Archive | September 4th, 2010

HATS OFF TO IRELAND, SHOES OFF BLAIR

NOVANEWS

September 04, 2010

Great news from Ireland. According to The Guardian Blair thought that the Irish would love him so much for the fact that he put the finishing touches to a peace process in Ireland that was initiated by his Tory predecessor, John Major, that he wouldn’t get the rough ride he can expect in the UK when he flogs his stupid book.

Violence has broken out at the first public signing for Tony Blair’s memoirs, with anti-war protesters hurling shoes and eggs at the former prime minister.The projectiles did not hit Blair as he arrived at a bookshop in Dublin, Ireland, to be greeted by scores of demonstrators chanting that he was a “war criminal” and had “blood on his hands” because of the invasion of Iraq.Irish police blocked off streets around the Eason store on O’Connell Street following the clashes with activists who tried to push down a security barrier.

The demonstrators also shouted: “Hey hey Tony hey, how many kids have you killed today?”

The city tram service was suspended and shops in the surrounding area also closed.

Buyers at the signing had to hand over bags and mobile phones before entering the store. Undercover detectives mingled with the crowds taking names before Blair arrived at the shop at about 10.30am.

Hmm, “projectiles did not hit Blair”? I used to support the aims and objectives of the anti-war movement but maybe the aim needs a bit more work.Many thanks to Sarah in the comments.

Posted by Levi9909  Labels: ,

September 03, 2010

Massive Attack on ‘Israel

This is good news from the New Statesman. It could be better because the Massive Attack in the headline isn’t retaliation for Gaza or over 60 years of ethnic cleansing but the solidarity of a very prominent, massive even, musical duo with the Palestinian cause.

The movement for a cultural boycott of Israel in response to its treatment of the Palestinians, modelled on the boycott of apartheid South Africa, could eclipse decades of disingenuous political charades in engaging western intellectuals, academics and artists. Internationally renowned figures such as Naomi Klein and Ken Loach have supported the call, and now one of Britain’s most successful bands, Massive Attack, is publicly backing the boycott.

“I’ve always felt that it’s the only way forward,” Robert Del Naja, the band’s lead singer, tells me when we meet at the Lazarides gallery in Fitzrovia, London. Del Naja is an artist as well as musician and his face and fingers are speckled with paint. Dozens of his pictures are strewn all over the wooden floorboards, drying. “It’s a system that’s been applied to many countries. It’s a good thing to aim for because it applies the continual pressure that’s needed.”
Musicians have a history of rallying the public to supporting political causes. The global anti-apartheid movement got the fillip it desperately needed when musicians began supporting it. The single “Sun City” by Artists United Against Apartheid in 1985 and the 70th-birthday tribute concert for Nelson Mandela at Wembley in 1988 catapulted the cause into millions of ordinary homes.

Could that happen with the Palestinian cause some time soon? They’ll never get a Palestine solidarity show on to mainstream television any time soon but then the internet does kill Israeli PR.

Posted by Levi9909  Labels: , ,

ZioNazi SS

I’ve said before that I don’t like the expression “zionazi”. Zionism’s bad enough without tacking things onto it. A friend of mine sent me this picture which was in the window of a gallery in Shoreditch in east London.

There I was in a pub, coincidentally not far from Shoreditch, when the picture arrived as a text message. I asked the friend about the picture and she didn’t know anything about it except it costs £2,000 so she didn’t enquire further.

I don’t know what to make of the picture really. See the financial allusions? Dollars, even New Israeli Shekels. You see? Just below the SS in the middle are the two $ signs. And to the left of the dollar signs, NIS. No GBP, no £, except on the price tag. But at two grand, I’m guessing the artist is no beginner. Who is it? I wonder.

Posted by Levi9909

September 02, 2010

Blair in Jerusalem

To paraphrase Hannah Arendt, though I’m guessing that Eichmann was more honest in Jerusalem than Blair was in either Palestine or his stupid book. (Nope, I haven’t read it. I mentioned before that I use the word “stupid” as a substitute for the f-word).

Blair was in occupied Palestine just recently promoting zionist victory over the natives and neighbours of that country. And he was in America after that to promote his stupid book, presumably because no UK bookshop dared have him given the protests that would ensue.The Jewish Chronicle in the UK reported that whilst in Palestine

Former British prime minster Tony Blair nailed his colours firmly to the mast of Israel and democracy [!!!] this week in a stunning address to press, politicians and diplomats in Herzliya.

Speaking in his capacity as official envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East, Mr Blair challenged critics of Israel not to apply double standards to the Jewish state.

Unbelievable, stunning even. This was days before the publication of his book in which he claims he has cried for the dead in Iraq. Isn’t that a double standard? Israel couldn’t hope to get away with its persistent war crimes in and around Palestine if it wasn’t for the double standards it benefits from. And Blair is the “official envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East”. I’m guessing it was a freudian slip that had the JC omitting final insult, peace, from Blair’s latest job title.

Oh, on the crying over Iraq thing, did I mention I had a letter published in today’s Guardian? Someone in The Guardian claimed that Blair had “admitted” to crying over Iraq. Here’s my response: 

I am always suspicious when journalists write of admissions rather than claims by politicians. So it is with Nicholas Watt writing that Blair “admits to shedding many tears at the loss of so many lives” in Iraq. If Blair was making a claim that diminished rather than enhanced his reputation, then to say he had “admitted” to something would be appropriate. But if he is making a claim that humanises himself, in spite of all that we now know, then to say he has “admitted” to anything is to participate in his self-exculpation.

Mark Elf  Dagenham, Essex 

Ooh! “Self-exculpation”. Well the spell-checker never chucked it out so I ran with it.

There’s an awful lot of tosh in The Independent about Blair too, but they didn’t publish my letter. They did publish several others in response to a wretched piece of nonsense by Blair biographer, John Rentoul. The piece is sub-titled,

Nothing he can say in his book today will stop the flow; the anger against him exists at a deeper level, impervious to reasoned argument, certainly from him

The problem that Blair is a transparent self-seeking bare-faced liar clearly hasn’t occurred to Mr Rentoul or it has and he is of the same ilk. None of the letters agree with Rentoul so I’m dreading tomorrow when “balance” might kick in.

Posted in Politics1 Comment

OPERATION NEW DAWN: SAME WAR DIFFERENT NAME

NOVANEWS

September 4, 2010 

by Robert L. Hanafin

In the week or so since the much publicized [mainstream media spin] withdrawal of “combat” troops from Iraq, and President Obama’s speech last week, it has become more evident that the Iraq War continues under a new name: “Operation New Dawn.”

ROBERT L. HANAFIN, Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired, GS-14, U.S. Civil Service-Retired, Veterans Today News Network

According to Voters for Peace, the first confusion over Operation New Dawn came from the Department of Defense. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said shortly after the “end” of the war, “I don’t think anybody has declared the end of the war as far as I know. Counter-terrorism will still be part of their mission.” He said the more than 50,000 remaining troops will be well armed and that among their responsibilities will be counter-terrorism which will mean taking on Islamist militants in combat situations. The former head of the Central Command who had been in charge of military operations in Iraq echoed the Pentagon sentiments when Petraeus told CBS News, “We’re not leaving” Iraq and that the troops remaining behind will have “an enormous capability.”

To make matters worse, General Ray Odierno said it was possible that U.S. combat troops would return to Iraq if the security situation worsened. Odierno also said that he was certain the U.S. would consider staying in Iraq after 2011 if invited. There is more talk of the U.S. staying beyond the 2011 deadline for withdrawal of all troops. Iraq’s top military officer said last week that American forces may be needed for another decade, something to which Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says the U.S. is open.

And sadly, the war’s “end” does not mean an end to deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. An American soldier was killed in a rocket attack in southern Iraq on Sunday, the U.S. military said, marking the first American fatality since the last “combat” unit in Iraq pulled out of the country. The military did not provide a lot of information on what the soldier was doing but said he was conducting operations in Iraq’s southern province of Basra.

It also does not mean an end to deployments of new troops to Iraq. Five peace activists blockaded six buses carrying Fort Hood Soldiers deploying to Iraq. The buses were slowed to a halt; while police made no arrests, they forced the activists out of the street using automatic weapons and police dogs so the deploying soldiers could proceed.

In addition to soldiers remaining in Iraq, the country remains in miserable condition. Foreign Policy in Focus reports: “Iraq has between 25 and 50 percent unemployment, a dysfunctional parliament, rampant disease, an epidemic of mental illness, and sprawling slums. The killing of innocent people has become part of daily life.” They also report that half the urban residents in Iraq live in slums, up from 20% before the U.S. invasion.

Veterans Today Editorial Comment: But the deception continues. President Obama’s speech on Iraq boils down to Democrat Party political spin to highlight Obama keeping his promise to end the Iraq war. His speech was nothing but a political illusion with the timing set of coincide with the November election season. However, with vulnerable Democrats running for cover to either sweep the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars under the carper with brooms of silence, or desperately trying to distance themselves from President Obama’s falling popularity ratings.

Please join Voters for PEACE in writing President Obama and urge him to get beyond the Pentagon and political spin to level with the American people. Tell him the disaster Iraq continues to be and that more than 100,000 U.S. troops and mercenaries remain, continuing to engage in combat and continuing to die. Let Obama know that Americans can handle the truth and do not want to be lied to. You can send a letter by clicking here.

In addition, please join peace events nationwide being organized by a coalition of anti-war groups. The events are being scheduled around the country during the end of August. Click here for information.

Sincerely,

Kevin Zeese
Executive Director

About VotersForPeace

VotersForPeace is educating, organizing and activating voters to end the occupation of Iraq and prevent future wars of aggression. The mission of VotersForPeace is to mobilize anti-war voters into a visible and effective political force that cannot be ignored. They provide voters with the information and tools they need to be effective peace advocates; this includes educating their friends and family on the occupation, writing letters to the media, and holding congressional and presidential candidates accountable [come the November 2010 elections].

The first thing that voters can do to take action  is sign the Voters’ Pledge. This sends an important message to their elected officials and it empowers other voters to take a stand and demand TOTAL withdrawal from Iraq.

VotersForPeace was launched on March 17, 2006, with the VotersForPeace Pledge, a shared project of national, state and local participating groups. Click here to read the launch press release, speaker bios and statements.

VotersForPeace is sponsored by Campaign for Fresh Air & Clean Politics, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, public charity for education and research. It engages in very limited lobbying and no political activity.

Posted in WorldComments Off on OPERATION NEW DAWN: SAME WAR DIFFERENT NAME

OBAMA SIGNALS COMPLETE SURRENDER TO ZIONISM & ITS LOBBY

NOVANEWS

September 4, 2010

by Michael Leon

 Obama Netanyahu Abbas 

– Obama commits U.S. to terror state with seven words” “Ultimately the U.S. cannot impose a solution.” –

By Alan Hart at MyCatBirdseat

He was speaking at the White House the day before the start of the new round of direct talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, after he had met with them and Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah II. (In my last post I anticipated Obama saying at the point of his complete surrender that “America can’t want peace more than the parties.” He also said that – ahead of schedule!)

Today there is a growing number of seriously well informed people of all faiths and none (including me) who believe there will only be peace if it is imposed.

Among those who have dared to say so in public is one of the most eminent Jewish gentlemen of our time, Henry Siegman. A former national director of the American Jewish Congress, he is president of the U.S./Middle East Project, which was part of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1994 until 2006 when it was established as an independent policy institute. He is also a research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Programme of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London.

During his more than 30 years of involvement in the Middle East peace process, he has published extensively on the subject and has been consulted by governments, international agencies and non-governmental organizations involved in the peace process. In a comment piece for the Financial Times on 23 February 2010, (quoted in Conflict Without End? the Epilogue to Volume 3 of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews), he wrote this:

“The Middle East peace process and its quest for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict that got under way nearly 20 years ago with the Oslo accords has undergone two fundamental transformations. It is now on the brink of a third.

“The first was the crossing of a threshold by Israel’s settlement project in the West Bank; there is no longer any prospect of its removal by this or any future Israeli government, which was the precise goal of the settlements’ relentless expansion all along. The previous prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who declared that a peace accord requires Israel to withdraw ‘from most, if not all’ of the occupied territories, ‘including East Jerusalem,’ was unable even to remove any of the 20 hilltop outposts Israel had solemnly promised to dismantle.

“A two-state solution could therefore come about only if Israel were compelled to withdraw to the pre-1967 border by an outside power whose wishes an Israeli government could not defy – the US. The assumption has always been that at the point where Israel’s colonial ambitions collide with critical US national interests, an American president would draw on the massive credit the US has accumulated with Israel to insist it dismantle its illegal settlements, which successive US administrations held to be the main obstacle to a peace accord.

“The second transformation resulted from the shattering of that assumption when President Barack Obama – who took a more forceful stand against Israel’s settlements than any of his predecessors, and did so at a time when the damage this unending conflict was causing American interests could not have been more obvious – backed off ignominiously in the face of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of his demand. This left prospects for a two-state accord dead in the water.”

On 16 August in a piece for the Huffington Post which was originally published by Ha’aretz in Hebrew, Siegman added this:

“Most Israelis, particularly the present government, have been blithely indifferent to repeated international condemnations of Israel’s systematic theft of Palestinian territory on which it has been settling its own Jewish population in blatant violation of international law. Yet their reaction to what they see as an attack on the “legitimacy” of the State of Israel, a concept foreign to international law, seems to bring them to the edge of hysteria.

“In fact, Israel’s legitimacy within its 1967 borders has never been challenged by the international community. It is its behavior on territory beyond its own borders to which the international community – including every U.S. administration – has objected. To construe the condemnation of violations of international law as anti-Semitism is absurd.

“It was not an anti-Semite seeking to delegitimize the Jewish state, but Theodore Meron, an internationally respected jurist and the legal advisor to Israel’s Foreign Ministry, who following the war of 1967 conveyed the following legal opinion to Israel’s Foreign Minister Abba Eban: ‘Civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention,’ to which Israel is a signatory. That Convention’s ban on population transfer is ‘categorical and not conditional upon the motives for the transfer or its objectives. The Convention’s purpose is to prevent settlement in occupied territory of citizens of the occupying state.’”

So yes, Israel’s leaders knew that settlements on Arab land occupied in 1967 are illegal. They simply didn’t give (and still today don’t give) a damn about international law. But this attitude, a mixture of extreme arrogance and insufferable self-righteousness, does not make them the main villains in the story of what happened after June 1967. The main villains were (and still are) the governments of the major powers and the one in Washington DC above all.

What they should have said to Israel in the immediate aftermarth of the 1967 war is: “You are not to build any settlements on occupied Arab land. If you do, you’ll be demonstrating your contempt for international law. In this event the international community will declare Israel to be an outlaw state and subject it to sanctions.”

If something like that riot act had been read to Israel there would have been peace many, many years ago. The pragmatic Arafat was reluctantly reconciled to the reality of Israel’s existence inside its pre-1967 borders as far back as 1968. In his gun and olive branch address to the UN General Assembly on 13 November 1974 he said so by obvious implication. Thereafter he put his credibility with his leadership colleagues and his people, and his life, on the line to get a mandate for unthinkable compromise with Israel. He got it at the end of 1979 when the Palestine National Council voted by 296 votes to 4 to endorse his two-state policy. What he needed thereafter was an Israeli partner for peace. He eventually got a probable one, Yitzhak Rabin, but he was assassinated by a Zionist fanatic. The more it became clear that Israel’s leaders were not interested in a genuine two-state solution for which Arafat had prepared the ground on his side, the more his credibility with his own people suffered.

It is in the context briefly sketched above that Obama’s seven words have their real meaning.

At the time of writing it seems reasonably clear that Obama is hoping that Abbas and his equally discredited Fatah leadership colleagues can be bribed and bullied into accepting what Netanyahu will eventually offer – crumbs from Zionism’s table. (My guess is that Abbas at a point will resign rather than trigger a Palestinian civil war). THE question is what will Obama do when Israel refuses to give enough to satisfy the demands and needs of the Palestinian people for a just about acceptable measure of justice?

We already know the answer. “Ultimately the U.S. cannot impose a solution.”

Effectively those seven words tell Israel’s leaders that they can go on imposing their will on the occupied and oppressed Palestinians with the comfort of knowing that Obama is not going to use the leverage he has, and every American president has had, to cause them, or try to cause them, to be serious about peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept, and which a rational Israeli government and people would accept with relief.

Put another way, those seven words are effectively a green light for Zionism alone to determine the future of the Palestinians, a future which at some point will most likely see the final ethnic cleansing of Palestine, followed by another great turning against the Jews (provoked by the Zionist state’s behaviour) and a Clash of Civilizations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic.

In his analysis on the day Obama delivered his seven words, Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s admirable Middle East Editor, offered this thought. “There might not be room for many more failures. The conflict is changing. A religious war is now being grafted on what used to be fundamentally a competition for territory between two national movements. You can make deals with nationalists. It’s much harder with people who believe they’re doing God’s work.”

The next question asks itself. Why won’t Obama be the president to call and hold the Zionist state to account for its crimes, even when doing so is necessary for the best protection of America’s own interests? 

Part of the answer is, of course, that he is no more willing than any of his predecessors to have a showdown with the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress and the mainstream media.

But there might be more to it.

In the privacy of his own mind Obama probably understands better than any of his predecessors how the conflict was created and what has sustained it. If that is the case, he will also know there’s no guarantee that real American-led pressure on Israel to be serious about peace would work and that it could be counter-productive.

I am a supporter in principle of the case and the need for the Zionist state of Israel to be totally isolated, boycotted and sanctioned as Apartheid South Africa was, eventually. But… The danger is that even the credible threat of a real boycott and sanctions could play into the hands of those Israeli leaders – Netanyahu has long been their standard bearer – who have brainwashed Israelis, most if not quite all, into believing that the world hates Jews, always has and always will, and that Israeli Jews have no choice but to tell the world to go to hell. In this context (and as I note in the Epilogue of the American edition of my book), I think it could and should be said that Zionism succeeded, probably beyond its own best expectations, in transforming the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust from a lesson against racism and fascism and all the evils associated with them into an ideology that seeks to justify anything and everything the Zionist state does. War crimes and all.

So it could be that in the privacy of his own mind, Obama knows it is already too late (not to mention too dangerous) to try to push Israel’s leaders much further than they are willing to go.

What, I wonder, will honest historians of the future make of what is happening right now? My guess is that they will conclude that when Obama launched his push for peace, the Zionist state was already a monster beyond control. 

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East.  His Latest book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, is a three-volume epic in its American edition.  He blogs on www.alanhart.netwww.twitter.com/alanauthor. and tweets on

Posted in USAComments Off on OBAMA SIGNALS COMPLETE SURRENDER TO ZIONISM & ITS LOBBY

OBAMA HAS SIGNALLED HIS COMING COMPLETE SURRENDER TO ZIONISM & ITS LOBBY

ALAN HART

September 4, 2010 

by Gordon Duff

Obama has signalled his coming complete surrender to Zionism and its lobby

 By Alan Hart

 He did it with seven words. “Ultimately the U.S. cannot impose a solution.”

 He was speaking at the White House the day before the start of the new round of direct talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, after he had met with them and Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah II. (In my last post I anticipated Obama saying at the point of his complete surrender that “America can’t want peace more than the parties.” He also said that – ahead of schedule!)

 Today there is a growing number of seriously well informed people of all faiths and none (including me) who believe there will only be peace if it is imposed.

 Among those who have dared to say so in public is one of the most eminent Jewish gentlemen of our time, Henry Siegman. A former national director of the American Jewish Congress, he is president of the U.S./Middle East Project, which was part of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1994 until 2006 when it was established as an independent policy institute. He is also a research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Programme of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. During his more than 30 years of involvement in the Middle East peace process, he has published extensively on the subject and has been consulted by governments, international agencies and non-governmental organizations involved in the peace process. In a comment piece for the Financial Times on 23 February 2010, (quoted in Conflict Without End? the Epilogue to Volume 3 of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews), he wrote this:

 “The Middle East peace process and its quest for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict that got under way nearly 20 years ago with the Oslo accords has undergone two fundamental transformations. It is now on the brink of a third.

 “The first was the crossing of a threshold by Israel’s settlement project in the West Bank; there is no longer any prospect of its removal by this or any future Israeli government, which was the precise goal of the settlements’ relentless expansion all along. The previous prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who declared that a peace accord requires Israel to withdraw ‘from most, if not all’ of the occupied territories, ‘including East Jerusalem,’ was unable even to remove any of the 20 hilltop outposts Israel had solemnly promised to dismantle.

“A two-state solution could therefore come about only if Israel were compelled to withdraw to the pre-1967 border by an outside power whose wishes an Israeli government could not defy – the US. The assumption has always been that at the point where Israel’s colonial ambitions collide with critical US national interests, an American president would draw on the massive credit the US has accumulated with Israel to insist it dismantle its illegal settlements, which successive US administrations held to be the main obstacle to a peace accord.

 “The second transformation resulted from the shattering of that assumption when President Barack Obama – who took a more forceful stand against Israel’s settlements than any of his predecessors, and did so at a time when the damage this unending conflict was causing American interests could not have been more obvious – backed off ignominiously in the face of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of his demand. This left prospects for a two-state accord dead in the water.”

 On 16 August in a piece for the Huffington Post which was originally published by Ha’aretz in Hebrew, Siegman added this:

“Most Israelis, particularly the present government, have been blithely indifferent to repeated international condemnations of Israel’s systematic theft of Palestinian territory on which it has been settling its own Jewish population in blatant violation of international law. Yet their reaction to what they see as an attack on the “legitimacy” of the State of Israel, a concept foreign to international law, seems to bring them to the edge of hysteria.

“In fact, Israel’s legitimacy within its 1967 borders has never been challenged by the international community. It is its behavior on territory beyond its own borders to which the international community – including every U.S. administration – has objected. To construe the condemnation of violations of international law as anti-Semitism is absurd.

“It was not an anti-Semite seeking to delegitimize the Jewish state, but Theodore Meron, an internationally respected jurist and the legal advisor to Israel’s Foreign Ministry, who following the war of 1967 conveyed the following legal opinion to Israel’s Foreign Minister Abba Eban: ‘Civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention,’ to which Israel is a signatory. That Convention’s ban on population transfer is ‘categorical and not conditional upon the motives for the transfer or its objectives. The Convention’s purpose is to prevent settlement in occupied territory of citizens of the occupying state.’”

So yes, Israel’s leaders knew that settlements on Arab land occupied in 1967 are illegal. They simply didn’t give (and still today don’t give) a damn about international law. But this attitude, a mixture of extreme arrogance and insufferable self-righteousness, does not make them the main villains in the story of what happened after June 1967. The main villains were (and still are) the governments of the major powers and the one in Washington DC above all.

What they should have said to Israel in the immediate aftermarth of the 1967 war is: “You are not to build any settlements on occupied Arab land. If you do, you’ll be demonstrating your contempt for international law. In this event the international community will declare Israel to be an outlaw state and subject it to sanctions.”

If something like that riot act had been read to Israel there would have been peace many, many years ago. The pragmatic Arafat was reluctantly reconciled to the reality of Israel’s existence inside its pre-1967 borders as far back as 1968. In his gun and olive branch address to the UN General Assembly on 13 November 1974 he said so by obvious implication. Thereafter he put his credibility with his leadership colleagues and his people, and his life, on the line to get a mandate for unthinkable compromise with Israel. He got it at the end of 1979 when the Palestine National Council voted by 296 votes to 4 to endorse his two-state policy. What he needed thereafter was an Israeli partner for peace. He eventually got a probable one, Yitzhak Rabin, but he was assassinated by a Zionist fanatic. The more it became clear that Israel’s leaders were not interested in a genuine two-state solution for which Arafat had prepared the ground on his side, the more his credibility with his own people suffered.

 It is in the context briefly sketched above that Obama’s seven words have their real meaning.

 At the time of writing it seems reasonably clear that Obama is hoping that Abbas and his equally discredited Fatah leadership colleagues can be bribed and bullied into accepting what Netanyahu will eventually offer – crumbs from Zionism’s table. (My guess is that Abbas at a point will resign rather than trigger a Palestinian civil war). THE question is what will Obama do when Israel refuses to give enough to satisfy the demands and needs of the Palestinian people for a just about acceptable measure of justice?

 We already know the answer. “Ultimately the U.S. cannot impose a solution.”

 Effectively those seven words tell Israel’s leaders that they can go on imposing their will on the occupied and oppressed Palestinians with the comfort of knowing that Obama is not going to use the leverage he has, and every American president has had, to cause them, or try to cause them, to be serious about peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept, and which a rational Israeli government and people would accept with relief.

 Put another way, those seven words are effectively a green light for Zionism alone to determine the future of the Palestinians, a future which at some point will most likely see the final ethnic cleansing of Palestine, followed by another great turning against the Jews (provoked by the Zionist state’s behaviour) and a Clash of Civilizations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic.

 In his analysis on the day Obama delivered his seven words, Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s admirable Middle East Editor, offered this thought. “There might not be room for many more failures. The conflict is changing. A religious war is now being grafted on what used to be fundamentally a competition for territory between two national movements. You can make deals with nationalists. It’s much harder with people who believe they’re doing God’s work.” 

 The next question asks itself. Why won’t Obama be the president to call and hold the Zionist state to account for its crimes, even when doing so is necessary for the best protection of America’s own interests?

 Part of the answer is, of course, that he is no more willing than any of his predecessors to have a showdown with the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress and the mainstream media.

 But there might be more to it.

 In the privacy of his own mind Obama probably understands better than any of his predecessors how the conflict was created and what has sustained it. If that is the case, he will also know there’s no guarantee that real American-led pressure on Israel to be serious about peace would work and that it could be counter-productive.

 I am a supporter in principle of the case and the need for the Zionist state of Israel to be totally isolated, boycotted and sanctioned as Apartheid South Africa was, eventually. But… The danger is that even the credible threat of a real boycott and sanctions could play into the hands of those Israeli leaders – Netanyahu has long been their standard bearer – who have brainwashed Israelis, most if not quite all, into believing that the world hates Jews, always has and always will, and that Israeli Jews have no choice but to tell the world to go to hell. In this context (and as I note in the Epilogue of the American edition of my book), I think it could and should be said that Zionism succeeded, probably beyond its own best expectations, in transforming the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust from a lesson against racism and fascism and all the evils associated with them into an ideology that seeks to justify anything and everything the Zionist state does. War crimes and all.

So it could be that in the privacy of his own mind, Obama knows it is already too late (not to mention too dangerous) to try to push Israel’s leaders much further than they are willing to go.

 What, I wonder, will honest historians of the future make of what is happening right now? My guess is that they will conclude that when Obama launched his push for peace, the Zionist state was already a monster beyond control.

 ABOUT ALAN HART:

Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications – the possibility of a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews – for nearly 40 years…

  • As a correspondent for ITN’s News At Ten and the BBC’s Panorama programme (covering wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world).

  • As a researcher and author.

  • As a participant at leadership level, working to a Security Council background briefing, in the covert diplomacy of the search for peace.

He’s been to war with the Israelis and the Arabs, but the learning experience he values most, and which he believes gave him rare insight, came from his one-to-one private conversations over the years with many leaders on both sides of the conflict. With, for example, Golda Meir, Mother Israel, and Yasser Arafat, Father Palestine. The significance of these private conversations was that they enabled him to be aware of the truth of what leaders really believed and feared as opposed to what they said in public for propaganda and myth-sustaining purposes.

It was because of his special relationships with leaders on both sides that, in 1980, he found himself sucked into the covert diplomacy of conflict resolution…

President Carter had been prevented by Prime Minister Begin from involving the PLO in the peace process, an opening made possible because Arafat had signalled, secretly and seriously, that he was ready to make peace with an Israel inside more or less its pre-1967 borders. Carter was in despair and said, in private, that events had once again proved that it was impossible to advance the peace process by institutional diplomacy (because of the pork-barrel nature of American politics and the Zionist lobby’s awesome influence). It was then suggested to Alan that he should undertake an unofficial, covert diplomatic mission to get an exploratory dialogue going between Arafat and Peres, with himself initially the linkman. The assumption at the time was that Peres would win Israel’s next election and deny Begin a second term. The initiative was funded by a small number of wealthy British Jews led by Marcus Sieff (the Chairman of Marks and Spencer) with the approval of Lord Victor Rothschild…. It happened and enough progress was made to get Peres and Arafat into public dialogue in the event of Peres winning the 1981 election. Unfortunately, and against all expectations, he did not.

In the course of this mission, Alan learned two things. The first was the truth about the miracle of Arafat’s leadership – his success in persuading his side (most of it) to be ready for unthinkable compromise with Israel for peace. (Which was why Alan wrote his first book Arafat: Terrorist or Peacemaker). The second was why it is difficult to impossible for any Israeli prime minister, even a rational, well-motivated one, to make peace on any terms the Palestinians can accept.

A decade later, this initiative became the Oslo process, which might have delivered peace if Prime Minister Rabin had not been assassinated by a gut-Zionist.

Alan has long believed that what peacemaking needs above all else is some TRUTH-TELLING, about many things but, especially, the difference between Zionist mythology and real history, and, the difference between Jews and Judaism on the one hand and Zionists and Zionism on the other. (The Zionism of the title and substance of Alan’s latest book is, of course, political Zionism or Jewish nationalism as the creating and sustaining force of the Zionist state, not what could be called the spiritual Zionism of Judaism).

Alan is also credited with having played a leading role in getting the ‘North-South’ issue onto the agenda for political and public debate throughout the Western world and beyond. In 1973, frustrated by the mainstream media’s refusal to come to grips with issues that really matter, he set up his own independent production company (World Focus) to research, film, edit and promote the first ever documentary on the full and true dimensions of global poverty and its implications for all.

The end product, a two-hour film titled FIVE MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT, had its world premiere, hosted by Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, at the formal opening of the 7th Special session of the UN General Assembly, (called to discuss the need for a New World Economic Order); was screened on television in most countries of the North; was versioned for schools in many countries; and became something of a standard work of reference. (The visual impact of the production was supplemented by statistics then new to the world including, for example, the estimate that, in the South, 15 million children under five were dying each year from a combination of malnutrition and easily preventable diseases – in a word, poverty).

To make the project work, Alan, on the strength of his international reputation, raised £1 million in grants from international development institutions and governments and put together a think-tank of world leaders to advise him.

Alan is a fiercely independent thinker. He hates all labels and isms and has never been a member of any political party or group. He prefers to judge issues on their merits. When asked what drives him, he used to say: “I have three children and, when the world falls apart, I want to be able to look them in the eye and say, ‘Don’t blame me. I tried.’” Today he gives an improved answer, one borrowed from a conversation with Dr. Hajo Meyer, a Nazi holocaust survivor and a passionate anti-Zionist. When Alan asked him why he was still campaigning at the age of 82 even though he was being reviled by Zionism, he replied: “The first person I see when I get up in the morning is me.” Alan, too, has to be able to live with himself. He believes that heaven and hell are states of mind. Hell, he says, “is when you know that the end of your life is approaching and that you have not used your talents and resources as well as you could have done to make a difference – i.e. when you realise upon reflection that you have wasted your life. Heaven is contemplation of the approach of death without fear because you know that, on balance, you’ve done your best to make a difference.”

Alan Hart

alanauthor

alanauthor profile

alanauthor America’s Path to Permanent War: review of Andrew J. Bacevich’s latest book – NYT http://nyti.ms/aRin0Z 4 hours ago reply

alanauthor profile

alanauthor Foreign legalists to defend Israel abroad? Ynetnews http://bit.ly/9FBEpw 9 hours ago reply

alanauthor profile

alanauthor There can be no settlement (solution) unless America pushes Israel into it – Avi Shlaim/The Guardian http://bit.ly/annZMX 11 hours ago reply

alanauthor profile

alanauthor Obama and his Benign Neglect of Europe – Roger Cohen/NYT http://nyti.ms/cbPeZe 13 hours ago reply

Posted in USAComments Off on OBAMA HAS SIGNALLED HIS COMING COMPLETE SURRENDER TO ZIONISM & ITS LOBBY

DONT BELIEVE TWITTER

NOVANEWS


Don’t believe everything you read on Twitter

04 Sep 2010

What connects actor John Cusack, Twitter, Fox News and shameless propaganda?

Obama sees massive successes in the Middle East

04 Sep 2010

No wonder US foreign policy is viewed with such contempt around the world. Iraq is in chaos and the Middle East remains unstable. But from the comfort of the White House:

“From a political perspective, it’s been a good week for [Obama] — but more importantly, it’s been a very good week for America’s national security — and that’s how he measures it,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told POLITICO

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on DONT BELIEVE TWITTER

BLOODY MEMOIR

NOVANEWS
 
DateSeptember 4, 2010
 

Tony Blair, a man who launched a criminal war with no end, declared once again today that “Radical Islam is the world’s greatest threat”

He made the remark in a BBC interview marking the publication of his memoirs.

Mr Blair said radical Islamists believed that whatever was done in the name of their cause was justified – including the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

I can’t make up my mind whether Blair’s remark is amusing or tragic for not a single  Islamic leader has ever used “chemical, biological or nuclear weapons”. If anything it is Britain and the USA who deployed weaponry that contained depleted uranium. A recent  study reveals that the Cancer rate in Fallujah, Iraq is worse than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Blair doesn’t like Iran either: “We need to give a message to Iran that is very clear – that they cannot have a nuclear weapons capability, and we will stop them.”  I have actually believed for many years that an Iranian bomb is the key to peace. Seemingly an Iranian bomb is the only thing that may deter Western expansionism and Israeli barbarism. 

One would expect the International Quartet’s ‘peace envoy’ to pretend to be impartial and to demand Israel’s transparency over its nuclear affairs. I guess that this is too much to ask. Hence, I would advise the International Quartet that if they are truly interested in peace in the region, first they must make sure that Mr Blair is brought to The Hague and faces justice. Such an act is the first step towards peace. It would prove ethical integrity and moral transparency.  It becomes clear that the British political and Judicial system is not up for the task of confronting Britain’s recent colossal war crimes. We seemingly need the international community to intervene. 

‘ZIONIST RABBI’

“This (Islamic) extremism is so deep,” said Blair “that in the end they have to know that they’re facing a stronger will than theirs.” Interestingly enough, the facts on the ground suggest otherwise. The English speaking armies are totally defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Evidently, not much ‘strong will’ is detected amongst British and American soldiers to die in these Zionist wars called by Jewish Lobbies funded war criminals.

Posted in LiteratureComments Off on BLOODY MEMOIR

OBAMA & THE WINDY CITY CORRUPTION

NOVANEWS

Blagojevich Trial Could Draw in Rahm Emanuel and Obama

by Jeff Davis

What goes together like beer and pretzels or Lindsay Lohan and rehab? Chicago and corruption, of course! Since the days of Bathhouse John Coughlin through the St. Valentine’s Day massacre and the 1968 Democrat presidential election,the Windy City has provided connoisseurs of crime and corruption with an unending feast of sleaze. Now we’ve got the Blago and Barry Scandal.

An article from TheHill.com reports: “Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich said Sunday that he would call a host of high-profile witnesses — including White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel — to testify if he is retried on corruption charges. Blagojevich, in a combative interview on ‘Fox News Sunday,’ said he was ready for a second trial on charges that he tried to sell President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat. Federal prosecutors have vowed to retry Blagojevich after a jury deadlocked on all but one of 24 criminal counts the government brought against the fiery Democrat.”

For those who haven’t seen him, Blagojevich looks like a bad Elvis impersonator with a brown squirrel curled up on top of his head.

The article notes ” ‘In the second round, we’re going to put a defense on, I’m sure,’ Blagojevich said, vowing to call Emanuel, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), DSCC Chairman Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) to testify in his defense. Blagojevich also said he would again attempt to subpoena Obama. That attempt was rejected during the first trial. ‘We would call Rahm Emanuel and a whole bunch of other people in the second trial to show what was really going on,’ Blagojevich said. ‘The decision I made was to try to make a political deal. Rahm Emanuel a day before my arrest was going to make it happen. They did nothing wrong, either.’ ”

I would not be completely surprised if Blagojevich was found dead in his cell. It’s dangerous to try to drag a sitting president into a criminal case, where you’re the main culprit. Just ask Ron Brown or James MacDougal. Oh wait, I’m sorry; both those men are dead. MacDougal was in a federal prison where they denied him his heart medicine while in solitary and he wound up dead. Ron Brown was on Air Force Two when it flew into a mountain possibly following a false signal. Shortly before his death, Ron had threatened that he would not being going down alone, implying he would take the Clintons with him in his corruption scandal.

The Hill.com: “Blagojevich said he intended to call those witnesses during the first trial, but stopped short when he opted not to put on a defense. Despite being convicted of lying to the FBI, Blagojevich said he and his lawyers made the right decision.”

The key figure in all this is a sleazy political influence-peddler named Tony Rezko, who was tight with both Blago and Barry back in the old days. The potential interest in this trial is that it might pry the lid off Obama’s early days as a ward heeler and errand boy for the Daley machine, not to mention some of his radical leftist connections.

What will add to the fun is that once the Republicans get back in control of the House and maybe the Senate as well and they can start holding Whitewater-style hearings and maybe appoint a special prosecutor as well, then they can start digging into the whole Obama scene, and no doubt Blago will feature as a star performer in any Congressional hearings. I’m sure the Dems were hoping Blago would just get convicted and go away.

Posted in USAComments Off on OBAMA & THE WINDY CITY CORRUPTION

JEWISH HOMELAND???

Audrey Farber, intern, from Mada Al-Carmel on New Israel

 

By Audrey Farber

Speculation has run wild on the as-yet-unreleased updated New Israel Fund funding guidelines. Here’s Richard Silverstein,

“My source tells me the proposed guidelines will include a provision acknowledging Israel as a Jewish homeland. But the language will also affirm that Israel is:
‘…A democracy dedicated to the full equality of all its citizens and communities.’”

Silverstein argues that “full equality” juxtaposed with the “provision acknowledging… a Jewish homeland” sustains a system of inequality. His explanation: “If…you’ve conceded to Jews that their nation is their homeland, but refuse to concede this to Palestinian citizens, then they still aren’t equal to Jews.”

Not mentioning a Palestinian homeland perpetuates ignoring that right. But on the other hand, no mention is made of Israel as an exclusively Jewish homeland.

The wording leaves open the possibility of a homeland for all citizens of Israel, regardless of religion. Silverstein gives this as a necessary precondition for peace but apparently does not see its potential in the new guidelines. In his words, “there is absolutely no reason that Israel cannot be a single state in which two separate ethnic groups see it as their respective homelands.” I agree, you agree, and even the NIF agrees. “The New Israel Fund (NIF) works to strengthen Israel’s democracy and to promote freedom, justice and equality for all Israel’s citizens.”

The problem is in the language: previous coverage of this controversy conflated the ideas of homeland and state. In an earlier post , Silverstein quotes The Forward:

The New Israel Fund, the target of attacks by right-wing organizations accusing it of supporting anti-Zionist groups, is discussing the possibility of specifying in its guidelines that grants will be given only to groups that accept the idea of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

… Board members and major donors are grappling with whether to require that grantees accept the idea of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, thus agreeing to the principle of Israel as a Jewish state.’ ”

Semantically, we must differentiate between a homeland and a state. Agreeing to the idea of Israel as a Jewish homeland is not the same as agreeing to the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. Homeland connotes sanctuary and safety. State connotes power and government. You cannot have a Palestinian homeland in a Jewish state, but you can have both a Palestinian and a Jewish homeland within a secular and democratic state. If the new guidelines are simply rewording this old idea, then frankly, this doesn’t constitute a huge overhaul.

The NIF has remained silent about what the guidelines say, and I don’t blame them given the amount of outrage and “scandal” it has produced thus far without any official word. But a statement from NIF’s website posted on July 16 (, just after their bi-annual board meeting, puts forth the following:

“The New Israel Fund is dedicated to the vision of the State of Israel as the sovereign expression of the right of self-determination of the Jewish people, and as a democracy dedicated to the full equality of all its citizens and communities. We are committed to advancing the values of human dignity ensconced in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which we view as the key to its long-term security and survival.” [Emphasis mine.]

Do we read this as Israel as a Jewish state? If so, there is cause for alarm. This would inherently contradict to their commitment to true democracy, and provides evidence that their detractors have gained traction and influence. If indeed this rewrite is coming as a result of criticism and pressure from groups whose agendas scorn the principles of democracy, equality, and freedom, then we have on our hands a disaster.

Conflating these two ideas when implementing the new guidelines would constitute reneging on everything NIF stands for. If they conflate homeland and state, the new guidelines will indeed cause organizations to lose significant funds, as The Forward warns might happen. And we’re talking about more than just one or two renegade organizations; a large number of NIF’s grantees are committed to a truly democratic State of Israel, but one that does not recognize the Jewish nature of the state. If the NIF can differentiate between Jewish homeland and state, then technically it is upholding is decades-long commitment to democracy and equality within Israel. It is this commitment which should be preserved, and which I – perhaps naively – have faith in NIF’s leadership to uphold in spite semantic changes to their guidelines.

Semantics aside, the NIF is in a tough position. They constantly face an immense amount of criticism from all sides, and they cannot fund every worthy non-profit in Israel. That would be politically and financially impossible. As a foundation they need to listen to their stakeholders and investors, but they also need to respect their own commitment to their principles, to set a good example for governments and other foundations.

NIF has a long history of supporting projects which hold Israel accountable for upholding the democratic principles it claims to embrace. If NIF’s new guidelines cause it to cease funding such groups, that would constitute a catastrophe. But as of now, it is too early to tell.

If cuts happen, NIF joins the growing list of benefactors who have recently allowed themselves to be swayed by the loud voices of an intolerant few and are jeopardizing any true chance for democracy Israel has left.

I should certainly hope that NIF is well-respected and self-respecting enough not to back down from its own principles in the face of a gang of school-yard bullies. We would ask NIF to hold strong in the face of these and in support of the democratic principles it has until now succeeded in promoting.

Audrey Farber did her undergrad at UPenn majoring in – after much angst and indecision – Modern Middle East Studies. Her activism has involved resettling Somali, Iraqi, and Burmese refugees in Maine, researching forced migration issues in Amman, and rejecting the “path” by being a ski bum and bakery assistant at regular intervals. She is currently interning at Mada al-Carmel – Arab Center for Applied Social Research, in Haifa.  Audrey wants to fix the world and is actively trying to do so through photos and writing in her blog(s). She appreciates your support. The views expressed herein are her own .

 

More Recent Articles

 

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on JEWISH HOMELAND???

FIGHTING ANTI-SEMITISM WITH ISLAMOPHOBIA AT YALE ?

 

NOVANEWS

  1. Fighting Anti-Semitism with Islamophobia at Yale
  2. Alex Kane alerts us to a muzzle in progress
  3. More Recent Articles
  4. Search MuzzleWatch

Fighting Anti-Semitism with Islamophobia at Yale

Audre Lorde used the metaphor of the masters tools not being able to dismantle the masters house to explain why racism could not be used to fight sexism. Unfortunately, no one told many of the scholars who attended the recent Yale conference Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity. In no case can one oppression effectively or ethically used to combat another, but particularly in the case of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, where one is threatening to take the place of the other.

Yaman Salahi writes about the virulence of many of the speakers. First up

Among the many anti-Arab and anti-Muslim speakers was Itamar Marcus, a member of the Israeli settler movement who offered a keynote speech on “The Central Role of Palestinian Antisemitism in Creating the Palestinian Identity.” The title alone reduces an entire people and its history to irrationality and hatred; worse, it was but one of dozens of talks with a similarly problematic theme.

It is hard to imagine any other conflict where Yale would allow a front line and privileged member of a conflict to hold forth on their opponent. Would Yale invite Chinese settlers in Tibet to hold forth about the inferiority and irrationality of Tibetans? Members of Sudanese militias to criticize the perfidity of people of Darfur?  Salahi gives several other examples of speakers’ problematic past records and then points out to the larger problem.

The center’s failure to adhere to consistent anti-racist principles makes it vulnerable to the charge that it is motivated by a political agenda. Indeed, many of its speakers hailed from partisan, right-wing, pro-Israel organizations including NGO Monitor, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Palestinian Media Watch — not to mention the Israeli government. In addition, many talks functioned as apologia for recent controversial Israeli actions, including an attack that killed nine civilians on a humanitarian aid flotilla to Gaza this summer that one speaker called “the Jihad flotilla.”

Using Arabic terms as a slur does not seem like an effective way of combating Anti-Semitism, to say the least, but hardly suprising from this crew. And neither is their rigid view of acceptable Judaism.

In addition, speakers at times seemed to conflate anti-Israel sentiment with anti-Semitism. For example, in a plenary about anti-racist Jewish critics of Israel titled “Self Hatred and Contemporary Antisemitism,” Richard Landes’ speech asked, “What Drives Jews to Loathe Israel Publicly?” as if those dissidents’ claims were based not on merit but on some pathological psychosis. Landes and others were not speaking about radical organizations but rather reputable human rights organizations, prominent Jewish dissidents and international student activists — exactly the kind of people a center purporting to fight bigotry should celebrate.

Instead Jews who differ from these groups view of Israel are marginalized and their Judaism question.

the same logic, inverted, often provides a pretext for racist ideas about Jews around the world, for those who imagine that Jews, no matter where they are or what they say, form a monolithic body that can be blamed for Israel’s actions.

Of course, Arabs and Muslims are the primary targets of Islamophobita, but Salahi also realizes the cost to Jews of this kind of mindset.

While the center’s failure to abstain from inflammatory anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric is offensive and dangerous, the real tragedy is its failure to recognize that a successful and principled stand against anti-Semitism requires a principled stand against all kinds of racism, including anti-Muslim/anti-Arab bigotry in America and anti-Palestinian racism in Israel.

So Jews who have differing views on Israel cannot count on these self appointed fighters of anti-Semitism, We would not be welcome at such a conference, and such bigotry will not protect us. Fortunately we have allies like Salahi who we can partner with to fight both our oppressions together.

Magnes ZIonist also reporting on the conference, asks where were the progressive Jews who study Anti-Semitism?

Do only hard-line Zionists care about anti-Semitism? No, not really. But the study of anti-Semitism has gravitated in that direction because it has been taken over by Israelis and Zionists, and is supported mostly by hard-line Zionist money. Sorry to be blunt, but I can think of no other explanation.

–Jesse Bacon

Alex Kane alerts us to a muzzle in progress

Blogger Alex Kane who previously demonstrated the far-right origins of the anti-”Ground Zero Mosque” campaign, has the scoop on the latest muzzling campaign. This time the target is Arab American professor Moustafa Bayoumi.

In an opinion piece for the Post, Ronald Radosh, a neo-conservative adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, [last seen on Muzzlewatch funding attempts to scrutinize Israeli syllabi for ‘left wing bias’] argues that the Bayoumi book assigned to all incoming freshmen, How Does it Feel to be a Problem? Being Young and Arab in America, is “extremely slanted.”  Radosh argues that, while it may be legitimate to assign Bayoumi’s book, what’s also needed is “a contrasting opinion, one challenging the view that Americans and New Yorkers in particular are completely Islamaphobic.”

Reading the whole column, it’s clear that underneath all the concern for Brooklyn College students being “indoctrinated” is an aversion that Radosh feels to any airing of criticism against Israel, especially if it comes from an Arab or Palestinian point of view.

Radosh mentions Bayoumi’s associations with Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, without explaining why that is relevant to what he terms the “scandal” at the college.  The mentions of Said and Khalidi are really a wink and nudge to hard-line supporters of Israel who don’t want to hear Khalidi’s and Said’s perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He also goes after Bayoumi for editing Midnight on the Mavi Marmara, which is about the Israeli attack on the flotilla last May.  Radosh labels the book as a”pro-Islamist” work that includes “selections from such noted foes of Israel as Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, Max Blumenthal, Philip Weiss and scores of Arab authors.”  Radosh is too polite to really say what he’s thinking, but he apparently thinks there’s a problem with “scores of Arab authors” criticizing the Israeli raid that killed 9 people in international waters.

So here we have guilt-by-association, the attacking of respected figures for their very effectiveness, and the demand for “contrasting views,” which is never made by these same people when the person is defending the Israeli Occupation. The targetting of someone for speaking out against the Mavi Marmara killing echoes the Israeli moves against Member of Knesset Haneen Zouabi. In particular, I love that Radosh is trying to refute Islamophobia while labelling people of diverse backgrounds who oppose him politically “pro-Islamist” and not even able to mention “scores of Arabs” by name. Definitely no need for college students to read a book about anti-Arab racism. Not when we have one public figure against Islamophobia!

At a time when Mayor Bloomberg stands out for his insistence on the right of Muslims to build the “Ground Zero mosque,” the view that our country is taking out its anger over 9/11 against decent American Muslims is clearly overstated.

Radosh does not mention the cabdriver stabbed for being a Muslim, or any other descriptions of actual Islamophobia. Is it just the decency of American Muslims that Radosh thinks is being overstated?

Thanks for the heads up, Alex.

–Jesse Bacon.

More Recent Articles

Posted in USAComments Off on FIGHTING ANTI-SEMITISM WITH ISLAMOPHOBIA AT YALE ?


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

September 2010
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930