Atzmon's Holocaust Denial Leaves Him Out in the Cold

Atzmon Comes Clean

When I wrote an article 'Gilad Atzmon – Now an Open Holocaust Denier' a number of people took exception to my argument. He isn't open about it they said and to an extent they were right. But my intuition was that Atzmon nonetheless had crossed the rubicon. This was confirmed when he took part in a Sunday Times debate with David Aaronovitch and greeted Michel Renouf, hostess to all the best deniers, at the event. I don’t usually publish holocaust denial stuff on the blog but in this case I will make an exception for Gilad Atzmon.

People often apologise for Atzmon, who is undoubtedly talented when it comes to blowing his own trumpet (or sax), by saying he is a contrarian, simply saying things to provoke, writes before he thinks etc.

In fact only yesterday I was having a discussion with an academic who should know better, who explained away Atzmon thus:

‘Tony,

I know that you sincerely believe that Gilad Atzmon is an anti-Semite. However, I think you are wrong. I think he simply gets carried away with his anger at the way that the thought-police try to control what people say about Zionism and Zionists. I suspect that he writes quickly and does not put enough effort into editing. Indeed, I suspect that the personality traits which enable him to improvise jazz are at play when he writes -- his writings are like solo improvisations. As a result, he has published material which, I suspect, he wishes, deep down, he had expressed more carefully. Many people, when attacked in public, rather than engaged privately, come out with all guns firing and I suspect that, at this stage, he just enjoys annoying those who attack him.’

And it is true that some people, unwilling to admit they are wrong and in a desire to save face, say things which in the cold light of day they regret they had said or written. After all, nowhere is it more true than on the Internet that one writes in haste and repents at leisure.

And maybe this was once true of Atzmon too, about whom I have consciously tried to say as little as possible recently, not least for fear of inflating his already super-sized ego. However there are occasions when one has to speak out.

It would be invidious to have to point to the various Atzmon mistakes/flaws in the article below. For example the myth that Jews were turned into soap hasn’t been recently acknowledged, as Atzmon suggests in footnote 1, but has been know to be a myth virtually since the end of the War. In his monumental Destruction of European Jews, published in 1961, Raul Hilberg devotes considerable space to the myth, which was widely believed by the Poles, some of whom boycotted soap on this basis. The ‘soap’ myth is the staple of the ‘humour’ of holocaust deniers, so it is no surprise that Atzmon finds it amusing too.

But the key to Atzmon’s ‘thinking’ is his footnote 3 which counterposes the death marches, as the war ends, to the annihilation of the Jews. It is a bizarre argument. He thinks these two phenomenon are counterposed. Suffice to say that at least 2/3 of those forced to undergo these horrendous ordeals died. There is no contradiction between the forced marches and the annihilation of the Jews. One such march, from Budapest to Vienna, was aimed at providing labour for the Nazi war effort by digging trenches but most were either turned back or died en route. And where else could they go but Germany, given the fact that the Soviet Union had already entered the Greater Reich and its annexed Polish parts?

The reference to the ‘Zionist holocaust narrative’ is instructive. The extermination of European Jewry is a ‘narrative’ i.e. story, not a historical fact.

I have been informed that Atzmon is no longer a contributing editor at Mary Rizzo’s Palestinian Thinktank. If true, it means that even his closest political collaborators have now abandoned him as a hopeless case. Likewise his last anti-Semitic rant, Tribal Marxism for Dummies produced such an adverse reaction that it seems to have been deleted entirely from the PT site. It would seem that Atzmon has done an 'Indymedia' and packed his bags.

Indeed PT seems to be, and I haven't looked at it in any depth before the brick bats start coming, a much better site and indeed less reactionary with an article carrying the speech by Amira Hass of Ha'aretz, accepting the International Women's Media Foundation award for her fearless journalism.

It seems that Atzmon is destined to pass his days in the company of out and out holocaust deniers and anti-Semites like The Hon. Michelle Renouf. Still there is one small nugget of truth in Atzmon's latest diatribe. It is true - he is a Proper Zionist Jew!

Tony Greenstein

After all I am a Proper Zionist Jew
By Gilad Atzmon

I am a Holocaust survivor.

Yes, I am a survivor, for I have managed to survive all the scary accounts of the Holocaust: the one about the soap (1), the one about the lamp shades, the one about the camps, the mass shooting, the one about the gas (2) and the one about the death march (3). I just managed to survive them all.

In spite of all these fear inflicting stories, that were purposely installed in my soul since I opened my eyes for the first time, I have become a functional and even a successful human being. I somehow survived the horror against all odds. I even manage to love my neighbour. In spite of all these fearful, traumatic indoctrination I miraculously managed to master my cheering alto saxophone rather than the sobbing violin.

In fact, I have already decided that in case the Queen, or any other member of the Royal Family should ever consider to make me into a ‘Sir’ for my bebop achievements, or even for facing Zionist barbarism with my bare pen, I will immediately change my surname from Atzmon to Vive, just to become the first and only Sir Vive.

I am also totally against Holocaust denial

I clearly resent those who deny the genocides that are taking place in the name of the Holocaust. Palestine is one example, Iraq is another and the one that is set for Iran, is probably too scary to contemplate.

The Holocaust is a relatively new religion (4). It lacks mercy or compassion, instead it promises revenge through retribution. For its followers, it is somehow liberating because it allows them to punish whoever they like as long they gain some pleasure. This may explain why the Israelis ended up punishing the Palestinians for crimes that were committed by Europeans. It is rather clear that the newly emerging religion is not just about ‘eye for an eye’; it is actually an eye for thousands and thousands of eyes.

A month ago, while visiting in Auschwitz, Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak left a note in the official visitors book: ‘a strong Israel is both the comfort and the revenge’(5). No one could summarise the aspiration of the religion any better. The Holocaust religion doesn’t offer redemption. It is a crude violent manifestation of sheer collective brutality. It cannot resolve anything, for aggression can only lead to more and more aggression. In the Holocaust religion there is neither room for peace or grace. Take it from Barak, revenge is where they find comfort.

To deny the danger posed by the Holocaust religion and its followers is to be complicit in a growing crime against humanity and against every possible human value.

I am also in total support of the Jewish National Project

Some believe that after 2000 years of ‘phantasmic Diaspora’ Jews are indeed entitled to an imaginary ‘national home land of their own’. The Zionists apparently meant it sincerely. The Jewish state is now realistic enough to have turned the entire Middle East into a ticking bomb.

Reviewing the Israeli record of crimes against humanity in the last six decades doesn’t leave much room for speculation. We are dealing here with a pathological sinister society. Hence, as much as some of us may agree that Jews should enjoy a hypothetical right for a land of their own, planet Earth is certainly not the ideal location for such an affair.

Hence, I would urge NASA to join in and to make a special effort to find a suitable alternative planet for the Zionist homeland in outer space or even in another galaxy. The Galactic Zionist project would signify the immediate move from ‘promised land’ to ‘promised planet’. I would enthusiastically stress that rather than searching for ‘a land with no people for a people with no land’, what we really want is a ‘lonely planet’. It can even be a ‘desert’ for they claim to know how to make the desert bloom. In a planet of their own the galactic Zionists wouldn’t need to oppress anyone, they wouldn’t ethnically cleanse either, they wouldn’t have to lock the indigenous people in concentration camps, for there won’t be any indigenous people around to abuse, starve, murder and cleanse. They wouldn’t have to pour white phosphorous over their neighbours for there won’t be any neighbours. I would highly recommend NASA to search for a planet with very low gravity just to make it light for people to wander around. After all, we want the new galactic Zionists to enjoy their futuristic project as much as the Palestinians and many others may enjoy their absence.

So here I am, a proper Jew after all: I am a survivor, I oppose Holocaust denial, I support the Jewish national aspiration. Even the chief Rabbi of Britain cannot ask for more than that.

(1) Acknowledged recently to be a ‘myth’ by the Israeli holocaust museum Yad Vashem

(2) A historical fact protected by European Law.

(3) A slightly confusing narrative. If the Nazis were interested in annihilating the entire European Jewish population as suggested by the orthodox Zionist holocaust narrative, then it is rather ambiguous as to just what led them to march what was left of European Jewry, into their crumbling Nazi fatherland at a time when it was clear that they were losing the war. The two narratives i.e. ‘annihilation’ and ‘death march’, seem to oppose each other. The issue deserves further elaboration. I would just suggest that the reasonable answers I have come across may severely damage the Zionist holocaust narrative.

(4) The Israeli Philosophy professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz was probably the first to define the holocaust as the ‘new Jewish religion’.

(5) www.ynetnews.com

It's Oil Stupid as The Truth Comes Out - 1 Million Dead Later

Remember all the crap about 'democracy' the 'wicked Saddam' etc. etc.

We on the left who pointed to minor matters like oil were dismissed as cynics. Didn't we understand a higher purpose when we saw one?

Fools like Christopher Hitchens, the ex-leftist neo-con Vanity Fair contributer, became one of the chorus of apologists for Bush's invasion. I can remember tackling him on this at a meeting at London University in 2006. He was unrepentant and saw Bush as sincere on 'democracy'.

The last time I saw him he was volunteering to undergo waterboarding, the CIA torture technique that they took from the Spanish Inquisition. He testified as to the impossibility of withstanding it but one doubts he has learnt any real lessons.

After all the prevarications and excuses, it would seem that it was Oil Stupid

Tony Greenstein

Eager to Tap Iraq's Vast Oil Reserves, Industry Execs Suggested Invasion

Truth Out, Friday 03 July 2009
by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

Two years before the invasion of Iraq, reports suggested invading to end Saddam Hussein's control of the oil.

Two years before the invasion of Iraq, oil executives and foreign policy advisers told the Bush administration that the United States would remain "a prisoner of its energy dilemma" as long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

That April 2001 report, "Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," was prepared by the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy and the US Council on Foreign Relations at the request of then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

In retrospect, it appears that the report helped focus administration thinking on why it made geopolitical sense to oust Hussein, whose country sat on the world's second largest oil reserves.

"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East," the report said.

"Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments."

The advisory committee that helped prepare the report included Luis Giusti, a Shell Corp. non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of British Petroleum; and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco.

James Baker, the namesake for the public policy institute, was a prominent oil industry lawyer who also served as secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush, and was counsel to the Bush/Cheney campaign during the Florida recount in 2000.

Ken Lay, then-chairman of the energy trading Enron Corp., also made recommendations that were included in the Baker report.

At the time of the report, Cheney was leading an energy task force made up of powerful industry executives who assisted him in drafting a comprehensive "National Energy Policy" for President George W. Bush.

A Focus on Oil

It was believed then that Cheney's secretive task force was focusing on ways to reduce environmental regulations and fend off the Kyoto protocol on global warming.

But Bush's first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, later described a White House interest in invading Iraq and controlling its vast oil reserves, dating back to the first days of the Bush presidency.

In Ron Suskind's 2004 book, "The Price of Loyalty," O'Neill said an invasion of Iraq was on the agenda at the first National Security Council. There was even a map for a post-war occupation, marking out how Iraq's oil fields would be carved up.

Even at that early date, the message from Bush was "find a way to do this," according to O'Neill, a critic of the Iraq invasion who was forced out of his job in December 2002.

The New Yorker's Jane Mayer later made another discovery: a secret NSC document dated February 3, 2001 - only two weeks after Bush took office - instructing NSC officials to cooperate with Cheney's task force, which was "melding" two previously unrelated areas of policy: "the review of operational policies towards rogue states" and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." [The New Yorker, February 16, 2004]

By March 2001, Cheney's task force had prepared a set of documents with a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a list titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," according to information released in July 2003 under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

A Commerce Department spokesman issued a brief statement when those documents were released stating that Cheney's energy task force "evaluated regions of the world that are vital to global energy supply."

There has long been speculation that a key reason why Cheney fought so hard to keep his task force documents secret was that they may have included information about the administration's plans toward Iraq.

"Conspiracy Theory"

However, both before and after the invasion, much of the US political press treated the notion that oil was a motive for invading Iraq in March 2003 as a laughable conspiracy theory.

Generally, business news outlets were much more frank about the real-politick importance of Iraq's oil fields.

For instance, Ray Rodon, a former executive at Halliburton, the oil-service giant that Cheney once headed, said he was dispatched to Iraq in October 2002 to assess the country's oil infrastructure and map out plans for operating Iraq's oil industry, according to an April 14, 2003 story in Fortune magazine.

"From behind the obsidian mirrors of his wraparound sunglasses, Ray Rodon surveys the vast desert landscape of southern Iraq's Rumailah oilfield," Fortune's story said. "A project manager with Halliburton's engineering and construction division, Kellogg Brown & Root, Rodon has spent months preparing for the daunting task of repairing Iraq's oil industry.

Working first at headquarters in Houston and then out of a hotel room in Kuwait City, he has studied the intricacies of the Iraqi national oil company, even reviewing the firm's organizational charts so that Halliburton and the Army can ascertain which Iraqis are reliable technocrats and which are Saddam loyalists."

At about the same time as Rodon's trip to Iraq - October 2002 - Oil and Gas International, an industry publication, reported that the State Department and the Pentagon had put together pre-war planning groups that focused heavily on protecting Iraq's oil infrastructure.

The next month, November 2002, the Department of Defense recommended that the Army Corps of Engineers award a contract to Kellogg, Brown & Root to extinguish Iraqi oil well fires.

The contract also called for

"assessing the condition of oil-related infrastructure; cleaning up oil spills or other environmental damage at oil facilities; engineering design and repair or reconstruction of damaged infrastructure; assisting in making facilities operational; distribution of petroleum products; and assisting the Iraqis in resuming Iraqi oil company operations."

In January 2003, as President Bush was presenting the looming war with Iraq as necessary to protect Americans, the Wall Street Journal reported that oil industry executives met with Cheney's staff to plan the post-war revival of Iraq's oil industry.

"Facing a possible war with Iraq, US oil companies are starting to prepare for the day when they may get a chance to work in one of the world's most oil-rich countries," the Journal reported on January 16, 2003.

"Executives of US oil companies are conferring with officials from the White House, the Department of Defense and the State Department to figure out how best to jump-start Iraq's oil industry following a war, industry officials say.

"The Bush administration is eager to secure Iraq's oil fields and rehabilitate them, industry officials say. They say Mr. Cheney's staff hosted an informational meeting with industry executives in October [2002], with ExxonMobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., ConocoPhillips and Halliburton among the companies represented.

"Both the Bush administration and the companies say such a meeting never took place. Since then, industry officials say, the Bush administration has sought input, formally and informally, from executives and industry experts on how best to overhaul Iraq's oil sector."

Guarding the Oil Ministry

Despite the Bush administration's denials about oil as a motivation for war, the Bush administration's focus on Iraqi oil was firmly set.

On April 5, 2003, Reuters reported that the State Department's "Future of Iraq" project headed by Thomas Warrick, special adviser to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, held its fourth meeting of the oil and energy-working group.

Documents obtained by Reuters showed that "a clear consensus among expert opinion favoring production-sharing agreements to attract the major oil companies."

"That is likely to thrill oil companies harboring hopes of lucrative contracts to develop Iraqi oil reserves," the news agency reported. "Short-term rehabilitation of southern Iraqi oil fields already is under way, with oil well fires being extinguished by US contractor Kellogg Brown and Root ...

"Long-term contracts are expected to see US companies ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips compete with Anglo-Dutch Shell, Britain's BP, TotalFinaElf of France, Russia's LUKOIL and Chinese state companies."

After US troops captured Baghdad in April 2003, they were ordered to protect the Oil Ministry even as looters ransacked priceless antiquities from Iraq's national museums and stole explosives from unguarded military arsenals.

Unacceptable Options

In April 2001, the report laid out a series of unacceptable options, including helping Iraq under Saddam Hussein extract more oil by easing embargoes that were meant to hem Hussein in.

"The US could consider reducing restrictions on oil investment inside Iraq," the report said. But if Hussein's "access to oil revenues was to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to U.S. allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction, sanctions, weapons regimes and the coalition against him are not strengthened."

Iraq is a "key swing producer turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest," the report said, adding that there was even a "possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time" in order to drive up prices.

"Under this scenario, the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma, suffering on a recurring basis from the negative consequences of sporadic energy shortages," the report said. "These consequences can include recession, social dislocation of the poorest Americans, and at the extremes, a need for military intervention."

The report recommended Cheney move swiftly to integrate energy and national security policy as a means to stop "manipulations of markets by any state" and suggested that his task force include "representation from the Department of Defense."

"Unless the United States assumes a leadership role in the formation of new rules of the game," the report said, "US firms, US consumers and the US government [will be left] in a weaker position."

Two years after the Baker report, the United States - along with Great Britain and other allies - invaded Iraq. Now, more than six years later, the US oil industry finally appears to be in a strong position relative to Iraq's oil riches.

However, the price that has been paid by American troops, Iraqi civilians and the US taxpayers has been enormous.

Ni'ilin - The Wall Falls Down!

The non-violent struggle of the people of Ni’ilin demonstrates the hypocrisy of the West in all its manifest absurdities. Leaders such as war-criminal Blair condemn ‘terrorism’ but fail to condemn the violence used against non-violent protestors against the Apartheid wall that is taking their land. In Ni’ilin demonstrators managed to actually topple part of the wall, but unlike the hypocrisy over the Berlin Wall, we have had nothing but silence. Notice how the hypocritical Merckel of the German state voted against the Goldstein Report in the UN General Assembly (Britain abstained). Tony Greenstein

Video: Nilin marking 20 years to the fall of the berlin wall by taking down the wall on their land

Demonstrators toppled 8 meters tall concrete wall in Ni'ilin
November 6, 2009

The protest in Nilin was held today to mark the 20th anniversary to the fall of the Berlin wall, which has been declared an international day of action against Israel's barrier.

The 300 demonstrators managed to topple a part of the eight meters tall concrete wall that cuts through the village's land. The concrete wall in Ni'ilin - five to eight meters (15 to 25 feet) in hight has only recently been laid on the path of the wall cutting through Ni'ilin's lands, in addition to the already existing electronic barrier and razor-wire.

Since the Wall was built to allow more land to annexed to the nearby settlements rather than in a militarily strategic manner, demonstrators have been able to repeatedly dismantle parts of the electronic fence and razor-wire surrounding it. The section of the Wall in Nilin is the only place along the route of the barrier where a concrete wall has been erected in an attempt to deal with the civic, unarmed campaign waged by the village in protest of the massive land theft that will enable the expansion of the illegal settlements of Modi'in Il'it and Hasmonaim.

Since Israel began its construction in the year 2002, This is the first time demonstrators succeed in toppling a part of Israel's barrier which is a concrete wall. One of the demonstrators, Moheeb Khawaja, said during the protest: "Twenty years ago no one had thought the monster that divided Berlin into two could be brought down, but in only two days in November, it did. Today we have proven that this can also be done here and now. It is our land beyond this wall, and we will not give up on it. We will win for a simple reason - justice is on our side."

Ethnic Cleansing in Jeruslam - Bosnia and the Warthgau Repeated

In Jerusalem, a process of ‘Judaisation’ [the Jewish equivalent of Aryanisation] has been going on for years. There are now approximately 200,000 settlers in East Jerusalem as Arabs are evicted on one or other bogus pretext. The ‘Jewish’ State and its need for a demographic majority dictate that Israel behaves as Serbia did in Bosnia, the British in Ireland and of course Nazi Germany in the annexed parts of Poland (the Warthgau), among other examples.

This is the reality of the ‘peace process’.

Tony Greenstein

Eighty eight Homes in Silwan Slated for Demolition as Hilary Clinton Declares Netanyahu's Restraint 'Unprecedented'

Yesterday and while politicians fret over terms like "slow-down" or "restraint" on illegal settlement activities, the Israeli authorities demolished more homes and evicted some 30 people in Jerusalem. One room that is part of a demolished building housed a handicapped women whom neighbors and friends had helped get modifications done to facilitate her life. Tonight we heard a rather depressing report from an organizer in AlBustan Neighborhood in Silwan (Occupied Jerusalem) where 88 homes (housing 1500 people, 60% of them children) are slated for demolition to create a "King David park". In a normal city, parks are created to serve the residents of the area not to ethnically cleanse them. While just nearby there are spaces for parks to build but Israel's plan for Jerusalem call for cleansing it of its Arab inhabitants so that there is nothing left to negotiate about and it becomes a Jewish city (capital of Israel forever).

"In a normal city, parks are created to serve the
residents of the area not to ethnically cleanse them"

The political plan for judaicizing this area is actually laid out in the "Jerusalem 2020" plan. After building two rings of settlements around Jerusalem (and now to be connected with light railways that make a network of "facts on the ground"), the plans for this closest ring of settlements, parks, synagogues, and museums is yet the most destructive to the local inhabitants. That Israel is violating International law (Geneva Conventions and UN Security Council resolutions) seems to be only met with muffled protests from the International community. We are told of a seven year old boy whose mother notices bulging backpack going to school and back, when opened, the bag contained his toys. When asked about it it turns out that the child had overheard his parents talking about the demolition order on their home and he wanted to make sure that if he comes back from school and finds his home demolished, his most valuable toys would be saved.

My heart breaks for these families. But I feel sad for the Zionist "believers" who are generating so much pain in a new generation of children suffering under this brutal colonizing state. How is reconciliation to be achieved when 7 million people were made refugees or displaced people so far (and more on the way). Doesn't International law support resistance to colonization? And is this resistance just the responsibility of the victims or also of all decent, thinking human beings regardless of their religion.

In other news, a Jewish American terrorist settler, Jack (aka Yaakov) Teitel who had been on a killing and destruction rampage against Palestinians for over 12 years (he had killed Isa Mahrama in 1997 and was released without any prison term) was arrested now by Israeli police because he is alleged to have planned to target leftist and gay Jews! Palestinian life and property continues to be cheap in this unholy Land.

Action for US citizens: Oppose the AIPAC initiated congressional resolution against the Goldstone report. Demand accountability and support for International law

http://www.capwiz.com/adc/issues/alert/?alertid=14280606

Lest we forget: Pictures from the Israeli war crimes in Gaza (Palestinian Center for Human Rights)

Israel's anti-Semitic friends

I reprint, without comment, an article I've just written for Electronic Intifada on how Europe's fascist parties, almost without exception, are now the best supporters of Israel!

Tony Greenstein


The Electronic Intifada, 3 November 2009

There can be few supporters of the Palestinians, still less anti-Zionists, who haven't, at some time or another, been accused of "anti-Semitism." Accusations that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism have become little more than a ritual exercise in defamation. The danger in making such accusations is, to quote the former Director of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research, Antony Lerman, that it "drains the word antisemitism of any useful meaning." Moreover, its purpose is to discourage criticism of Israel and support of the Palestinians or risk being labeled as anti-Semitic. As I wrote two years ago, "If you cry wolf long and loud enough, when anti-Semitism does raise its head no one will bat an eyelid."

The European political establishment, like its American counterpart, has taken to the idea that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are indistinguishable. According to the European Union's Working Definition, anti-Semitism includes: denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor), drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, and holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel. It is ironic that the EU's definition of anti-Semitism is itself anti-Semitic!

But the idea that "Jewish people" wherever they live, form a nation separate from the people they live amongst, because that is the meaning of self-determination, is itself an anti-Semitic concept. What is really being stated is that Jews form a race, not a nation.

Moreover, if drawing comparisons between Israeli policies and the Nazis is anti-Semitic, then the late Marek Edelman, the Commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, must have been an anti-Semite. In 2002, Edelman stated publicly that Palestinian resistance fighters in the second intifada were the inheritors of the Jewish Fighting Organization of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Similarly, since holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli state is indeed anti-Semitic, what then is one to make of the actions of the Board of Deputies of British Jews? On 9 January 2009 the Board of Deputies held a rally under the title "Community to Show Support for Israel at Trafalgar Square Rally."

Zionism held that Jews were strangers in other peoples' lands and that anti-Semitism was the natural, if not justifiable, reaction to an alien presence among them. It was but a short step from this to an acceptance that anti-Semitic characteristics and caricatures of Jews were essentially correct. Indeed, the conflation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism is yet another irony, as historically, it was non-Jewish support of Zionism that was seen by Jews as anti-Semitic. What anti-Semites and leading Zionists said about Jews were almost indistinguishable. As A.B. Yehoshua, one of Israel's foremost novelists, stated in a lecture to the Union of Jewish Students: "Even today, in a perverse way, a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist." And from Pinhas Felix Rosenbluth, a leading German Zionist, to Arthur Ruppin, head of the Jewish Agency, Zionists have not hesitated to employ anti-Semitic rhetoric to further their cause.

This is not so strange, because what one is talking about are in reality two entirely different forms of political philosophy with the same name -- anti-Semitism. Contrary to received opinion, there is nothing in common between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Certainly the Zionist movement has deliberately confused the two, but the former is a form of anti-racism whereas the latter is a form of racism. There can be no blurring at the edges or overlap. One is either an anti-Semite or an anti-Zionist. One cannot be both.

Therefore, it is not surprising that today, with the growth of far right and neo-fascist parties in Europe, that almost without exception they are pro-Israel. Thus, the very people who criticize anti-Zionists and Palestinian supporters as anti-Semitic are rushing to hold the hands of Zionism's far-right supporters.

For example Israeli Ambassador to the United Kingdom Ron Prossor was more than happy to share a platform at the Conservative Friends of Israel with Michal Kaminski of the Polish Justice and Freedom Party. Kaminski is notorious in Poland for openly opposing the call for an official apology for the 1941 massacre of hundreds of Jews in the Polish village of Jedwabne.

Last month, Israel's Ambassador to the European Union, Ran Curiel, paid the first visit by an ambassador to the Kaminski-chaired European Conservatives & Reform (ECR) Group in the European Parliament. As quoted in a 13 October news post on ECR's website, Curiel told the assembled audience that "'After years of "megaphone diplomacy" between Israel and Europe, an open dialogue is the best thing we can do now.'" Furthermore, "He highly appreciated the support of the ECR Group for the two-state solution to the 'peace process' which would fully ensure the security of the State of Israel and respect the border of national states."

Curiel's visit followed an earlier visit by Kaminski to Israel with the European Friends of Israel organization. It was Kaminski's first visit to a non-EU country as Chairman of the ECR. According to a 25 September post on the Conservative Friends of Israel's website, at a dinner held by the organization Kaminski explained that Israel was deliberately chosen as his first trip so that he could "'deliver the message that there is a group in the European Parliament that will be a true friend of Israel.'"

Similarly in the UK, Kaminski's Zionist allies rushed to his defense last month. As the Jewish Chronicle reported on 15 October, several members of the Jewish Leadership Council were outraged when Board of Deputies President Vivian Wineman wrote a letter to David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, questioning the Tory alliance with Kaminski and his far-right Justice and Freedom Party in the European Parliament. Andrew Gilbert, one of a number of deputies who believe the letter to Cameron ill-judged, stated that "'Nobody in the Jewish or political community did enough research either to say that Michal Kaminski or Roberts Zile have suspect views, which means we should shun them, or to clear them.'"

Nor is the Conservative party alone in embracing Israel's fascist allies. The British National Party is a growing party, with more than 50 local councilors and two members of the European Parliament. On 22 October 2009, its leader, Nick Griffin, appeared on the BBC's premier program Question Time, to a wave of protests. How did he explain away his anti-Semitism and support for holocaust denial? By explaining that though he might not be too fond of Jews, he was a strong supporter of Israel, stating that "there are Nazis in Britain and they loathe me because I have brought the BNP from being frankly an anti-Semitic and racist organization into being the only political party which in the clashes between Israel and Gaza stood full-square behind Israel's right to deal with Hamas terrorists."

As the Guardian reported in April 2008, Board of Deputies spokesperson Ruth Smeed let readers know that "The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web -- it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel...."

But Kaminski and Roberts Zile, of the Waffen-SS supporting Latvian Freedom and Fatherland Party, are not the exceptions. Dutch far-right anti-Islam politician and Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is another figure who combines virulent racism with Zionism. As reported in the Israeli daily Haaretz on 18 June, Wilders claimed that "Israel is only the first line of defense for the West. Now it's Israel but we are next. That's why beyond solidarity, it is in Europe's interest to stand by Israel."

Wilders is facing criminal charges for inciting hate by comparing the Quran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. After winning five seats in June parliamentary elections, Wilders's Party of Freedom is now the second largest political party in the country. Wilders has also found common cause with the right-wing openly racist political party of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Of Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, Wilders explained that "'Our parties may not be identical, but there are certainly more similarities than dissimilarities, and I am proud of that,'" (Haaretz, 18 June 2009). He added that "'Lieberman's an intelligent, strong and clever politician and I understand why his party grew in popularity.'"

Indeed, the only far-right party that I could find whose anti-Semitism is disguised as anti-Zionism is Jobbik, the Movement for a Better Hungary, a descendant of the pro-Nazi Nyilas. During World War II, Nyilas was responsible for the deaths of some 50,000 mainly Budapest Jews. Leaders of the party were executed by the Hungarian state after liberation. This is the party that the BNP, which "opposes anti-Semitism," is joined with in the European Parliament.

Therefore, when Israel's Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz claims that Judge Richard Goldstone is an "anti-Semite" and that it is possible for a Jew to be an anti-Semite, he is right: the history of Zionism is indeed full of such examples!

Palestinian Authority Torturers - British Police Sent to Retrain their Students

The following article hardly needs commenting on. The only question to ask is whether anyone can seriously suggest that the Palestinian Authority is anything other than the creature of Israel, an oppressor of Palestinians and the accomplices of Occupation? As we see, having created its mini-Frankenstein, the British State is now trying to save it from opprobrium.

Tony Greenstein


British police and intelligence officers sent to tackle UK-funded torturers on West Bank

By David Rose
25th October 2009

The Government is sending British police and intelligence officers to the West Bank to try to stop a wave of brutal torture by Palestinian security forces funded by UK taxpayers.

Their mission is to set up and train a new 'internal affairs' department with sweeping powers to investigate abuse and bring torturers to justice.

The department is being paid for by Britain, with an initial planning budget of £100,000 ­ a sum set to soar as it becomes established.

Haitham Arar, head of the Palestinian Authority interior ministry's human rights department, said:

'This is a shame on the Palestinian Authority. We are determined with the help of our British colleagues to instill respect for human rights as part of the security forces' daily behaviour and to teach them how to treat prisoners properly.'

She said planning for the new department was well advanced and it should be operational in four month's time.

Besides investigation, British detectives will train the Palestinian police and 'Preventive Security' forces in how to question suspects without torturing them.

The next step would be for officers from MI5 and MI6 to train the PA's Mukhabarat intelligence agency.

'Obviously police cannot train intelligence officers,' Ms Arar said. 'For that you need other intelligence officers. We need all the help we can get.'

Support for the new department follows the disclosure by The Mail on Sunday in January that Britain spends £20million a year funding the forces responsible for the abuse.

Most of their victims are accused of involvement with Hamas, the radical Islamist party that seized power through violence in the Gaza Strip in 2007. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is controlled by the rival Fatah party.

'A lot of people were talking in a bad way about the PA and saying they wanted the West Bank to be like Gaza,' Ms Arar said.

'There were people who had weapons and others who were money-laundering tosupport terrorism.'

'We had to bring these people to order. But there were violations because not all the security officers were aware of human rights standards. We need oversight over the security forces' actions.'

On the ground in the West Bank last week, however, it was clear that realising Ms Arar's aspirations is some way from fulfilment.

In the region's largest city, Nablus, Nasser al-Shaer, a former Manchester academic who was deputy prime minister in the short-lived Hamas Palestinian Authority government elected in 2006, said many of those released from detention in recent months were telling the same story ­ of torture, including beatings, being suspended from the ceiling and electric shocks.

Some of those who previously spoke to The Mail on Sunday had been arrested and tortured again, Dr al-Shaer added. 'I wish I could introduce you to them. But the fear has become too pervasive.'

One young man told in a whisper how he had been assaulted with a high-voltage device with electrodes 'like fingers'. Refusing to allow me to take notes, he said: 'I was inside for 12 months and released without charge, but if it gets out I have talked to a journalist, they will come for me again.'

However, Dr al-Shaer said that since the beginning of this month, he had heard no fresh reports of torture.

A spokeswoman at the British Consulate in Jerusalem, where aid to the PA is channelled, said UK police had already started the first courses for senior Palestinian officers, including aggressive questioning techniques that are nonetheless fully in accordance with international human rights standards.

To assist the internal affairs investigators, officers were being given a clear message ­ that they must be prepared to blow the whistle on colleagues if they witnessed abuse.

Ms Arar said that in the past week, 32 officers accused of abuse had been brought before Palestinian courts, and 15 recommended for prosecution. Two had been charged with torture.

Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told me: 'The situation is going to change. This is not only morally right, but a political imperative.'

Teitel's Only Mistake Was to Target a Leftist Jew

The article below in Haaretz puts its finger on another example of the murderous nature of Zionist racism. Terrorists of the Jewish variety are quite acceptable, after all there would be no Israeli State if there had been no Zionist terrorism.

Not only the present Israeli government led by Netanhayu traces its political ancestry to the Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists of the Mandate period, but the Opposition too, in the form of its leader Tsipi Livni, is also directly related to Irgun!

Labour Zionism, needless to say, has all but disappeared. Its sole remaining members are Shimon Peres, the hawkish protégé of David Ben-Gurion and of course Labour leader Ehud Barak. Recent opinion polls give Israeli Labour just 7 seats, down from its 12 in this Knesset and of course far below the 40+ seats it once got.

Teitel’s only mistake was to plant a bomb outside the house of left-Zionist Zeev Sterhnhell.

Interestingly, it appears that Teitel actually confessed in June 1997 to killing 2 Palestinians and was released! In 'From Dentist's Son to Jewish Terrorist' he admits he came to Israel to murder Palestinians. Despite this he was released and in 2003 was formally notified that the Police had dropped their investigation.

Teitel has said that in June 1997 he killed an Arab taxi driver and a Palestinian shepherd. Two months later, the Shin Bet security service arrested him; he said during his investigation that he came to Israel precisely to carry out attacks against Palestinians, in revenge for suicide bombings.

There was also another State in different times which, as a matter of course, never prosecuted those who attacked members of another group. In that case they were Jews and the name of the State of course is Nazi Germany and not only, of course Nazi Germany, but Czarist Russia among other places. Israel no doubt feels proud of such a legacy. Tony Greenstein

Would Israel arrest a Jewish terrorist with only Arab victims?

Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz – 2 Nov 2009

It’s reasonable to assume that if Yaakov (Jack) Teitel had focused only on attacking Palestinians, he would have encountered few problems with law-enforcement authorities. His big mistake, it seems, was targeting non-Arabs as well.

Experience – and statistics – show that Israeli law enforcement is remarkably lax when it comes to tackling violence against Palestinians. Twelve years ago, Teitel confessed to killing two Arabs and then took a break from such activity. Sure, he was detained for questioning after the murder of shepherd Issa Mahamra, but he was released due to insufficient evidence. As with many other cases of murder and violence committed against Palestinians, the story of the shepherd from Yatta and the taxi driver from East Jerusalem disappeared into oblivion – until Teitel returned and attempted to harm Jews, bringing the wrath of public opinion, the Shin Bet security service and the Israel Police down on his head.

The (justifiably) prevailing feeling among Palestinians in the West Bank is that their blood is of no consequence. It’s hard to find a Palestinian today who will make an effort to approach the Israeli police about a settler assault, unless Israeli human-rights groups help him. The way Palestinians in the territories see it, Israeli law is enforced only if Jews are harmed, while incidents in which Palestinians are murdered, beaten or otherwise wounded are treated cursorily at best – and more often, are ignored entirely.

For instance, at least six shooting attacks against Palestinians in 2001-2002 have remained unsolved. The most shocking incident took place in July 2001, when three members of the Tamaizi family were shot to death by a man in a skullcap, according to relatives. The gunman asked the driver of the vehicle to stop, as it drove from one end of the village of Idna to the other, after a family wedding. When it stopped, he opened fire. But it’s doubtful that Israelis remember that 3-month-old Dai Marwan Tamaizi, born after his parents underwent 14 years of fertility treatments, was killed that day – as were Mohammed Salameh Tamaizi, 27, an only child, and Mohammed Hilmi al-Tamaizi, 24, who was engaged to be married.

One relative recalled last night that to this day, the Israeli authorities have not bothered to update the family on the outcome of their investigation.

Investigations by Palestinian-rights advocacy group Yesh Din has found that 90 percent of police investigations of cases in which Israelis are suspected of committing offenses against Palestinians in the West Bank are left unsolved and are closed. In a 2006 case, four settlers were suspected of beating an elderly Palestinian man with a rifle, leaving him unconscious for three weeks – but police didn’t check the alibis of two of the suspects, and a third wasn’t even questioned.

There are many more such incidents that indicate that the impression of Palestinians in the West Bank is rooted in reality. Maybe it’s Arab terrorists simply interest the law-enforcement authorities more than Jewish terrorists. See also:
Israel in Shock Over Arrest of Jewish Extremist - U.S. Settler Accused of Murder and Hate Crimes

The Peace Process and its Quisling Partners

It is with a sense of frustration that one watches the latest instalment of the ‘peace process’ being played out. Preconditions for the negotiations, such as the freezing of settlements, have been abandoned. Another precondition from Israel's Foreign Minister Lieberman, is the abandonment of the Goldstone Report, which the Palestinian Authority did their best to scuttle.

Indeed if Zionism wished to create the ideal ‘partner’ of its dream it could not do better than the Abbas Junta in Ramallah. But the reality is that Abbas was the handpicked partner of Israel. Following Sharon’s declaration that there is ‘no partner for peace’ Yassir Arafat was almost certainly poisoned and Abbas foisted on the Palestinians, with Marwan Barghouti conveniently locked away in an Israeli prison.

Painful though it is, facts have to be faced. Abbas, Dahlan and the rest of the corrupt cronies that constitute the PA, are the Palestinian face of Israel’s occupation. There is no peace process because there can be no peace process when Israel negotiates effectively with itself. That is the truth that Palestinian Solidarity activists have to imbibe. It is a lesson that the Palestinians, of both the West Bank and Gaza are having to learn.

The ‘economic peace’ of Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, is nothing more than the mirror image of Netanyahu’s belief that political sovereignty is irrelevant.

Serious criticisms do have to be made of Hamas, not least on account of the sectarianisation of the conflict within Palestine. In addition to the total lack of a social programme. This has resulted in the almost complete lack of a resistance on the West Bank. Because one thing is certain. Just as the Jewish fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto understood that the first obstacle they had to eliminate was the Judenrat, Jewish Council, so the same is true for the Palestinians today.

And for all his undoubted talents and charisma, Marwan Barghouti comes from the same Fatah stable and indeed, when he formed a breakaway party, al-Mustaqbal ("The Future"), from Fatah, who was on its list? Abbas's security henchmen Mohammed Dahlan! The real tragedy in all of this is the decline of the Palestinian left, in particular the Popular and Democratic Fronts for the Liberation of Palestine.

Below is an interesting article by Akiva Eldar in Haaretz of 3rd November 2009. Even Zionists are left in amazement at just how willing and eager, is the Abbas Junta to make further concessions when prodded.

Below are links to articles on the blog in relation to Abbas and the PA, including one by Ali Abunimah that Britain's Palestine Solidarity Campaign has chosen to ignore.

Tony Greenstein

http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/10/abbas-oslo-and-haavarah-transfer.html
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/10/petition-to-quisling-its-time-to-go.html
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/10/goldstone-report-withdrawal-abbas.html
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/10/pa-is-palestinian-judenrat.html
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10807.shtml

It's not peace, Madam Secretary

By Akiva Eldar

All of a sudden, after 10 months and who knows how many meetings, freezing construction in the settlements is no longer a precondition for negotiations. True, until now the Palestinians were willing to negotiate the end of the occupation while their partner made it worse. That is how we have gone from 109,000 settlers - not including East Jerusalem - when the Oslo Accords were signed 16 years ago to more than 300,000 today. Until when, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, will they have to remain suckers? True, all U.S. presidents since then, including Hillary Clinton's husband, treated the settlements just like the weather: an interesting topic for conversation, but impossible to change. But Barack Obama has promised a change, not more of the same.

Peace initiatives have always come without preconditions, and certainly without the precondition of a complete end to violence between the two warring parties. That is supposed to be the result of the diplomatic process, particularly in the case of negotiations between the occupier and occupied. But Netanyahu established an iron rule during his first term as prime minister: "If they give, they'll get - if they don't give, they won't get." In other words, no negotiations as long as there is violence. Netanyahu was proud of his differences with Yitzhak Rabin: He would not conduct the peace process as if there was no terror, and he would fight terror as if there was no peace process.

And how are we to explain Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's renewed demand to make the renewal of talks contingent on the Palestinians' withdrawal of their initiative on the Goldstone report? Isn't that a precondition? And how are we to define the Quartet's conditions for recognition of the Hamas government: an end to violence, recognition of Israel and honoring previous agreements? Are these also not preconditions?

The road map, which received the official stamp of the UN Security Council six years ago, established two preconditions: the end of violence on one side and the freezing of construction in the settlements on the other - including that required for natural growth. The decision also states that Israel must evacuate all illegal outposts put up since the beginning of Ariel Sharon's term as prime minister. That section is included in the first stage of the road map, which is two stages and a number of months before negotiations on a permanent agreement can be renewed.

U.S. generals, and even Israeli ones, have confirmed that the Palestinians have fulfilled the precondition set for them. It's hard to find anyone who will say this about the Israelis. If, God forbid, buses were to start blowing up in Jerusalem again, Netanyahu would not be seen near any Palestinian leader. He wrote in his book that it is forbidden under any circumstances to negotiate with terrorists. But to build during negotiations on land that the entire world claims is not yours - that's something else. The main thing is that Netanyahu promised in his Bar-Ilan speech that he supports two states for two peoples. Even Hillary Clinton said this was wonderful.

Since March 2002, an Arab peace initiative that makes normalization contingent on the end of the occupation has been waiting for Israel. Obama has pleaded with friendly Arab leaders to grant Israel an advance on future concessions to prepare the goundwork for the peace process. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and a few Gulf leaders agreed to launch initial steps of reconciliation. But even they, like Obama, had a precondition: freezing settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They did not ask for anything more than what Clinton announced a few months ago: a complete cessation without natural growth, without illegal outposts and without excuses.

The Palestinian public learned on Saturday that even the darkest hope of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his comrades has gone the way of all his predecessors. Why should Hamas stick its head into a government that isn't even capable of getting the Americans to pressure Israel to freeze the settlements for a few months? All they have to do is wait until election day in the territories when Netanyahu will hand over hundreds of prisoners in return for captured soldier Gilad Shalit. The important thing is that there will be no preconditions.

If Hamas lacked a reason to reject the initiative for reconciliation with Fatah and wait patiently for another round of the "peace process" to go the way of its predecessors, and have the West Bank return to its bosom, then Mrs. Clinton supplied just such a reason, in a big way.

This is what an Israeli-Apartheid stamp looks like

And so we see the beginings of the Palestinian Bantustans (or more accurately Reservations) being created - with the support of Abbas and his collaborators.

Tony Greenstein

“Palestinian Authority Only”: New Israeli Stamp Limits Travel For Tourists

Toufic Haddad

This is an image of a page from a French passport, whose owner recently went through the Allenby Bridge border crossing between Jordan and the Israeli occupied West Bank. It shows an Israeli-issued stamp that provides the passport owner with a three-month tourism visa. What makes this stamp unique however is that the Israeli border agents who issued it appear to have come up with a new criteria regarding the freedom of movement of its holder.
The presence of “Palestinian Authority only” on the stamp is what makes it unique.

Previous Israeli-issued tourism visas do not restrict the freedom of movement of tourists who are allowed passage into the country, and who originate from countries which Israel has diplomatic relations and reciprocal arrangements regarding travel. That meaning, as long as someone was allowed into the country, they were able to travel freely whether they chose to visit the Israeli city of Tel Aviv, or the Palestinian city of Nablus in the occupied West Bank.
“Palestinian Authority only” greatly restricts this freedom of movement, and thus undoes the former arrangement. It essentially precludes travel to areas of pre-1967 Israel, as well as to Israeli controlled areas in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Israel exercises full control over 59 percent of the West Bank - areas known as “Area C.”
It further exercises security control over an additional 24 percent of the West Bank (Area B) with the Palestinian Authority [PA] in control of civil affairs there.

The only area which the PA nominally controls in full, and which a holder of this stamp is thus presumably eligible to travel to, is Area A. The latter comprises the remaining 17 percent of the West Bank.

Area A however is not composed of one territorial unit, but is divided into thirteen non-contiguous areas. Furthermore, the Israeli army routinely invades Area so as to arrest Palestinians, making a mockery of Palestinian control there.

The fragmentation of PA jurisdiction in the West Bank has invited comparisons to the Bantustans of Apartheid South Africa. Bantustans were false states set up by the white apartheid regime as a means to enforce the segregationist nature of apartheid, controlling the primarily black population, while disenfranchising them particularly with regards to expropriating their land and resources.

In a recent speech, John Dugard, the former UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, made the comparison directly. Dugard, who is South African and a professor of international law noted:

“Are there Bantustans in the West Bank? And I think the answer to this question is yes. We do see territorial fragmentation of the kind that the South African government promoted in terms of its Bantustan policy. We see, first of all, a very clear separation being made between the West Bank and Gaza. But within the West Bank itself, we see a separation to essentially three or more territories and some additional enclaves with a center, north and south. And it’s quite clear that the Israeli government would like to see the Palestinian Authority as a kind of Bantustan puppet regime.”

Israel’s travel restrictions to PA areas are somewhat contradictory. Visitors can seemingly travel to Area A but must do so by crossing Israeli controlled areas (Area C). This means that visitors have the right to hop between different Area A ‘islands’, but can’t be caught in between.

Moreover, the very restriction on travel is equivalent to a country issuing a visa to a specific area of its country, but not to the whole country. A parallel might be the U.S. issuing a visa only to majority-black Harlem in Manhattan, or the Mashantucket Pequot reservation in Connecticut.

This happens to violate the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement (also known as “Oslo II” or “Taba”) which states that “Tourists to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip from countries having diplomatic relations with Israel, who have passed through an international crossing, will not be required to pass any additional entry control before entry into Israel.” (Annex 1, Article IX “Movement Into, Within and Outside the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” 2 (e))

As far as I am aware, this stamp has begun to be issued within the last month, and no Palestinian or international body, official or grassroots, has identified or spoken publicly of the phenomenon, whose scope is also not known.

The stamp has also been issued to at least one American citizen, as the below image taken from a U.S. passport attests.

In this case, the visitor was only issued a one-week visa to PA areas, affirming that Israel also has the power to determine not only the areas visitors go to, but also the time period they spend there.

Though it is not clear why Israel decided to issue this new kind of visa, certain things can be discerned by assessing Israel’s overall policies towards Palestinians, as well as towards those who seek to visit the areas in which they live.

Israel wishes to strictly regulate travel of visitors who come to the country, especially those curious to see the West Bank. Though it is likely to justify its regulation to PA areas only, under security pretexts, this doesn’t really stand up because in order to get to a PA area, you would need to travel through an Israeli controlled area. Even if this visa ensures that Israeli security cannot be breached in pre-1967 Israel, there is nothing preventing the breaching of security in Israeli controlled areas of the West Bank, including areas of Israeli settlements, and settlement by-pass roads, which Jewish settlers and the Israeli occupation army use.

A more likely justification can be found elsewhere. Israel is issuing a visa for a jurisdictional area (the “Palestinian Authority areas”), that the nominal jurisdictional power (the Palestinian Authority) does not control or issue itself. It would seem logical that the Palestinian Authority issues visas for its areas itself. But the PA does not have that power, and Israel is taking the initiative to do so on its behalf, but without PA consent.

The repercussions of this are multifold. “Palestinian Authority areas” become ‘hardened’ as a territorial and jurisdictional unit, when previously these areas were only intended to be temporary areas of jurisdiction, that would eventually form the basis of a future Palestinian state, to be negotiated between Israel and the PLO. Hence, without the need to negotiate the latter, and to gain agreement from the PA for the actual borders of its state-to-be, (and all that entails with regards to sovereignty), Israel is de facto transforming and elevating a pre-existent jurisdictional arrangement, into a de facto border between itself and the areas the Palestinian Authority “controls.” In sum, Israel appears to be issuing a visa for a Bantustan-like state, that is yet to be declared officially, but which de facto is being created by such bureaucratic measures.

Rattling the Cage: Some victims we are

The Israeli Sense of Victimhood

An excellent article, in of all places the Jerusalem Post, on how the aggressor sees itself as the victim. This was, of course, common to all colonial and settler-colonial regimes. The British talked about a 'white man's burden' as if the Empire was an exercise in good will and generosity. The South African settlers likewise could see nothing but martyrdom in their benevolence.

Even the worst oppressor sees his or her actions in the light of an ideological justification of oppression. Only a small minority of the colonisers ever come to a realisation of their true role.

Tony Greenstein


Rattling the Cage: Some victims we are
Larry Derfner

The kill ratio was 100-to-1 in our favor. The destruction ratio was much, much greater than that. To this day, thousands of Gazans are living in tents because we won't let them import cement to rebuild the homes we destroyed. We turned the Gaza Strip into a disaster area, a humanitarian case, and we're keeping it that way with our blockade.

Meanwhile, here on the Israeli side of the border, it's hard to remember when life was so safe and secure.

So let's decide: Who was the victim of Operation Cast Lead, them or us?

No question - us. We Israelis were the victims and we still are. In fact, our victimhood is getting worse by the day. The Goldstone report was the real war crime. The Goldstone report, the UN debates, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, B'Tselem, the traitorous soldiers of Breaking the Silence and the Rabin Academy - those were the true crimes against humanity. This is what's meant by "war is hell."

It is we who've been going through hell from the war in Gaza. It is we who've been suffering.

Gazans? Suffering? What's everybody talking about?

We let them eat, don't we?

This imaginary monologue is how we actually see ourselves today. We initiated the war in Gaza, we waged one of the most one-sided military campaigns anyone's ever seen - and we're the victims.

We're fighting off the world with the Holocaust; witness Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the UN with his Auschwitz props. "We won't go like lambs to the slaughter again," vowed his protégé, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, in a cabinet discussion of the Goldstone report.

Auschwitz, lambs to the slaughter, Operation Cast Lead. To Israelis today, it's all of a piece, it's one story, one unbroken legacy of righteous victimhood.

The truth is that the State of Israel has never been a victim, and our likening of ourselves to the 6 million has been embarrassing from the beginning - but now? After what we did in Gaza? With the stranglehold we have on that society, while we over here live free and easy?

Victims? Lambs to the slaughter? Us?

No, this has gone beyond embarrassing; this is out-and-out shameful.

And, despite our excuses, it's not that we're "traumatized" by the past into believing that we're still weak, still the frightened, powerless Jews about to be led to the gas chambers. Many Holocaust survivors still believe this, and to some very limited extent, this vestigial fear still takes up space in the Israeli mind.

But by now, 64 years after the Holocaust, 42 years after seeing in the Six Day War how strong we'd become, we know, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, that we aren't the victims anymore. We know we aren't a continuation of the 6 million but rather a deliberate and stark departure from them.

THE REASON we tell ourselves and the world that we are victims is because we know, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, that victimhood is power. Victimhood is freedom. A victim can't be told to restrain himself. A victim fighting for survival can't be accused of abusing his power because, after all, his back is to the wall, he's desperate.

On the facts, it's very hard to convince ourselves, let alone the world, that Gaza and its Kassams have pushed Fortress Israel's back to the wall, that we're desperate, that we're struggling to survive. So, to convince ourselves and the world that this really is so, we do two things.

One, we refuse to acknowledge any facts that mar this image of ourselves as victims, and instead go over and over and over only the facts that fit the picture.

We talk only about the thousands of Kassams fired at Sderot; we never mention the thousands of Gazans we killed at the same time.

We talk only about Gilad Schalit; we never mention the 8,000 Palestinian prisoners we're holding.

And we never mention our ongoing blockade of Gaza or the devastation it does to those people.

The second thing we do to convince ourselves and the world that we're still victims is to never, ever, ever let go of the Holocaust - because that's when we really were victims. Victims like nobody's ever known, victims a million times worse than the Gazans.

Auschwitz, lambs to the slaughter. Remember us, the people of the Holocaust? That wasn't the Middle East's superpower you saw fighting in Gaza.

That was the 6 million.

So you can't blame us. We're immune from your criticism. We're the biggest victims the world has ever known. We're desperate, so don't tell us about kill ratios and disproportionate use of force and collective punishment. We're fighting for our survival.

This is what we tell ourselves and the world, and, in the face of what we did and are still doing in Gaza, it has become intolerable. We are not the 6 million. The 6 million were powerless Jews three generations ago; we cannot wrap our abuses of power in their tragedy.

Instead, let's take a good, hard look at what we did and what we're doing in Gaza. Then let's take a good, hard look in the mirror. And then let's admit who's the true victim here and now, and, more importantly, who isn't.

Sussex University Students Vote to Boycott Israeli Goods

In a referendum on Thursday, Sussex students voted by 560 to 460 votes to Boycott Israeli Goods.

The Zionists were active on the campus and their stunts included erecting a bridge on the main square! It was meant to symbolise a bridge to peace, whereas it was more a lifeline to the occupation authorities!

Sussex University has historically been a university which has been pro-Palestinian. In 1982, in the wake of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon I spoke at a Union General Meeting. Having tried to ban me without success (led by their Treasurer, Geoff Samuel, who was later subject uniquely of a no confidence motion by students!) the Zionist speaker was from ‘Peace Now’ whose purpose was to suggest that Israel was a ‘democratic’ country because it had set up an Inquiry into the Sabra and Chatilla massacres which had laid the blame at Ariel Sharon, then Defence Minister’s door. He later became Prime Minister instead!

The UGM went on to pass, by a 2/3 majority, a motion calling for a Democratic, Secular State in Palestine and the Right of Return. Having failed to prevent a Jewish anti-Zionist speaking, Samuel later claimed that Jewish students ‘felt intimidated’!

What is remarkable about the decision of Sussex students is that it wasn’t taken in a small meeting of the union but in a cross-campus ballot which usually favours the right-wing. In this instance it merely confirmed the repugnance of Sussex students for Apartheid – Zionist style.

Earlier this year, Sussex Students occupied a lecture theatre on campus in protest at the invasion of Gaza.

Sussex Students’ Union has become the first in the UK to boycott Israeli goods,

Friends of Freedom & Justice - Bilin - Welcome the Sussex Vote

FOLLOWING a landmark referendum, students at Sussex University have voted to boycott Israeli goods. The decision will become part of the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, which calls upon Israel to respect international law and end the occupation of Palestine.

The referendum received messages of support and thanks from Jewish and Israeli academics and non-governmental organizations that oppose Israel’s policy of occupation in Palestine. Author and scholar Norman G. Finkelstein described the referendum result as ‘a victory, not for Palestinians but for truth and justice’.

Iyad Burnat- Head of Popular Commitee and-co-founder of Friends of Freedom and Justice Bil`in -Palestine:

'The committee really appreciates Sussex Students` Union remarkable idea of starting a boycott on Israeli goods. We hope even more people all around the world will follow their example so that we can put an end to the Israeli occupation and dismantle the apartheid wall.'

Any questions or requests please contact Martha Baker on 07595 700717 or Bushra Khalidi on 07964 923753----or bel3in@yahoo.comThank you for you continued support,

Iyad Burnat - Head of Popular Commitee in Bilinco-founder of Friends of Freedom and Justice - BilinEmail- bel3in@yahoo.comMobile- (00972) (0) 547847942Office- (00972) (2) 2489129Mobile- (00972) (0) 598403676

www.bilin-ffj.orggm