Archive | December 27th, 2010



Dear all,

I would never normally choose to watch Top Gear but when I saw that it was a Middle East special, I thought I ought to, especially when I noticed that the Radio Times mentioned that Clarkson and co. were traveling to Bethlehem via Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Israel, but with no mention of the West Bank.

If you can bear it, please watch it on iplayer.

I have just submitted the complaint below and am going to write a letter for publication in the Radio Times. This could be a matter for the BIN tourism group so I’ll send it there in a moment.


The programme is inaccurate as it referred to the Golan Heights as being in Israel when they are in Syria, but illegally occupied by Israel. It was also very misleading as it implied that Bethlehem is in Israel rather than in the Palestinian West Bank and there was no mention of Palestine. The map did not have West Bank written on it and it was only mentioned once, but not in the context of Bethlehem’s location. It referred to the West Bank as ‘disputed’ when it is illegally occupied.

The programme inaccurately stated that The Golan Heights ‘for political reasons’ was Syria but is now Israel. No, it is still Syria, but illegally occupied by Israel. Although the programme was about the drivers’ journey to Bethlehem, not once was it stated that Bethlehem is in the West Bank and the West Bank was not even labelled on the map. At one point, the outline of the West Bank was flashed up, but it was still not labelled as such.

There was no mention at all of Palestine, and the West Bank was not mentioned until 10 minutes before the end, but only in the context of the drivers being advised to avoid it ‘for political reasons’.

But how could they avoid it if Bethlehem is in it? What political reasons? The Israeli authorities not wanting them to experience the check-points and see the suffering of the Palestinians? When they crossed from Jordan into Israel, they said that this was the final border crossing. This implied that they did not have to cross the border to get to Bethlehem, which would also have led uninformed viewers to assume that Bethlehem is in Israel.

If there was no border crossing, this indicates that they must have entered via an apartheid, Jewish only, Settler road which connects Israel to the illegal Settlements in the West Bank.

The West Bank was referred to as ‘disputed’, but according to international law, it is illegally occupied and known as the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This is misleading and once again shows the BBC to be toeing the Israeli propaganda line, as they would like us to believe that the West Bank is part of Israel. It is bad enough that many people think that Bethlehem is in Israel, without the BBC helping to compound that belief. Surely television should be educating and informing viewers, not compounding their ignorance?

When the drivers arrived in Bethlehem, viewers did at least see the Apartheid Wall (separation barrier) but it was not mentioned or explained, and with no hint of irony, Jeremy Clarkson said, ‘It felt good to be at the font of peace on earth and goodwill to all men’.

What peace? What goodwill when there is a huge wall surrounding Jesus’ birthplace, and imprisoning its people? Not only was the programme inaccurate and hugely misleading, it is likely to cause offense to the residents of Bethlehem and Palestinians in general and anyone who cares about justice.

I realise that this was not intended to be a political programme, but to go to Bethlehem, which is in Palestine, without mentioning Palestine, IS political, and highlights the pro-Israel bias of the BBC. It seems that the BBC relied on the Israeli authorities to get to Bethlehem and had to toe their propaganda line in return. But why did the BBC have to rely on Israel? They could have simply gone through Jordan and crossed at the Allenby Bridge.





Dec 26, 2010


 Pic Of The Day

Iran, Syria plan strategic cooperation


Iran reminds Russia of mutual interests


Pakistan to hand over terrorist to Iran


Bomb, Air Raids Leave 115 Dead in Pakistan


Report: New Mossad Chief to Apologize for Use of UK Passports in Dubai Killing


 Abbas: No Israeli Presence in Future State


Israeli Rights Groups Want to Force Shin Bet to Record Interrogations


Thousands gather in Turkey to greet ship at center of Gaza flotilla raid





Please check out the brand new book detailing Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS LIBERTY here

Posted in UKComments Off on NOVANEWS**NOVANEWS




25 December 2010

What do the latest "de-legitimization" reports tell us about Israel?Israel must be losing too many battles in the war to win global public opinion. This is the conclusion to be drawn from the release of a 66-page document by the Tel Aviv-based Reut Institute, which was followed quickly by a similar report from the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs (JCPA). Both documents must be analysed in the context of the media campaign engineered by Israel’s extreme right-wing Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, to improve Israel’s shattered image which plunged to an all-time low during 2010.

Both reports undertake to address what their authors claim is an urgent existential threat to Israel; they call it the threat of “de-legitimization”. What is telling about the two documents is that they address only the symptoms and not the causes of the dilemma facing the Zionist state.

The Reut Institute’s report is called Building a political firewall against the assault on Israel’s legitimacy: London as a case study; it is a modest attempt to build on an earlier document produced in January 2010, Eroding Israel’s legitimacy in the international arena. The other “new” report is anything but; written by Ehud Rosen of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, Mapping the Organizational Sources of the Global Delegitimization Campaign against Israel in the UK is far from the ‘new and authoritative’ research claimed by Melanie Phillips in the Spectator. It is, to put it mildly, a rehash of old ideas about the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

By releasing their reports on the eve of the anniversary of the Gaza War, the Reut Institute and the JCPA have only succeeded in reminding the world of the atrocities that confirmed beyond any doubt Israel’s status as a rogue state capable of committing war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity”. Who can do anything but question Israel’s legitimacy when it

  • Maintains an illegal siege of Gaza, depriving its people of medical supplies, construction material and food in an act of collective punishment for daring to elect the “wrong” government in free and fair elections in 2006;

  • Attacked and seized ships on a humanitarian aid mission in international waters killing nine Turks in the process;

  • Refuses to leave the land it has occupied since 1967 in the interest of peace; the acquisition of territory by force is illegal in international law. Even so, the League of Arab States has offered peace and normalization if Israel withdraws; and

  • Pursues a policy of ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, manifested in the demolition of hundreds of homes, uprooting of olive trees, evictions, and the construction of Jews-only roads across the West Bank. Such policies are replicated inside Israel against its own Palestinian Arab citizens.

Martin van Creveld, the Israeli military historian, wrote recently that one of the main threats facing Israel today is from ballistic missiles. But, he adds, holding on to the West Bank won’t help Israel to defend itself against such missiles. “Should Israeli rule over [the occupied Palestinian territories] continue, then the country will definitely turn into what it is already fast becoming: namely, an apartheid state that can only maintain its control by means of repressive secret police actions.”

The point that is clearly missed by Israel’s apologists is that legitimacy is not conferred it is earned, through respect of and adherence to the rules of international law. For far too long, Israel has squandered the goodwill of nations under the pretext of the holocaust. This view is held increasingly by many Jews, Israeli and non-Israeli alike. Professor Richard Falk, the American academic and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Territories affirmed this during his recent visit to London.

Avraham Burg, the former speaker of the Knesset, wrote about this in detail: “For many years we have lived comfortably, thanks to a national hypocrisy that tries to contain two conflicting worlds; well-being and complaint, power and victimhood, success and trauma… Our state is well-established and powerful, almost without precedent since the destruction of the Second Temple.

Yet for some acquired psychological deficiency, we try to hide this splendour by constantly whining – because we had a holocaust. We always want a stronger army because of the Shoah, and more resources from other countries’ taxpayers, and an automatic forgiveness for any of our excesses. We want to be above criticism and attention, all these because of Hitler’s twelve years, which changed the face of Europe and our face beyond recognition.” [2008:209]

Neither the Reut report nor that of the JCPA has made any attempt to address substantive issues such as these. Instead, they peddle sound-bites such as London being the “Mecca of de-legitimization” and hub of the “Red-Green alliance”. Clearly built on the cheap psychology of character assassination, they rail against the Muslim Brotherhood and figures like Muhammad Sawalha, Anas Al-Tikriti and MEMO’s own Daud Abdullah. The strategy is, nonetheless, a double-edged approach; every time Israel lobbyists mention the issue of Daud Abdullah and Hazel Blears the public is reminded more of parliamentary financial scandal than the Istanbul Declaration. 

That is the price they pay for using the ridiculous website Harry’s Place as a reference source for what is supposed to be serious research. The factual inaccuracies are glaring. Those who know anything about the Freedom Flotilla could confirm that the Palestinian Return Centre had nothing to do with its organization, as Reut asserts. Its report is replete with similar falsehoods, such as the claim that the 2001 UN Durban Conference on Racism was organized in London.

The release of these woeful reports and their carefully stage-managed commentaries in supposedly serious media reflect the disarray that has afflicted Zionist Israel and its apologists. They call for building broader, global relationships with like-minded people and organizations, but who in their right mind would want to share common cause with the notorious right-wing extremist Geert Wilders or neo-con Jose Maria Aznar? Both have tried and failed to gain any traction in the public relations mission they have undertaken on behalf of Israel.

Of course, it is not just the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign or Muslim organizations that have been slated by the latest offerings from Israel’s hasbara campaign. The Methodist Church was also criticised for its decision to divest from companies operating in the occupied territories. The Church took a principled stand – and why shouldn’t it? – not least because Christian seminaries and churches are also under attack by Israel’s lust for more land.

On 30 October 2010, a group of illegal Jewish settlers attacked and set fire to an old Christian church in Jerusalem. The church was more than a hundred years old and has been used by Christians for worship in the Holy City. Many of the faithful who manage to make it to the traditional site of Christ’s birthplace in Bethlehem this Christmas will see for themselves the horrible impact on the city and its inhabitants of the illegal “apartheid” wall built by Israel on yet more land stolen from the Palestinians.

The latest reports miss the central point that it is the occupation of Palestinian land that delegitimizes Israel. Peter Beinart, in an essay in the New York Review of Books, concluded that many young American Jews have become alienated by Israel’s oppressive policies against Palestinians. Some unfurled a banner before Benyamin Netanyahu at the General Assembly of North American Jews in New Orleans in November, with messages as clear as they were resounding: “The loyalty oath delegitimizes Israel”; “The siege of Gaza delegitimizes Israel”; “Silencing dissent delegitimizes Israel”.

Despite committing thousands of words to paper (no doubt at a cost of thousands of dollars) it still remains for the Reut Institute and the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs to counter arguments such as these instead of throwing mud at British Muslims and London. Zionists, however, know full well that they cannot argue logically and legitimately in support of illegal, discriminatory and oppressive practices as carried out by the state of Israel, hence the resort to cheap character assassination.

To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, this is “the extreme form of censorship”. Shout “anti-Semite” or “racist” and the world will turn on the alleged perpetrator and not the issue at hand; it is a classic way to stifle open debate used by Zionists for decades. The Reut Institute and JCPA reports are continuing that discredited tradition. In return, the message from those who prefer the path of justice over playground bully tactics should be loud and clear: shoot as many messengers as you want, but truth, honesty and decency will overcome Zionist falsehood in the end.






Dear All,


Tonight’s 8 items are a rather mixed bag—racism, education, an apology, US holding back money, etc.  I have not included articles on East Jerusalem—the demolitions, the threats, the ethnic cleansing.  But that does not mean that these things are not happening daily.  I have also omitted the fascinating revelation that the new Mossad chief plans to apologize for use of UK passports in Dubai killing, but you can read about that in the Telegraph if you wish .

Interestingly, the report does not say that he will apologize to other countries for the same.  I likewise have not included Israel’s Foreign Minister’s (Avigdor Lieberman’s) latest words of wisdom (‘the Turks are liars, the PA is illegitimate, and Netanyahu’s peace plan is unrealistic’), nor Netanyahu’s biting response, that he and only he represents government policy—but you are welcome to read about it if  you like:


What I have not omitted is the subject of Israel’s racism.  It occupies the initial 4 items. 


The first relates an episode in which 4 Muslim men and a Druze were evicted by neighbors—not because they had done anything wrong (I would not take the accusation of whistling at women seriously), but because they are not Jews.   And in any event the excuses given are not different from things that racists say anywhere. 


Item 2, “1932 Is Already Here” essentially says this, and posits that the situation exists because the government is weak.  I agree that 1932 is already here, but not with the reason.  I believe that the situation suits the government.  With immigration at a stand still, and emigration apparently increasing, Jews might soon be the minority rather than the majority.  Therefore, it is convenient for a demographically minded government to ethnically cleanse, and to have the help and approval of the population in the effort. 


Not every Israeli is a racist, as editorials and op-eds in the newspapers show.   In item 3, for instance, Ziv Lenchner in his brief op-ed tells us that the worst thing that we can do is to keep silent.  And in item 4 Zvi Bar’el treats the question “can Israeli racism be eliminated through law, trial and punishment, or is it already part of the Israeli identity,” and convincingly argues that it cannot be dealt with by legal means. It is a social phenomenon.


Item 5 turns to education.  Israel’s leaders spend enormous sums on arms and ‘defense,’ on expansion, and on the wall. But there is no money for education, health, social services.  One result is that higher education is now primarily for the rich.


Item 6 relates Dror Feiler’s views about Turkish attitudes regarding Israel.  He spoke in Turkey today on the occasion of the return of the Mavi Marmara.  He participated in the flotilla but was not on the Mavi Marmara.


Item 7 reports positive news for a change: the US is holding back money for Israel—whether this is due to budget woes, as the report claims, or for other reasons, I can only wish that Obama et al. keep the lid on the money and use it at home rather than on wars and other military spending.


Item 8 is 2 parts—the first is the 2011 speaking schedule for Never Again for Anyone (referring to the Holocaust, but with respect to any Holocausts anywhere against anyone).  The 2nd part is by Hajo Mayer, a  Holocaust survivor, who sees parallels between what he experienced in Germany and what the Palestinians suffer today, and relates that his purpose is to challenge the dispossession and exclusivity of a Jewish state.


Hope that you will find the reading interesting.




1.  Ynet,

December 23, 2010


Racism on Rise


 Abbas: I served in army, but they didn’t care Photo: Ofer Amram


    Arabs flee home due to racist threats

Four Muslims, Druze forced out of rented flat in Tel Aviv after neighbors, who say rabbi told them Arabs must leave, vandalize their home and threaten to attach explosives to their car. ‘I felt humiliated by hatred,’ says Abbas, who served in IDF. But residents claim Arabs were less than neighborly: ‘At night we are afraid to walk around neighborhood,’ says one woman,7340,L-4003502,00.html


Hassan Shaalan


Five residents of the north, four Muslims and a Druze, were forced to leave their apartment in southern Tel Aviv due to threats and persecution by their Jewish neighbors, Ynet learned Thursday. 


“I felt humiliated by the hatred,” said Ganem Abbas, the young Druze man, who has served in the IDF. 


Abbas, originally from Abu Sinan in the north, came to the center of Israel two weeks ago in order to work at a construction site in Jaffa, which he says is owned by the municipality. He and his friends decided to rent an apartment nearby, in Shapiro neighborhood in Tel Aviv.


But three days ago the friends returned home in the evening to see that their main water pipe had been broken. Gas bottles had been stolen. 


“The landlady told me that people from the neighborhood had threatened to torch the house and attack her if we don’t get out, because we’re Arabs,” Abbas said. 


He also described a particularly humiliating moment. “The neighbors came out and started to yell that they don’t want to see Arabs in the neighborhood, and that it is for Jews only,” he recounted.  


Abbas: Racism getting stronger (Photo: Ofer Amram)


“When we heard that, four of the guys decided to go back up north because they felt their lives were in danger.” 


Mahmoud Dalasha, 37 from the village of Bu’eine, says the neighbors “sent their kids to swear at us”. Ganem stayed because he is Druze, Dalasha said, but the rest fled the area. 


“There were dozens of people there who said they had asked the rabbi, who told them we had to be evicted,” he recounted. Dalasha added that the neighbors had threatened to attach an explosive device to his car. 


Dalasha blames the government “for everything going on with racism, because I guess Arabs don’t count in this country”. 


“(The government) is just working to expel Arabs from their lands, but this will never happen. We will stand up to all the racism and hatred,” he vowed. 


“I came to Tel Aviv to work and support my family, not to go wild, but now I have to look for other work.” 


Abbas, for his part, has reached the conclusion that “racism is getting stronger everywhere after the rabbis’ call not to rent to Arabs, and the day may come when we are expelled from the state though we are a part of it”. 


“This act destroys coexistence. I feel humiliated from this intolerable cruelty. Despite serving in the army and telling the neighbors this, but they didn’t care and only gave us the evil eye. I have heard stories about Arabs who were fired for speaking their mother tongue – even that disturbs the racists.” 


‘Racism against Arabs will continue’

Meanwhile, a young woman who claims that she was harassed by one of the Arabs in the narrow streets of southern Tel Aviv told Ynet: “I passed here and then he whistled at me right in my face. It was extremely uncomfortable. There are a lot of little girls here. It was the middle of the day, at night we are afraid to walk around the neighborhood.”


The woman’s father claimed that since the five Arabs arrived in the neighborhood, the situation in the area had deteriorated rapidly. “The foreign infiltrators changed the daily routine over the past few years, and the residents fear that the Arabs will do the same,” he said. 


“People just want to live in peace. This is a peaceful street, we fear for our daughters. A day or two after they moved in they already started whistling at all the girls, who knows hat would have happened after that.”


He stated that his son went up to one of the Arab’s and asked him – what he would have done if a Jew would flirt with his sister? “He answered that he would have ‘broken all the bones in his body’ what do you say to that? Are Israeli girls to be abandoned?!”


Rabbi Achiad Ettinger who has been leading a campaign against foreign infiltrators in southern Tel Aviv said that he doesn’t know the specific case. But claimed that over the past few weeks there had been two stabbing incidents in the southern Tel Aviv neighborhood of Shapiro – in both cases, Arabs stabbed Jews.


“In one case, an Arab came out of a cab and picked a fight with a group of Israelis who were coming out of a pub and after they told him that they didn’t want any trouble, he jumped on one of them with a knife and fled the scene after a struggle. In another case, an Arab stabbed a Jewish woman in the chest, right here in this neighborhood.”


Landlady Ora Iwan told Ynet she had not instructed the five to leave, and that she was equally shocked by her neighbors’ behavior. “They said they would make my life very difficult if I didn’t tell the Arabs to get out,” she said. 


However Iwan is fearful of filing an official complaint. “If they had weapons they would have used them. After what I saw, I think racism against Arabs will continue,” she said.


Aviel Magnezi and Yoav Zitun contributed to this report


2.  Haaretz,

December 26, 2010


1932 is already here


A non-Jew who fled Germany ahead of the Nazi occupation would certainly recall those hard days in his homeland if he were to visit Bat Yam, Safed, Bnei Brak or south Tel Aviv today.



By Daniel Blatman


Sebastian Haffner was a young lawyer in Germany in 1932. As a non-Jew, Haffner could have continued to further his career in the civil service. In describing the atmosphere in his country before the takeover by the Nazi dictatorship, he wrote that “the game dragged on tedious and gloomy, without high spots, without drama, without obvious decisive moments … what was no longer to be found was pleasure in life, amiability, fun, understanding goodwill, generosity and a sense of humor …. The air in Germany had rapidly become suffocating.”


Haffner chose to leave Germany. If he were to visit the neighborhoods of south Tel Aviv, Bnei Brak, Safed, Jerusalem or Bat Yam in late 2010, he would certainly recall those hard days in his homeland. He would find rabbis who sign racist manifestos against an ethnic minority and call for a policy of apartheid, fiery demonstrations against refugees from Africa, gangs of teens attacking Arabs, legislation promoting separatism and discrimination in racist and ethnic contexts, an oppressive public atmosphere, as well as violence and a lack of compassion toward people who are different and foreign.


Haffner would mainly warn against the anemic response of political institutions whose weakness and fears in 1933 led to a political reversal that could have been avoided. Of course, most Israelis do not see themselves as racist. The fact that half of Israel’s Jewish population would not want to live next to Arabs is given various excuses, as is the popular and sweeping support of initiatives designed to keep Arabs or Africans from living alongside Jews. But only a few people who give those excuses would be willing to openly state that they support ethnic and racial separation.


The wild propagandists of the right like MK Michael Ben Ari (National Union ) do not hesitate to use imagery and explanations taken from the anti-Semitic lexicon of Europe: Foreigners spread disease and take Jewish women; black refugees are violent criminals who endanger public safety.


This horrific propaganda is terrifying poor population groups who are already living with an infinite number of problems of survival. And the people who espouse this propaganda are persuading themselves that keeping foreigners out and racial separation produce hope for a solution to their problems. The historian Saul Friedlander defined this mood in Germany of the 1930s as “redemptive anti-Semitism.” A society in existential confusion lacking a political direction that gave it hope was swept up by an apocalyptic idea at whose heart was the need to keep Jews out; if not, the nation’s existence would come to an end.


Millions of people in Germany who would not have defined themselves as anti-Semites and certainly not as Nazis were swept up in the messianic and pseudo-religious public atmosphere. Israel today is becoming slowly and increasingly swept up in “redemptive xenophobia.” To an increasing number of Israelis, the Arab, the African refugee and people who are foreign in their religion, skin color or nationality are considered the most serious problem society has to solve on the road to tranquillity.


No society is immune to deterioration into violent racism. In the Israel of today, we can observe quite a few conditions whose presence in other societies and among other peoples led to racial separation, ethnic cleansing and even genocide. There are minority groups (Arabs and foreigners ) who are ostracized by the majority, a growing racist ideology, attempts to limit the political activities and civil rights of the minority, a tense security situation and strong political elements with vested interests in territorial expansion.


But this is not an edict from heaven. The task of responsible leadership is to stop this dangerous process. Benjamin Netanyahu frequently uses the imagery of 1938 regarding the international community’s attitude toward the Iranian nuclear threat. Back then, at the last moment before the world descended into a horrific bloody war, the democratic powers could have stopped Hitler, but they stuttered.


Netanyahu must understand that the domestic reality in Israel today is 1932, and his pallid speech calling on people not to take the law into their own hands cannot extricate Israeli society from the xenophobic and intolerant atmosphere that has spread. For this, a move of an entirely different magnitude is required.


The writer is a Holocaust scholar and director of Hebrew University’s Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry.


3. Ynet,

December 25, 2010


Israeli Racism

Academy of hatred


Op-ed: Silence not an option in face of growing hatred, racism on Israel’s streets,7340,L-4004009,00.html


Ziv Lenchner


The landscapers of evil can be reassured: The seeds of racism and hatred are sprouting well and even bearing nice fruit. Following the heartwarming rabbis’ letter, which called on the faithful not to rent or sell apartments to Arab citizens, we saw an anti-Arab protest in the city of Bat Yam earlier this week. 


It was a classic horror show, with the role of monsters played by the Ismaelites (who have the chutzpa to possess Israeli ID cards.) They walk our streets, shop at our malls, and try to woo our women, thereby apparently tainting our race. 


Yet that was just the beginning. Against the backdrop of the polished productions courtesy of the radical, inciting Right, and certainly under the spell of its malignant inspiration, a special elite unit was operating in Israel’s capital as of late. 


This gang of young Jerusalemites and settlers, most of them teenagers, pulverized random Arabs in God’s name. This devilish group, some of whose members already confessed, even employed a temptress, in the spirit of Mossad. 


Had this affair not been about hooliganism under an ideological guise and the violence of many against one (and an innocent one at that, assuming anybody cares,) we could have taken pride in the dedication and resourcefulness of our fighting boys.


The trouble is that there are some people out there who feel pride despite the circumstances. “You’re our heroes,” court visitors chanted at the thugs. “You’re our heroes,” said the talkbackers, and will likely continue to scream it here too.


Yet the worst thing is not screaming. The worst thing we can do is keep silent.



4.   Haaretz,

December 26, 2010

Is Judaism a race? Ask Israelis


By Zvi Bar’el


“They should be put prosecuted. Incitement is a crime. Had the rabbis who called for Rabin’s murder been prosecuted we might not be facing this situation today,” said the law professor, a pleasant man who once held a senior position in the Military Advocate General’s Corps of the Israel Defense Forces. His stance is logical and well-argued. That evening, after our meeting, he sent me the link to a YouTube video of the demonstration. “What do you think now?” he asked. We were arguing over whether the law creates norms or reflects norms already established. In other words, can Israeli racism be eliminated through law, trial and punishment, or is it already part of the Israeli identity.


The recent demonstrations in Bat Yam, Tel Aviv’s Hatikva Quarter and Zion Square, in Jerusalem, featured a motley medley of paradoxical partners in racist positions: ultra-Orthodox rabbis and “liberal” rabbis standing together against the rental and sale of apartments to Arabs; working-class folk demanding that foreigners be deported; members of the middle class who “fear for our daughters’ welfare” and male chauvinists carrying signs that say “Jewish women for Jewish men.” This demographic array poses an impossible burden on the law: Using legal means to stifle the trend would be tantamount to putting Israeli identity on trial.


For some time, shows of Israeli purity have not been the sole property of rabbis who serve the divine will. These demonstrations formulate and express something essential within the Israeli identity. “We” Israelis are everything “they” are not. Being Israeli is no longer a territorial or a religious definition, nor even a national definition resting on religious foundations. The Israeli state might be more Jewish than democratic, but being Israeli means belonging to a separate race that also happens to be Jewish; what counts is the Israeli race.


The economic argument – that foreigners take jobs away from Israelis – is a pretext. Even if there was no unemployment Israelis would not love Arabs, Sudanese or other foreigners. Even were army service voluntary Haredim would be considered foreigners, representatives of another culture and not Israeli. Even were there peace between Israel and the Arab states, Israeli identity would still be wrapped in fear.


The Israeli race defines its identity as Zionism. Within that identity, it seems, are religion, territory, nationalism and a dream. All these components, however, are the products of ideology. Religion is neither belief in God nor what is written in the Scriptures, but rather the religion defined by the State of Israel. For that reason, Reform Judaism, for example, is rejected.

The territory is neither that which was recognized by the United Nations, nor what was promised to the Jews as a national home, nor a sanctuary from anti-Semitism. Rather, it is a boundary-less sprawl that sends satellites into the land of another people and refuses to confine itself in a defined national container. The territory that has been allocated to this Israeli entity is too small for it. The state is only the beginning of the age of redemption, not its consummation.


Israeli nationalism does not tolerate other narratives, and it is based on the fear of external threats. The dream – and this is the trick that promotes unity – refers to peace and national solidarity. Whoever is not reconciled to this mass of components is not Israeli. Anyone with a blue Israeli identity card he waves while yelling “the people of Israel lives,” and “I have no other land,” must pass an admission test. If he doesn’t pass the test, he will be regarded as a “Russian,” or “Ethiopian,” or “American” or, of course, Arab or Sudanese.


This test of belonging is not encoded in any law and the examiners change locales, from Bat Yam to Safed to Kiryat Arba. They are empowered to strip Israeli identity even from those who possess it by dint of birth, the Law of Return, military service or naturalization. They have the authority to decide who is Zionist and who is not. They are everywhere: in the apartment across the hall, at the next desk, at the supermarket or sitting at the cabinet table. Should they be tried? They aren’t inciting, they are establishing norms, defining who is a true Israeli.


5.  Haaretz,

December 26, 2010


Higher education is province of well-off Jews, report finds


According to the Adva Center’s 2009/2010 report on Israel’s socioeconomic situation, Jewish high-schoolers were twice as likely to enroll in college as their Arab counterparts.


By Lior Dattel


Good high schools and higher education are still the province of the country’s well-off, and reforms from the 1990s haven’t changed this, states the Adva Center’s 2009/2010 report on Israel’s socioeconomic situation.


Only one out of four people who were in high school in 2001 went on to college by 2009, found the center’s annual report, entitled “Israel, A Social report.” In addition, Jewish high-schoolers were twice as likely to enroll in college as their Arab counterparts.


“Higher education is the path to a better personal and social future,” the report states. In Israel, “the road is pyramid-shaped: Everyone starts out together on the same step, but the higher you get on the pyramid the smaller the number of people.”


The report is based on a sample of 112,000 people the researchers began tracking in 2001, when they were 17-year-old high school students. Of the sample, 75.4% studied in a high-school track that enabled them to take matriculation exams. Only 45.7% were eligible for matriculation certificates.


Even fewer earned high enough grades to apply to college: 37.3% of the original sample. And by 2009, only 26.9% of the students – 30,000 people – had enrolled at an institution of higher learning in Israel. The report does not state how many of these people earned a degree.


Of the Jewish students, 31.5% went on to college. That is more than twice the rate of their Arab peers, only 15.3% of whom went on to higher learning.


The statistics do not include ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students, who do not take the matriculation exams. Nor do they include those who went on to study abroad.


In the past decade, there was virtually no change in the percentage of youth from affluent communities who went on to college, compared to their peers from poorer locales.


In 2008, 10.1% of 20- to 29-year-olds from prosperous Jewish locales were enrolled in undergraduate programs in Israeli colleges and universities. The equivalent figures for Arab communities and for Jewish towns in the periphery were 4.8% and 6%, respectively.


These numbers are similar to the figures for the year 2000.


“Even if the Education Ministry magically manages to raise the percentage of students who are eligible for matriculation certificates, the students won’t have anywhere to go because the higher education system only accepts students who do exceptionally well in high school and on the psychometric test,” said Dr. Shlomo Swirski, the Adva Center’s academic director. “If we want to raise the percentage of high-schoolers who are eligible for matriculation certificates, we need to invest in expanding the higher education system. In the meanwhile, the system runs on the assumption that only one out of every four young people will enroll in college or university.”


The report states that the 1990s higher education reform, which paved the way for opening colleges in an attempt to enable more young people from the periphery to earn a degree, did not achieve its goal.


While the introduction of new colleges did greatly increase the number of students, from 76,000 in 1990 to 237,000 in 2010, the change did not make higher education more accessible to either Jews or Arabs from less advantaged communities.


Currently 10.6% of college-aged Israelis from affluent Jewish communities are enrolled in undergraduate programs (up from 6.9% in 2002 ), compared to just 6.4% of their peers from Jewish communities in the periphery and 2.1% of their Arab age cohorts. In 2002 the figures for the latter two groups were 3.8% and 1.5%, respectively.


On average, 13.6% of Israelis between the ages of 20 and 29 are students. For affluent towns like Savyon and Omer that figure is 30%. The numbers are also high for Kfar Shmaryahu, Ramat Hasharon, Ra’anana, Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan and Haifa.


Dimona, Tirat Carmel, Or Akiva, Eilat and Jerusalem produce a below-average proportion of higher education students – from 8%-11%. At less than 5%, the rates for Haredi and Arab communities are even lower.


Matriculation eligibility rates stayed stable, at around 67%, for high-schoolers in well-off towns over the past decade, but dropped significantly for youth from poorer locales.



6. Ynet,

December 26, 2010


‘There are Jews who care’. Feiler Photo: Reuters


Former Israeli flotilla passenger speaks at Marmara rally

Dror Feiler delivers speech during mass rally to mark homecoming of Mavi Marmara ship to Istanbul port. ‘We are here together – Jews, Christians, Arabs against blockade, this is not about religion, but about human rights,’ he says,7340,L-4004761,00.html


Aviel Magnezi


Dror Feiler, the former Israeli who participated in the Turkish flotilla to Gaza in May, delivered a speech Sunday during a large reception rally to mark the homecoming of the flotilla flagship – the Mavi Marmara – to its home port in Istanbul.


In a conversation with Ynet, Feiler explained that he does not feel like a stranger among thousands of radical Muslims chanting out “death to Israel”.


“All the speeches stress that we are here together – Jews, Christians and Arabs against the blockade, this is not about religion, but about human rights, that’s why I presented myself as a Jew,” he said.


Feiler, now a Swedish citizen, was not on board the Maramara, and when IDF commandos took over the ship he was on, there was no violent resistance.


When asked if he is bothered by calls such as “death to Israel,” Feiler explained that it was the voice of a small minority.


“What is important is the leadership and the person who is heading it – and these people talk about humanitarian objectives.


“Hot blooded people are everywhere, including Beitar Jerusalem (football) games,” Feiler noted, adding that “there are people who are extremely angry for losing their loved ones, and we must condemn such calls. But what’s important is that they understand that we are standing with them, and that just like there are good Muslims and not so good Muslims – there are also Jews who care.”


‘Martyrs not a bad word’


According to Feiler, even those who regard the flotilla victims as “martyrs” are not inciting against Israel. “It is not a negative term. They are martyrs just like Samson was a martyr.”


“They died for a larger cause, not for themselves, because they wanted to help. I also said during my speech that they are martyrs for the Swedish people and for everyone else that wants to fight for human rights in the world,” he added.


Feiler said he was received warmly by the audience. “They shook my hand, thanked me and took pictures with me. I know many people in the (IHH) organization, and to my delight they had large banners in Hebrew that read ‘It is a humanitarian mission, we support human rights; we support the Gaza residents’.


“They are happy that it’s not a question of religion, and that there are varying opinions,” Feiler added, “They want Israelis to join the struggle and want to emphasize that it is not against Israel, but against the Israeli government’s policy and what Israel represents around the world – killing civilians outside of its territorial water. 


“Some find it hard to distinguish between the Israeli government and the Israeli people, and having Jews join us will help them make this distinction,” he concluded.


7.  Haaretz,

December 26 2010


U.S. may delay aid for Israel’s anti-rocket system due to budget woes

Delay comes as a result of Obama’s difficulties in pushing next year’s budget through Congress due to Republican opposition.


By Amos Harel


American aid to Israel for developing and buying additional Iron Dome anti-rocket batteries might be delayed for at least a few months due to President Barack Obama’s difficulties in pushing next year’s budget through Congress.


The delay will mean a long wait before the weapons can be bought from Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.


In May, the House of Representatives approved Obama’s decision to grant $205 million in special aid to Israel to buy the additional batteries and intercept missiles. Israel has so far funded the development of only two batteries by Rafael.


Obama has had problems getting the budget passed due to disagreements with the Republicans over health care reform and other issues. So he signed a presidential order outlining the administration’s activities until March 2011.


The order extends the current budget, allowing the administration to spend one-twelfth of the 2010 budget every month until March. But under these circumstances, funding for Iron Dome will have to wait until the annual U.S. budget is approved in March.


Another benefit delayed by the administration’s budget woes is the increase of general defense aid. In June 2008, the Bush administration approved an increase in defense aid to Israel of $3 billion a year for 10 years, up from $2.4 billion. Israel was to have received $3 billion in 2011, but in the meantime it will remain at this year’s level of $2.775 billion.


The problems are expected to be solved within a few months, but they will affect defense officials’ annual planning.


The delay in Washington is not Iron Dome’s only problem. The cabinet has yet to decide on additional funding to buy more Iron Dome batteries. Lacking either Israeli or American funding, no plan or estimated timetable is in place for producing and purchasing the system.


The Israel Air Force has already received the two systems Rafael has made, but they have not yet been declared operational. The IAF reportedly prefers to conduct more tests.


Moreover, all signs indicate that the Israel Defense Forces does not intend to deploy the systems in the western and northern Negev, as politicians had initially indicated. Instead, it is likely to place them on alert at an IAF base in the south.


[forwarded by Donna Wallach]

Never Again for Anyone 2011 speaking schedule


Below is a recent article written by Hajo Meyer:

An Ethical Tradition Betrayed

January, 2010


I was 20 years old when Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet army 55 years ago. This occurred just in time because 10 months imprisonment in Auschwitz-Gleiwitz-1 had weakened me considerably. One needed a hell of a lot of luck in order to survive that long under the circumstances in that camp.Two important components of luck were on my side. First, during my first years as a refugee kid in the Netherlands I had learned to be a locksmith. So during the very strong winter of ’44-’45 I worked in the warmth of a factory. Second, I had acquired a very good and completely trustworthy friend, called Jos. We helped each other as much as possible. The two of us did indeed survive.

Another aspect of my friendship with Jos was that in spite of — or better, due to — the extremely high number of people per square foot in such a camp, one felt extremely lonely. Because of our friendship, mutual help and absolute mutual trust we were not lonely. This was vital to our psychological survival.

Psychological survival is at least as important as physical survival. In fact, the Nazi concentration camps were their attempt to dehumanize us Jews. If a prisoner became part of the oppression system by being Kapo, the dehumanization would be successful. Obviously, the non-Jewish members of the oppression system were also no longer fully human. I realized there that anybody from a dominating group who tries to dehumanize people from a minority group, can only do so if by education, indoctrination and propaganda he has already been dehumanized himself, independent of the uniform he wears.

It is a deep tragedy that in Israel this is not what one concludes from the experiences in Auschwitz. To the contrary, Auschwitz is elevated there into a new religion.

“In the beginning is Auschwitz,” wrote Elie Wiesel. “Nothing should be compared to the Holocaust but everything must be related to it.” This elevation has allowed it to be exploited for political ends. All that was once most valued in a rich and varied Jewish heritage — the centrality of the ethical tradition, for instance — disappears beside the Nazi attempt at annihilation. This Holocaust religion translates in the minds of many into the impossibility that Israel can do any wrong.

Auschwitz existed within history, not outside of it. The main lesson I learned there is simple: We Jews should never, ever become like our tormentors — not even to save our lives. Even at Auschwitz, I sensed that such a moral downfall would render my survival meaningless.

Like most German Jews, I was raised in a secular and humanist tradition that was more antagonistic than sympathetic towards the Zionist enterprise. Since 1967 it has become obvious that political Zionism has one monolithic aim: Maximum land in Palestine with a minimum of Palestinians on it. This aim is pursued with an inexcusable cruelty as demonstrated during the assault on Gaza. The cruelty is explicitly formulated in the Dahiye doctrine of the military and morally supported by the Holocaust religion.

I am pained by the parallels I observe between my experiences in Germany prior to 1939 and those suffered by Palestinians today. I cannot help but hear echoes of the Nazi mythos of “blood and soil” in the rhetoric of settler fundamentalism which claims a sacred right to all the lands of biblical Judea and Samaria. The various forms of collective punishment visited upon the Palestinian people — coerced ghettoization behind a “security wall”; the bulldozing of homes and destruction of fields; the bombing of schools, mosques, and government buildings; an economic blockade that deprives people of the water, food, medicine, education and the basic necessities for dignified survival — force me to recall the deprivations and humiliations that I experienced in my youth. This century-long process of oppression means unimaginable suffering for Palestinians.

It is not too late to learn a different lesson from Auschwitz. For example, in the last year, the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network has become a means for many — including young Jews in the United States — to challenge the precepts of Zionism and support the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Their goal, and mine, is to challenge the dispossession and exclusivity of a Jewish state, in their names and in mine. They understand the urgency of the classical Jewish concept of teshuvah, return from the wrong road. Further, they understand that the pursuit of justice and making ethically positive sense out of senseless suffering is not only part of an ancient Jewish interpretation and shaping of history, but is crucial for all of us in creating the world we want to live in, and to our moral survival.

Hajo Meyer is the author of The End of Judaism: An Ethical Tradition Betrayed.




Posted in Middle EastComments Off on DOROTHY ONLINE NEWSLETTER





by Jehanzeb Dar 

Ma’an News Agency 

25 December 2010

Because of modern alarmist reactions to the word “Palestine,” many non-Arabs and non-Muslims take offense when it is argued that Jesus was a Palestinian (peace be upon him).
Jesus’ ethnicity, skin color, and culture often accompany this conversation, but few people are willing to acknowledge the fact he was non-European. A simple stroll down the Christmas aisle will show you the dominant depiction of Jesus: a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, white man.
Islamophobia and anti-Arab propaganda have conditioned us to view Palestinians as nothing but heartless suicide bombers, “terrorists,” and “enemies of freedom and democracy.” Perpetual media vilification and demonization of Palestinians, in contrast to the glorification of Israel, obstructs us from seeing serious issues such as the Palestinian refugee crisis, the victims of Israel’s atrocious three-week assault on Gaza during the winter of 2008-2009, the tens of thousands of homeless Palestinians, and many other struggles that are constantly addressed by human rights activists around the world.
To speak from the perspective of the Palestinians, especially in casual non-Arab and non-Muslim settings, generates controversy because of the alignment between Palestinians and violent stereotypes. So, how could Jesus belong to a group of people that we’re taught to dehumanize?
When I’ve spoken to people about this, I’ve noticed the following responses: “No, Jesus was a Jew,” or “Jesus is not Muslim.” The mistake isn’t a surprise to me, but it certainly is revealing. Being a Palestinian does not mean one is Muslim or vice versa. Prior to the brutal and unjust dispossession of indigenous Palestinians during the creation of the state of Israel, the word “Palestine” was a geographic term applied to Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Christians, and Palestinian Jews. Although most Palestinians are Muslim today, there is a significant Palestinian Christian minority who are often overlooked, especially by the mainstream Western media.
That dominant narrative not only distorts and misrepresents the Palestinian struggle as a religious conflict between “Muslims and Jews,” but consequentially pushes the lives of Palestinian Christians into “non-existence.” That is, due to the media’s reluctance to report the experiences and stories of Palestinian Christians, it isn’t a surprise when white Americans are astonished by the fact that Palestinian and Arab Christians do, in fact, exist. One could argue that the very existence of Palestinian Christians is threatening, as it disrupts the sweeping and overly-simplistic “Muslim vs. Jew” Zionist narrative.

To learn about many Palestinian Christians opposing Israeli military occupation, as well as Jews who oppose the occupation, is to reveal more voices, perspectives, and complexities to a conflict that has been immensely portrayed as one-sided, anti-Palestinian, and anti-Muslim.
Yeshua (Jesus’ real Aramaic name) was born in Bethlehem, a Palestinian city in the West Bank and home to one of the largest Palestinian Christian communities. The Church of the Nativity, one of the oldest churches in the world, marks the birthplace of Jesus and is sacred to both Christians and Muslims. While tourists from the around the world visit the site, they are subject to Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli construction of the West Bank barrier also severely restricts travel for local Palestinians.

In April of 2010, Israeli authorities barred Palestinian Christians from entering Jerusalem and visiting the Church of Holy Sepulchre during Easter. Yosef Zabaneh, a Palestinian Christian merchant in Ramallah, said: “The Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank doesn’t distinguish between us, but treats all Palestinians with contempt.”
Zabaneh’s comments allude to the persistent dehumanization of Palestinians, as well as the erasure of Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims. By constantly casting Palestinians as the villains, even the term “Palestine” becomes “evil.” There is refusal to recognize, for example, that the word “Palestine” was used as early as the 5th century BCE by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus. John Bimson, author of “The Compact Handbook of Old Testament Life,” acknowledges the objection to the use of “Palestine”:
The term ‘Palestine’ is derived from the Philistines. In the fifth century BC the Greek historian Herodotus seems to have used the term Palaistine Syria (= Philistine Syria) to refer to the whole region between Phoenicia and the Lebanon mountains in the north and Egypt in the south… Today the name “Palestine” has political overtones which many find objectionable, and for that reason some writers deliberately avoid using it. However, the alternatives are either too clumsy to be used repeatedly or else they are inaccurate when applied to certain periods, so “Palestine” remains a useful term…

Deliberately avoiding the use of the name “Palestine” not only misrepresents history, but also reinforces anti-Palestinian racism as acceptable. When one examines the argument against Jesus being a Palestinian, one detects a remarkable amount of hostility aimed at both Palestinians and Muslims. One cannot help but wonder, is there something threatening about identifying Jesus as a Palestinian? Professor Jack D. Forbes writes about Jesus’ multi-cultural and multi-ethnic environment:
When the Romans came to dominate the area, they used the name Palestine. Thus, when Yehoshu’a [Jesus] was born, he was born a Palestinian as were all of the inhabitants of the region, Jews and non-Jews. He was also a Nazarene (being born in Nazareth) and a Galilean (born in the region of Galilee)… At the time of Yehoshu’a’s birth, Palestine was inhabited by Jews-descendants of Hebrews, Canaanites, and many other Semitic peoples-and also by Phoenicians, Syrians, Greeks, and even Arabs.
Despite these facts, there are those who use the color-blind argument: “It does not matter what Jesus’ ethnicity or skin color was. It does not matter what language he spoke. Jesus is for all people, whether you’re black, white, brown, yellow, etc.” While this is a well-intentioned expression of inclusiveness and universalism, it misses the point.
When we see so many depictions of Jesus as a Euro-American white man, the ethnocentrism and race-bending needs to be called out. In respect to language, for instance, Neil Douglas-Klotz, author of “The Hidden Gospel: Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus,” emphasizes the importance of understanding that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not English, and that his words, as well as his worldview, must be understood in light of Middle Eastern language and spirituality. Douglas-Klotz provides an interesting example which reminds me of the rich depth and meaning of Arabic, Urdu, and Farsi words, especially the word for “spirit”:

Whenever a saying of Jesus refers to spirit, we must remember that he would have used an Aramaic or Hebrew word. In both of these languages, the same word stands for spirit, breath, air, and wind. So ‘Holy Spirit’ must also be ‘Holy Breath.’ The duality between spirit and body, which we often take for granted in our Western languages falls away. If Jesus made the famous statement about speaking or sinning against the Holy Spirit (for instance, in Luke 12:10), then somehow the Middle Eastern concept of breath is also involved.
Certainly, no person is superior to another based on culture, language, or skin color, but to ignore the way Jesus’ whiteness has been used to subjugate and discriminate against racial minorities in the West and many other countries is to overlook another important aspect of Jesus’ teachings: Love thy neighbor as thyself. Malcolm X wrote about white supremacists and slave-owners using Christianity to justify their “moral” and “racial superiority” over blacks. In Malcolm’s own words, “The Holy Bible in the White man’s hands and its interpretations of it have been the greatest single ideological weapon for enslaving millions of non-white human beings.” Throughout history, whether it was in Jerusalem, Spain, India, Africa, or in the Americas, white so-called “Christians” cultivated a distorted interpretation of religion that was compatible with their racist, colonialist agenda.
And here we are in the 21st century where Islamophobia (also stemming from racism because the religion of Islam gets racialized) is on the rise; where people calling themselves “Christian” fear to have a black president; where members of the KKK and anti-immigration movements behave as if Jesus were an intolerant white American racist who only spoke English despite being born in the Middle East. It is astonishing how so-called “Christians” like Ann Coulter call Muslims “rag-heads” when in actuality, Jesus himself would fit the profile of a “rag-head,” too. As would Moses, Joseph, Abraham, and the rest of the Prophets (peace be upon them all). As William Rivers Pitt writes:
The ugly truth which never even occurs to most Americans is that Jesus looked a lot more like an Iraqi, like an Afghani, like a Palestinian, like an Arab, than any of the paintings which grace the walls of American churches from sea to shining sea. This was an uncomfortable fact before September 11. After the attack, it became almost a moral imperative to put as much distance between Americans and people from the Middle East as possible. Now, to suggest that Jesus shared a genealogical heritage and physical similarity to the people sitting in dog cages down in Guantanamo is to dance along the edge of treason.
Without acknowledging Jesus as a native Middle Eastern person — a Palestinian — who spoke Aramaic — a Semitic language that is ancestral to Arabic and Hebrew — the West will continue to view Islam as a “foreign religion.” Hate crimes and discriminatory acts against Muslims, Arabs, and others who are perceived to be Muslim will persist. They will still be treated as “cultural outsiders.” Interesting enough, Christianity and Judaism are never considered “foreign religions,” despite having Middle Eastern origins, like Islam. As Douglas-Klotz insists, affirming Jesus as a native Middle Eastern person “enables Christians to understand that the mind and message” of Jesus arises from “the same earth as have the traditions of their Jewish and Muslim sisters and brothers.”
Jesus would not prefer one race or group of people over another. I believe he would condemn today’s demonization and dehumanization of the Palestinian people, as well as the misrepresentations of him that only fuel ignorance and ethnocentrism. As a Muslim, I believe Jesus was a prophet of God, and if I were to have any say about the Christmas spirit, it would be based on Jesus’ character: humility, compassion, and Love. A love in which all people, regardless of ethnicity, race, culture, religion, gender, and sexual orientation are respected and appreciated.
And in that spirit, I wish you a merry Christmas. Alaha Natarak (Aramaic: God be with you).
The author blogs at Muslim Reverie. He recently wrote a chapter in “Teaching Against Islamophobia” on the demonization of Muslims and Arabs in mainstream American comics.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on JESUS WAS PALESTINIAN & WHY IT MATTERS



December 26, 2010

by crescentandcross  



By Perry Lombardi,


The criminal spy Jonathan Pollard is back in the news again as Jews and their boot licking lackeys in the US Congress as well as their masters in Israel are clamoring for his release once again. Most people in the United States have only a cursory knowledge at best of this Jewish criminal. However the implications of the details of “the Pollard affair” may be the most profound of all of the issues facing the people of the western world.

One of the most important details, in my opinion, is the theft and selling of all the planning documents related to a nuclear war with the USSR. Virtually the entire WWIII “play book” was forwarded from Pollard via Israel to the then Soviet Union. Unfortunately there’s no indication that our “allies” in the middle east had one of their worms in Russia return the favor to their bestest friends in the whole world the USA…no “Soviet play book” for US. So let’s review, in 1985 the Soviet Union had the entire planning guide of the United States related to all aspects of a potential nuclear war and the United States had…Jonathan Pollard…”such a deal”.

Having grown up being told by the authorities at school to “duck and cover” on a regular basis I’ve made it a life long “hobby” to keep a close eye on the nuclear policies and practices of all of the potential players in WWIII. Having this knowledge I must say the implications given the current state of affairs are truly horrifying beyond imagination. I’ll try to enumerate why…

Most people, because of what they’ve been told by the media over the last twenty years, think that the threat of nuclear war went away when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991…like all the nukes just disappeared or something. Sure George H.W. Bush signed the START treaty (the one just re-ratified) which promised to reduce “strategic” nuclear stockpiles in conjunction with Russia and the former Soviet States. Bush also promised no NATO eastern expansion and we know how that went. Guess how the START plan went. It didn’t! The Russians in the 1990′s couldn’t afford to dismantle their own nukes let alone pay for inspections of the US nuclear arsenal and the whole thing was “deferred” meaning no significant reduction of the opposing stockpiles occurred. Still plenty of nukes to have a big ol’ war kids.

What has taken place regarding the infrastructure of the United States since Pollard the puke was captured in 1985? Do you think it is just bridges and railways and roads falling apart? The real bad news is that nuclear weapons, just like roads and bridges, need maintenance to be reliable. The nuclear material of the bomb decays over time, meaning it looses mass and density, and if this decay reaches a certain threshold the probability is the bomb will be a dud. Is it possible the USA holds a bunch of dud nukes? It certainly is not beyond imagination.

While Russia was certainly on the balls of its collective ass in the 1990′s by 1999 they had weathered the storm and with the election of Vladimir Putin a leaner more efficient Russia began to emerge. Flush with cash from the rise in oil prices (Russia is the #1 world oil producer…not the Arabs) and prompted by aggressive moves from the west (continuous NATO expansion, “missile defense” in Poland, a war on Serbia etc. etc. etc.), Russia has recently put the shine on their “strategic” arsenal complete with several new missile delivery systems in fact they have just recently introduced an ICBM with 24 individual, separately targeted, warheads of the 60 to 150 Kiloton yield range

Before we go further let’s clarify that there are two classes of nuclear fission weapons differentiated by their deployment/delivery system, intended use and deployment theater. “Strategic”nuclear weapons are the “city killers” delivered via Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) in multiple warhead payloads. “Tactical” nuclear weapons are “field use” weapons deployed to the actual battlefield for use as anti-personnel artillery. These are generally smaller portable single warhead systems delivered either by bomber, naval launched cruise missile or even the old 1950′s “nuclear cannon” (as well as drones I suppose).

There have been several nuclear policy changes since 1985 which significantly impact the discussion of the implications of the “Pollard affair”. The most significant, in my opinion, is that first the USA and then in response Russia since 9-11 have officially switched their overall policies from strictly defensive (as in no first strike) to overtly offensive (as in “we” reserve the right to strike first at our prerogative). Even more disturbing is that both countries nuclear policy has been expanded to include non-nuclear countries (like Venezuela for instance) as potential targets of nuclear weapons. This bilateral policy shift has for all intents and purposes placed us in a perpetual “Cuban Missile Crisis”.

During the last fifteen years the USA and Russia have taken divergent paths in internal nuclear policy and planning. Russia has essentially stuck with the Strategic ICBM exchange model in both weapons development and contingency planning. While neither country has developed (at least publicly) any new fission type warheads (DU artillery doesn’t count in government bizzaro world) Russia has utilized technologies gained from the joint venture ISS program to develop new more sophisticated delivery systems.

In keeping with planning for a Strategic nuclear exchange Russia has also maintained its Civil Defense programs of education of the populace (what to do in a nuclear war) and infrastructure of bomb shelters as well as localized civil response planning (food stores, medical response and water). THEY plan on “picking up the pieces” and continuing on after WWIII and always have in a pragmatic way.

The United States on the other hand has shifted away from the “Strategic” model of nuclear war to “Tactical” weapons development and deployment, developing smaller more rapidly and diversely deployable “field nukes” (frighteningly) under the direct control of the Commanders in the field of battle. Indeed under the guise of START treaty compliance much of America’s Strategic arsenal WAS dismantled and refashioned into “field nukes” as per the revamped policy. The United States also has not developed a new missile system since…well…1985 when Pollard the Puke was caught.

The last national coordinated civil defense drill in the context of a nuclear war scenario was in the Spring of 1990. Virtually all civil defense planning has been dropped and all civil defense infrastructure has disappeared (go ahead try and find a public bomb shelter!) while the sheeple have been fed a steady stream of POST-apocalyptic Hollywood fairy tales and been brainwashed to believe “everyone’s going to die anyway so why even THINK about it” so they don’t question the disappearing civil defense measures.

BAD NEWS people “the bombs” aren’t going to kill most of you it WILL be from starvation, lack of water, lack of shelter and lack of medical care that most will enter the next life after WWIII…because, well, we didn’t plan now did we kids? It appears our response to Jonathan Pollard giving our entire nuclear play book to Russia via our “good friends” Israel  was “Bummer…well I guess we don’t have to spend money on that any more we’ll have to do it the old fashioned way with ground troops and NATO expansion east”…in other words we have NO PLAN regarding a Strategic based WWIII scenario so I guess the stuff the Soviets got in 1985 is irrelevant in some twisted “logical” way.

So what does all this have to do with Pollard? I believe, based on my research and observations, that the “Pollard affair” is a small part of a much larger and longer running (like centuries if not millennium) plan of which WWIII, including a nuclear exchange between Russia and the USA, is also a part.

The plan for the USA is “total wipe out of the population” and that is why the vast majority (90% plus) of the sheeple have been herded economically (as well as socially) into nice little target zones called cities while 99% of the actual landscape is either “protected” or significantly regulated so as to “preserve” it, not for the animals stupid, but, for the MASTERS…they want a nice “hunt club”/resort/vacation paradise called North America…no waiting at the ski lifts and just enough “waiters” to keep them happy.

The “unthinkable implication” is that the USA has been set up, intentionally, for sudden complete destruction via nuclear war and that Jonathan Pollard was just one of a multitude of players in making this ultimate Jewish Dream come true. After all “they” can’t have their Jew World Order with the USA or Russia in existence in any significant way. The big bonus for “them” if our Jewish friends manage to manipulate the USA and Russia into nuking each other out of existence is that “they” (meaning Israel) will be THE nuclear superpower.

Posted in USA1 Comment

Shoah’s pages


December 2010
« Nov   Jan »