messianic fanatics. He said nothing short of a full liberation of Al-Aqsa Mosque from the Israeli occupation would shield the Muslim sanctuary from harm. "The Israeli government is the prime mover of all plots against Al-Aqsa Mosque. The important thing is not what they say to the media, but what they do at, around and especially beneath Al-Aqsa Mosque."

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

By Alan Hart*

On Monday 12 October, Prime Minister Netanyahu opened the Knesset's winter session by blasting the Goldstone Report that accuses Israel of committing war crimes and vowing that he would never allow Israelis be tried for them. But that was not his main message. It was an appeal, delivered I thought with a measure of desperation, to the "Palestinian leadership", presumably the leadership of "President" Abbas and his Fatah cronies, leaders who are regarded by very many if not most Palestinians as American-and-Israeli stooges at best and traitors at worst.

Netanyahu again called on this leadership to agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, saying this was, and remains, the key to peace. And he went on and on and on about it.

"For 62 years the Palestinians have been saying ‘No' to the Jewish state. I am once again calling upon our Palestinian neighbors – say ‘Yes' to the Jewish state. Without recognition of the Israel as the state of the Jews we shall not be able to attain peace… Such recognition is a step which requires courage and the Palestinian leadership should tell its people the truth – that without this recognition there can be no peace… There is no alternative to Palestinian leaders showing courage by recognizing the Jewish state. This has been and remains the true key to peace."

As Ha'aretz noted in its report, Netanyahu's demand for Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state is for him "a way on ensuring recognition of Israel's right to exist as opposed to merely recognizing Israel" (my emphasis). This, as Ha'aretz added, is the recognition which Netanyahu and many other Israelis see as the real core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the name of pragmatism, willingness to "merely to recognize" Israel – meaning to accept and live in peace with an Israel inside its pre-June '67 borders – has long been the formal Palestinian and all-Arab position. Why does it stop short of recognizing Israel's "right to exist", and why, really, does it matter so much to Zionism that Palestinians recognize this right?

The answer is in the following.

According to history as written by the winner, Zionism, Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. This is propaganda nonsense.

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

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

The truth is that the General Assembly's partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favored and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organized international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

And that legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not and cannot take from the Palestinians by force.

No wonder Prime Minister Netanyahu is more than a little concerned on this account.

Israel's leaders have always known the truth summarized above.

It's time for the rest of the world to know it.

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