Below is the analysis of Henry Herskovitz (with Michelle J. Kinnucan) of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends to a recent

There are many problems with IJAN, which lead me to doubt the purposes of the group. I first question whether they are a Palestinian solidarity group or yet another group that seeks to shield and preserve Jewish power both in Palestine and in the U.S.

In this writer's opinion, Jews – if they are acting in a group that represents Jews in the peace movement – should first and foremost challenge what Akiva Eldar and J. J. Goldberg, among others, call the "Jewish lobby" – the powerful people and institutions (and their rank-and-file supporters) who dominate the US discourse and policy regarding Jews and Israel. Often, these are the very people behind the charge of "self-hating Jews" (and for non-Jews, "anti-Semites") about whom Rebecca Tumposky, national organizer with the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, complains. Yet, nowhere in her article does Ms. Tumposky show a disposition to directly do that.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that three originators of IJAN who live in southeast Michigan, including "Invincible," declined the invitation to stand vigil with Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends at our Global Vigil Day in 2007 or at any other time. They refused to expose and challenge Beth Israel Congregation–a local institutional bastion of open, unabashed Jewish support for Israel–when they had the opportunity. And yes, I'm the first to admit that standing in front of a synagogue is not the only way to challenge Jewish power, but at the same time ask where does IJAN directly challenge this power using another tactic?

In Tumposky's op-ed she says IJAN "seeks to challenge the violence and injustice of Israeli apartheid" but she and IJAN are US-based. So, where is her mention, let alone challenge, of the Jewish supremacism/power that allows Jews – less than two percent of the US population – to so effectively steer US policy and resources into underwriting Jewish apartheid in Palestine?

Right out of the box, she shows her hand – Tumposky's and IJAN's opposition to apartheid is rooted not in universalistic notions of justice and human rights but in Jewish chauvinism/exceptionalism. Thus, they appeal to Jews on the grounds of "our varied traditions of social justice." And Tumposky wants to make sure – absolutely certain – that fighting anti-Semitism is prioritized in any work on freeing Palestine from the genocide brought on by the Jewish state. Thus, she writes, "We challenge anti-Jewish prejudice while standing in solidarity with organizations that support Palestinian liberation and historic justice …" In short, IJAN enters the Palestinian solidarity movement with an explicit agenda of highlighting, if not foregrounding, the concerns of Jews, the very people who enjoy Jewish privilege here and in Israel.

Her opposition to Zionism is carefully couched as a subset of opposing colonialism and imperialism, in general: "We share a commitment to participation in struggles against colonialism and imperialism. We therefore oppose Zionism … IJAN, in fact, opposes all imperialist aggression". She refuses to take notice of the peculiar situation of Zionism – Jewish imperialism – in that Jews lacked a nation-state of their own and, thus, Zionists commandeered other countries, namely Britain and the US, to realize their goals.

Tumposky beats up one or two carefully placed straw men along the way: "We will say it again and again, despite accusations of being 'self-hating Jews': Zionism is not Judaism and the Jewish community." Just who is it that equates Zionism with "Judaism and the Jewish community"? And why is this point so essential for "anti-Zionists" like the IJAN folks? What would Tumposky say to the 757 rabbis – "the largest number of rabbis whose signatures are attached to a public pronouncement in all Jewish history" – who in 1942 stated that Zionism is an "Affirmation of Judaism" and "Anti-Zionism, not Zionism, is a departure from the Jewish religion"?

She also plays a Left Zionist game when she attempts to distinguish the 'types' of Zionism, claiming that "the Zionism we oppose is not a longstanding cultural or religious expression". She conveniently ignores the fact that when push came to shove, all the Zionists – Left, Right and Center – gave their blessings to destroying Palestine.

In the first chapter of his book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Norman Finkelstein challenged the myth that any of the Zionist tendencies (Labor, Religious, etc.) were ever benign. In short, the only thing about Zionism that really matters is that it "is a form of racism and racial discrimination," as the UN General Assembly correctly identified in 1975.

Tumposky's definition of Zionism is also problematic – "the 19th century ideology that led European Jews to work with imperialist powers to displace and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people, which continues today." It is folly to imply that Jews were passive objects of that "ideology". Zionism was created, implemented, and popularized by Jews. Are readers supposed to believe that it was the imperialist powers that Jews only "worked with" that committed this crime? Isn't it more accurate to say that Jews led these imperialist powers by the nose – as they still do today – to have non-Jews die for the Jewish state?

When she writes "Israel and its U.S. lobby helped pushed us toward the Iraq war and are exerting similar pressure to attack Iran", readers need to be cognizant of what she omits – EVERY major constituent group of the organized Jewish community pressed for war on Iraq, and there's a list of at least two dozen Jewish individuals – in powerful government or media positions – who also pressed strongly for war.

Tumposky touts "Jewish visions of collective liberation and traditions of social justice", but doesn't give us any proof that this tradition ever existed, other than in the minds of Jews who want their image spit-shined, if not outright falsified. More than 300 years ago, Benedictus de Spinoza, who is often upheld as a great Jewish intellectual, observed that Jews had in fact nothing to commend themselves as superior to others, had acted in such a way as to "incur the hatred of all", and that this hatred was the glue that bound Jews together. Other than, perhaps, a few years during the Civil Rights struggle (and Benjamin Ginsberg casts doubt on even this), Jews collectively have acted in concert NOT for universal well-being, but for the benefit of Jews. IJAN does not seem to be an exception.

Distinguishing IJAN from AIPAC, J-Street and Tikkun, might make good reading, but doesn't let them off the hook. Once again, I'm reminded of Paul Eisen's words: "The crime against the Palestinian people is being committed by a Jewish state with Jewish soldiers using weapons displaying Jewish religious symbols, and with the full support and complicity of the overwhelming mass of organized Jews worldwide. But to name Jews as responsible for this crime seems impossible to do." It seems obvious to me that IJAN and similar organizations exist, in no small part, to prevent the naming of Jews as responsible for the Jewish-led genocide against the Palestinian people.

Until now.

The mainstream media's favorite scapegoat, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, resurfaced on Saturday amidst reports that he called the attacks of September 11, 2001 "a big lie." According to the immediate and rabid response of virtually every Western news network around, this was simply the latest insane claim of the same raving madman who has previously threatened to wipe a foreign state off the map and denied the Holocaust.

Yet, as with those other mistranslated or misunderstood statements, this new claim hardly stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny, as it has been reported with little accompanying context and comparison. According to a translation by Reuters, Ahmadinejad, addressing the staff of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, stated that, "The September 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan." PressTV translated the President as saying that the circumstances of 9/11 were a "big lie intended to serve as a pretext for fighting terrorism and setting the grounds for sending troops to Afghanistan."

Most of the press, including CBS, Huffington Post, and Fox, ran with an Associated Press report by Ali Akbar Dareini entitled, "Iran's Ahmadinejad: Sept. 11 attacks a 'big lie'" while CNN and Ha'aretz reprinted the AP with some slight variations like using the headline "Ahmadinejad Calls 9/11 'A Big Fabrication'."

Robert Mackey, writing for The New York Times editorialized that Ahmadinejad told Iranian intelligence officials that the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City was "staged."

By reporting that he called 9/11 a "lie" or "fabrication," the press has completely subverted the meaning of Ahmadinejad's actual statement. Headlines and ledes like the ones printed by the mainstream media give the intentionally misleading interpretation that Ahmadinejad claimed that 9/11 didn't actually happen. But the full quote obviously reveals something quite different. The events of 9/11 – that hijacked airplanes were flown into buildings, killing tens of hundreds of people – is not questioned or denied by Ahmadinejad in these statements. The attacks, in and of themselves, are not debated or disputed. What Ahmadinejad says is that the event itself was the result of, as PressTV reports, a premeditated "scenario and a sophisticated intelligence measure," that was subsequently used as an excuse to justify the so-called "War on Terror" and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

In short, President Ahmadinejad does not claim that 9/11 itself is a lie. He never has. In May 2006, in a letter written directly to George W. Bush, Ahmadinejad states, clearly and unequivocally,

"September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies."

Ahmadinejad's words echo those of his predecessor, President Mohammad Khatami, who in the wake of the attacks declared, "On behalf of the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic, I denounce the terrorist measures, which led to the killing of defenseless people, and I express my deep sorrow and sympathy with the American people." Furthermore, Iran was one of the first countries to hold candle-light vigils in solidarity and sympathy with the victims of the attacks.

What Ahmadinejad does claim, however, is that the official story of the events – publicly memorialized in the publication of the US government-sponsored The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) – is dubious, incomplete, and may very well have been the result of well-calculated misinformation and deliberate action (or, perhaps, inaction on previously obtained intelligence) by the US government. This is neither a new revelation for Ahmadinejad nor for the world community in general. In his letter to Bush, Ahmadinejad wrote,

"Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?"

In questioning the job done by American intelligence agencies, and questioning the US government's official version of events and responsibility, in the lead-up to September 11th, the Iranian President isn't alone.

Esfahan is Half the World, and Half the World Questions the 9/11 Story

To read the hysterical reports about his recent 9/11 comments questioning the accepted story of the event, one would think that Ahmadinejad is voicing roundly rejected, widely unpopular, and insanely outrageous conspiracy theories, devoid of any reasonable evidence or public support. This is hardly the case.

In fact, Ahmadinejad is in the company of more than half of planet Earth, half of New Yorkers, and almost half of all Americans. His views are not particularly uncommon, let alone unique. They surely don't demonstrate a lunatic fringe viewpoint, but rather an opinion well within the public discourse, though not often discussed by Western media.

Whereas the 9/11 Commission was officially "created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002…to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks," a plurality of the public believe this goal was not successfully accomplished and have doubts about the Commission's findings.

An August 2004 Zogby poll, conducted right after the Commission's report was made public and just days before the Republican National Convention was held in Manhattan, found that over 49% of New York City residents and 41% of New York State citizens say that at least some US government officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."

Another Zogby poll from May 2006 found that 42% of Americans believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks" and said "there has been a cover-up." Another ten percent of respondents were unsure. The same poll found that 44% of Americans believe that "the Bush Administration exploited the September 11th attacks" in order to advance its own foreign policy agenda in the Middle East, namely, "to justify the invasion of Iraq."

Furthermore, 45% of those polled agree that "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success," while eight percent remain "unsure."

A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll from July 2006 discovered that "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East."

The next year, in May 2006, a Rasmussen poll revealed that "overall, 22% of all voters believe the President [sic] knew about the attacks in advance," while "a slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance."

Between May 2002 and October 2006, polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News found that upwards of 79% of the American public believed that "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States," members of the Bush Administration were either "mostly telling the truth but hiding something," "mostly lying," or "not sure." In those four and a half years, the number of respondents convinced that the government was "mostly lying" grew by 20%.

A September 2008 World Public Opinion survey, asked "16,000 people in 17 countries who they thought was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington." The results showed that "majorities in only nine of the 17 countries believed that al-Qaida was behind the attacks." In response, WPO director Steven Kull stated,

"Broadly, I think what this tells us is that there is a lack of confidence in the United States around the world. It is striking that even among our allies, the numbers that say al-Qaida was behind 9/11 do not get above two-thirds, and barely become a majority. So this is a real indication that the United States is not in a strong position to, in a sense, tell its story. The American narrative is not as powerful in the world today."

Evidence aside, the mainstream media presents Ahmadinejad's recent statements as if they represent an outlandish theory based upon nothing more than paramount insanity.

Wiping Context Off the Map

Disingenuously reporting that Ahmadinejad called 9/11 a "big lie" without exploring the context his statement, notably his claim that 9/11 was used as a "pretext" to carry out the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, is much akin to headlines announcing that Ahmadinejad threatens to "wipe out" Israel without presenting the statement in full. For instance, a Jerusalem Post article from December 12, 2006 and entitled "Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out'" states in the first paragraph that the Iranian President "vowed once again that Israel would be 'wiped out.'" Only later in the piece does writer Herb Keinon reproduce the entire quote, which reveals a contextually vital qualification:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom…[elections should be held among] Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

Similarly, press reports from the previous fall, which sparked the entire "wiped off the map" fiasco, failed to tell their readers the whole story. In that speech, analyst Arash Norouzi explains, "Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets." Apparently, in his reading of history, Ahmadinejad was simply reiterating the suggestions of Zionism's founder Theodor Herzl. In chapter 2 of his 1896 manifesto, Der Judenstaat, Herzl wrote,

"We [Jews] should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence."

Ahmadinejad reminded his audience that, while the eventual weakening or complete dissolution of America's hegemony over the Middle East via its colonial-settler garrison state may be unthinkable or unimaginable to some, "as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books." He listed the Shah's tyrannical monarchy in Iran, the repressive and expansionist Soviet Union, and the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, as examples of "regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished" in only the past three decades. In conclusion, Ahmadinejad repeated Khomeini's prescient view that the political demise of the Zionist government of Israel would soon follow: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Of course, all we've ever heard from Western press reports is that Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," an idiom that doesn't even exist in the Persian language, and that was the end of the discussion.

Confusing "Pretext" with "Pretense"

When Ahmadinejad speaks about historical events acting as pretexts to subsequent injustices, he is not claiming that the first event never happened, but simply stating that the event served to justify what followed. This pretext, then, is the exploitation of terrible tragedies as an excuse, motive, and ostensible reason ascribed to explain what historically occurred next. Using horrific events to nefarious advantage is what Naomi Klein has essentially defined as "The Shock Doctrine." This is what Ahmadinejad has spoken about when he uses the term "pretext," which is why, in his speech on Saturday, he stated that "Depredation, bullying and killing the reality of humanity are the outcomes of the capitalist way of thinking."

Unfortunately, the media has decided to equate the term "pretext" with "pretense" and insist that they are both identical synonyms for a claim, invention, myth, fabrication, or lie. With this in mind, it is easy to see how the demonization campaign of Ahmadinejad has been so successful.

This deliberate misinterpretation is not at all new. Even though it is commonplace in the press to insist that Ahmadinejad is a virulent anti-Semite who believes the Nazi holocaust never happened, this is an absurd suggestion unsupported by the facts.

When, at last April's Durban II conference, Ahmadinejad addressed the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 by stating, "As was the case after World War II, armies occupied other territories and people were transferred from territories…In reality, under the pretext of compensating for the evil done in the name of xenophobia, they in fact set up the most violent xenophobes, in Palestine."

He continued, "The Security Council made it possible for that illegitimate government to be set up. For 60 years, this government was supported by the world. Many Western countries say they are fighting racism; but in fact support it with occupation, bombings and crimes such as those committed in Gaza. These countries support the criminals."

The media reported that Ahmadinejad called the holocaust a myth, which promoted a pre-staged walkout by attending European delegations. But the usage of the word "pretext" is obvious to anyone willing to actually read.

Ahmadinejad's Durban II comments repeat remarks he previously wrote back in early September 2006, in a letter sent to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In it, Ahmadinejad stated, "World War II came to an end with all its material and moral losses and its 60 million casualties. The death of human beings is tragic and sad. In all divine religions and before all awakened conscience and pure nature of mankind and the sense of right and wrong, the life, property and honor of people, regardless of their religious persuasion and ethnic background, must be respected at all times and all places."

By accepting the 60 million death toll of World War II, how could Ahmadinejad be denying the mechanized ethnic cleansing of millions of European Jews? He continued,

"Honorable Chancellor

I have no intention of arguing about the Holocaust. But, does it not stand to reason that some victorious countries of World War II intended to create an alibi on the basis of which they could continue keeping the defeated nations of World War II indebted to them. Their purpose has been to weaken their morale and their inspiration in order to obstruct their progress and power. In addition to the people of Germany, the peoples of the Middle East have also borne the brunt of the Holocaust. By raising the necessity of settling the survivors of the Holocaust in the land of Palestine, they have created a permanent threat in the Middle East in order to rob the people of the region of the opportunities to achieve progress. The collective conscience of the world is indignant over the daily atrocities by the Zionist occupiers, destruction of homes and farms, killing of children, assassinations and bombardments.

Excellency, you have seen that the Zionist government does not even tolerate a government elected by the Palestinian people, and over and over again has demonstrated that it recognizes no limit in attacking the neighboring countries."

If Ahmadinejad's point still isn't clear, he elaborates:

"Using the excuse for the settlement of the survivors of the Holocaust, they encouraged the Jews worldwide to migrate and today a large part of the inhabitants of the occupied territories are non-European Jews. If tyranny and killing is condemned in one part of the world, can we acquiesce and go along with tyranny, killing, occupation and assassinations in another part of the world simply in order to redress the past wrongs?"

The question is not whether the holocaust happened or not, rather, it is how that horrendous tragedy has been exploited in order to justify the establishment of a "Jewish State" in Palestine and rob indigenous Palestinians of their own rights to self-determination. The issue is not to call history into question, but rather to explore the consequences of historical acts.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has always made a stark distinction between Jewish people and Zionists. He has said on numerous occasions that his opposition to a Jewish State is a political and ideological one, and not to be confused with a violent ultimatum or military threat to the Israeli people. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that Iran has "no problem with people and nations" and that Iran does "not have any confrontation with anyone. We seek relations based on respect and justice." Even more specifically, in a 2008 CNN interview with Larry King, he stated quite clearly that "we don't have a problem with the Jewish people."

Just to be extra clear, Ahmadinejad declared, "We are opposed to the idea that the people who live there should be thrown into the sea or be burnt," reiterating his belief in self-determination of all people based upon elections: "We believe that all the people who live there [in Israel and Palestine], the Jews, Muslims and Christians, should take part in a free referendum and choose their government."

Even during his widely lambasted Durban II speech, Ahmadinejad clearly demarcated the distinction between the 19th century colonial ideology of Jewish nationalism and the Jewish religion, stating, "The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces."

Despite the fact that Ahmadinejad called for an "end to Zionism," countless news agencies erroneously reported that he sought the "destruction of Israel," and numerous commentators, including British ambassador Peter Gooderham, called these remarks "anti-Semitic."

In his piece about Ahmadinejad's 9/11 statement on Saturday, The New York Times' Robert Mackey, reminded his readers about comments made by the Iranian President during an International al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day rally on September 18, 2009, a national celebration in solidarity with the Palestinian people and in opposition to Zionism. Mackey, who refers to Quds Day as "Iran’s annual anti-Israel day," writes that Ahmadinejad told the crowd that "The pretext for the creation of the Zionist regime is false…It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim." Again, the pretext of the holocaust is not at all the same thing as a lie.

The holocaust, as an historical occurrence admitted to by its own perpetrators in Europe and widely described as the systematic and mechanized murder of millions of Jews, is not being called a lie in this statement. Considering that the indigenous people of Palestine bear no responsibility for the atrocities committed by the Nazis, the consequences of the holocaust, however, as it was used to justify the creation of Israel in Palestine, is what Ahmadinejad states is based on a "mythical claim." This becomes quite clear by listening to the very next line of Ahmadniejad's speech, unreported by Mackey or anyone else in the Western press: "The occupation of Palestine has no connection with the issue of the holocaust."

Later in the Quds Day speech, Ahmadinejad once again made sure to distinguish between Judaism and Zionism:

"The Zionists have no faith. It is a big lie that the Zionists should be considered tantamount to the Jews or the Christians. Zionists are not Jews nor Christians, and, rather, the Zionists seek to destroy all the values brought about by the divine prophets…the basis of Zionism is to destroy human culture and human values and the values of all nations."

Iran itself has an ancient community of over 25,000 Jews, the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel itself. Along with Ahmadinejad, Siamak Morsadegh, the Jewish Iranian legislator and community leader, has criticized Israel's policies towards Palestinians, especially in Gaza, saying it showed "anti-human behavior…they kill innocent people," and continuing that the Jewish community in Iran does "not recognize a government or a nation for the Zionist regime."

"A New Pearl Harbor"

That Ahmadinejad – along with millions and millions of others around the world – would find the official story of 9/11 suspicious is not without good cause.

A year before the September 11, 2001 attacks, neocon think tank Project for a New American Century, published a 90-page manifesto for a imperially dominant American Empire, urging "that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." Among its aims, the report, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, calls for the United States to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars" and achieve "a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity."

PNAC's members, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Eliot Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, and Richard Perle, believed that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Maybe those many PNAC members who, later that year, were subsequently appointed to top level positions in Bush's new administration didn't want to wait that long for such a galvanizing moment in order to pursue their own agenda of unilateral preemptive invasions of Middle Eastern countries.

When Ahmadinejad speaks of 9/11 as involving a "complicated intelligence scenario and act," shouldn't the media perhaps contextualize his statement by discussing the exaggerated and manipulated 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident which was largely responsible for launching the American military campaign in Vietnam, the 1954 Israeli false flag operations known as the Lavon Affair conducted against Egypt, or the planned, but never implemented, Operation Northwoods scheme in 1962 concocted by the U.S. Department of Defense to instigate a war with Cuba (one of the plans consisted of hijacking an airplane and blaming the new Castro regime).

IranAffairs' Cyrus Safdari reminds us of "Emad Salem, an undercover FBI informant who had infiltrated the group that carried out the first WTC bombing back in 1993. He was smart enough to record his conversations with the FBI. Turns out, he specifically warned the FBI of the bombing, and offered to replace the bomb material with a harmless substance, but the FBI said no." What about the completely bogus, but thoroughly hyped, "Newburgh bomb plot" to bomb synagogues in Riverdale, NY and fire a missile at a US military jet, which was entirely set up by FBI informant Shahed Hussain.

What about the 2007 statement by National Medal of Science laureate Lynn Margulis in which she referred to 9/11 as a "new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties"? Or former CIA Middle East operative Robert Baer, who has written, "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation – not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture – we will never know what happened on 9/11." Or former senior CIA official Bill Christison, who wrote that there is a "strong body of evidence showing the official US government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies." What about the other CIA officials who question the official story?

What about the Guardian report from November 1, 2001 which revealed that, according to French intelligence officials, "Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent"?

What about the mysterious collapse of Tower 7, Able Danger, the failure to scramble jets, the myriad National Security experts denied, ignored, or censored from the 9/11 Commission report, deception and non-cooperation by the Department of Defense, whistle-blowers like Coleen Rowley, supposed short-selling and text message warnings, or the five dancing Israelis seen watching and videotaping the attacks from New Jersey's Liberty State Park across the Hudson River?

What about the British intelligence report, entitled "Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States," which purports to provide evidence that "Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001, yet begins with the following disclaimer: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law"?

What about the BBC report, entitled "The investigation and the evidence," which concludes, "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks…At best the evidence is circumstantial."

What about the evidence that, in no verified audio or video tapes, has bin Laden actually claimed responsibility for the attacks, yet has even been quoted as stating, "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act…we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed."

What about the fact that Osama bin Laden is, to this very day, not specifically wanted in connection with the 9/11 attacks, according to FBI's own Most Wanted List?

As a result, is there not plenty of dubious information and spurious evidence surrounding the official story of the September 11 attacks to warrant some sort of suspicion, regardless of what you may personally think actually happened? In this way, with his recent comments, President Ahmadinejad has given voice to the majority of the world. But clearly, for fear they might stumble on some uncomfortable truths, it appears easier for the mainstream media to decontextualize his statements and label him a crackpot conspiracy theorist who is a danger to the American way of life, thus leading the United States down the path to attacking a third Middle Eastern country, than to do its own job.

By misrepresenting the country of Iran, its people, its system of government, its culture, its religion, its elected and unelected leaders, the Western press has already set the stage for an attack on the Islamic Republic. Because of the media's sensational and propagandistic reporting, 71% of Americans already believing that Iran currently possesses nuclear weapons. 90% think that the power of Iran's military poses either a critical or important "threat to U.S. vital interests" (despite the fact that Iran's military budget that is literally one hundred times smaller than that of the US). 59% of American citizens even support unilateral, preemptive US military action against Iran regardless of whether economic or diplomatic efforts achieve the government's desired effect.

Perhaps, as was seen with the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the press is doing exactly what the US government wants it to do.

*****

Contact him at wideasleepinamerica@gmail.com.
–
Wide Asleep In America
Brooklyn, NY
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com

The aspect of the Al-Mabhouh assassination that is attracting most attention is the issue of forged passports. Today's Jewish Chronicle carries a short commentary on the tendency of Israeli security services to "borrow" passports, highlighting two methods by which this could have been done. The first is apparently innocuous, whereby as part of the normal migration procedures any "Oleh" wishing to make the "aliyah" (migration to Israel) parts willingly with his or her identification documents, which can and usually are circulated. The anonymous JC commentator suggests that a more surreptitious method was used for holders of foreign passports who would be approached directly by the security services. This approach is "widely known among new and old immigrants to Israel" according to one man who described how he was approached for his passport while spending a gap year in Israel 40 years ago:

"We were 18 and on a kibbutz. When your madrich (youth leader) says 'can I borrow your passport?' you do not ask any questions. Mine came back with a Romanian stamp on it. This happened to 30 people. As far as I know Israel was bribing the Romanian regime for olim [plural of Oleh] and people needed a non-Romanian passport to get out of the country."

The rather blasé commentary reveals that far from being astonished that their identities had been stolen – probably by Mossad – the British citizens with dual nationality living in Israel could have had a reasonable idea that their identities might have been taken for use in such a way. The fact that this practice is "widely known" has serious implications for governments such as ours and the protection of citizens' identities, as well as security concerns. Not only does this Israeli practice show contempt and disregard for other countries – including its supposed allies – it also endangers the security of its own nationals.

When Mossad attempted to assassinate Hamas leader Khalid Mishal in 1997, its operatives used Canadian passports. The two had to take refuge in the Israeli embassy in Amman. It transpired that two Canadian Jews living in Israel had been approached and asked if their passport details could be "borrowed" by one of Israel's security services, a process that has been described as "emotional blackmail" and a test of their "loyalty to Israel" by journalist Paul McGeough.¹

According to McGeough, the Canadian authorities were left highly embarrassed and "vulnerable" after the apparent collaboration between Canadian and Israeli security services was made public. A former Israeli ambassador to Canada said, "The Canadian authorities knew… that passports were being used by Mossad… it was known to people at the embassy and they essentially turned a blind eye to it."²

This begs the question whether or not the British government or British security services are themselves aware that Mossad agents have been using British passports and to what extent, if any, they have been involved in the whole Al-Mabhouh affair. Moreover, if it had been, for instance, a Pakistani passport that had been so easily passed around the ISI³ and then used for clandestine operations, would we be seeing the same rather limp response from the international community?

Meanwhile, two leading legal experts have commented on the affair to MEMO:

“We must draw distinctions between domestic and international law. On the domestic front- each state will have criminal penalties for the misuse of its passports. In the UK the Identity Cards Act 2006 specifies criminal penalties for the misuse of passports, forging passports etc. Someone who has 'allowed' their passports to be used in such a way, could be charged with aiding and abetting offences under the 2006 Act. 

This is a very serious matter and the courts will look at the purpose of the use of the false documents in terms of measuring the seriousness. For example if the documents were used for seeking work, it would be seen as a much less serious case compared to fraud. In this case, we are looking at murder. The government could look at the steps Margaret Thatcher took following the apparent use of British passports where she closed down Mossad operations in the UK in the 1980s. This is much more serious given that Israel had given diplomatic assurances that this would not happen again and is certainly an aggravating factor that the government would have to take into account."

Paul Troop,
A prominent barrister specialising in human rights and civil liberties

---

 

The legality of the use and abuse of foreign passports?

The respective governments should: 

source: http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/commentary-and-analysis/692-why-are-we-surprised-that-mossad-used-fake-passports

It is not the place of a plebeian living comfortably in California in the United States of America – where no one is shooting at his family, nor demolishing his home, nor subjecting him to suffer Jews only roads nor the dehumanizing checkpoints on every mile – to  critique the monumental struggle of a mighty people barely surviving a genocidal conquest of their ancestral lands, where, just to exist daily in dignity after burying one's children shot in the head is to resist, where, just to not forget without going insane is to resist, where, to fight the tanks with only stones despite the label of terrorist' is to resist.

And far be it for any mortal to critique the gentle Jew among a population of 20-60 million world Jewry who dares to courageously stand up for what is decent and moral, who bears witness for crimes against humanity against one's own tribe, who resolves to bring to her people the news of what she saw with her own two eyes in Palestine.

But to also not point out the palpably obvious is a travesty of both thought and justice. For, in order for the monumental struggle of the Palestinians to result in anything other than glossy book publishing, and Peace Prizes, one perhaps will have to incur the wrath of both the moralist as well as the tyrant. And so be it. I ain't writing this to win a popularity contest, to make a living from narrating other people's misery, to win elections by seeking representation, or to ingratiate myself with the victims or their moral champions. Effort is great – but on a treadmill it is wasting precious time on endless trail of red herrings.

Anna Baltzer, a wonderful human being, and Mustafa Barghouti, a courageous
leader of a beleaguered people, are both riding high on platitudes. It is unfortunate that they exhibit little forensic understanding of the facts of the matter beyond the Israeli military occupation which they have lived and witnessed daily. The unvarnished and hidden only in plain-sight reality which begets the golem, at least in my view, is this, this, this, and this. [1] A thorough due diligence of the cited material and some  un-emotional reflection makes the endless trail of red herrings apparent. [2] Power only respects power. Not platitudes, not appeals to morality, and not narratives.

Please keep making shocking presentations showing the brutality of the golem, keep appearing on comedy shows amidst the applause of the partisans and the curse of the zealots, it sure looks good in America. It also looks good for the Jews – one of their own angels once again boldly speaks the authentic moral voice in favor of a beleaguered humanity as “it's in line with the tradition of social justice that has been the pride of Jewish people”. Yes indeed, and as my irreverent Palestinian friend also says “We run from Jew to Jew, they create the problem, and also argue the solution, they control the full spectrum of our discourse as well as our existence.” Dismissing the Palestinian voice as being merely cynical, or irrational and requiring the Jewish authentication to have legitimacy, it's just  wonderful to make colorful presentations to universities and to appear on mainstream television in America to attempt to project Palestine's misery on the American psyche.

The purpose, one of course presumes, is to inform the ignorant Americans of what's happening in Palestine so that, one logically ventures to presume again, the newly informed public with their mighty democratic vote will finally rush to alter the destiny of the Palestinian People. [3]

Sadly so, and contrary to what most people have been led to believe, lack of knowledge isn't the chain that is anchoring the superbly conscionable American public down from bringing justice to Palestine, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Lebanon, to Pakistan, and to the Grand Chessboard being played for the winner takes all high stakes gambit of one-world government. [4]

This truth should be self-evident and is easily demonstrable. Simply examine what the United States has done to Iraq in the past 8 years before its own public's eyes. That isn't at all a state-secret, nor an open secret. We have Abu Ghrieb for instance whose pictures were splashed even in the mainstream news – far more than Jenin or Gaza ever were. We have the exposé which gallantly revealed how the Pentagon Generals created the message machine to fool the American public into supporting the invasion of Iraq on fabricated pretexts. [5] With all that knowledge before their eyes, one of course sees Main Street USA filled with American protesters demanding the hanging of their leaders after the disclosures of missing WMD, the horrendous torture of civilians, and the  complete devastation of even the DNA of Mesopotamia for eons to come, right?
[6]

But wait, why bother to go that far overseas searching for sympathy among the conscionable peoples of the United States of America for those untermensch 'unworthy victims' who share the same cultural baggage with the Palestinians thus automatically extending that 'unworthiness' to each other. How about their ownselves? The American protesters surely choked their nation's thoroughfares
bringing business as usual to a grinding halt when the American banksters plundered their own nation through their own elected representatives before their very eyes last October, right? [7]

None of that is particularly secret as perhaps some feel that the plight of the Palestinians is from the American public. Those among them who want to know about the reality of “imperial mobilization” can easily learn so, it's not a state
secret. And those who do already know, as in the aforementioned instances, well, they still continue to live on in their own dream states not only unfazed by the desecrated 'untermensch' humanity, but the theft of their own nation in plainsight hasn't motivate them a heck of a lot. Can any sensible analysis deny this grotesque reality?

The entire premise of if Americans only knew then they'd surely bring justice to the world and all will live happily ever after, has now empirically been proven to be entirely specious. [8] An absurdity. For Americans are no more or less moral than the rest of the spectating world. Including the 8 million Palestinians living in Diaspora. That is easily demonstrable by how many set sail with the courageous, courageous, former American Congresswoman to attempt to break the blockade of Gaza with basic medicines and supplies. [9] Imagine, instead of the lonely Dignity, there were one million Dignities? In a world's population of almost 7 billion, and West's own 2 billion comfort seeking zombies and plethora of philosophers and activists, one couldn't mobilize a civilian force of conscience of 2-10 million human beings willing to risk their discomfort in sailing to Gaza to stop the genocide going on before our very eyes? Administering a medicine below its recommended dosage for the disease at hand only makes the body immune to it having no impact on the malady in much the same way as not applying sufficient imploding force to create critical mass also does not trigger the chain reaction necessary to set off a nuclear bomb. Symbolic expression no more initiates a nuclear chain reaction than gives pause for concern to the hectoring hegemons.

The shoah of the Palestinians isn't something in the yesteryear for which the “never again” vows are repeatedly taken in the halls of the Holocaust Museum. Nor is it the indescribable genocide of centuries past which colonized the land of the Native Americans before one living today was ever born. It is happening right here, right now, in our own time, and so what of it? High minded people can't be bothered with other people's existential problems other than at best, some weekend show of bravado of the conscionable and some whispered prayers of the pious! If there was efficacy in such acts, then wishes would be horses and beggars would surely be riding. But we see that this does not happen. People continue to suffer under the jackboots of the Nazis, old and new.

What worthy moralists penning narratives and/or walking the beleaguered victims safely past checkpoints don't appear to comprehend is the notion of efficacy: the difference between applying band-aids to symptoms vs. curing the systemic illness by accurately diagnosing, and then efficaciously antidoting
the root cause. Perhaps deliberately. Perhaps thoughtlessly. Perhaps the flock is calculatingly misled by the multitude of priestdoms who lead them in the feel-good dissipation of their energies into red herrings and “focus groups” while fait
accompli is seeded in its backdrop. [10] That should be self-evident. But apparently, it isn't to many.

So, in my view, when offering narratives to the public thinking that morality, or knowledge equates to action, never mind efficacy, one is either creating or chasing endless red herrings. [11]

It has certainly worked wonders for “arguably the most important intellectual alive” in selling his narratives. [12] And so too for the two hundred other Jewish voices of dissent, or perhaps the number is two thousand? Or is it twenty  housand? How many have created tax-exempt foundations, like the nemesis does, to donate all those proceeds to the Palestinian cause; used it for purchasing a newsmedia or a mainstream newspaper; set up an AIPAC, a JINSA, and one hundred think-tanks to create competing policy proposals to counter AEI's craftsmanship? And it also works great for everyone who cheers them on – for it's soothing to the conscience to run safely on the treadmill.

When peace prizes are awarded to the victims for the superlative narratives of their own, or to their exponents among their oppressor's civilization, it's  covetously appreciated and becomes their badge of honor. [13] The fact that they are sharing it with bloody murders doesn't seem to cross their mind, nor the fact that the whiteman is in fact mocking the 'Negro'. [14] Victims trip over themselves to welcome the new whiteman as heroes. Talk show circuits naturally follow, with more narratives to boot. And the annual Nakba commemoration is of course an event to  look forward to. All the great speeches that get made there, all the slogans that are raised, and all the lofty assertions that are made.

Amidst all this energized symbolic weekend run on the treadmill for most people, and perhaps a lifestyle for a handful of others of courageously putting band-aids on visible wounds while doing little for curing the systemic disease, the only people all this wonderful dissent doesn't work for, and hasn't work for, are the bleeding Palestinians exhausting themselves out at ground Zero.

The enemy is simply far superior and far more cunning in waging a full spectrum overwhelming war by way of deception. Those on the ground see only the most overt of its instruments – the guns, the walls, but not the forces which drive them.

With no hope for any of the armed to the teeth standing armies from around the world coming to their rescue, they clutch at straws. And the Internationals, as courageous as they are in putting their own lives on the line with some like Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, and so many others, paying for their personal quest for justice with their own lives, provide that bale of straw to the Palestinians. But no solutions. Those in Diaspora are already settled someplace while admittedly still holding onto the keys to their demolished homes now left behind. And those at ground Zero in Palestine continue to suffer the privilege of great loquaciousness of their brethren in Diaspora who do indeed try to serve their former family members well from the relative safety of their new homes in the West. Their weekend protest marches, the shouting and venting anger at the Caligula, the symbolic pins, T-shirts, posters, and colorful flag-waving, etceteras, and back to the pursuit of their 'American Dream' on Monday morning, 8 am.

If this depiction offends the pious, well, the reflection in the mirror is more grotesque than the reality outside. It is our silence, our apathy, our un-courage, our co-option, our lack of skill to appreciate the diabolicalness of the enemy, to understand its sources of power, to fathom its limitless deep pockets and the fount which replenishes it, to appreciate its long range Machiavellian planning with red herrings being an integral part of its vast arsenal of waging wars by way of deception, and finally, the paucity of a superior intellect to pursue the efficacious instead of the 'glamourous', all of which entirely enables and emboldens that evil among mankind.

The “pastrami sandwich” example acutely illustrates just one instance of being out-classed in all dimensions by a far more cunning and sophisticated foe. Ariel Sharon noted to Winston Churchill III in 1973, six years into Israel's military occupation of remaining Palestine: “We'll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We'll insert a strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.” [15]

And the truth of those diabolical words is visible in the maps reproduced below. It is still on-going. But there is no evidence of that comprehension in anything the Palestinian leadership, or their moral supporters have proffered up since, neither at the Oslo Accord, nor at the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the 'Negro' by the whiteman for his dutiful compliance with their discourse, and nor in the wonderful rehash of narratives of Anna Baltzer and Mustafa Barghouti in 2009, 36 years later. They vacuously talk of peace-peace, justice-justice, rights-rights, security-security, without betraying, at least in that appearance on American television, any understanding of the forces which drive their nemesis.

This is once again unequivocally demonstrated in these saintly closing remarks of Mustafa Barghouti, interrupting the very passionate moral voice of Anna Baltzer making the pair a fantastic must-see nourishment for the soul on American television's finest moral hour: “If I may say so, Israel has tried for sixty years the language of power, to achieve security. The only road that was not tried fully, is to have peace with Palestinians. And I am sure, this is the best guarantee for security.”

Is security what Israel wants? Yes, surely, but only after all the natives have been dispatched to their reservations or transferred out of the Holy Lands. But before then? For the past 60 years, has security been the successive Israeli governments primary quest as the learned Dr. Mustafa Barghouti played to the American audience? Or has it all along been the conquest of Palestine that every Palestinian on the ground knows as unarguable fact just as surely as the picture of their beautiful child now shot dead right through the eyes and burned alive by phosphorous bombs that puts all the Jews' hypocritical laments of Shoah to shame? [16] While Jon Stewart may be forgiven his inbred American wisdom of conveniently forgetting the parallels of how America was settled by the whiteman, all others not peering down the rabbit hole or bleating their own victimizers' mantras already know that by continually fueling conflict, taking 10 under the guise of fighting the 'barbarians' in purported self-defense, and returning 1 if the 'terrorists' behave, has been the primal modus operandi of the golem for similarly re-settling another paradise lost. [17]

The veracity of that observation too, based on the profound wisdom of David Ben Gurion: “what is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times”, and the nonsensicalness of the premise uttered by the respected Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, are all self-evident in the maps below.

These maps depict the real unvarnished reality on the ground: “However the different party maps have nothing to do with reality, a fact well known to the people who drafted them. The maps were produced to feed addiction (a) of the populace. This is virtual reality. The actual reality on the ground has been created continuously, consistently and deliberately, since 1967, by all Israeli governments, Labor, Likud and Kadima.” [18]

That is precisely why Palestinians have continually lost their struggle to wonderful narratives, to chest beating, chest thumping, and intellectualizing their moral struggle in poetry and songs, photographs and theater, to Peace processes and Accords, to maps handed them by their victimizers, and ultimately, to even using the vocabulary and constructs of the occupiers themselves to describe their own victimhood, all of which is dutifully rewarded with more land loss, and more peace prizes for playing the fool.

One ventures to predict that Anna Baltzer's poignant book is slated for a Pulitzer Prize for sure, or at least the Orwell Prize like native Palestinian Raja Shehadeh's acute narrative 'Palestinian Walks' in 2008. [19] If this chap, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti keeps up this charade before the West, keeps selling out his own long suffering people by spewing red herrings crafted for him by the whiteman, there is surely a peace prize in it for him as well. Perhaps these accolades have already been issued, just awaiting public announcement – as the map of Israel in Palestine rapidly reaches its final completion while Eretz Yisrael continues to be worked on in parallel.

To put some real efficacy to the resistance before fait accompli entirely seals the Palestinians' fate, and it's almost there, genuinely concerned people are gonna have to bite the bullet even at this late stage of conquest and go where neither the Palestinians, nor their moral exponents have shown any inclination to go. To the very DNA of Der Judenstat's strength.

Because, as with the secret of Samson's indomitable strength, this golem's hidden source of power lies deceptively elsewhere! [20] Not in Israel. Not in the White House, and not in the U.S. Congress. We have already seen them all bow together before another higher power with our very own eyes.

And that is the real Samson Option! Want to get rid of the golem? You gonna have to pay in spades by seeking and cutting off its locks. To do so requires skills, expertise, and resources often un-possessed by the ordinary plebeians rising to support the beleaguered victims. All we can do is make speeches, write books, and appear on  talk shows. All the victims can do is to exist to resist. And all their leadership can do is to find new ways to be co-opted. That's how they live longer, more willing they are to become the 'Negro' of Martin Luther King's scorn. [21] Without taking on the DNA with resources to back up the effort in a full spectrum assault to overwhelm their senses and their resources just as they do ours, all this dissent is a wonderful waste of precious time. It only helps the victimizers.

SEE orignal article to view maps! (link at bottom)

Time once seeded to fait accompli, simply becomes impractical to reverse.
Time is Zionism's best friend. Just look at the map and one can see it. All the while one is wasting it in not effectively addressing the root of the matter, newer generation of Zionists are born on that soil claiming birth-right. And newer victims are fed to the golem, but not just in Palestine. The world has brazenly and complicitly witnessed Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, the emerging arc of crisis in the Global Zone of Percolating Violence as annotated by Zbigniew Brzezinski before any crisis had materialized way back in 1996. The People of the United States themselves are the newest victims to behold. They all share the same common enemy.

Next time you make your outstanding presentations Anna, Mustafa, go there – show How Zionistan is the banksters' private baby for which they diabolically harness both the 'left' and the 'right' from amongst the Jews. Show how the name to which the Balfour Declaration is addressed controls the world through their full spectrum control of world's finance and resources, and what its remaining agenda is.

Show in whose palace the Treaty of Versailles was signed which spelled the real beginning of end of Palestine for its indigenous peoples. Show why and how it has not been an idle boast of the godfathers: “give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws”. Unmask their secret role in being the real financiers of Der Judenstat, and by virtue of their full spectrum control of the West's politicians, including those in the United States, of being the real prime-movers behind the primacy of Zionism and the criminal dispossession and systematic eradication of the Palestinian populations from their own ancestral lands.

If fair punishments are ever to be awarded for their crimes against humanity for just the past 100 years in any Just court of law, Adolph Eichmann would have to be retroactively let go by resurrecting his soul from his grave with high honors and awarded multiple peace prizes plus compensation, in order to administer hanging and extraction of restitution as the graduated scale of ultimate punishment for the ultimate prime-movers of all wars and pestilence before which
their errand boys' and patsies' crimes against humanity pale in comparison. [22]

Go for the jugular of the Zionists' hidden only in plainsight source of strength today by seeking the billions, or even the paltry millions from your wealthy kin and funding multi-spectrum legal assault across the world and across the board upon the first harbingers of world's misery – just as the Zionists won Der Judenstat by legal means, even if only by a sovereign's word.

And watch your own world crumble around you for taking on the real source of Samson's power, far quicker than what Israel has done to the Palestinian people.

That's why no one of any prominence with anything to lose treads there. That's why even the heavily protected past American Presidents have had their brains blown out, or attempted to be blown out, when they tread too close to that forbidden path. But if enough people of means and worldly wherewithal go there together with wit, courage, and play like grandmasters in a team rather than shocked idealists on a moral mission chasing 1000 red herrings, then, and only then, an effective battle will finally be waged against the real power source which fuels the golem. When such an effective struggle is genuinely waged, the final outcome will surely not be scripted as it entirely is at the present time.

The battle goes to those who can best out maneuver their opponent, as in Jujitsu, as in Muhammad Ali's rope-a-dope against George Forman, rather than always to the stronger. As Patrick Henry put it: “Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active,
the brave.” [23]

That only works for battles with real teeth in them, and before fait accompli cements the outcome. Today, no native American can do anything except live on in memory.

Thank you.

Footnotes

[1] Zahir Ebrahim, Celebrating Israel's 60th Birthday in the 60th year of the Nakba May 15, 2008 http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/celebrating-israels-60th-birthday.html 

Zahir Ebrahim, At What Cost the Israel Lobby? : It's only an 'errand boy'!
Oct. 14, 2009 http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/10/respto-what-cost-israel-lobby-jeffgates.html 

Zahir Ebrahim, Is Zionism a sophisticated Hegelian Dialectic? Sept. 06,
2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-zionism-hegelian-dialectic.html 

Zahir Ebrahim, Ebook: Reclaiming Palestine 2008 Omnibus June 04, 2008
http://humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/files/2008/06/reclaiming-palestine-2008-omnibus-june042008.pdf

[2] Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/endless-red-herrings.html

[3] Zahir Ebrahim, Not-Voting is a 'YES' vote to Reject a Corrupt System
which thrives on the facade of Elections and Democracy! Oct. 22, 2008 http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/from-genesis-to-genocide-in-palestine.html   

http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-voting-is-yes-vote-to-reject-system.html  

[4] Zahir Ebrahim, Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman's 'And now
for a world government' Dec. 11, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/responseto-ft-gideon-rachman-worldgov.html

[5] DAVID BARSTOW, NYT, Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,
April 20, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[6] Zahir Ebrahim, America’s Shame, Preface to Prisoners of the  Cave, 2003,
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/12/americas-shame.html#Peoples-Guilt

[7] Zahir Ebrahim, Why Not Be An Ostrich? Feb. 13, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-not-be-anostrich-feb132009.html

Zahir Ebrahim, The Wrecked Ship of Fools, April 1 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/wrecked-ship-of-fools-apr12009.html

Zahir Ebrahim, Why Bluff Martial Law? Oct. 03, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-bluff-martial-law.html

[8] Zahir Ebrahim, Prisoners of the Cave, 2003, Chapter 2
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-2.html#The-Premise-If-Only-the-Americans-Knew

Zahir Ebrahim, Prisoners of the Cave, 2003, Chapter 3 Is Democracy Inimical
To Empire Building?
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-3.html

[9] CNN, Cynthia McKinney on Israel's Ramming of The Dignity, December
30, 2008 Quote: “Well, I wouldn't call it accosting, I would call it ramming. Let's just call it as it is”,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZeNdIGI8os  

[10] George W. Bush, Quote: “It's like deciding – well I am going to decide policy based upon a focus group”, cited in Zahir Ebrahim, Prisoners of the Cave, Chapter 7
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-7.html

Zahir Ebrahim, Manufacturing Dissent: Weapons of Mass Deception – The
Master Social Science June 01, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/wmd-master-social-science.html

[11] Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/endless-red-herrings.html

[12] Peter Schweizer, Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, 2006
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2912626.html

[13] Zahir Ebrahim, Letter to Editor Guardian: 2008 Orwell Prize for the
Palestinian Narrative of Nakba May 03, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/letter-toguardian-2008-orwellprize.html

Jeff Halper in Canada Nobel Prize Nominee and Israeli Peace Activist
Speaking on the Siege of Gaza, January 22, 2009
http://www.caiaweb.org/node/1096

[14] Zahir Ebrahim, The Answer to the Burning Question du jour: Why was
President Obama Gifted the Nobel Peace Prize? How to win the Nobel
Peace Prize October 09, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-to-win-nobel-peace-prize.html

A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin
Luther King (Jr.), pg. 307
http://books.google.com/books?id=k8uPHtrU8BsC&pg=PA307

Quote:
“The white establishment is skilled in flattering and cultivating emerging leaders. It presses its own image on them and finally, from imitation of manners, dress, and style of living, a deeper strain of corruption develops. This kind of Negro leader acquires the white man's contempt for the ordinary Negro. He is often more at home with the middle-class white than he is among his own people. His language changes, his location changes, his income changes, and ultimately he changes from the representative of the Negro to the white man into the white man's representative to the Negro. The tragedy is that too often he does not recognize what has happened to him.”

[15] From George S. Hishmeh, Special to The Daily Star, July 18, 2002. Cited in 'What for?' by Victoria Buch, Occupation Magazine, 22 April 2006
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=34220

Quote:
“Winston S. Churchill III, grandson of the famed British prime minister, recalled last October at the National Press Club here a telling encounter he had had in 1973 with the hawkish Ariel Sharon, now the Israeli prime minister, about Zionist objectives. “What is to become of the Palestinians?” Churchill asked. “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them,” Sharon said. Churchill responded, “What?” “Yes, we’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.”

[16] Zahir Ebrahim, From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine January 16, 2009 Zahir Ebrahim, Letter to Editor Palestinians' fate worse than Shoah! Jan
09, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/palestinians-fate-worse-than-shoah.html

[17] Zahir Ebrahim, The endless trail of red herrings, Feb. 28, 2007
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/endless-red-herrings.html

Zahir Ebrahim, Celebrating Israel's 60th Birthday in the 60th year of the
Nakba May 15, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/celebrating-israels-60th-birthday.html

[18] Victoria Buch, Occupation Magazine, 22 April 2006, Op. cit.

[19] Zahir Ebrahim, Letter to Editor Guardian: 2008 Orwell Prize for the
Palestinian Narrative of Nakba May 03, 2008
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/letter-toguardian-2008-orwellprize.html

[20] From Genesis to Genocide in Palestine : The Golem Is Not Jewish! Nov.
19, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/genesis-to-genocide-golem-not-jewish.html

At What Cost the Israel Lobby? : It's only an 'errand boy'!, Oct. 14, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/10/respto-what-cost-israel-lobby-jeffgates.html

[21] Martin Luther King. Op. cit.

[22] Zahir Ebrahim, Who is more guilty of monumental war crimes – the prime-movers or trigger pullers? April 09, 2009
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/vanilla-or-chocolate-icing-ondevilscake.html

[23] Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775,
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml

Anna Baltzer's videos embedded at the beginning of this article:

Anna Baltzer: Life In Occupied Palestine November 02, 2009, in 3 parts
http://essentialdissent.blogspot.com/2009/11/anna-baltzer-life-in-occupied-palestine.html

Anna Baltzer & Dr. Mustafa Barghouti on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart -Recorded Wednesday, October 28, 2009
http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/video/index.html

Source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html     

Source PDF:
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine-nov-222009i.pdf   

Source msword:
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine-nov-222009.doc 

The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org.
Verbatim reproduction license at http://www.humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright.

Ethan Bronner and Susan Chira

Ethan Bronner's Conflict With Impartiality

By Alison Weir*

Ethan Bronner is the New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief. As such, he is the editor responsible for all the news coming out of Iasrael-Palestine. Iact is his job to decide what gets reported and what doesn't; what goes in a story and what gets cut.

To a considerable degree, he determines what readers of arguably the nation's most influential newspaper learn about Israel and its adversaries, and, especially, what they don't.

His son just joined the Israeli army.

According to New York Times ethics guidelines, such a situation would be expected to cause significant concern. In these guidelines the Times repeatedly emphasizes the importance of impartiality.

This is considered so critical that the Times devotes considerable attention to "conflict of interest" (also called "conflict with impartiality") problems, situations in which personal interest might cause a journalist to intentionally or unconsciously slant a story.

The Times notes that family affiliations may cause such a conflict; as an example, it explains that a daughter's high position on Wall Street could be problematic for a business reporter.

In situations where such a familial affiliation is considered significant, the journalist may be moved to a different area of reporting.

Ethan Bronner's situation, therefore would appear to be sticky, at the very least. It is difficult to imagine that a son fighting for the foreign nation an editor is charged with covering does not constitute such a potential conflict with impartiality. Apart from Mr. Bronner signing up with the Israeli military himself, it is difficult to imagine a clearer example of familial partisanship.

Yet, to date, Bronner and the Times have refused to address his situation. Foreign Editor Susan Chira (who may also have family allegiances to Israel) has declined to comment, other than refer people to her curt response to Electronic Intifada, which had asked her whether it was true that Bronner's son was in the Israeli military:

"Ethan Bronner referred your query to me, the foreign editor. Here is my comment: Mr. Bronner's son is a young adult who makes his own decisions. At The Times, we have found Mr. Bronner's coverage to be scrupulously fair and we are confident that will continue to be the case."

If that were, indeed, the case for Bronner's reporting, there would undoubtedly be less concern from outside observers. There are numerous instances of accurate reporting by both Israeli and Palestinian journalists; familial and personal affiliation do not necessarily or always result in flawed journalism.

However, while both Chira and Bronner may believe he has been "scrupulously fair" in the years that he has been the paper's top editor on Israel-Palestine (before assuming his current position as Jerusalem bureau chief in March 2008, he had been deputy foreign editor overseeing the region for four years), a number of studies and analyses contradict this contention.

- In 2005 a study by If Americans Knew found that the Times had covered Israeli children's deaths at a rate over seven times greater than it had reported on Palestinian children's deaths – even though Palestinian children's deaths had occurred first, in far greater numbers, and there was considerable evidence that Palestinian young people were being killed intentionally by official Israeli forces.

- Princeton Professor Emeritus Richard Falk and media critic Howard Friel undertook a meticulous analysis of the Times' coverage of the issue; the title of their book indicates their findings: "Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East." Among others things, Falk and Friel discovered that the Times had failed to report the essential fact that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.

- A 2006 study published in the Electronic Intifada revealed that during the previous six years there had been 80 reports by respected international organizations detailing human rights violations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of these, 76 had been primarily critical of Israel, and four had been primarily critical of Palestinians. The study found that the Times had reported on two of the reports for each, giving readers an exceedingly distorted view of the real situation.

- In a recent announcement expressing concern at Bronner's apparent conflict of interest, media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) stated that "Bronner's reporting has been repeatedly criticized by FAIR for what would appear to be a bias toward the Israeli government," detailing specific examples.

Shifting the Blame

Several years ago the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin published an article exploring Jewish student journalists' views on how to report on Israel-Palestine. Several said that they would find it difficult to report negative aspects about Israel, one interviewee saying that he would try to avoid printing such news. If that proved impossible, he said, he would then try to find a way "to shift the blame."

New York Times' news coverage often seems to follow this pattern. When the Gaza massacre of December-January is reported, Gazan rockets are inevitably mentioned. However, the fact that these largely home-made projectiles have killed far fewer Israelis in the eight years they have been used (under 20) than Israeli forces killed in a few minutes during the invasion is virtually always omitted. Likewise left out is the fact that their use began only after Israeli forces had invaded Gaza on a number of occasions, killing and injuring numerous civilians.

The Times consistently reports Israeli actions as retaliatory, despite the fact that, according to an MIT study, in at least 96 percent of ceasefires and periods of calm it was Israeli forces that had first resumed violence. In the conflict that began in fall of 2000, Israeli forces killed over 140 Palestinians before a single Israeli in Israel was killed, 91 Palestinian children (major cause of death, gunfire to the head) before a single Israeli child was killed.

An example of Bronner's Israel-centric reporting is a November, 2009 report on prisoners. Bronner notes that the Israeli soldier captured by Palestinians (the only Israeli prisoner held by Palestinians) is "bespectacled and boyish-seeming," while failing to mention that many of the over 7,000 Palestinians prisoners held by Israel are equally bespectacled and boyish-seeming – in fact, 300+ are not just boyish, they are children.

While Bronner includes personal information about the Israeli prisoner, he includes very few facts about Palestinian prisoners; for example, that hundreds have never been charged with a crime and that those whom Israel has found "guilty" were tried in military courts under military law in a military occupation of Palestinian land that much of the world deems illegal. While Bronner's story contains considerable mention of "terrorism," it fails to report that Israeli forces killed over a thousand Gazan civilians; Palestinians killed one Israeli civilian.

Interestingly, connections to the Israeli military may not be rare for journalists covering the Middle East for US media.

From left, Linda Gradstein, Jeffrey Goldberg and Isabel Kershner

The husband of NPR's longtime correspondent for the region, Linda Gradstein, was a sniper in the Israeli army (and may still be a reserve officer). "Pundit" Jeffrey Goldberg, who appears throughout the media, immigrated to Israel, became an Israeli citizen, and served in the Israeli military. (It is unknown whether he is still in the Israeli reserves; it is possible he received a dispensation from this requirement.)

The New York Times' other major correspondent from the region, Isabel Kershner, is an Israeli citizen. While there is universal compulsory military service in Israel, we have been unable to confirm that Kershner herself and/or her family members have been or are in the Israeli military.

Breaking the silence

Recently, the Israeli organization "Breaking the Silence" published 96 testimonies by female Israeli soldiers. They describe a pervasive pattern of violence, harassment, theft, and humiliation practiced by Israeli forces against Palestinian men, women, and children. Below are excerpts:

"We caught a five-year-old… the officers just picked him up, slapped him around and put him in the jeep. The kid was crying and the officer next to me said 'don't cry' and started laughing at him. Finally the kid cracked a smile – and suddenly the officer gave him a punch in the stomach. Why? 'Don't laugh in my face' he said."

"…it's boring, so we'd create some action. We'd get on the radio, and say they threw stones at us, then someone would be arrested… There was a policewoman, she was bored, so okay, she said they threw stones at her. They asked her who threw them. 'I don't know, two in grey shirts, I didn't manage to see them.' They catch two guys with grey shirts… beat them. Is it them? 'No, I don't think so.' Okay, a whole incident, people get beaten up. Nothing happened that day."

"…two of our soldiers put him [a Palestinian child] in a jeep, and two weeks later the kid was walking around with casts on both arms and legs…they talked about it in the unit quite a lot – about how they sat him down and put his hand on the chair and simply broke it right there on the chair."

An officer described soldiers shooting to death a nine-year-old as he was trying to run away: "They shot in the air, as they say – shot in the air in the lungs…"

In their testimonies, these soldiers emphasize that mistreatment of Palestinian civilians is widespread, routine, and known to everyone. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian press have published excerpts.

Yet, New York Times Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner has so far failed to report this information about Israeli forces.

And his son has just joined up.

* Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew and a board member of the Council for the National Interest (CNI). For more information on Ethan Bronner and his upcoming speaking tour on college campuses, join IAK'S email list. Alison can be reached at contact@ifamericansknew.org

Sources:

The New York Times Company Policy on Ethics in Journalism. This also states: "Companywide, our goal is to cover the news impartially… and to be seen as doing so. The reputation of our company rests upon that perception…"

"Susan Chira, New York Times Foreign Editor, confirms, excuses Bronner's conflict of interest," Israel-Palestine: The Missing Headlines," Jan. 27, 2010

"New York Times fails to disclose Jerusalem bureau chief's conflict of interest
Report," The Electronic Intifada, January 25, 2010

"New York Times' Ethan Bronner's Conflict of Interest: Conversation with Bronner and Alternative News Sources" AlisonWeir.org, January 26, 2010

"Off the Charts: Accuracy in Reporting of Israel/Palestine – The New York Times," If Americans Knew, 2005

"Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East," Richard Falk, Howard Friel; ZNET Interview, May 31, 2007

"The New York Times Marginalizes Palestinian Women and Palestinian Rights," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 17, 2006

"Does NYT's Top Israel Reporter Have a Son in the IDF?" FAIR, January 27, 2010

"Killing Palestinians doesn't count: Is a ceasefire breached only when an Israeli is killed?" CounterPunch, January 29, 2009

"Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?" Huffington Post, January 6, 2009

Remember These Children

B'TSELEM – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

"The Coverage–and Non-Coverage–of Israel-Palestine," The Link, July-August 2005, Vol 38, Issue 3

"Jewish journalists grapple with 'doing the write thing'" Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, Nov. 23, 2001

"Prisoner Swap Appears Near in the Mideast," Ethan Bronner, New York times, Nov. 23, 2009

"Political prisoners in Israel-Palestine," If Americans Knew

Addameer Prisoners' Support and Human Rights Association

"Israel, Hamas in mutual gestures on prisoners," Reuters, Sept. 30, 2009.

"Female soldiers break their silence," YNET, Jan. 20, 2010 (According to its website, "Ynetnews is part of the prominent Yedioth Media Group, which publishes Yedioth Ahronoth – Israel's most widely-read daily newspaper)

"Testimonies of Israeli Female Soldiers Regarding Violations Against Palestinian Civilians," International Middle East Media Center, January 30, 2010

"BREAKING THE SILENCE: Women Soldiers' Testimonies," 136-page booklet by the Israeli Breaking the Silence organization

Source: Counterpunch

Your government appointees at work: Cass Sunstein seeks "cognitive" provocateurs.

WRITTEN By Marc Estrin / The Rag Blog / January 11, 2010

Cass Sunstein is President Obama's Harvard Law School friend, and recently appointed Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In a recent scholarly article, he and coauthor Adrian Vermeule take up the question of "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures." (J. Political Philosophy, 7 (2009), 202-227). This is a man with the president's ear. This is a man who would process information and regulate things. What does he here propose? 

[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity. (Page 219.)

Read this paragraph again. Unpack it. Work your way through the language and the intent. Imagine the application. What do we learn?

• It is "extremists" who "supply" "conspiracy theories."
• Their "hard core" must be "broken up" with distinctive tactics. What tactics?
• "Infiltration" ("cognitive") of groups with questions about official explanations or obfuscations or lies. Who is to infiltrate?
• "Government agents or their allies," virtually (i.e. on-line) or in "real-space" (as at meetings), and "either openly or anonymously," though "infiltration" would imply the latter. What will these agents do?
• Undermine "crippled epistemology" — one's theory and technique of knowledge. How will they do this?
• By "planting doubts" which will "circulate." Will these doubts be beneficial?
• Certainly. Because they will introduce "cognitive diversity."

Put into English, what Sunstein is proposing is government infiltration of groups opposing prevailing policy. Palestinian Liberation? 9/11 Truth? Anti-nuclear power? Stop the wars? End the Fed? Support Nader? Eat the Rich?

It's easy to destroy groups with "cognitive diversity." You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don't come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues. You demand revolutionary violence from pacifist groups.

We expect such tactics from undercover cops, or FBI. There the agents are called "provocateurs" — even if only "cognitive." One learns to smell or deal with them in a group, or recognize trolling online. But even suspicion or partial exposure can “sow uncertainty and distrust within conspiratorial groups [now conflated with conspiracy theory discussion groups] and among their members,” and “raise the costs of organization and communication” — which Sunstein applauds as "desirable." "[N]ew recruits will be suspect and participants in the group’s virtual networks will doubt each other’s bona fides." (p.225).

And are we now expected to applaud such tactics frankly proposed in a scholarly journal by a high-level presidential advisor?

The full text of a slightly earlier version of Sunstein's article is available for download

Marc Estrin. The author gets in the last word.
[Marc Estrin is a writer and activist, living in Burlington, Vermont. His novels, Insect Dreams, The Half Life of Gregor Samsa, The Education of Arnold Hitler, Golem Song, and The Lamentations of Julius Marantz have won critical acclaim. His memoir, Rehearsing With Gods: Photographs and Essays on the Bread & Puppet Theater (with Ron Simon, photographer) won a 2004 theater book of the year award. He is currently working on a novel about the dead Tchaikovsky.]

Source: The Rag Blog

By Bishop Donald Corder*

Like a moat filled with waters populated by alligators, reptiles and Pro-Israeli lobbyist so are American political leaders separated from following the heart and will of the people. Death of the American soul requires Palestine and the rest of the world to challenge itself, to dig deeply within its own heart and find the courage to formulate new visions in the national paradigms. Ignoring the ever present and looming truths of this day's realities will not serve us well; rather let us accept the sobering scenario and eventuality, "We Must Save Ourselves!" The mind of the global must evolve from despairing over how bad is the Zionist specter and rather formulate ways to mobilize our collective assets in the advancement of our own agendas.

Bring to fruition The Palestinian Battle Cry: "No credible Goldstone Investigation no International Holocaust Remembrance Day!" Echoing the demand for justice in response to the UN General Assembly's endorsement of the 'Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict' (document A/HRC/12/48), informally referred to as the "Goldstone report", after Richard Goldstone, the South African Justice who headed the mission. Goldstone Report provides for litigation in the International Criminal Court that ultimately would make political alliances nigh on impossible to justify with a nation governed by war criminals. Zionist and International Corporate control of mainstream media access only requires more creative approaches to connecting and informing people who would willingly mobilize, to voice our collective message throughout the body politic.

Courage to advance the Goldstone Report in the UN will be a product of "political will" as being the operative termed employed by Justice Goldstone in his interview with journalist Bill Moyers; to wit all international law and ideologies are given life by the agenda of politics. Fear of Zionist reprimand and bullying by the United States is neutralized by the League of Arab States, Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the African Union and other third world developing countries, who recognizing,their self-interest can be achieved by self-actualization of the collective. New political capital has been acquired with the United States economic woes rocking Dubai and the G-20 having been given oversight over the global economic.

The Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (known as the G-20 and also the G20 or Group of Twenty) is a group of finance ministers and central bank governors from 20 economies: 19 countries, plus the European Union (EU). Collectively, the G-20 economies comprise 85% of global gross national product, 80% of world trade (including EU intra-trade) and two-thirds of the world population. With the G-20 growing in stature since the 2008 Washington summit, its leaders announced on September 25, 2009 that the group will replace the G8 as the main economic council of wealthy nations. Historical dominance of the American agenda on the global economy has eroded hence the political tides stirred by alliances within the United Nations now have unprecedented power and a Goldstone window of opportunity to "Free Palestine!" [http://www.eyeontheun.org/view.asp?l=11&p=55].

Shift of the economic and political power centers of the world is further solidified when these nations apply sufficient political leverage consider they possess dominant sway there are more of you within the UN General Assembly to vote your own agendas. When that realization is coupled with the Uniting for Peace Resolution 'UNGA Resolution 377A', inherent within this momentum is the ability to even re-order the UN Charter and enforce sanctions against Israel. Additionally, these regional alliances have inherent within their membership the oil, nuclear materials and natural resource to preemptively re-engineer and build your own societies when faced with the certainty of the old global structures established upon American Imperialism is now passing away. According to American economist Dr. James K. Gablraith the Obama administration and government are attempting to restore what was ten years ago, but that has passed away and can never be reclaimed. [http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/12/02/the-world%e2%80%99s-least-powerful-man-the-obama-puppet/.]

These fundamentals are common knowledge within the corridors of power but we who are now armed must mobilize in cyber-space and give support to our UN representatives, contact our governments and share our belief that Israel is a rogue state that has not fulfilled the contractual requirements granting their admission to the United Nations throughout the 20^th century and their effectively carrying out a policy of Palestinian genocide here in the 21^st century provides grounds to challenge their place amongst the honorable league of nations and the world's being forced to recognize their right to exist, despite breaching contractual covenants contained within their application for admission into the United Nations. Encourage and help our friends in leadership to nurture the political will to take up the Palestinian Battle Cry: "No credible Goldstone Investigation no International Holocaust Remembrance Day!"

Uncontested cyber warfare of the Zionist propaganda machine can prove fatal in our efforts should we not aggressively move to neutralize the overabundance of pro-Israeli editorial throughout the Internet. For example go to "The Web's Best Search Engine List!" WWW.20SEARCH.COM; now type in Goldstone Report. Early market research of the American consumer disclosed that people primarily shop on the Internet to find information. If this movement to empower the Palestinian Battle Cry does not aggressively take its thinking to a more competitive place in the cyber-game the only one left to shape American opinion will be the pro-Israeli lobbyist and Zionist.

Power of creating a shared vision is irrefutable when witnessed through history. Hitler did it and was able to hold back the world against unfathomable odds during his season, as the Indians delivered to General George Armstrong Custer his last stand and the Vietnamese people defeated the military might of the United States of America. Vision of Martin Luther King's dream did echo around the world as a Nelson Mandela was called forth to answer Africa's call. It is the will of a nation that will cause them to persevere and it is we who have been called to exercise the initiatives of a strategic partner, to valiantly stand by the Palestinian people's side, and to do that selflessly.

It is in the cyber market place that the world will learn Palestine and the Middle East have the strength of will to development its own financial and economic system in its own monetary denominations, the ink employed to print American money can probably be bought with corporate discounts and natural resources can then stay home more subject to domestic nation building. Thinking of economist and investment banker Henry Liu can provide framework and alternatives to being other than a consumer society whose savings are squandered to being non-existent [http://www.henryckliu.com/]. Giftings of our babies will be groomed to bring forth productive life choices, ingenuity with innovations allowing for exemplary competitive staying power in the global community while aspiration to walk in the highest of moral aspirations is achieved.

To my knowledge no Goldstone Report has been delivered by Secretary General to the Security Council as yet, why??? Failures to act swiftly, provides your adversary reprieve and empowers his ability to align your friends against you. Cyber realities insulating perceptions from material reality have all played an unfathomable part. Concerted focus in the address of this dichotomy must be initiated if there is any opportunity for a complete and balanced perspective to be made available for inquiring minds seeking out the whole truth. The vision and personal utterance rising up from the pages of this written act of defiance is a call for the sleeping giants to rise up. We have matured as nations and should put away our childish things because these do no longer serve us as adults who are heads of the household of nations.

There is but a small window of opportunity that must be seized upon or you our leadership in the UN will never again be allowed opportunity to shake off the Israeli chains and shackles again. [http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112585&sectionid=351020202] Nor will we be able to write the script depicting a single state solution. OIC, Arab States and the Unaligned Countries must join Palestine and rescind the term 'Holocaust' as embodying an unintended consequence, morphing into an ideology manipulated by the heart of a serpent, which is behind the foot placed upon our collective necks. As we join together and lift up our voices in the Palestinian Battle Cry: "No Credible Goldstone Investigation No International Holocaust Remembrance Day!"

Don Corder is presiding bishop for Spirit of Life International Believers Fellowship and Senior Pastor of the Pillar of Truth Ministries. Mr. Corder is a published author, grassroots organizer and community activist, in addition to his work in urban and international development as a business consultant and entrepreneur.

* Don Corder is presiding bishop for Spirit of Life International Believers Fellowship and Senior Pastor of the Pillar of Truth Ministries. Mr. Corder is a published author, grassroots organizer and community activist, in addition to his work in urban and international development as a business consultant and entrepreneur. Email: Corder.Donald@yahoo.com

British writer and photographer Stuart Littlewood talks to Angie Tibbs about his experience of Israel's occupation in Gaza and the West Bank, and comments on how British and American collusion, under the auspices of the Jewish lobby, is helping to sustain the world's most lawless, brutal and unjust occupation regime.

"Lawlessness must have painful consequences for the lawless, not their victims." – Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood is one of the most consistent and passionate writers on the continuing Israeli occupation of Palestine. His book, Radio Free Palestine, and his frequent articles, focus readers on the plight of the Palestinian people, on the occupiers who are responsible, and on the governments who support Israel's slow-motion genocide and theft of an indigenous people's homeland, culture and history. I spoke with him recently.

[Angie Tibbs] Has your active support for the Palestinian people always been a part of who you are or was there a defining moment which caused you to speak out?

[Stuart Littlewood] I'm new to this game. The Palestinians' struggle for justice isn't taught in school here and our politicians are afraid to discuss it, so the British people are kept in ignorance.

I knew next to nothing until I had to research the subject for a newspaper column. The more I delved into it the angrier I became. The sheer evil! A short time later, in 2005, somebody who had read my column invited me to visit the West Bank and shoot pictures for a book.

First impressions of Palestine under occupation

[Question] What towns and villages did you visit in occupied Palestine and what were your impressions?

[Answer] Much of the time was spent with Palestinian priests in their parishes. These are the Church's front-line troops. They are abused and sometimes shot at by the Israelis, yet they remain focused and good-humoured.

The first trip took us to Jericho, Bethlehem and East Jerusalem, including the Old City, as well as smaller towns in the West Bank. We also visited Jenin, which was considered dangerous so we didn't stay long. The town was a rubble-strewn mess after the onslaught and war crimes three years earlier (Israel denied accusations of massacre). The devastation was massive and brought back childhood memories of London after the Nazi blitz, which my family lived through.

All over the West Bank what struck me most was the resilience of ordinary people under brutal occupation and having to cope with endless restrictions. For them life was a cruel obstacle course, just like the Nazi occupation of Europe… There is no legal protection against the thuggish military. Every Palestinian we met urged us to tell their story when we got home because they felt sure the British people didn't know the truth … otherwise how could we stand idly by?

These are kind, hospitable and sophisticated people who have done nothing to deserve the misery inflicted on them by the Israeli regime and its supporters in the West.

I was also shocked by the way the Israelis have systematically trashed the Holy Land and many of its antiquities. Once-beautiful landscapes, many with biblical connections, are now crowned with hideous hill-top settlements or military installations. Town and country planning principles are unheard-of. Israel's vandalism, visible everywhere, has ruined a gentle Arab civilization and its heritage, and that's something else they'll never be forgiven for.

[Q] Your initial trip to the West Bank was shortly after the death of Yasser Arafat. Were people talking about him? Remembering him?

[A] No, but his image was everywhere … in village squares, on buildings, inside shops and offices. I noticed in the assembly hall of a Catholic school an enormous portrait of the Pope, and on the adjacent wall an equally large portrait of Arafat. As a symbol of resistance he's as big as they come.

On the second trip, I visited Arafat's mausoleum in Ramallah. The family I was staying with were delighted I wanted me to go there and they accompanied me. It was only half-built, so I asked the soldiers who stood guard: "Is he really buried here?" "Yes," they said, visibly swelling with pride, "he's under that slab." For all his faults, it seems the old rascal is greatly missed.

The book project

[Q] Your visits to Palestine resulted in your book, Radio Free Palestine. Tell us about that. First of all, what is the significance of the title?

[A] We were going to call it "This Land is Our Land", but that title is already used by others. Eventually we settled on "Radio Free Palestine" because that's what Palestinians need: a broadcasting service that can be heard all over the world.
Proceeds from the sale of the book go to humanitarian projects in the West Bank, by the way.

The original idea was a poems-and-pictures book with me shooting the photos. But it soon became clear that to do the situation justice we needed to report in greater detail how the Israelis had effectively turned the occupied territories into a prison and were creating "facts on the ground" to make their occupation permanent. The least we could do was tell the truth and provide readers with enough information to challenge the propaganda lies.

So I made a second visit at Easter 2006, just after Hamas's surprise election victory. The place was in turmoil, tension was running high and plans to meet Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah had to be scrapped. Contacts also advised that it was much too risky to visit the Gaza Strip.

All the same, I gathered a lot of material, and it was a great privilege when Jeff Halper agreed to write the Foreword. I had visited his organization ICAHD (Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions) in Jerusalem and learned a great deal from his team. Jeff is a truly courageous man and a beacon of hope.

Christians and Muslims under Hamas "all Palestinians first"

[Q] You had to leave Gaza out of your book, but nevertheless you provided readers with an in-depth look at 2007 Gaza in your widely published article "See Gaza and weep", in which you described how Gaza's people were struggling to survive under the appalling conditions created by Israeli sanctions. What stands out most vividly in your mind today, some two years on, not only about Gaza itself, but about Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and his party, Hamas?

[A] On the third trip, a small group of us went into Gaza and met Mr Haniyeh, but, as you say, that was after the book came out. The Gaza Strip had been under sanctions and siege for about 18 months, so there was already a chronic shortage of food, fuel and essentials. The sick were dying from lack of medicines and hospital equipment spares. Power cuts were a daily fact of life – another Israeli weapon of collective punishment. Some 3,500 licensed fishermen couldn't put to sea without being shelled by marauding Israeli gunboats.

Mr Haniyeh and his colleagues were courteous and attentive. He gave us a generous slice of his time, considering the problems he faced and the continual emergencies. I was pleased to see a strong sense of unity, with Muslims and Christians standing together against a common enemy. They are all "Palestinians first".

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Hamas. These are men who have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. Most were raised in refugee camps, and have done time in Israeli jails or been exiled for putting up resistance. But they made sure they got themselves a good education at the Islamic University. Some went to universities in Britain and the US. They are as well-equipped as we are to govern, and they have been tested almost beyond human endurance.

When I got home the Health Ministry in Gaza sent me a list of hospital spares they desperately needed. I forwarded it to our own Health Ministry and to my MP. It was ignored, and the disgust I felt – and still feel – towards our political class is beyond words.

In the meantime I was receiving heart-breaking messages from Gazan doctors telling about the difficulties at work and at home, where their shivering children struggled to study by candle-light. What could I say to them? Here we are, two years later, and we are still letting those decent and desperate people down. How despicable is that? I cringe with shame.

[Q] What were your contacts telling you about the conditions in Gaza?

[A] One message in particular still haunts me. Father Manuel Mussallam, the elderly priest in Gaza, emailed to say:

If you wish to really understand what is taking place in the Gaza Strip, please open your Bible and read the Lamentations of Jeremiah. This is what we are living. People are crying, hungry, thirsty, desperate. They need food. Even if there is food for sale, people have no money to buy it. They have no income, no opportunities to bring food from outside and no opportunities to secure money inside Gaza. No work, no livelihood, no future… They have no hope and many very poor people are aimlessly wandering around trying to beg for something from others who also have nothing. It is heartbreaking to see.

He ended: "I beg you, we do not need pity, we need only justice. If you don't give justice, there will be no peace. Peace is the farthest thing away from the mind of anyone, Christian or Muslim, in Gaza at this time."

The Hamas "terror"

[Q] Israel has branded Hamas a "terrorist organization" and convinced a few of its friends to do likewise. Is this a valid designation, and what role, if any, has it played vis-à-vis lasting peace?

[A] I suppose it depends where you stand on the fascist spectrum. The Nazis called the French Resistance terrorists; we called them heroes. When a vicious occupier has his jackboot on your throat you have no choice but to fight with any weapon or any method that's available. Pinning labels like "terrorist" and "militant" on people who are defending their homes and families is ridiculous. Always the little guy with the little gun is the terrorist, never the big guy with big guns, bunker-busting bombs and nukes. This warped mentality is the greatest obstacle to peace.

I call Palestinian fighters guerrillas or freedom fighters. The Palestinians would love to hit back with F-16 jets, tanks, helicopter gunships, armed drones and naval gunboats. That would be nice and conventional and acceptable, yes? But all they have are AK47s, RPGs and rockets made in the garden shed, and they ride into battle in a pick-up truck.

The US administration defines terrorism as "an activity that (i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (ii) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking". And they use the definition to hurt people they don't like. The laugh is that it fits the US itself, and its special friend Israel, like a glove.

The big guys are going to have to talk to Hamas eventually and when they do, they'll discover that Hamas is not at all the way it is painted. Britain should lead the way since we caused this mess in the first place, 92 years ago.

The evil wall

[Q] What was your reaction to seeing the illegal wall and the hundreds of checkpoints that are scattered throughout occupied Palestine? What effect is this curtailment of free movement having on the area and its people?

[A] I love Banksy's graffiti art on this monstrosity. The fact that the wall is still standing – and still being built – five years after the International Court of Justice ordered it to be pulled down tells us all we need to know about our contemptible Western leaders.

Most tourists are waved through crossings in the wall without leaving their bus seats. The last time I stayed in Bethlehem, I caught the ordinary service bus back from Jerusalem and walked with Palestinian workers (those who were lucky enough to have permits) through the sinister maze of steel and concrete barriers and holding pens. It was a thoroughly dehumanizing experience. They often have to queue for hours to get to work and queue again to get home – all part of Israel's humiliation policy.

The wall is also an insult to Christianity – the way it seals off and imprisons towns like Bethlehem and important holy places like the Church of the Nativity. It shreds and divides communities and prevents access to Jerusalem. It disrupts the life of the Church as well as the livelihoods of ordinary people.

Its other purpose, and the real reason it bites deep into Palestinian territory, is to steal large areas of prime agricultural land and the water resources beneath. If it was purely for security, as the Israelis claim, they should have built it on the internationally-recognized 1967 border.

We have just seen the world's high-ranking hypocrites celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall but saying nothing about Israel's apartheid wall.

Lack of respect for non-Jewish faiths

[Q] Let's talk about the religious dimension in all of this. How important is it?

[A] The three faiths are all in one place, and Jerusalem is vitally important to all of them. What's lacking is proper respect. How many people in the West realize that Israel doesn't allow Muslims and Arab Christians living outside Jerusalem to visit the holy places in the Old City?

When Palestine was under British mandate, Christians accounted for 20 per cent of the population. Now, after 61 years of hostilities, dispossession and economic strangulation the numbers have been whittled down to 1 or 2 per cent. At this rate there will soon be no Christians left in the land where Christianity was born. The Israelis are waging a religious war that's designed to disrupt and paralyse Christianity in the Holy Land. It's part of their attempt to Judaize everything.

Western Christendom doesn't seem bothered and keeps quiet. Few churchmen, I believe, have any real clue what's going on there. Shame on them.

[Q] Are Western church leaders playing a sufficient role in protecting the Holy Land, its religious history and its people?

[A] The Catholic Church, which has a significant presence in the Holy Land and runs a number of schools, appears to be fighting the battle alone. Anglican Church ministers I have spoken to are largely disinterested. Yes, their faith is focused on the Holy Land, they teach the Holy Land texts and they deliver sermons on the Holy Land, but what do they really care about it? One morning they'll wake up and discover that the Holy Land – the central plank to their existence – has been stolen from under their noses.

The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem – the Catholic Church in the Holy Land – does its best, but I don't think it gets the support it deserves from the Vatican. As for the rest, they could unite and surely do much more. While Israel was planning its blitzkrieg against Gaza's Muslims and Christians – after blockading and starving them with the British government's connivance – the Archbishop of Canterbury went swanning off with the Chief Rabbi on a visit to Auschwitz, preaching their joint solidarity against extreme hostility and genocide! The archbishop talked about the collective corruption and moral sickness that made the Holocaust possible. But where was his concern for the shattered Christian remnants in Gaza? Or for the murdered, maimed and homeless Muslims who, many claim, are being subjected to a "slow genocide"? Let's remember that the Israelis' killing spree left nearly 60,000 homeless and 400,000 without running water, and they still won't allow cement and other reconstruction materials to be brought in.

Did the Pope visit Gaza to show solidarity with his frightened and impoverished flock there?

Pious wafflers in their palaces make me sick, when genuine men of God – those in the front line, the priests, the nuns and the imams – risk their lives as they work round the clock to bring comfort to the victims of political greed and aggression.

Inhuman bid to starve a population and wreck their fragile economy

[Q] You visited occupied Palestine in 2006 after the landslide victory by Hamas, and again in 2007. Did you get a sense of optimism from the population? Hope for a better future? Or had "the West" and Israel already begun their campaign to ensure that the Palestinian democratic election results would never become a reality?

[A] We were there just after the election in 2006, and the situation was turning nasty. Fatah's defeat at the polls seemed broadly welcomed, but hopes of a brighter future were scuppered by the West's childish rejection of the people's democratic choice, Hamas.

The US and Israel were plotting to bring down Hamas by "starving" the Palestinian Authority and hence all the people it employed and served. It began by axing US-EU aid while Israel stepped up its military attacks on Gaza, killing and maiming, and destroying infrastructure, including the only power station – which was built with UK taxpayers' money, I understand. Israel also kidnapped eight Hamas cabinet ministers and a quarter of the elected members of the legislative council. On top of that, Fatah collaborators joined the plotting against Hamas and organized strikes and protests.

What spurred me to finish the book as quickly as possible was an email from a girl who worked for the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. Daily life was getting worse and she hadn't been paid for over two months because the West had cut the flow of money and Israel was stealing the Palestinians' own tax revenues.

Some of my colleagues can't come to work anymore because simply they don't have money for the transport. On Thursday we made a protest in front of the entrance of our ministry demanding the international community to end this isolation and asking for our salaries. The mothers are bringing their babies and kids to work everyday because they can't pay for the kinder yards or the babysitters…

Eventually her emails stopped. Presumably she could no longer get to work and access the internet. Her distress was the final straw.

Hamas misjudged the lengths to which pro-Zionist Western leaders would go to undermine democratic processes that didn't suit their purpose or Israel's interests. These same leaders endlessly praise Israel for being "the only democracy in the Middle East" … Everyone must be made to understand that's because they deliberately snuffed out Palestine's democracy as soon as it was born.

[Q] How has this ongoing siege affected the lives of the women of occupied Palestine and how are they coping?

[A] The wrecking of the Palestinian economy has made it impossible for the men to work or do business effectively, and this puts a great strain on their women. They are amazingly resourceful, like the women of London during the German blitz. As a child I remember the courage of my mother and our neighbours as they overcame the hardships of being bombed every night. But Palestinian women face the added danger of enemy troops, tanks and armoured bulldozers.

In Palestinian society women hold many important positions. Even Hamas has a woman minister. Nuns too play a big part among the Christian communities. Not only are they very brave and enterprising, they are also great fun to meet.

Visit Bethlehem and Birzeit universities and you'll see many stunningly beautiful but very determined young women – Christian and Muslim – working hard for a first-class education and running the gauntlet of Israeli checkpoints and other unpleasant obstacles. On every trip I manage to spend some time at Bethlehem University and am always impressed by the sharp minds and outgoing nature of the women students. I salute them.

Palestinians' voice abroad silenced

[Q] Does Palestine have an official voice in the UK and, if so, how effective is it?

[A] You'd think Palestinians were tormented enough without the added misfortune of being represented in London by the most invisible and silent embassy it is possible to imagine. Little is done to set the news agenda or ensure that the Palestinian case is clearly heard.

In contrast the Israelis are businesslike and proactive. They pump out endless disinformation which is lapped up by the media unchallenged. Their version of events and their definition of the situation is accepted. So it's a propaganda massacre. Many of us are convinced that the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah has instructed embassies and delegations abroad not to embarrass Israel, and denies them the necessary resources to do an effective job. It's like a fixed football match. Palestinian "strikers" mustn't even shoot at an open goal.

Washington-London-Tel Aviv "axis of evil"

[Q] What role, if any, does Britain play in Palestine today?

[A] None that I can see. The country that betrayed the Holy Land and its people does nothing. Our navy used to guarantee the freedom of the seas, but now it won't even protect mercy ships from attack by Israeli pirates. The MV Dignity, for example, was deliberately rammed and nearly sunk in international waters with 16 civilians aboard, including British citizens. Nor will Britain intervene when Gazan fishermen, lawfully trying to feed a hungry population, are fired on.

[Q] And the UN?

[A] Please don't talk to me about the UN, Angie… To quote Major Rufus Cobb in that classic Jesse James film: "If we are ever going to have law and order the first thing we gotta do is take 'em all out and shoot 'em down like dogs!"

[Q] The UN and most world leaders continue to turn a blind eye to Israel's crimes against humanity and its occupation of Palestine. What can be done to end what many feel is the slow-motion genocide of the Palestinian people?

[A] This is how my good friend Dr David Halpin, a tireless campaigner for justice, describes the situation, and I couldn't put it any better myself:

There is an axis of evil with Tel Aviv at one pole and Washington at the other. In the centre is London where barbarity and treachery is clothed in plummy speech and fine spectacle. Power shuttles backwards and forwards along this axis as busily as the jets carrying the psychopaths to these command centres which bring hell to earth.

I call it the axis of greed, but either will do.

Israel is an aggressive military power bristling with nuclear and state-of-the-art weaponry, funded and equipped by the US and run by what British MP Sir Gerald Kaufman – himself a Jew – calls "a gang of amoral thugs". That is simply terrifying. Those thugs are already threatening another bloodbath in Gaza, as if their atrocities 11 months ago weren't despicable enough. If the international community doesn't get a grip and force Israel to observe acceptable standards of behaviour and conform to international law, we can say goodbye to hopes of building a civilized world.

Lawlessness must have painful consequences for the lawless, not their victims.

As for the Palestinians, their internal squabbles play straight into the enemy's hands. Other nations would find it easier to intervene positively if Hamas were to carry out a convincing "rebranding" exercise and issue a new charter that's more appropriate in tone to the 21st century and their diplomatic ambitions. They now have democratic credentials and a certain amount of sympathy and goodwill among Western citizens. I hope they'll build on it, not throw it away.

Citizens of the world must take on the Israel lobby

[Q] What would be a good starting point for us, the citizens of the world, in our efforts to help the Palestinian people in a real and productive manner?

[A] At citizen level we must continue to expose Israel's propaganda lies and evil intent. The other side uses every dirty trick under the sun and has produced an instruction manual to teach its embassy staff and its army of cyber-activists how to brainwash Western citizens and their politicians. It'll be a long haul but the truth will eventually break through.

Citizens also need to tackle Zionist infiltration and rid us of its stranglehold on our political and government institutions. Israel has the British government eating out of its hand. Here's an example. The other day the minister for foreign affairs, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, said:

Israel is a close ally of the UK and we have regular productive exchanges at all levels, going far beyond relations between governments. Our political relations allow us to address openly issues both of common concern and where we disagree. Most recently, on 27 October, I met the Israeli deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon. We will continue to foster this relationship and use it to further the interests of both countries and the wider region.

No prizes for guessing the British minister's ethnicity.

Israel's agents of influence are so embedded at the heart of government that signing up to the Zionist cause is a necessary stepping stone to high office. These stooges are fatal to our foreign policy and security, and have cost us dear in terms of world respect and dead and injured. At election time activists need to identify and expose parliamentary candidates who are involved with the Israel lobby.

We are supposed to be governed in accordance with the Seven Principles of Public Life. Principle No.2 is about "integrity" – holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties. The Israel lobby has been powerful enough to ensure this is ignored. Activists need to find ways to reimpose it.

In a sane world…

[Q] What happens next, and where do you fit into the scheme of things?

[A] In a sane world the UN would have guaranteed to keep Gaza's sea border open and provide a naval escort for ships wishing to trade. And it would have declared Jerusalem an international city as stipulated in the partition plan. I hope the UN might still find the backbone to do these things.

The way America is now trying to rewrite international law to legitimize Israel's continuing land-grab and settlement expansion, and the way the US House of Representatives voted 344 to 36 to reject the UN-Goldstone report exposing Israel's war crimes – in which America is deeply implicated – shows more clearly than ever how US politics is corrupted by the power and influence of the Israel lobby.

As for me, I'm not really an activist. I'm more a commentator. I am, however, involved with a campaign group that is part of a rapidly growing global network. There are many, many others and we are linking up. The Zionists know they have a fight on their hands in the battle for hearts and minds.

[Q] Finally, what is your most fervent wish?

[A] That you and I and anybody else can visit friends in Palestine without being molested by Israel's bad-mannered security officials. We should be able to fly or sail direct, without setting foot in Israel. Citizens of the world must make this crystal clear to the UN: if we want to wander through Old Jerusalem's souk, holiday on Gaza's beach, go fishing with Gaza's fishermen or talk football with Mr Haniyeh over coffee, it should be none of Israel's damn business.

[Angie Tibbs] Thank you, Stuart.

* Angie Tibbs is a writer/activist living in Canada. She can be reached at angie4justice@nl.rogers.com

Stuart Littlewood is a writer/photographer living in the UK. Check out his web pages at http://www.wordsandpixels.org.uk and http://www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk/

Rethinking the concept of diaspora: mobility, connectivity and communication in a globalised world

WRITTEN BY Roza Tsagarousianou

Communication and Media Research Institute

University of Westminster

Introduction

This article attempts a brief overview of the recent debate on diasporas. It selectively focuses on aspects of the exchanges among theorists from the early 1990s onwards and seeks to identify ways in which our understanding of the concept has evolved and attempts to offer a critical evaluation of these.

Of particular interest in this examination is the debate on the ‘nature’ of diasporic communities. Some key questions related to this and central in the discussion contained in this article are: are ‘ethnicity’ and ‘mobility’ or ‘displacement’ sufficient parameters to allow us to make sense of diasporic phenomena and to retain the critical edge of the concept? Or should we attempt to rethink some of our basic assumptions? The line of argument taken suggests that diasporas should better be seen as depending not so much on displacement but on connectivity, or on the complex nexus of linkages that contemporary transnational dynamics make possible and sustain. What is more, I suggest that diasporas should be seen not as given communities, a logical, albeit deterritorialized, extension of an ethnic or national group, but as imagined communities, continuously reconstructed and reinvented. I argue that it is in the context of this intersection of connectivity and cultural reinvention and reconstruction that media technologies and diasporic media become crucial factors in the reproduction and transformation of diasporic identities.

_________________________

Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture © 2004 (University of Westminster, London), Vol. 1(1): 52-66. ISSN 1744-6708 (Print); 1744-6716 (Online)

The debate

There has been a relatively longstanding interest within the social sciences in the study of forms of human mobility, particularly migration. Predominantly premised upon and informed by cultures where territory and land are meticulously demarcated and highly valued, and where notions of ‘home’ are linked with a fixed place, social sciences have reflected the fascination and, at the same time, the apprehension with which sedentary societies have approached nomads, refugees and migrants. In this context a substantial literature has developed comprising highly diverse studies ranging from anthropological research of nomadic life and the cultures of transhumant populations, to the study of migrant and refugee settlement in ‘host’ societies, to securitised approaches to migration. Within this rapidly expanding literature, the terminology has varied considerably, depending on (a) the different types of migratory experience of different populations, (b) the particular focus of different investigations and (c) the changing concerns informing social research at different times: thus migrants have been studied as immigrants, guest workers, asylum seekers, ethnic minorities, displaced populations, ‘folk devils’ or threats to the security and prosperity of ‘host’ societies, to name but a few attributions.

In the context of this terminological diversity, it is only relatively recently, that a new term – diaspora – has been systematically introduced and used in academic and policy discourses. To be sure, this ‘new’ term is hardly a neologism. Its origins can be traced back over centuries (for a history of the concept see Cohen 1997) though its usage and importance has varied over the years. In its long history, the term has been consistently associated with experiences of displacement, dispersal and migrancy; however the concept has remained peripheral in the debates on human migration and mobility until fairly recently.

Over the past decade or so, the number of articles and monographs focusing on the concept of ‘diaspora’, or premised on the study of the ‘diasporic condition’ has increased dramatically, indicating not only a widespread and growing interest in phenomena associated with it, but also the realization of the potential of the concept to serve as a theoretical tool for the advancement of qualitatively different perspectives and outlooks in the study of human migration. As Clifford points out ‘diasporic language seems to be replacing, or at least supplementing, minority discourse. Transnational connections break the binary relation of “minority” communities with “majority” societies (1997, 255)’.

Although a consensus over definitions of ‘diaspora’ is hardly evident and, despite the fact that it would certainly be premature to argue that a widely accepted theoretical framework for the study of diasporas is likely to be in place any time soon, it is clear that the debate unfolding over the past decade has contributed to some convergence among different problematiques on the study of human migration. Indeed, a closer look on the semantics associated with the rediscovered term indicates a shift in the nuances it carries with it, a reconfiguration of its meaning, of the experiences and potentialities associated with it, and therefore, of the overall character and focus of the current debate.

As I will try to argue in the course of this article, in this new context, the usage of the term often carries with it connotations relating to the transnational character of diasporas and the phenomena surrounding them. What is more, it intimates the existence of a closer relationship of contemporary diasporic conditions with the highly diverse and complex processes which we identify as globalization. Finally, the ways the concept has been used indicate that a decisive shift from ‘mobility’ to ‘connectivity’ (for a discussion of the term see Tomlinson 1999, 10-13) has been taking in the course of the recent debate. Or in other words, that is, an acknowledgement of the importance, even centrality, of processes of communication and exchange (be those material or cultural). While narratives of uprooting, displacement and migrancy continue to be central in contemporary notions of diaspora, there is little doubt that the current use of the term conveys much more.

Revisiting the concept: typologies

Within the renewed debate on the meaning of ‘diaspora’ and on the significance of diasporic studies, one can identify a few systematic attempts to define the field and suggest ways of approaching and studying diasporic phenomena. In one of the earliest and most systematic efforts to delineate the concept, back in 1991, William Safran argued that the concept of ‘diaspora’ is linked to those communities that share some or all of the following characteristics:

• the original community has spread from a homeland to two or more countries; they are bound from their disparate geographical locations by a common vision, memory or myth about their homelands;

• they have a belief that they will never be accepted by their host societies and therefore develop their autonomous cultural and social needs;

• they or their descendants will return to the homeland should the conditions prove favourable;

• they should continue to maintain support for homeland and therefore the communal consciousness and solidarity enables them to continue these activities (Safran 1991, 83-4). 

This attempt to construct a quite specific ideal-type stressed the transnational character of diasporas, the symbolic and material importance – for Safran and other proponents of similar notions of diaspora – of a homeland and a vision of eventual return to it, and introduced an array of other factors such as the perceived marginalization in the country of settlement experienced by members of a diasporic community.

As I have argued elsewhere, the above list, although a useful one, is quite limited and limiting as it clearly revolves around the relationship of the diasporic group with its homeland and therefore plays down other important relationships and linkages that inform the diasporic condition (Fazal & Tsagarousianou 2002, 6-7). In essence, it could be argued that, in this context, diasporas are primarily seen as not a lot more than a sub-category of an ethnic group, or a nation. Other theorists such as Cohen (1997) have used the same prescriptive formula of constructing an ideal type of a ‘diaspora’ as a vehicle of expanding the definition to include a broader range of phenomena. Cohen thus proposes that perhaps these features need to be adjusted and that four other elements should be added to the list proposed by Safran. According to him, therefore, a definition of ‘diaspora’ needs to:

• be able to include those groups that scatter voluntarily or as a result of fleeing aggression, persecution or extreme hardship;

• take into account the necessity for a sufficient time period before any community can be described as a diaspora. According to Cohen, there should be indications of a transnational community’s strong links to the past that thwart assimilation in the present as well as the future;

• recognise more positive aspects of diasporic communities. For instance, the tensions between ethnic, national and transnational identities can lead to creative formulations;

• acknowledge that diasporic communities not only form a collective identity in the place of settlement or with their homeland, but also share a common identity with members of the same ethnic communities in other countries. 

Cohen has clearly attempted to move the debate forward by not only re-emphasising the transnational character of diasporas but also by pointing out the significance of their ‘transnationality’ in the production of creative tensions and syntheses. However, his renewed emphasis on ‘strong links to the past’, albeit moderated by his emphasis on the creativity and forward vision of diasporas, does not push the debate decisively forward.

Such attempts to define diasporas undoubtedly offer useful insights and correctly reflect the formative influence of a sense of loss and displacement (and, by implication, the primacy of the relationship of diasporas with a ‘homeland’) that is common among many –though not all– diasporas. However, they have also been marked by some fundamental weaknesses.

One key weakness relates to their attempt to identify an essential checklist, a closed set of characteristics that, according to some researchers, would contribute to the establishment of a fairly demarcated field of investigation (e.g. Cohen 1997). Such an endeavour is quite restrictive and attempts to artificially and somewhat arbitrarily reify what in essence constitutes a snapshot of complex and ongoing processes. As James Clifford has characteristically pointed out, ‘we should be wary of constructing our working definition of a term like diaspora by recourse to an ideal type’ (1994, 306). The notion of diaspora is a very elusive one and although attempts have been made to provide a typology (Cohen 1997) such typologies and definitions do not recognise the dynamic and fluid character of both diasporas and the volatile transnational contexts in which they emerge and acquire substance.

For example, whereas Cohen‘s distinction between the categories of ‘victim’ (e.g. Jews, African and Armenians), labour (e.g. the Indian indentured labourers), trade (e.g. the Chinese and the Lebanese), imperial (e.g. the British) and cultural (e.g. the Caribbeans abroad) diasporas take into account the diversity of diasporic experience, they do not really take on board late modern transnational mobility that takes significantly novel forms (such as transnational commuting or mental migration) that cannot be readily discarded as having no relevance to the study of diasporic phenomena (cf. Tölölian 1991; Cunningham and Sinclair 2000). In addition, insightful attempts to make sense of the intensively transnational phenomenon of the Muslim Umma in diasporic terms by Mandaville (2001), although the latter does not fit the strict and primarily ethnocentric criteria advanced by the definitions in question, have the potential of expanding the horizons of our understanding diasporic phenomena.

Questions of home

Another aspect shared by the majority of attempts to build ideal-type definitions of diasporas, perhaps linked to their emphasis on empirically observable ‘facts’ and the recurrence of these over time, relates to an overrated emphasis on the perceived nostalgic links and memories diasporas have of an original home or homeland. However the notion of home that many researchers stress are questionable as the issue of home within contemporary diasporas becomes somewhat irrelevant.

In contrast to the emphasis that commentators like Safran put on the importance for diasporic communities of maintaining strong links and identifications with the traditions of the ‘homeland’, Hall points out that the link between these communities and their ‘homeland’ or the possibility of a return to the past are much more precarious than usually thought (1993, 355). For the place called homeland will have transformed beyond recognition. But it is not only ‘back home’ that has been caught up in the process of modernization – diasporas themselves are deeply affected by their position at the centre of contemporary globalisation flows. In that sense, there is no going ‘home’ again.

There is detour and no return. Diasporas and diasporic experiences, even their apparently more traditionalist variants, should not be dismissed simplistically as backward-looking, as they are almost invariably constituting new transnational spaces of experience (Morley 2000) that are complexly interfacing with the experiential frameworks that both countries of settlement and purported countries of origin represent.

As Avtar Brah writes:

What is home? On the one hand, ‘home’ is a mythic place of desire in the diasporic imagination. In this sense it is a place of return, even if it is possible to visit the geographical territory that is seen as the place of ‘origin’. On the other hand, home is also a lived experience of a locality. Its sounds and smells, its heat and dust, balmy summer evenings, sombre grey skies in the middle of the day…all this, as mediated by the historically specific of everyday social relations. In other words, the varying experiences of pains and pleasures, the terrors and contentments, or the highs and humdrum of everyday lived culture that marks how, for example, a cold winter night might be differently experienced sitting by a crackling fireside in a mansion compared with standing huddled around a makeshift fire on the streets of nineteenth century England. (Brah 1996, 192)

The notion of home therefore is much more complex than approaches to diasporas premised on the power of nostalgia would want us believe. It ‘is intrinsically linked with the way in which the processes of inclusion or exclusion operate and are subjectively experienced under given circumstances. It relates to the complex political and personal struggles over the social regulation of ‘belonging’ ’(Brah, 1996, p.194). As Fazal and Tsagarousianou (2002: 11) argue, what is important in diasporic notions of home is their relationship to a multiplicity of locations through geographical and cultural boundaries.

Within the frame of contemporary diasporas, the notions of ‘home’ and when a location becomes home are therefore linked with the issues related to inclusion or exclusion which tend to be subjectively experienced depending upon the circumstances. When does a location become a home? How can one distinguish between ‘feeling at home and staking a claim to a place as one’s own?’ (Fazal and Tsagarousianou 2002, 11-12)

As recent research into diasporic cultural politics indicates (Tsagarousianou 2001, 29-30), the link between diasporas and countries of origin is often fraught with tensions and ambivalence, as diasporic communities precisely juxtapose themselves (and ‘home’) to definitions of themselves emanating from the country of origin. Diasporic identity can often draw much more on the experience of migrancy and settlement, of ‘making’ one’s home than on a fixation to a ‘homeland’.

This ambivalence in processes of diasporic identification is often due to the contrasting exigencies of a usually ‘monophonic’ official discourse and politics on the one hand, and a diasporic vernacular or plebeian culture – often more polyphonic and complex – on the other. These contradictory resources in diasporic identification are summarised by Werbner in her assessment of the situation in Britain:

The argument about ethnic naming highlights the fact that it is not only Western representations of the Other which essentialise. In their performative rhetoric the people we study essentialise their imagined communities in order to mobilise for action. Within the spaces of civil society, the politics of ethnicity in Britain are not so much imposed as grounded in essentialist self-imaginings of community. Hence, ethnic leaders essentialise communal identities in their competition for state grants and formal leadership positions. But – equally importantly – such leaders narrate and argue over these identities in the social spaces which they themselves have created, far from the public eye. (Werbner 1997, 230)

In a way, the often uncritical insistence on the primacy of the relationship with an original homeland, can support the essentialization of origins and the reification of what is supposed to be found at the origin (e.g., tradition, religion, language, race). What is more, emphasis on the constitutive role of an ‘originary place’ can often contribute to lack of attention to the ‘potentialities’ of diasporas. By ‘potentialities’ I refer to the various creative possibilities opened by the activities of diasporas in both local and transnational contexts. In addition to the centrality attributed to the formative character of the experiences of loss and displacement that, say, Safran emphasises, it is important not to lose sight of the, at least equal, significance of the ability of diasporas to construct and negotiate their identities, everyday life and transnational activities in ways that often overcome the ethnic identity v assimilation dilemma that they are uncritically condemned to by some theorists. Cohen (1997) has certainly attempted to move his typology–premised examination of diasporas towards this direction by pointing out the ‘more positive’ [as opposed to nostalgic] aspects of diasporic communities and acknowledging that diasporic communities not only form a collective identity in their place of settlement or with their homeland, but also share a common identity Tsagarousianou, with members of the same ethnic communities in other countries. But, perhaps of equal significance is the fact that diasporic identities are ‘the product of active engagement in “politics” or, in other words, cultural and political action that articulates elements from different cultures and different frames of action and experience in one, more or less coherent whole (Clifford 1997; Fazal and Tsagarousianou 2002, 12). Indeed, it could be argued that it is this particular element that can allow us to distinguish between ‘ethnic’ and ‘diasporic’ identity: not all dispersed populations can automatically and uncritically be identified as diasporas because they share a common ethnic ancestry and identity. It is their readiness and willingness to engage themselves with the building of a transnational imagination and connections that constitutes the ‘threshold’ from ethnic to diasporic identification.

Community and cultural politics

Thus, instead of more uncritical ethnocentric or ethnic definitions of diasporas, we should be focussing more on the complex processes of negotiation that often transcend the limitations of ‘ethnicity’. As Mandaville points out

The estrangement of a community in diaspora – its separation from the ‘natural’ setting of the homeland – often leads to a particularly intense search for and negotiation of identity: gone are many traditional anchor points of culture; conventional hierarchies of authority can fragment. In short, the condition of diaspora is one in which the multiplicity of identity and community is a key dynamic. Debates about the meanings and boundaries of affiliation are hence a defining characteristic of the diaspora community (2001, 172).

This, essentially novel opportunity for self-invention inherent in diasporic cultural politics, is clearly reflected in Brah’s claim that ‘diasporas are …. the sites of hope and new beginnings’ (1996, 193). In this context it is important to recognise the ‘opportunity structures’ that the combination of migrancy and connectivity that the diasporic condition entails give rise to. This is largely, though not entirely, uncharted territory; empirical, mainly anthropological research has started to shed some light in this area but more needs to be done to reduce the influence of what I would call ‘nostalgia-premised’ definitions of diasporas. Through his study of the politics of identity among migrants from the Balkan region of Macedonia in Australia Loring Danforth (1996) has demonstrated the potential for cultural creativity that can be unleashed by the opportunity structures that processes of deterritorialization and reterritorialization of diasporas entail. Danforth very convincingly argues that diasporas do not look back in a nostalgic effort of recovering or maintaining their identity but effectively discover (or construct) notions of ‘who they are’ and ‘what home is, or has been’ by essentially looking forward.

In contrast to some of the definitions of diasporas briefly discussed earlier in this paper, diasporas should not be seen uncritically as ‘given communities’ (Mandaville 2001, 169); but rather as ‘imagined communities’ continuously reinvented and reconstructed. Although Benedict Anderson’s original usage of the term (1983) was intended to apply to the study of nations, there is no reason why diasporas could not qualify as imagined communities too. They, too, can be seen as such as they are constructed through the lengthy process of forging links among their members in both local and transnational contexts, ‘of suppressing or neutralising internal differences, of establishing the context in which common experiences can be developed and past experiences can be interpreted in similar ways. This process of imagination ‘involves creating economies of truth, making sense of the raw material of social experience, in fact, creating this very social experience through discursive practices’ (Sofos 1996, 74).

What must be stressed above all is the sense in which the construction of diasporic identity, as is all identity, is inherently a sociopolitical process, involving dialogue, negotiation and debate as to ‘who we are’ and, moreover, what it means to be ‘who we are’.

Finally and, possibly, more importantly as E. P. Thompson argued in The Making of the English Class, it is not enough for a social formation objectively to fulfill the material conditions prescribed by a category, such as working class. A collective, subjective understanding of oneself as working class is necessary before the designation acquires any meaning (1968). What makes certain contemporary diasporas really ‘diasporas’ is their self-mobilization around their awareness of themselves as a diaspora, their ability to imagine themselves as such and to construct the appropriate discourses.

Connectivity

Although one cannot but recognise that late modern migration movements are framed by ‘solitude, itinerancy and illegality’ (Papastergiadis 2000, 46) it is equally undisputable that late modern migrants are not lonely and isolated in the sense that their predecessors during earlier forms of socio-cultural distanciation were. Whereas displacement has been a constant in the history of migration, in late modernity, global migration trends have produced transnational diasporic groups related by culture, ethnicity, language, and religion, not only in the sense of ‘transnational dispersal’ but also in terms of intense and constant interaction at a transnational level. Such developments have lead to a shift of emphasis from globalization as rapid mobility over long distances’ (Lash and Urry 1994, 253) to globalization as proximity and connectivity (Tomlinson 1999). They have also had an impact in our understanding of diasporas as depending on this very connectivity. In this context, diasporas can be seen as situated at the centre of sets of intersecting transnational flows and linkages that bring together geographically remote locations. In turn, they contribute to the generation of transnational flows in the areas of population movement, finance, politics, cultural production and, as a result, are considered to be in the vanguard of the forces that deepen and intensify globalization (Clifford 1997).

New technologies and faster communications in the new century, contrasted to the long and precarious journeys of emigration and the slow and fragile communications among earlier migrants are therefore just one of the factors that have clearly shaped what we understand as diasporic experience in late modernity. The movement of people characteristic of late modern migration, is complemented by and involves the circulation of money, technology, goods, information, ideas, lifestyles, etc., what Appadurai describes with the rather shorthand terms mediascapes, ideoscapes, financescapes, technoscapes and ethnoscapes (1993). Situating diasporas in this context, instead of seeing diasporas descriptively as groups or populations, we are able to develop a concept that refers to a complex social phenomenon that refers to the array of relationships that these multiple transnational landscapes entails. In this new conceptual setting, diaspora can refer to constellations of economic, technological, cultural and ideological and communication flows and networks. This way of thinking about diasporas allows us to think of a multitude of phenomerna and processes in a much more holistic and inclusive way, bringing together diverse transnational flows and the processes of deterritorialization and reterritorialization of these. In this context, thinking in terms of diasporas includes the process of migration but is not exhausted in it. It carries with it connotations of transnational networks and therefore of complex processes of exchanges, material, cultural and mental. It focuses on the dynamics of interaction between migrant groups and societies of settlement as well as erstwhile homelands. Therefore, contemporary diasporas can be seen as ‘exemplary communities’ of the forms of migrancy that occurred in the mid- to late 20^th century and the dynamics this sets in motion.

Diasporic communications

As I argued in the introduction of this article, the intersection of this complex connectivity and of the processes of cultural reinvention and reconstruction that the diasporic condition sets in motion effectively renders media technologies and diasporic media crucial factors in the reproduction and transformation of diasporic identities, and of diasporas in general.

There should be no doubt that ‘diasporic media’ is a term that refers to a considerable and highly diverse array of organizations, practices and settings where diasporic narratives are constructed. It is also beyond question that these differ considerably in terms of their degree of institutionalization, durability and accessibility as well as their popularity, and as to the degree of their involvement in the reproduction of official or plebeian/demotic discourses. There is also considerable disagreement as to the nature of the diasporic media space. In contrast to more traditionalist perspectives which see a homeland to diaspora pattern of flow, Cunningham and Sinclair (2000) for example suggest that the flow of media not only occurs from the centre to the periphery, but also from the periphery to the centre through centres such as Hong Kong, Mumbai, Mexico City, Cairo which are defining new world regions. They state that ‘the media space of a diaspora tends to be of this kind, to the extent that it is spread throughout several of the national markets which have been the territorial unit for international media distribution in the past’ (2000, 3; see also Fazal and Tsagarousianou 2002, 16). More recently, the emergence of several studies on diasporic media seems to indicate a more complex landscape characterised by multidirectionality and multiplicity of flows.

But regardless this diversity and heterogeneity, it can be argued that the various media, information and communication technologies that are utilised by diasporas and the media they support and sustain play an important role, not only in the articulation of diasporic identities in the strict sense, but also in the process of providing the narratives ‘holding together’ or reconfiguring the constellations of flows, networks and relationships referred to above. Diasporic media operating at the transnational level can provide a sense of contemporaneity and synchronicity to the dispersed populations that make up a diaspora and to their everyday lives. This temporal convergence brings a qualitative change in the experience of migrancy and the dynamics set in motion by it: whereas earlier forms of socio-cultural distanciation were inextricably linked with temporal distance, making it very difficult for dispersed migrants to share experiences and form common frames of making sense of these, the sense of contemporaneity and synchronicity made possible by diasporic media in late modernity enables new ways of ‘coexistence’ and ‘experiencing together’.

Drawing on Scannell’s interesting discussion of the significance of electronic media, it could be argued that, apart from facilitating the compressing of time and space, they bring about new possibilities of being; in particular, ‘new possibilities of being in two places at once’ (Scannell 1996, 91) – referring to the place where they receive the broadcast and the place where an event ‘actually’ takes place. Taking this argument further, I would argue that diasporic media do not merely enable their audiences to ‘be in two places at once’ but effectively give them the opportunity of producing new spaces where remote localities and their experiences come together and become ‘synchronised’. This is not merely a rhetorical distinction but, I would think, an important dimension in the processes of making sense of the encounters that take place during the consumption of diasporic media content.

In this sense, diasporic media can effectively provide the raw material for, and facilitate the construction of common experiential frames among their audiences thus being in a position to play a crucial role in processes of social group integration and identification as well as of legitimation/delegitimation of relations of power and social hierarchies.

As Mandaville points out,

diasporic media can and should be understood as much more than simply a means by which information of interest to a given community can be exchanged, or a means for communicating images of that community to the wider society. [Indeed]…. we need to understand these media as spaces of communication in which the identity, meaning and boundaries of diasporic community are continually constructed, debated and reimagined (2001, 169).

As it has already been pointed out, a displaced and dispersed population cannot automatically be identified as a diaspora as it is not sufficient for it, as for any social formation for that matter, objectively to fulfill the material conditions prescribed by a category, such as diaspora in our case. The crucial element that makes the concept meaningful and legitimate to use is their self-mobilization around their awareness of themselves as a diaspora. In other words, it is their ability to imagine themselves as such, to imagine and construct the relevant transnational linkages and to construct the appropriate discourses. It follows that this self-awareness and the processes of self-imagination as a diaspora, if they are to be sustained over time, require diasporic institutions, which construct and sustain a diasporic space of communication and exchange where definitions of the diaspora are elaborated and reproduced.

It is this, little studied, capacity of diasporic media that, together with a host of other diasporic cultural, political and economic processes, can transform diasporas from little more than aggregates of migrants into active and vibrant diasporic networks. Clearly, the research agenda on diasporic media and cultural practices needs to focus more on processes of diasporic identity formation and the institutions and practices supporting these.

Conclusion

It is clear that debate on the ‘nature’ of diasporic communities is only just starting. The process of defining, or better understanding diasporic phenomena is marked by experimentation and continuously informed from debates on identity, ethnicity, globalization to name but a few as well as an expanding body of empirical research on its subject matter. This paper has stressed the importance of maintaining a sufficiently critical, flexible and open definition of diaspora and diasporic culture in order to avoid reifying the concept and overlooking the multitude of experiences relating to diverse patterns of migration and settlement, modes of that mark and intersect with diasporic experience.

This paper has attempted to decouple definitions of diaspora from and the concepts of ‘ethnicity’, ‘mobility’ or ‘displacement’ as, it was argued these are not sufficient parameters to allow us to make sense of diasporic phenomena and to retain the critical edge of the concept. ‘Ethnicity’ is an established concept that does not have the capacity to convey the complexity that is inherent in notions of diasporas, including their transnational dimensions, or the linkage with globalization inherent in most attempts to define the term. ‘Mobility’ and ‘displacement’ on the other hand, may place undue emphasis on physical movement and, possibly, shift our focus primarily to a population that has moved or been displaced instead of enabling us to study the broader social formation that diasporas connote, that is, the ensemble of relationships, networks, discourses that constitute diasporic phenomena.

In contrast, as I suggested that the concept of diaspora inhabits the 'transnational' and refers to complex multidirectional flows of human beings, ideas, products – cultural and physical and to forms of interaction, negotiation and exchange, processes of acculturation and cultural creativity, webs of exclusion and struggles to overcome it, appropriate frames of reference need to be established. In this context, our understanding of diasporic phenomena might be further enhanced by linking our conceptual quest with the concepts of ‘connectivity’ and by focusing on the cultural politics that make the imagination and activation of the complex nexus of transnational/diasporic linkages and dynamics possible. This is so as diasporas are not ‘given’ or objectively definable communities but belong to what Benedict Anderson has called ‘imagined communities’. Diasporic cultures are therefore premised on the institution of diasporic imaginaries and communication infrastructures (diasporic media and cultural spaces) upon which multiple and diverse processes of identity and community are constructed, and depend on the production of narratives and discourses that reproduce and sustain relevant frames of self-identification, and collective action.

References

Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Appadurai, A. 1993. Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory, P. Williams and L. Crisman (eds.), 324-339. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Tsagarousianou, Rethinking the Concept of Diaspora 65

Brah, A. 1996. Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London: Routledge.

Clifford, J. 1992. Travelling Cultures. In Cultural Studies, L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, P. Treichler with L. Baugham and J. Macgregor (eds.), 96-116. New York: Routledge.

Clifford, J. 1997. Routes: Travel and Translation in the late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cohen, R. 1997. Global diasporas: An introduction. London: UCL Press.

Cunningham, S. and J. Sinclair (eds.) 2000. Floating Lives: The Media and Asian Diasporas. St Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland Press.

Danforth, L. (1996) The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press

Fazal, S. and R. Tsagarousianou. 2002. Transnational Cultural Practices and Communicative Spaces. Javnost/The Public IX(1): 5-18.

Hall, S. 1993. Culture, Community, Nation. Cultural Studies 7(3): 349-63.

Lash, S. and J. Urry. 1994. Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage

Mandaville, P. 2001. Reimagining Islam in Diaspora: The Politics of Mediated Community. Gazette 63(2–3): 169–186.

Morley, D. 2000. Home Territories: Media, Mobility, Identity. London: Routledge.

Papastergiadis, N. 2000. The Turbulence of Migration. Cambridge: Polity.

Safran, W. 1991. Diaspora’s in modern societies: myths of homeland and return. Diaspora 1(1): 83-99.

Scannell, P. 1996. Radio, Television and Modern Life: A Phenomenological Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sofos, S. 1996. Interethnic Violence and Gendered Constructions of Ethnicity in former Yugoslavia. Social Identities 2(1): 73-91.

Thompson, E. P. 1968. The Making of the English Working Class. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Tölölian, K. 1991. Nation State and its Others: In Lieu of a Preface. Diaspora: Journal of transnational Affairs 1(1): 4-5.

Tomlinson, J. 1999. Globalization and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Tsagarousianou, R. 2001. “A space where one feels at home”: media consumption practices among London’s South Asian and Greek Cypriot communities. In Media and Migration: Constructions of Mobility and Difference, R. King and N. Wood (eds.), 158-172. London: Routledge.

Werbner, P. 1997. Essentialising Essentialism, Essentialising Silence: Ambivalence and Multiplicity in the Constructions of Racism and Ethnicity. In Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism, P. Werbner and T. Modood (eds.), 226-254. London: Zed Books.

About the author:

Email: tsagarr(at)westminster.ac.uk 

Roza is Reader in Mass Media and Communication at the School of Media, Arts and Design of the University of Westminster. She holds a BSc (Hons) with Distinction in Political Science and International Studies from Panteion University (Athens, Greece) and a PhD in Sociology from the University of Kent at Canterbury. 

She has been a member of the School's Communication and Media Research Institute (CAMRI) and its predecessor – Centre for Communication and Information Studies (CCIS) since 1994 and has been Director of the School's MA in Communication (1998-2002). 

Roza is convenor of the Diasporas and the Media working group of the International Association for Media and Communication Research, IAMCR (2003-present). 

Her current research interests include the study of globalization and transnational cultural flows; diasporic media and cultural politics; multiculturalism (theory and policy); mass communication and social/political identity formation; information and communication technologies, democracy and everyday life. 

She has co-edited a special issue of Javnost/The Public (2002:1) on the theme 'Diasporic Communications: Transnational & Local Cross-currents'. 

She has recently published Diasporic Cultures and Globalization and co-authored Islam in Europe: Public Spaces and Civic Networks (forthcoming).
> Islam in Europe project website  

She has been invited and keynote speaker in numerous events, including the World Electronic Media Forum, the International Organisation for Migration Media and Migration Conference, the Westminster Foundation Ethnicity, Religion and the Media Forum, the Demos Becoming Virtual project. 

She is currently supervising nine doctoral students and has eight successful PhD completions.

She slowly spreads her legs, then she raises them high, before she rests her right leg on a couch’s armrest, and waits for seconds, then she quickly jumps up, she slackens the reins of her body another time proceeding with its hysteric movements, which don’t lack defiance, and don’t rest except when a wave of clapping and shouts breaks out: She practices her private rituals, which usually mixes between art, sex and religion… But she lately chose to reduce it to a politically guided message, which is passed from a place where nobody can miss its meaning. 

Is Madonna praying or harloting?!

 The audience thoroughly reads the message. Follows up with passion the divergence of the thighs and her buttocks shaking, but they were waiting for her promised last surprise: The white and blue flag covering the burning and squirming body on the stage fluttering in the humid air under spotlights, to announce that the meeting had actually taken place in that dramatic moment, which required years’ long parade of passing away appointments, and processes of reciprocal temptations until all obstacles of separation had melted down.

What used to look like a dancing movement that the singer used to perform up till it became an identification mark and a feature of her body, now has a different meaning, there is a new identity that represents itself, and announcing her joining that small religious group, and asks to receive its blessing, and calls with the diverged and raised thighs, prophet Jacob himself and nobody else, so as to fall upon her and justify her belonging to his descendents even if it was somehow late. And when she received the response in approval, she exclaimed with open ecstasy: “Israel is the center of energy in this world, and it is the axis of peace on this earth.”

Before she reached this climax, she inspired that she is torturing her body and mind. She looked far far away to find that there is a faction called “The Cabala”, which is joined by only the well learned in studies of the Torah and the Talmud, and when she became forty years old, which is the year specified for membership, she started her repeated trips looking for the ultimate truth that is buried in the midst of legends, up till she found it at the age of fifty four, and discovered that it doesn’t require one to give-up that impudent dance, on the contrary it could be calling for it, and consider it of the rituals of piety or actually an approximation to that prophet in particular.

For six nights Madonna danced in “Israel”, and it is said that she sang too, though nobody heard her singing before then and no one memorized her words. In the seventh day she decided to rest as a guest of Benjamin Netanyahu and ask him for her new citizenship identity papers, which she couldn’t obtain from his competitor, Tzipi Livni the night before, he promised to look into the matter, and to publish her letter for the public to read, that is yearning for another idea that it is fighting for other peoples and nations, and diffuse the common impression about its savageness and barbarism, through a famous American artist, who at last discovered herself and through a religious justification by her harlotry dancing.

Assafir – Sep. 5th. 2009

Madonna, Israel’s New Best Friend

hip-hop by Guzin Bilgi 

What's the deal?
Madonna and Israel?
They have a common zeal?
Is she simply a "friend"?
Or a very good weapon
on Israel's right hand?
Their intimacy is very very mysterious
The impact of this fuck quite tremendous
I could not call this bitch an artist
But rather a brilliant whore and a dumb cabalist!

see the video and read the article  http://thefastertimes.com/israel/2009/09/05/madonna-israels-new-bff/

NOTE: the previous version of this post contained the original Arabic of the article and the Arabic Translation of Guzin's hip-hop by Adib.

To see them visit: www.tlaxcala.es

Now the latest news is that Rupert Murdoch is holding talks with Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to buy a 20 percent stake in his broadcaster Rotana Media. Rotana, which hosts Fox channels in Saudi Arabia via its TV network, owns rights to more than 2,000 Arabic movies and a large music library.

It is not clear if the deal will be for existing stock or new shares. The news shocked the Arab citizens even though Rotana is an entertainment business and has a negligible role in the news activities. The question that is circulating is why would Murdoch want to invest in Arab films and music production? And why would he marry his business with a Saudi one? Is it only an investment venture in the entertainment business, or has he got another futuristic agenda since the Kingdom Holdings, the investment vehicle for Prince Alwaleed, is already a major shareholder in News Corporation?

It has been said that Murdoch’s News Corporation is after the online video and music on demand service that rotana.net is currently offering live to viewers as a beta site, since this service is modelled on the US based TV hulu.com, that allows the American public to watch popular television series in full screen high definition over a broadband internet connection for free.

Hulu.com in the USA established only in 2007 is now considered one of the 40 most popular sites. Rotana.net as well has open access to its television, film and music archive throughout the GCC, the rumours go that Murdoch is going to change all that, and his investment plan is to control both Rotana and Hulu and charge for both services.

The majority of Arabs expressed their worries of Murdoch putting his foot in the Middle Eastern Media, since everyone knows his appetite for business expansion, he will never be satisfied with this one step, the minute he is in, he will keep expanding and putting his hands on more media outlets. The main complaint comes from the fact that the Arabs see Murdoch as a person who does not respect them, their faith, or heritage. The majority say that he is gambling with his money if he thinks that the Arabs will forget his far right wing political news machine, or his pro-Israeli stands, and the way his owned Fox News portrays Arabs and Muslims in a negative manner. Many even have already started to call for boycotting Rotana should such investment is to be finalised.

Muslims and Arabs in the Middle East are disgusted with the way Murdouch’s machine portrays them as terrorists, extremists, and militants who are always linked with Al Qaeda in every possible incident, and the fact that the Jewish people are always victims of anti-Semitism.

To make my point I guess I have to copy here Rupert Murdoch’s speech on receiving the American Jewish Committee National Human Relations Award held March 4, 2009 in New York City:

‘Thanks for those kind words, Hugh.

Over the years, some of my wildest critics seem to have assumed I am Jewish. At the same time, some of my closest friends wish I were.

So tonight, let me set the record straight: I live in New York. I have a wife who craves Chinese food. And people I trust tell me I practically invented the word “chutzpah”.

Ladies and gentleman, I thank you for having me tonight. I also want to thank Nelson Peltz … Michael Gould … and the many co-chairs for the time and effort they have put into this event. I am humbled by the honor you have given me – because this award speaks more to your good work than it does to mine.

Michael, I was fascinated to hear you talk about this history of this fine organization. The American Jewish Committee started in response to the persecution of Jews in Czarist Russia. And your response took a very American form: An organization that would speak up for those who could not speak for themselves.

In the century since your founding, the American Jewish Committee has become one of the world’s most influential organizations. Yet though your concerns begin with the safety and welfare of Jews, these concerns are anything but parochial. The reason for this is clear: You know that the best guarantee of the security of Jews anywhere is the freedom of people everywhere.

Your good work has helped bring real and lasting changes to our world. Unfortunately, while some threats have been defeated, new ones have taken their place. And these new threats remind us the AJC’s work is more vital than ever.

In Europe, men and woman who bear the tattoos of concentration camps today look out on a continent where Jewish lives and Jewish property are under attack – and public debate is poisoned by an anti-Semitism we thought had been dispatched to history’s dustbin.

In Iran, we see a regime that backs Hezbollah and Hamas now on course to acquire a nuclear weapon.

In India, we see Islamic terrorists single out the Mumbai Jewish Center in a well-planned and well-coordinated attack that looks like it could be a test run for similar attacks in similar cities around the world.

Most fundamentally, we see a growing assault on both the legitimacy and security of the State of Israel.

This assault comes from people who make clear they have no intention of ever living side-by-side in peace with a Jewish state – no matter how many concessions Israel might make. The reason for this is also clear: These are men who cannot abide the idea of freedom, tolerance, and democracy. They hate Israel for the same reasons they hate us.

At I speak, the flashpoint is Gaza. For months now, Hamas has been raining down rockets on Israeli civilians. Like all terrorist attacks, the aim is to spread fear within free societies, and to paralyze its leaders. This Israel cannot afford. I do not need to tell anyone in this room that no sovereign nation can sit by while its civilian population is attacked.

Hamas knows this better than we do. And Hamas understands something else as well: In the 21st century, when democratic states respond to terrorist attacks, they face two terrible handicaps.

The first handicap is military. It’s true that Israel’s conventional superiority means it could flatten Gaza if it wanted. But the Israeli Defense Forces – unlike Hamas – are accountable to a democratically chosen government.

No matter which party is in the majority, every Israeli government knows it will be held accountable by its people and by the world for the lives that are lost because of its decisions. That’s true for lives of innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire. And it’s also true for the Israeli soldiers who may lose their lives defending their people.

In this kind of war, Hamas does not need to defeat Israel militarily to win a big victory. In fact, Hamas knows that in some ways, dead Palestinians serve their purposes even better than dead Israelis.

In the West we look at this and say, “It makes no sense.” But it does make sense.

If you are committed to Israel’s destruction, and if you believe that dead Palestinians help you score a propaganda victory, you do things like launch rockets from a Palestinian schoolyard. This ensures that when the Israelis do respond, it will likely lead to the death of an innocent Palestinian – no matter how many precautions Israeli soldiers take.

Hamas gets away with this, moreover, because they do not rule Gaza by the consent of those they claim to represent. They rule by fear and intimidation. They are accountable to no one but themselves.

This is the chilling logic of Gaza. And it helps explain why even a strong military power like Israel can find itself at a disadvantage on the ground.

The second handicap for Israel is the global media war. For Hamas, the images of Palestinian suffering – of people losing their homes, of parents mourning their dead children, of tanks rolling through the streets –create sympathy for their cause.

In a battle marked by street to street fighting, the death of innocents is all but inevitable. That is also true of Gaza. And these deaths have led some to call for Israel to be charged with war crimes by an international tribunal.

But I am curious: Why do we never hear calls for Hamas leaders to be charged with war crimes?

Why, for example, do we hear no calls for human rights investigations into Hamas gunmen using Palestinian children as human shields? Why so few stories on the reports of Hamas assassins going to hospitals to hunt down their fellow Palestinians? And where are the international human rights groups demanding that Hamas stop blurring the most fundamental line in warfare: the distinction between civilian and combatant?

I suspect the answer has to do with the same grim logic that leads Hamas to provoke a military battle it knows it cannot win. Whether Israel is ever found guilty of any war crime hardly matters. Hamas gets propaganda win simply by having the charge made often and loudly enough.

In this, Israel finds itself in much the same position the United States found itself in Iraq before the surge. There, al Qaeda realized that it was in its interests to provoke sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni – no matter what the cost to innocent Iraqis. That is the nature of terror. And what we are seeing in Gaza is just one front in this much larger war.

In the West, we are used to thinking that Israel cannot survive without the help of Europe and the United States. Tonight I say to you: Maybe we should start wondering whether we in Europe and the United States can survive if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Israel.

In this new century, the “West” is no longer a matter of geography. The West is defined by societies committed to freedom and democracy. That at least is how the terrorists see it. And if we are serious about meeting this challenge, we would expand the only military alliance committed to the defense of the West to include those on the front lines of this war. That means bringing countries such as Israel into NATO.

My friends, I do not pretend to have all the answers to Gaza this evening. But I do know this: The free world makes a terrible mistake if we deceive ourselves into thinking this is not our fight.

In the end, the Israeli people are fighting the same enemy we are: cold-blooded killers who reject peace … who reject freedom … and who rule by the suicide vest, the car bomb, and the human shield.

Against such an enemy, I will not second-guess the decisions of a free Israel defending her citizens. And I would ask all those who support peace and freedom to do the same.

I thank you for listening. I thank you for this award. And I thank you for all you are doing to make our world a safer and freer place.

After reading Murdoch’s speech I guess his policies are quite clear, and there is nothing ambiguous about them. It remains that the ball is in the Saudi Prince’s court.

One can't help but see malignant projects of gigantic companies committing forgery to steal the history of some nations in broad daylight.

As an example I would say Yahoo. For many years yahoo published pages on its websites and created online services where it has deleted Palestine from its charts, not just Palestine but the West Bank as well.

As an example, their UK website offers a daily horoscope for those who are interested to know what Yahoo believes their day or week is going to look like, despite the fact that the majority of people do not believe in this kind of speculation, it is still amusing to know how they are going to play with our minds. But for once I am going to read the horoscope of Yahoo, and tell the investors that they are entering a gambling game, beware of offending the players; otherwise you will notice a big hole in your pocket.

I looked at the list of countries should one has to fill his birthplace to hear the wisdom of Yahoo's fortune tellers, Palestine was not mentioned at all, and neither was the West Bank but surprise, surprise Israel is.

Yahoo never cared about Palestine before but I think it is about time that it does, for Yahoo has just acquired the Palestinian Maktoob portal founded by the Palestinian son of Nablus Samih Toukan. www.maktoob.com is considered the largest Arab online portal at a value of around $75M-$80M. This deal Yahoo is after to further its influence in the Arab World as a fast growing internet and mobile market will not be welcomed if it chooses to ignore the Palestinians who are still running the portal and will continue to do so according to the reported information.

The Maktoob portal is based in Jordan but owned and run by the Palestinians that Yahoo does not recognise, the majority of bloggers and business advertisers are Palestinians, even though many are not still based in Palestine but rather holding the most prestigious posts in the Gulf countries and owners and investors of the biggest businesses abroad on international level.

It has been reported that the new Yahoo division will be called Yahoo Middle East. And from now on Yahoo products will be made Arabic and content will be "Arabized" to serve 20 million users in the Arab world along with the original 16 million users of maktoob, thus "arabizing" the Yahoo Mail and messenger along with other services including the mobiles.

Yahoo is expecting to continue the strong commercial relationship with the companies that used to contribute to the success of Maktoob.com. Should this be the case I would say Yahoo should start the first step by respecting the Arab market that would feel offended by eliminating Palestine from every choice list created by Yahoo.

It has been said that Yahoo is concerned about freedom of speech in the region since it is known for its censorship online, while the Maktoob bloggers are concerned that Yahoo will bring with it its pro-Israel policies to the area.

I would advise Yahoo to rearrange its priorities and fix the way it is handling Middle Eastern issues and particularly Palestine. If Yahoo is intending upon digging deep into the pockets of the wealthy Arab business dynamos, it should start to show some respect and sensitivity to the people who are going to make or break its success, starting by acknowledging the fact that it can't hijack their history and remodel the geography of the area, otherwise it will face a great loss.

On 25 June, the Portland Indymedia website published an article entitled 'Rose City Antifa: Statement on Anti-Semites and their Collaborators' [1]. Rose City Antifa is part of the Anti-Racist Action Network.

Since its creation in 1999 during the protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Indymedia has been an essential source for community organizing. However, this 'Statement on Anti-Semites', and the list of irresponsible comments attached to it, is an example of enabling unscrupulous individuals to divide and weaken the community Indymedia was founded to serve.

The statement refers to a talk by Valdas Anelauskas, a Lithuanian immigrant who describes himself as a 'radical conservative'. The talk was a critique of the 'Frankfurt School', a Marxist theory of psychology. The anti-war activists who invited him to speak in Portland have a long record of inviting liberal speakers – this is the first conservative they have hosted. They organized a protest against a recent American Israel Public Affairs conference, which took place during the Gaza massacre. This is when the allegations of antisemitism began.

Following Anelauskas's presentation, those who organized the meeting were denounced as 'fascist collaborators', One of the ringleaders was tried in his absence by anonymous contributors to Indymedia. The organizations he has been involved in for decades were 'called on' to 'call him out'. The co-op where he works was told to fire him or face a boycott campaign, though it is illegal to dismiss employees for their opinions. The statement ended:

       'This statement is a beginning; other fascist collaborators should not consider themselves to have been let off the hook in any way. No compromise and no half-measures!'

Strong stuff. As if someone was signaling to German bombers above Portland.

The statement makes no distinction between words and violent acts, implying that Anelauskas's ideas are so dangerous, those who invited him should be ostracized for life. Anelauskas is a rarity, an extreme right-wing intellectual. He does not advocate violence. He does not deny the Holocaust. Unlike the Zionists who started the campaign to shut him up, he opposes the Iraq war. He presents us with a clear choice: are the feelings of American Jews more important than the lives of Arab children? Portland anti-fascists have answered loud and clear, staking their place in the modern American left.

Rebuttals of the Antifascist statement have not been given equal prominence on Indymedia, and some have been disappeared. It's straight out of the Moscow Trials: respected activists are publicly denounced on the basis of hearsay, and people accept it. Just as in Stalin's Russia, apologies and confessions don't help, they just encourage the persecutors. Here is a statement by one of the Portland accused – "I don't deny the horrors of WWII including the Holocaust and the many forgotten details of that time", and here is the antifascist response: 'This itself is a classic Holocaust-denial strategy'. That's right, affirming that the Holocaust happened is Holocaust denial.

The only people who identified themselves a members of minorities in the Indymedia comments disagreed with the antifascist statement. One African-American said he is opposed to campaigns against thought crimes, and that arguments, even ethnically-based ones, don't hurt him. In reply, the antifascists treated him differently from white people arguing the same thing: they were condescending rather than abusive.

Recently, The Israel Project, a Washington DC think-tank, issued a report on the right language to use to manipulate the public. Its chapters include "Gaza: Israel’s right to self-defense" and "Talking to the American Left"; killing babies and political correctness. It recommends using leftist phrases, such as 'call out antisemitism' and 'oppression'. This is what the anti-racists do. This does not imply a conspiracy, nor they have been infiltrated by Zionists: they help them without doing so consciously.  Here is a good example from the Indymedia comments on the antifascist witch-hunt:

       'As a former Portland resident who is tired of leftists who have come to accept antisemitism, I want to thank you for your actions'.

Notice the lack of specific examples, and the use of personal feelings as a weapon of argument. 'Antisemitism' could mean any criticism of Israel. When the Republicans at the Oregon Commentator website reproduced the Indymedia statement approvingly, the antifascists were nonplussed, not understanding that it is quite logical for right-wing Zionists to welcome the aid of left-wing antifascists. As a conservative diplomat wrote:

       "The tactics of [X] plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, an utter disregard for the truth, and the substitution of political correctness for analysis".

Can you guess what 'X' stands for? Anti-Racist Action? No, the Israel Lobby.

Anti-Racist Action's latest antics include postering a Portland neighborhood with the photo and address of an anti-immigration guy they disagree with, then trying to provoke a fight when he appears in public [2]. Their tactic is obvious – start with unpopular right-wingers, then move on to their more liberal opponents: first the 'Nazis', then the 'Nazi-enablers'. Pick us off one by one. Sound familiar? ARA is more of a danger to the progressive community than the insignificant or imaginary 'fascists' they 'confront' and 'call out'. Their messianic certainty recalls the worst excesses of the seventies left. ARA has nothing to do with combating genuine threats, and everything to do with increasing its own power. If they asked us to agree with them, the antifascists would be implying that we are able to judge which ideas are dangerous, and avoid them, but are unable to listen to them safely.. If you can judge which arguments are wrong in advance, then you
 are also capable of listening to them without the danger of being misled by them. It is illogical to say 'I am smart enough to work out which ideas I am not smart enough to be exposed to'. So the  antifascists cannot ask; they must demand: 'defy us, or capitulate'.

Those who realize the need to stand up against intimidation are forced into a corner. We are now obliged to defend Valdas Anelauskas and the decision to invite him. The danger of doing this is overwhelmed by the danger of not doing it, and handing a victory to the self-appointed thought police. The ironies are almost funny – we have antifascists who use totalitarian tactics, anti-sexist men brimming over with macho aggression, and anarchists who want to be cops. Anti-Racist Action opposes the 'capitalist court system': it's too fair. It doesn't accept hearsay, for one thing.

What can you do to counter this threat to community and freedom? Listen to individuals further to the right than you have up until now; they don't bite. I enjoy listening to Valdas Anelauskas: he is so right-wing, he makes Michael Savage sound like Karl Marx. When you hear that someone is a 'Holocaust denier', don't believe it – find out for yourself. Hold meetings in your community to discuss Israel, race, and other issues, and state in advance that any allegations of antisemitism will be ignored. Invite controversial speakers from left and right. Never apologize. Say no to intimidation and censorship.

1. 'Statement on Anti-Semites', http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/06/392268.shtml?discuss
2. 'Rogue of the Week', Willamette Week, http://wweek.com/columns/rogue/#35..36

This was sent to me by Machetera:
Sibel Edmonds just emailed me saying that she has been blocked from her Blog account by Google. The timing is suspicious given her two recent explosive radio interviews and having just been subpoenaed as well. She wants support from anyone to disseminate this information.

I have deleted her personal email but the below is in its entirety from her
website
http://www.justacitizen.com/Press_Releases/URGENTGoogle%27s%20Blogger-Aug6.htm

URGENT: GOOGLE BLOCKS MY SITE DURING SENSITIVE PERIOD

WE NEED YOUR HELP

My Blog Site http://123realchange.blogspot.com is now blocked by Google/Blogger. They will not let me post during this most sensitive period, when I am about to provide deposition on Foreign US government illegal operations in the United States!

A few weeks ago I started receiving Google & Blogger warnings from my
technologically savvy friends and well-wishers, who encouraged me to have a mirror site as a back up and or cease using Google's Blogger all together. I
did take these warnings seriously and started looking at alternatives and
other options. Well, this is what I got from Blogger yesterday:

*From: **Blogger** <no-reply@google.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Subject: http://123realchange.blogspot.com/ - ACTION REQUIRED
To: XXXXXXXXXXXX

  Hello,

  Your blog at: http://123realchange.blogspot.com/ has been identified as a
potential spam blog.  To correct this, please request a review by filling
out the form at
http://www.blogger.com/unlock-blog.g?lockedBlogID=6542765284440328864

  Your blog will be deleted in 20 days if it isn't reviewed, and your
readers will see a warning page during this time. After we receive your
request, we'll review your blog and unlock it within two business days. Once
we have reviewed and determined your blog is not spam, the blog will be
unlocked and the message in your Blogger dashboard will no longer be
displayed. If this blog doesn't belong to you, you don't have to do
anything, and any other blogs you may have won't be affected.

  We find spam by using an automated classifier. Automatic spam detection
is inherently fuzzy, and occasionally a blog like yours is flagged
incorrectly. We sincerely apologize for this error. By using this kind of
system, however, we can dedicate more storage, bandwidth, and engineering
resources to bloggers like you instead of to spammers. For more information, please see Blogger Help: http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=42577

  Thank you for your understanding and for your help with our spam-fighting
efforts.

  Sincerely,

  The Blogger Team

  P.S. Just one more reminder: Unless you request a review, your blog will
be deleted in 20 days. Click this link to request the review:
http://www.blogger.com/unlock-blog.g?lockedBlogID=6542765284440328864

*

I am still looking into it and will be corresponding with them to find out
what the heck is going on, but I must say the timing of this is extremely
troubling:

Is it coincidence that this comes up when I am subpoenaed <http://123realchange.blogspot.com/2009/08/breaking-news.html>to
provide sworn deposition on matters that have sent our government
scrambling and certain high-level criminal entities sweating big time?

Is this due to my latest interviews for my Boiling Frogs Show on explosive
issues such as AIPAC, Iran, Central Asia, and Pakistan? We know big brother
NSA has been listening, and my guests have really been talking. We just
wrapped up our phone interviews with Phil Giraldi (on AIPAC & Israel and
more), Richard Barlow (on Pakistan and what our government didn't want its
people to know), Joe Trento (on Iran, Brzezinski, and more), Sandalio
Gonzalez (on our phony War on Drugs, House of Death, Kent Memo, and
more)? You see what I am getting at here?

Or is it the fact that this blog is becoming more popular, the visitors'
number has been going up rapidly, and its content getting picked up by many, nationally and internationally? And I am talking about content and topics that are blacklisted by the US Mainstream Media.

I don't know the answer. I may never know. However, what I know is this: I
better find a different or multiple different, blog sites and keep this forum alive. I also want to warn others who may become subject to this kind of notice, or maybe get terminated without any notice!

Please help me, thus all of us, resolve this blockage immediately, since in
the next few days this blog may prove to be extremely crucial to report
developing news and cases which will not be covered by MSM.

Thank you,

Sibel Edmonds

Wielding real and imagined war plans against Iran, which he claims are coming from Russia, China, the U.S., and Israel, Mr. Roberts is waving a scary-looking club to threaten sincere domestic dissent in Iran.

Mr. Roberts completely forgets the main lesson which Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, and Afghans have taught U.S. and Israeli warmongers: Imperial militarism does not cut the mustard any more. In the words of Iranians, who are resisting foreign and domestic bullies every day, “Bombs, tanks, and machine-guns are no longer effective!”

Mr. Roberts believes that the U.S. and Israel will “dominate” the region, because, in his words, “they have effective Psychological Operations (PSYOPS).” However, if Mr. Roberts had taken so much as a weekend trip to the area, and if he had the ability to talk to the objects of these Psychological Operations, he would have easily been able to detect people’s pride in having confined Israel, through decades of successful struggle, to its present minuscule size.

To date, according to Congressman John Dingell of Michigan, $300 billion U.S. dollars have been poured into Israel, all from the U.S. Congress. This loot was used to extinguish Palestinian resistance, through massive violence and terror. Yet, it does not take a genius to see that resistance continues in Palestine, and, what is more, the international community has increasingly backed boycotts against the apartheid state of Israel. Lebanon, too, struggling under a corrupt U.S.-backed government, has managed to drive Israel out of its territories; a similar situation has also transpired in Syria.

The upshot of it all is that because of successful local resistance to Israel and the U.S., Israel has not grown an inch in size. With the 4th largest army in the world at its brutal command, with hundreds of atomic weapons at the ready, Israel cannot even control the West Bank or Gaza.

The Israeli siege of Gaza is challenged constantly by the international community. Israel is humiliated before the whole world, as it is forced to make a show of allowing medical supplies or food to enter Gaza. The people of Gaza are suffering tremendously, but they know they are withstanding the most ferocious military in the area (second only to the U.S.). The cluster bombs, the white phosphorous, the uranium bombs, all $300 billion worth of it, have crumbled in the face of Palestinian and Lebanese popular resistance.

Proudly we acknowledge that dreams of freedom and democracy have not been extinguished even after decades of massive military invasions and occupations by the most openly racist warmongers ever known to mankind, U.S./Israel.

You, Mr. Roberts, from your post in Reagan’s White House, wrote the checks to finance those invasions and occupations, for years.

Mr. Roberts asks, “Why does anyone in Iran doubt that Iran is on her way to becoming another Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan…?”

Here is the answer: not a single Iranian (there are 75 million Iranians) believes Iran will be the next Iraq. That is because Iranians have not only won a revolution in recent history, they have also managed to withstand the U.S.-instigated, U.S.-fueled, eight-year war with Iraq, as well as thirty years of suffocating U.S. sanctions. Throughout all the pressures that U.S. has imposed on them, Iranians have managed to keep their schools and universities open, their hospitals running, their transportation system functional, and their water and electrical plants in order. Their ability to maintain basic services (despite crippling sanctions) has enabled them to raise a literate young population with enough time on its hands to think and dream of a better world.

As if that was not enough accomplishment for a people on top of the U.S.’s “kill em” list, Iranians decided to make the most of what democratic rights they had. They are stretching and breaking all the limits on their freedom to rule themselves. Faced with this magnificent spectacle, Mr. Roberts can only take pot-shots from the sidelines.

While you may not see this, Mr. Roberts, in the eyes of Iranians, they have already won a lot and they have the stamina to fight for more. Imagine Iran’s example, of mass protest, catching on in the streets currently ruled by U.S. and Israeli puppets (in Cairo, in Baghdad, in Beirut, in Kabul, in Karachi, and in Riyadh.)

If you knew Farsi, and if you were interested in the people and their aspirations to determine their own destiny, you would easily be able to decipher all of that by looking at them march on the streets with their children and their elderly on their side. And you would be able to figure out that people of Iran are united in one thing; they want to establish a home-grown democratic system in their country to enable them to exercise full power over their own fate. Iranians know full well that neither Mr. Rafsanjani, nor Mr. Khamenei, can deliver that.

All these butchers have to show, for their decades in office, is an under-served public, and a fat foreign bank account.

Mr. Rafsanjani is said to have accumulated close to $600 million dollars (a sum that puts Master Butcher Rumsfeld’s capital achievement of only $250 million to shame). Unlike Americans, who see amassing of such personal wealth as a legitimate right, who are taught that they, too, can become as rich as their butcher politicians, Iranians see this as a sign of corruption and decay.

Iranians are now working toward a system-change: a real democracy, articulated by the people and responsive to the people’s long-neglected needs.

For now, Iranians have settled on Mousavi, who had to follow the people’s demands and had to show up at rallies he never intended to participate in. As Mr. Roberts states, Rafsanjani may be the perfect person for Washington. However, Mr. Roberts, Rafsanjani has zero credibility with the people of Iran. As a president, he exhibited his lust for money and his total disregard for the will of the nation. Rafsanjani’s support for Mossavi only became fully public late in the process, since that would hinder, not help, Iranians’ enthusiasm for Mousavi.

While you, Mr. Roberts, see doom and gloom descending onto Iran, Iranians continue to pour into the streets every single day, at great personal risk, demanding their dignity and civil rights. Are you really unable to see that Iranians are demanding real democracy, real people’s participation in decision-making on all aspects of life in Iran?  What Iranians want, what we will get, will not be wiped off our minds by Israeli bullying, by U.S. bullying, or by Mr. Roberts’ scary scenarios, designed to make us all hide under our beds.

Even without Mr. Roberts’ help, we will never forget that Israel trained SAVAK torturers, for the Shah, when Iran looked like a permanent captive of the U.S. and Israel. Mr. Roberts is not protecting Iran from Israel by siding with those who shoot Iranian human rights marchers in the streets.

The illegitimacy of both Israel and the U.S., and their desperate economic condition, does not allow any more bloodbaths to be created in the region. Iraqis and Afghans are not exactly silent. It has taken all of America’s military might, just to hide behind thick fortified walls in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Simply put, Iraq and Afghanistan have NOT been a “cakewalk” for the U.S. occupation forces.

An Iranian physician recently said: “Everything has a price. Many bad things are happening but the trend is toward the light.” Light is a commonly used metaphor for Iranians, whose roots are in Zoroastrianism (the religion of fire and light).

“We are standing to the end”, says the chant on the streets of Iran. We are telling the U.S. and Israel, the most bankrupt and racist powers of our times, that Iranians do NOT want wars and that we WILL stand for democracy “…to the end”, whatever the price may be. We already know that the price of hiding, under our beds, is far higher. 

Original article published on July 22, 2009.

About the author

Mozhgan Savabieasfahani is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, translator and reviser are cited.

URL of this article on Tlaxcala: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=8238&lg=en

I could denounce the complacency of the self-absorbed and disconnected leadership of our "Arab" community. But at some point, words and videos (and threats to do unspeakable things to one's hair) don't suffice to express frustration. The complacency somehow manages to confound language and camera lenses.

The US has been strangling the life out of Iraq for the last two decades and killed over a million Iraqis and displaced 4 million and continues to support the zionist presence on Palestinian land. What more does it need to do before we see some raw, self-respecting outrage coming out of institutional Arab-America? Behold (emphasis added):

P. 10 of Forum and Link, a local Arab-American magazine, covers the recent ADC fest in Washington. It whitewashes Clinton's crimes. "As the U.S. continues to push for peace in the area, 'I think it’s really important to give the Palestinian people something to look forward to,' Clinton said to loud applause [from the Arab audience]."
 

Meaning, if Bush says at an Arab convention "I think it's really important to give the Iraqi people something to look forward to", he'll also get "loud applause" from Arabs (also known as people who ought to know better).

The ADC also awarded Congressman John Dingell: "After his speech, he wrapped his arms around Dingell and the congressman’s wife Debbie and chatted at length. In an interview before his award, Dingell said much work is needed by political Washington on behalf of Arab Americans."

Allow me to quote Dingell in his own words. This is from the government's own website, not the Book of Arab Conspiracy Theories: http://www.house.gov/dingell/110/080423israel.shtml "In my 50 years in Congress, I have proudly supported more than $300 billion dollars in aid for the State of Israel".

Furthermore, if I massacre a bunch of squirrels, I'll get praise at a squirrel convention as long as I avoid using the expression "war on squirrels." "Shora praised Obama for avoiding using the phrase 'war on terrorism,' a signature phrase in the Bush era that many Arab Americans feel fanned fears of people of Arab and Muslim descent. Shora’s observation drew applause."

The most radical statement out of that convention was this beauty paegant type answer: "Also receiving an award were Hasan and Shereen Newash of Grosse Pointe. The couple founded the Michigan Citizens for Palestinian Rights, an educational outreach group. Before receiving their award, Shereen Newash said they look forward to “peace in the Middle East.”

Saja

* "House Arab" is a term inspired by Malcolm X's usage of "House Negro" and "Field Negro."

The ADC's Criteria for Usage of the Word "Condemnation" and for Invitation as Keynote Speakers at Convention

In order for the ADC to "condemn" an attack, the victims in question must be either:

1) Jewish (which is understandable, considering the timid nature of AIPAC, ADL and JDL; recall "condemnation" of alleged attack on NY synagogues last month); or

2) members of Congress; or

3) Nobel Laureate winners (see below).

Otherwise, if you're a plain vanilla Arab, attacks on you don't get "condemned" by the American "Arab" Anti-Discrimination Committee. For example, condemnation of the savage bombardment of plain vanilla Arabs in Iraq's Guernica, Falluja, is nowhere to be heard by ADC even though the city was bombed to oblivion by the world's only superpower. Mention of the city comes up once on adc.org, in the context of instructing it to release humanitarian workers.

You have to fall into one of the above three categories to matter to the ADC. No exceptions shall be made. Those who request exceptions shall be condemned.

In order to quality for an invitation as keynote speaker to an ADC convention, the bar is a bit higher:

1) strangulate half a million Iraqi kids (Clinton); or

2) convince the UN that defenseless, sanctioned Arab countries have WMD's (Powell); or

3) bomb Arab medicine factories (Clinton again)

In a June 16 Op-Ed column in the New York Times entitled “The Virtual Mosque,” Thomas Friedman declares that events in Iran have raised “three intriguing questions” for him:

“Is Facebook to Iran’s Moderate Revolution what the mosque was to Iran’s Islamic Revolution? Is Twitter to Iranian moderates what muezzins were to Iranian mullahs? And, finally, is any of this good for the Jews — particularly Israel’s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu?”

Friedman goes on to explain that, over the past 8 years in certain parts of the Middle East, “spaces were opened for more democratic elections,” but that “[u]nfortunately, the groups that had the most grass-roots support and mobilization capabilities — and the most energized supporters — to take advantage of this new space were the Islamists.” Leaving aside the issue of why Friedman thinks it is up to him to decide which manifestations of democracy are fortunate and which are not, we are informed that the reason the Islamists have been able to exploit the opening of democratic spaces is that they have mosques, places where they “were able to covertly organize and mobilize… outside the total control of the state.” Over the next few paragraphs Friedman appears to arrive at the conclusion that people who attend mosques are less entitled to rights as citizens than, for example, the more than 50,000 fans that Mir Hossein Mousavi is reported to have on Facebook. Friedman points out that 50,000 exceeds the capacity of a mosque, although he does not speculate as to whether all of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads listed on Facebook are real.

As for covert organization, mobilization, and evasion of state control, Friedman asserts: “In Lebanon, Hezbollah took the country into a disastrous and unpopular war. Ditto Hamas in Gaza.” He does not explain why George W. Bush is not also dittoed, or why it is necessary to contradict Israeli admissions as to the lack of spontaneity of their wars.

Moderate Middle Eastern revolutions are meanwhile eulogized as follows:
“What is fascinating to me is the degree to which in Iran today — and in Lebanon — the more secular forces of moderation have used technologies like Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, blogging and text-messaging as their virtual mosque, as the place they can now gather, mobilize, plan, inform and energize their supporters, outside the grip of the state.”

It thus appears that in certain cases it is admissible to function as a state within a state, depending on the nature of the state. Additional benefits of mobile phone technology in the Middle East are outlined in Friedman’s June 13 Op-Ed “Winds of Change?” and include the possibility of “monitor[ing] vote-rigging by posting observers with cellphone cameras”—a process unequivocally embraced by other bastions of democracy such as the state of Florida.

Friedman tempers his euphoria over technological breakthroughs by moderates by cautioning in the June 16 article that “we should not get carried away,” based on the fact that “‘moderates’ is a relative term”—especially in the case of Iraqi prime ministers who are less attached to mosques but power-hungry nonetheless—and that “even if defeated electorally, the Islamists and their regimes have a trump card: guns. Guns trump cellphones. Bang-bang beats tweet-tweet.” Further research reveals that the latter stipulation is not a reference to the 2004 Israeli attack on the aviary at the Rafah zoo.

Friedman’s response to the last of the “three intriguing questions” posed in “The Virtual Mosque” (“Is any of this good for the Jews?”) is less intriguing than his responses to the first two, and he limits himself to discussing such things as how “Israeli officials have been saying they would much prefer that Ahmadinejad still wins in Iran — not because Israelis really prefer him but because they believe his thuggish, anti-Semitic behavior reflects the true and immutable character of the Iranian regime.” The commitment of Israeli officials to maintaining enemies does not, however, earn Israel the title of virtual reality.

Backtracking several days from Iran’s virtual election, we find in Friedman’s June 9 Op-Ed column on the Lebanese elections that “in Lebanon it was the real deal, and the results were fascinating: President Barack Obama defeated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.” President Barack Obama’s provenance is not specified, although he is presumably not of Lebanon—thus adding a twist to Friedman’s subsequent claim that the victorious Lebanese coalition was that which “wants Lebanon to be run by and for the Lebanese.” The expansion of democratic spaces in the Middle East is nonetheless confirmed by the fact that “[t]he Lebanese mainstream, armed only with ballots, not bullets, won.” (It would later dawn on Friedman that the mainstream was armed not only with ballots but with Facebook, as well.)

Friedman, who claims in the article that he is a “sucker for free and fair elections” and that it “warms [his] heart to watch people drop ballots in a box to express their will,” chose to experience Lebanese heart-warming in the overwhelmingly Christian summer resort town of Brummana in Mount Lebanon, where there was no danger of coming into contact with any non-virtual mosques. The Quaker cemetery in Brummana also happened to host the gravesite of Palestinian scholar Edward Said, who in a 2002 article entitled “What Price Oslo?” had noted that Friedman “still has the gall to say that ‘Arab TV’ shows one-sided pictures,” in addition to being “insufferably conceited.”

Further evidence of one-sidedness found in Said’s article is that “there aren’t two sides involved here, but only one state turning all its great power against a stateless, repeatedly refugeed, and dispossessed people, bereft of arms and real leadership.” Said ignores the fact that the stateless contingent is in possession of mosques and guns; Friedman meanwhile confirms the role of power in George Bush’s democratic contributions to Syrian expulsion from Lebanon: “Power matters.”

We come up against a slight problem if we employ the Mir Hossein Mousavi model in order to calculate the exact extent of President Bush’s power, in that a Facebook search of “George W. Bush” produces as its first result a group with 58,531 members entitled “One Million Shoes for George W. Bush.” The second result is a group with 35,646 members entitled “Thankful for President George W. Bush”; other noteworthy presences on Facebook include “I Love Thomas Friedman” and “I Hate Thomas Friedman.” Friedman is not, however, included on the list of important visitors to Brummana found on the website http://www.brummana.org.lb/, although Lawrence of Arabia is.

T.E. Lawrence had once asserted that Arabs were as unstable as water; Friedman, for his part, had merely asserted in a 2004 Op-Ed in the New York Times that Palestinians were “gripped by a collective madness, committing suicide,” and that the Muslim world was undergoing an “unstable and at times humiliating catch-up” following its long-term “vacation from globalization, modernization and liberalization.” Friedman mentions in this article that one of the threats to Israel posed by instability consists of “an explosion of Arab multimedia — from Al Jazeera to the Internet,” thus highlighting the dangers of combining mosques and technology. As for other important visitors to Brummana, these include Coca-Cola and petroleum conferences hosted at the Printania Palace hotel in 1967 and 1968, respectively; the 1950s were meanwhile dominated by visits from Lebanese president Camille Chamoun, who is described on the Brummana site as having tried out most of the hotels in the area, and whose dependence on US invasions provided evidence for Friedman’s hypothesis that “power matters.”

I had visited Brummana twice, once with a Maronite friend who claimed that the town’s only important visitors were Saudi princes pursuing sexual relations with Lebanese pop stars, and once with a Palestinian friend who claimed that I should have figured out how to say “Quaker cemetery” in Arabic prior to departing for Brummana from Beirut. We thus spent several hours searching first for the cemetery and then for the key to the cemetery, which it turned out was kept at the house of an elderly woman who invited us in for tea, cake, and duels between her cats. Friedman described his own interactions with elderly Lebanese women in Brummana on election day:

“People came by car, by wheelchair, by foot — young, old and sick. One very elderly lady walked in hooked up to a small oxygen tank. The tube was in her nose helping her to breathe. A young man was carrying the silver oxygen canister on one side of her and a young woman was holding her steady on the other side. But, by God, she was going to vote.”

Edward Said had proved less smitten with democratic commitment by the young and old, and in 2002 had tacked the question “Will the new generation do any better?” onto the end of his allegation that Arab rulers “haven’t learned the power of systematically disseminated information as a way of protecting their people from the onslaughts of those who consider all Arabs militant, extremist, terrorist fanatics.” Whether Said is suggesting that Arab rulers acquire their own New York Times columnists or their own Facebook accounts is not clarified; he does, however, offer some fine-tuning of Friedman’s onomatopoeic model, in which tweet-tweeting technology can be interpreted as merely complicit in the bang-bang of guns:

“What is at stake [when it comes to exorbitant national defense budgets] are material interests that keep rulers in power, corporations making profits, people in a state of manufactured consent, just so long as they don’t get up one morning and start to think about where, in this mad technologised rush to bomb and kill, we are going.”

Adri Nieuwhof:What would you like to say to introduce yourself to EI's readers?

Hajo Meyer: I had to quit grammar school in Bielefeld after the Kristallnacht [the two-day pogrom against Jews in Nazi Germany], in November 1938. It was a terrible experience for an inquisitive boy and his parents. Therefore, I can fully identify with the Palestinian youth that are hampered in their education. And I can in no way identify with the criminals who make it impossible for Palestinian youth to be educated.

AN: What motivated you to write your book, The End of Judaism?

HM: In the past, the European media have written extensively about extreme right-wing politicians like Joerg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France. But when Ariel Sharon was elected [prime minister] in Israel in 2001, the media remained silent. But in the 1980s I understood the deeply fascist thinking of these politicians. With the book I wanted to distance myself from this. I was raised in Judaism with the equality of relationships among human beings as a core value. I only learned about nationalist Judaism when I heard settlers defend their harassment of Palestinians in interviews. When a publisher asked me to write about my past, I decided to write this book, in a way, to deal with my past. People of one group who dehumanize people who belong to another group can do this, because they either have learned to do so from their parents, or they have been brainwashed by their political leaders. This has happened for decades in Israel in that they manipulate the Holocaust for their political aims. In the long-run the country is destructing itself this way by inducing their Jewish citizens to become paranoid. In 2005 [then Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon illustrated this by saying in the Knesset [the Israeli parliament], we know we cannot trust anyone, we only can trust ourselves. This is the shortest possible definition of somebody who suffers from clinical paranoia. One of the major annoyances in my life is that Israel by means of trickery calls itself a Jewish state, while in fact it is Zionist. It wants the maximum territory with a minimum number of Palestinians. I have four Jewish grandparents. I am an atheist. I share the Jewish socio-cultural inheritance and I have learned about Jewish ethics. I don't wish to be represented by a Zionist state. They have no idea about the Holocaust. They use the Holocaust to implant paranoia in their children.

AN: In your book you write about the lessons you have learned from your past. Can you explain how your past influenced your perception of Israel and Palestine?

HM: I have never been a Zionist. After the war, Zionist Jews spoke about the miracle of having "our own country." As a confirmed atheist I thought, if this is a miracle by God, I wished that he had performed the smallest miracle imaginable by creating the state 15 years earlier. Then my parents would not have been dead.

I can write up an endless list of similarities between Nazi Germany and Israel. The capturing of land and property, denying people access to educational opportunities and restricting access to earn a living to destroy their hope, all with the aim to chase people away from their land. And what I personally find more appalling then dirtying one's hands by killing people, is creating circumstances where people start to kill each other. Then the distinction between victims and perpetrators becomes faint. By sowing discord in a situation where there is no unity, by enlarging the gap between people — like Israel is doing in Gaza.

AN: In your book you write about the role of Jews in the peace movement in and outside Israel, and Israeli army refuseniks. How do you value their contribution?

HM: Of course it is positive that parts of the Jewish population of Israel try to see Palestinians as human beings and as their equals. However, it disturbs me how paper-thin the number is that protests and is truly anti-Zionist. We get worked up by what happened in Hitler's Germany. If you expressed only the slightest hint of criticism at that time, you ended up in the Dachau concentration camp. If you expressed criticism, you were dead. Jews in Israel have democratic rights. They can protest in the streets, but they don't.

AN: Can you comment on the news that Israeli ministers approved a draft law banning commemoration of the Nakba, or the dispossession of historic Palestine? The law proposes punishment of up to three years in prison.

HM: It is so racist, so dreadful. I am at a loss for words. It is an expression of what we already know. [The Israeli Nakba commemoration organization] Zochrot was founded to counteract Israeli efforts to wipe out the marks that are a reminder of Palestinian life. To forbid Palestinians to publicly commemorate the Nakba. … they cannot act in a more Nazi-like, fascist way. Maybe it will help to awaken the world.

AN: What are your plans for the future?

HM: [Laughs] Do you know how old I am? I am almost 85 years old. I always say cynically and with self-mockery that I have a choice: either I am always tired because I want to do so much, or I am going to sit still waiting for the time to go by. Well, I plan to be tired, because I have still so much to say.

Adri Nieuwhof is consultant and human rights advocate based in Switzerland.