Archive | June 23rd, 2011





Gilad Atzmon: A Zionist blitzed me this morning with a few questions. I thought they were pretty interesting and decided to share my answers with my readers.

Q: Is there any definition in your lexicon of what an anti Semite is?

GA: “The Anti Semites” is an open list of the people the Jewish people hate.

Q: Do you consider yourself Jewish?

GA: I haven’t been a Jew for many years — but I still may be slightly Jewish.  This is unfortunate, but I try to deal with it.

Q: Do you honestly believe that Israel is the most criminal country in the world?

GA: Yes

Q:  What  would be your top ten, or even six?

GA: Because the Jewish State defines a category of its own, it cannot be listed amongst other nations.

Q: As far as this dog incident is concerned, remember one thing. Those involved are anti Zionist Neturei Karta.

GA: To start with, I am not so sure that this is indeed the case. As far as I am aware it was Jerusalem Rabbinical court. Also, being an anti Zionist is just one aspect of ethical thinking.

Q: The Rabbinical Court followed a system of learning, rather than  a blind primitive superstition.

GA: The idea that a Judaic judgement process was involved in a decision to stone a dog  actually makes the rabbinical ruling far more sinister.

Q: If you were sincere in this you would object more to Indian women being  facially scarred by acid throwing men because they have been raped and so have brought ‘shame’ on the family. why aren’t you more global?

GA: Because I am against globalisation! I am interested in Jewish identity politics and I think that I am very effective in exposing it.

Q: All extremists (and I include you in this) have some facile ‘truth’ in their view for a ‘perfect’ world.. Do you eat meat? Wear leather shoes? If not, remember vegetables have feelings too.

GA: You are correct; I am indeed more concerned with the life of a Palestinian child in Jenin, than with the livelihood  of a tomato.


Kuwaiti woman supports s*x-slavery for women


by American Bedu

Salwa Al Mutairi, a Kuwaiti political activist, relates in this video how on a recent visit to Maccah, religious scholars told her that having women turned into  sex-slaves is a good thing. They also cited parts of  Islamic scripture to her which support the enslavement of women for the purpose of sex. Apparently she has taken it hook, line, and sinker, and is now calling for a new law allowing sex-slaves for men so hat they can have halal sex besides their wife (/wives) and therefore saving good Muslim men from zina and fornication.
According to Al Mutairi a good source  for the Muslim sex-slaves would be women from countries like Chechnya. When women are captured in a situation of war they could then be sold to ”dealers” in Kuwait.
She has no problem with enslaving women, which will of course have to be Christian, oops, she meant of course ”non-Muslim” women, and having them live a life of imprisonment and endless rapes. As long as Muslims are safe, and Muslim men are protected from ”fornication”, and it is supported by the scholars, it is a good idea.

Or is it? Is this a serious video? Or one gigantic hoax? What do you think?

Further reading:

Article in Al Arabiya

Article in International business Times

Article in Kuwait  times

Posted in KuwaitComments Off on Kuwaiti woman supports s*x-slavery for women

Subaru sells cars where women can’t drive

Saudi women are calling on Subaru to pull out of Saudi Arabia until they have the right to drive. Join them!

Sign the Petition

Dear All,

Amazing! Last week, a group of Saudi women activists started a petition calling on Saudi authorities to drop charges against Manal al-Sharif, a woman arrested for driving her own car. Days later, the charges were dropped!

Then, they launched campaigns calling on U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and E.U. High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton to speak out publicly for Saudi women’s right to drive. Clinton and Ashton initially resisted, but after petitions for their support gained more than 27,000 signatures collectively, both backed the campaign.

This week Clinton declared, “What these women are doing is brave, and what they are seeking is right,” at a major press conference. Ashton said in a statement just yesterday, “They are courageous and have the High Representative’s support.”

Now, the same Saudi women are launching their biggest campaign yet: calling on car company Subaru to pull out of Saudi Arabia until women have the right to drive. Please click here to sign their petition, then send this email to everyone you know.

Subaru markets heavily to women, especially in the U.S. and Europe — and has built up a progressive brand for itself. Yet the company still sells cars in Saudi Arabia, the only country on earth where women are prohibited from driving or even riding a bike.

(The ban is a huge impediment for women who are forbidden to drive to work, stores, or even a hospital. Many women can’t afford male drivers, and those that can are often harassed by them.)

The activists at Saudi Women for Driving tell us, “Manal was released, Mrs. Clinton spoke out, and some brave women have started driving in defiance of the ban. This is already the largest women’s rights movement in Saudi history and no one here knows what will happen next, but a big company like Subaru pulling out could help change our country forever. Help us do it!”

It’s simple: A massive campaign to push Subaru to pull out of Saudi Arabia — and the threat that they might leave — will put huge pressure on the Saudi royal family and shine a bright light on the “gender apartheid” in the country. It’s a chance for the company to live up to its brand and make a huge difference for nearly 13 million women. members have already won more than 200 campaigns in 2011. Let’s win this one, too.

Click here to stand with Saudi women and ask Subaru to pull out of Saudi Arabia until women win the right to drive:


Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Subaru sells cars where women can’t drive

Zionist proxy denies visas to Palestinian’s

Britain denies visas to Gaza F1 team

Zionist proxy British embassy in Amman, Jordan denied Palestinian students visas to UK to compete in the 2011 Formula Student in London.

Sources say that denial was due to the fact that the Palestinian Formula Student team did not have an official financer during its stay in London.

Formula Student is student engineering competition to be held in London July 14-17. The contest challenges youngsters from around the world to design, build and race a single-seat racing car from scratch.

Students were shocked especially that they have spent a whole year designing the Formula 1-style car despite all hardships


Students in an UNRWA-run school in the Gaza Strip have built a Formula 1-style race car from mainly recycled parts. They were preparing to enter the Formula Student auto race in the United Kingdom. If they managed to make to London, that would reflect great will, determination and creativity despite the crippling siege Zio-Nazi has been imposing on the coastal enclave for almost four years.

The car was built by a group of Gazan students and their teacher at Gaza Training Center in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip which is run by the UNRWA. After the car was completed and painted, the team ran a test drive earlier this month.

Posted in UK1 Comment

Dorothy Online Newsletter


Dear Friends,

I do hope that you will glance through all the items in yesterday’s compilation in Today in Palestine.  In addition, I added a few other items on demolitions that are not in Today in Pal.  Israel is like a bull in a china shop, and there is no one to stop Israel!  It’s sickening.  Palestinians, like some Jews, are human beings!

Item 2 of the 5 this evening is by Amira Hass, who reveals the ‘truth behind another Israeli expulsion trick.’

In item 3 Français ci-dessous argues that the blockade on Gaza is illegal—first in English, then in French.

Item 4 reviews briefly Francis Boyle’s new book “THE PALESTINIAN RIGHT OF RETURN UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW”  Boyle attacks the issue from the legal standpoint.

Item 5 is brief and positive.  It  informs us that the August Burns Red group have cancelled their scheduled appearance in Israel.

All the best,



1.  Demolitions and other important news.  Please read.

Today in Palestine

This Monday, the Civil Administration, along with private contractors, engaged in a campaign of destruction in Khirbet Bir el-Eid in South Hebron Hills. Six tents and houses and one toilet were demolished. The forces also uprooted fruit and vegetable bushes, and cut the cables of the electricity system installed in the village by COMET-ME. According to residents, soldiers told them that “you do not deserve electricity here”. In addition, the soldiers damaged a water tank (the village is not connected to running water), and to the food sack of the animals grown by the


This week too, we will stand alongside our Palestinian partners in their daily struggle to survival under the occupation.

For details and registration:

Dolev 054-8184467 or

Please bring a hat, water and closed and don’t forget to dress modestly (no shorts or sleeveless shirts).

Ta’ayush Jerusalem


in addition to the demolitions in al hadidya yesterday, 2 homes where demolished in khirbet yarza, a community of 200 people isolated from the rest of the jordan valley by military only roads and the dier yassir checkpoint. watch at

****    ****
new and improved web site


Demolishing lives in the Jordan Valley

21 June, 2011 – Hilary Minch

Over 40 people, (at least 15 children) were made homeless in the latest wave of home demolitions by the Israeli Army today (21 June). The demolitions took place in Al Hadidiya and Khirbet Yarza in the Jordan Valley in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt).

In Al Hadidiya, five families had 30 structures demolished, including family homes, animal shelters, kitchens and fencing. One woman, Ralia, who is in her sixties and suffers from diabetes, described what happened: “The big soldier wouldn’t speak to me. He just said ‘This is my job, sit down and shut up’”.  She was sitting alone, desolate, crying. Ahmed Abdullah Harfi Yusuf Ben Adi stood with his wife Hitam who is 6 months pregnant, their son Abdullah and mother, viewing the remains of their family home and animal shelters. Their belongings were strewn in the rubble and they had salvaged what they could.

A few hundred metres away in Roi colony settlement, the trees and flowers abundantly surround the modern homes, swimming pools, lush gardens. The colony is built on the land of Al Hadidiya.

In Khirbet Yarza, EAPPI and Jordan Valley Solidarity arrived just as the Israeli army demolished the family homes, a kitchen as well as animal shelters belonging to the Darraghmeh family. 30 people, including 8 children were affected by the demolition. The Darraghmeh family’s son plans to get married in July – all the wedding funds were lost beneath the rubble of their demolished home. One of the sons said “I really don’t care about my suffering, but what about the children?” The family were warned by the army that the soldiers would return if the family remained in the area or received humanitarian assistance.

Under International Law, (Article 53 of the IV Geneva Convention), any destruction by the Occupying Power of personal property of protected people (Palestinian civilians living under Israeli military occupation) is prohibited, except when such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

For more information, please contact Hilary Minch, EAPPI Yanoun at:

+972 (0) 54 799 8722,  +972 (0) 59 796 1226054

The EAPPI is an advocacy and human rights programme of the World Council of Churches in response to a request by the Jerusalem Heads of Churches and Palestinians in 2001 for an international protective presence in Palestine. The EAPPI supports an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and a resolution to the Israeli–oPt conflict with a just peace, on the basis of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions.


2,  Haaretz,

June 22, 2011


The truth behind another Israeli expulsion trick

The artificial division between Areas A, B and C was supposed to be erased from the map, and dropped from the discourse, in 1999. Instead, Israel has sanctified and perpetuated it.

By Amira Hass

Of all places, it is in Azzariyeh, east of Jerusalem, that one can really learn to appreciate the activities of Palestinian law-enforcement authorities in cities like Ramallah and Nablus. In those cities, Palestinian security forces are seen as authority figures who are trying to protect and serve Palestinian citizens, not just as extensions of Fatah or subcontractors of the Israel Defense Forces or the Shin Bet security service.

Unlike Ramallah and Nablus, which are categorized as “A” areas, Azzariyeh and its neighbors Sawahra and Abu Dis are holed up in an enclave of type “B”, where the IDF does not allow the Palestinian police to be fully functional. The interim Oslo 2 agreement determines that the Palestinian Authority is responsible for maintaining public order in Area B, but in the same breath it limits the PA’s authority and the means by which it can protect the people from disruptions of public order. Almost every action taken by the Palestinian police in Area B requires IDF approval.

And Israel, which has no inhibitions about violating key clauses of the agreement, is particularly meticulous here: The number of police officers is limited, police are prohibited from moving from a makeshift police station in an apartment building to a proper one, they are not allowed to carry weapons or wear uniforms, and they are prohibited from bringing in reinforcements on their own to locate drug or weapons dealers or to deliver subpoenas. Is it any wonder that the Azzariyeh-Abu Dis enclave has become a place of refuge for the outlaws of the West Bank? Not that this enclave has not had its share of troubles. Since it was shut off by the wall in 2005, all its ties with its natural and immediate urban center, East Jerusalem, have been severed. The enclave’s isolation, and the impoverishment and despair to which it gave rise, are as painful as a fresh burn.

The artificial division between Areas A, B and C was supposed to be erased from the map, and dropped from the discourse, in 1999. Instead, Israel has sanctified and perpetuated it. The largest share – 60 percent – is designated Area C, meaning it is under full Israeli security and civil control. It is self-evident why Israel perpetuates the Area C classification. After all, it gives Israel a free hand to continue emptying that part of the West Bank of Palestinians and encourage more Jews to violate international law and settle there.

But what about Area B? Why does Israel insist that drug and weapons trafficking should flourish in an area several dozen meters away from Ma’aleh Adumim and some three kilometers from the Judea and Samaria District police headquarters – both of which sites, as is often forgotten, are violating international law due to their location on the land reserves of Palestinian villages? True, there is also unlicensed public transportation, unlicensed construction, environmental pollution – but the drugs and weapons trade dwarfs those violations. A similar situation exists in A-Ram, the hybrid city between Ramallah and Jerusalem that is also cut off from its past, its surroundings and its land by the wall. Just a hop, skip and jump (over a wall and barbed-wire fence ) away from Jerusalem, some 100,000 people have been left to fend for their own personal safety, a situation that can be reversed.

Is there some deliberate intention behind the painstaking adherence to a clause in an agreement that was supposed to be short-lived? That’s what many Palestinians have concluded. Some say the drugs and weapons dealers are collaborators, or potential collaborators, with Israel. This is why the Shin Bet and IDF are not allowing the Palestinian police to take action against them and why, according to them, Israeli security forces immediately find out about any Palestinian attempt to capture them. Some find here a strategic goal: The worse this intolerable situation gets in neighborhoods that are so close to the annexed Jerusalem, the greater the likelihood that the residents will leave and head over to Area A. In other words, it’s just another expulsion trick.


Listen to the Palestinians. The subjugated excel at analyzing the implications of their ruler’s actions. And if the Palestinians are wrong, then why will the IDF not let the Palestinian police operate freely?


3,  Forwarded by the JPLO List

June 22, 2011


Veuillez diffuser largement – Please forward widely

Français ci-dessous

The blockade *is* illegal no matter what Israel claims:

An expert legal opinion on International Maritime Law and the Gaza blockade

Ambassador Craig Murray is a former Alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the United Nations Preparatory Commission on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.  He was deputy head of the teams which negotiated the UK’s maritime boundaries with France, Germany, Denmark (Faeroe Islands) and Ireland.

As Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he was responsible for giving real time political and legal clearance to Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, in enforcement of the UN authorised blockade against Iraqi weapons shipments.

Ambassador Craig Murray is therefore an internationally recognised authority on maritime jurisdiction and naval boarding issues.

His analysis of the Israeli blockade of Gaza and the right of the Gaza flotilla to sail.

“The legal position is plain.  A vessel outwith the territorial waters (12 mile limit) of a coastal state is on the high seas under the sole jurisdiction of the flag state of the vessel.  The ship has a positive right of  passage on the high seas.  The coastal state can regulate economic activity exploiting the resources of the seas and continental shelf up to 200 miles, the extent of the continental shelf, or the agreed boundary, but there is no indication of fishing, oil drilling or analagous economic activity in this case.  The vessel is entitled to free passage.”

“This right of free passage is guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, to which the United States is a full party.  Any incident which takes place upon a US flagged ship on the High Seas is subject to United States legal jurisdiction.  A ship is entitled to look to its flag state for protection from attack on the High Seas.”

“Israel has declared a blockade on Gaza and justified previous fatal attacks on neutral civilian vessels on the High Seas in terms of enforcing that embargo, under the legal cover given by the San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.”

“There are however fundamental flaws in this line of argument.    It falls completely on one fact alone.  San Remo only applies to blockade in times of armed conflict.  Israel is not currently engaged in an armed conflict, and presumably does not wish to be.  San Remo does not confer any right to impose a permanent blockade outwith times of armed conflict, and in fact specifically excludes as illegal a general blockade on an entire population.”

“It should not be denied that Israel suffers from sporadic terrorist attacks emanating from Gaza.  However this does not come close  to reaching the bar of armed conflict that would trigger the right to impose a limited naval blockade in terms of San Remo.  To make a comparison, in the 1970’s and 1980’s the United Kingdom suffered continued terrorist attack from the Irish Republican Army, with much more murderous impact causing many more deaths than anything Israel has suffered in recent years from Gaza.  However nobody would seek to argue that the UK would have had the right to mount a general naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland in the 1970’s and 1980’s, even though the Republic was undoubtedly the base for much IRA supply and operations.  Justifications of Israeli naval action against neutral civilian ships by San Remo is based on special pleading and an impossibly strained definition of the term “armed conflict”. “


For more information Craig Murray can be reached at


Le blocus est illégal quoi qu’en dise Israel:



L’ambassadeur Craig Murray a été chef suppléant de la délégation britannique à la Commission préparatoire des Nations Unies sur la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer. Il a également été directeur adjoint de l’équipe qui a négocié les frontières maritimes du Royaume-Uni avec la France, l’Allemagne, le Danemark (îles Féroé) et l’Irlande.


En tant que chef de la Section maritime du Foreign Office et du Commonwealth, il était responsable de fournir en temps réel les autorisations juridiques et les approbations politiques liées aux manœuvres d’accostage de la Royal Navy dans le Golfe Persique suite à l’invasion irakienne du Koweït, dans le cadre de la mise en application du blocus autorisé par l’ONU sur les cargaisons d’armes irakiennes.


L’ambassadeur Craig Murray est une autorité mondiale sur le droit maritime et sur les questions d’arraisonnement des navires.

Voici son analyse du blocus israélien de Gaza et du droit de la flottille de Gaza d’appareiller :


« Sur le plan légal, la situation est claire. Un navire qui se trouve hors des eaux territoriales (limite des 12 milles marins) d’un État côtier se trouve en ​​haute mer et sous la juridiction exclusive de l’État duquel il bat pavillon. Le navire dispose du droit de passage en haute mer. L’État côtier concerné peut réguler l’activité économique et exploiter les ressources de la mer et du plateau continental jusqu’à une distance 200 milles marins, jusqu’à la fin du plateau continental, ou à l’intérieur d’une frontière convenue. Mais dans le présent cas, il n’y a aucune indication de pêche, de forage ou d’autre activité économique. Le navire a donc le droit de libre passage ».


« Le droit de libre passage est garanti par la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer dont les États-Unis sont signataires. Lorsqu’un incident survient en haute mer sur un navire battant pavillon des États-Unis, l’incident tombe sous la compétence des États-Unis. Un navire est autorisé à faire appel à la protection de l’État du pavillon du navire contre les attaques en haute mer ».

« Israël a imposé un blocus sur Gaza et a justifié ses précédentes attaques meurtrières contre des navires civils neutres en haute mer en s’appuyant sur la couverture juridique du Manuel de San Remo sur le droit international applicable aux conflits armés en mer ».


« Mais l’argument est faussé à la base et il perd toute substance à la lumière d’un seul fait central: San Remo ne concerne que les blocus mis en application dans le cadre de conflits armés. Présentement, Israël n’est pas engagé dans un conflit armé et dit ne pas rechercher le conflit armé. San Remo ne confère aucunement le droit d’imposer un blocus permanent hors du cadre d’un conflit armé, et de fait, il exclut spécifiquement l’application qu’il considère comme illégale d’un blocus à une population entière ».


« Il ne s’agit pas de nier qu’Israël subit des attaques terroristes sporadiques émanant de la bande de Gaza. Mais cela est loin d’atteindre le niveau d’un conflit armé pouvant engendrer le droit d’imposer un blocus naval limité selon les critères de San Remo. À titre de comparaison, l’impact meurtrier des attaques de l’Armée républicaine irlandaise (IRA) sur le Royaume-Uni durant les années 1970 et 1980 a été bien plus lourd et a causé beaucoup plus de morts que toutes les pertes infligées par Gaza à Israël. Malgré cela, il ne viendrait à l’idée de personne de soutenir que le Royaume-Uni aurait eu dans les années 1970 et 1980 le droit d’imposer un blocus naval général contre la République d’Irlande, même s’il était évident qu’elle constituait la base opérationnelle et d’approvisionnement de l’IRA. Les arguments avancés par Israël pour légitimer ses actions maritimes contre des navires civils neutres en vertu de San Remo sont fondés sur un plaidoyer de justification et sur une définition restreinte à l’excès du terme « conflit armé ».


Pour de plus amples informations, veuillez contacter Craig Murray à


4. Professor Francis Boyle is one of the most prominent campaigners for the right of Palestinians to return to their homeland. This book is a must read for all those who lost touch with International Law and the Right of Return.

Antoine Raffoul



We may occasionally send you e-mail updates on our activities. If at any time you wish not to receive this information, please let us know by sending us a blank message with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.




ISBN: 0932863-93-0  / 978-0-932863-93-5

$14.95 / 123 pp. / 2011


The just resolution of the Palestinian right of return is at the very heart of the Middle East peace process. Nonetheless, the Obama administration intends to impose a comprehensive peace settlement upon the Palestinians that will force them to give up their well-recognized right of return under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194(III)) of 1948; accept a Bantustan of disjointed and surrounded chunks of territory on the West Bank in Gaza; and even expressly recognize Israel as �the Jewish State,� as newly demanded by Benjamin Netanyahu.

All this will fail for the reasons so powerfully stated in this book.

For the past three decades, Francis A. Boyle has provided the leadership of the Palestinian people with advice, counsel, and representation at all stages of the Middle East Peace Process.

Here, he elaborates what the Palestinians must now do to realize their international legal right of return, in keeping with his startling perception of Israel as itself nothing more than a Jewish Bantustan bound for failure.

While an enormous amount of scholarly literature has been generated affirming the Palestinian right of return under international law, none is as authentic, powerful, personal, or convincing as the eloquent pleas of  Dr. Hanan Ashrawi and Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaff, included here.

This book goes to the heart of the solution.


FRANCIS A. BOYLE is a leading American expert in international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. He served as legal adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993.

In 2007, he delivered the Bertrand Russell Peace Lectures. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of, inter alia, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare and Terrorism, Tackling America’s Toughest Problems, and The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka.

He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.



5.  [forwarded by Dalit]

: 20 Jun 2011

מאת:  Anna Baltzer <>



I don’t know this band but still welcome the news. I didn’t see this circulated in the U.S.



August Burns Red Have Cancelled Their Planned Concert in Israel


(May 30, 2011, 6:00 PM)

August Burns Red, a phenomenally popular Christian metalcore band, has just cancelled their June 9 concert in Israel. “They have no plans to reschedule,” says a reliable source that must remain anonymous.  They cancelled because they do not want to play in Israel.

This comes as welcome news exactly a year to the date after the 2010 Israeli attack on civilians aboard the Freedom Flotilla, in which nine volunteers were killed execution style, and fifty others were seriously injured, one of which remains comatose.

In late Febuary, a Facebook Page titled  “August Burns Red: Please Don’t Play for Apartheid Israel” was created, and in three months the page grew to a seemingly paltry 249 members.  But what was not insiginifcant was the fact the the August Burns Red official facebook page had over 700,000 members at the time (now over 856,000) and as many know, sometimes searches lead us to places we never intended to go online.  This may account for the fact that statistics on the page asking the band to cancel their gig in Israel peaked at 6,795 active users who visited the page on March 24th.  Though the page was frequently visited, and the “likes” remained small, more stats showed that the daily posts that asked the band to cancel, and often detailed Israel’s human rights violations, were viewed hundreds of times each.

There is no way to tell how many times the open letter posted on the site was viewed.  This letter (also sent to the band’s management), was addressed to each individual band member, (dated April 5) and referred to one of their songs when it asked them to step out of the “Ocean of Apathy.” The letter reminded them that Palestinian musicians and Palestinian Christians, like all Palestinians under occupation, are denied their basic human rights.  The Goldstone Report was mentioned as well and the fact that metalheads living in Gaza would be denied the chance to hear their concert.

The Global BDS Community thanks August Burns Red for standing up for justice and human rights, in the longstanding Christian tradition.

Written by FreeMedia, Austin, Texas

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Dorothy Online Newsletter

Everything We’re Doing Now Was Planned BEFORE 9/11


Washington’s Blog

We’ve been told that 9/11 changed everything.

Is it true?

Let’s look at the facts:

  • The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11
    (see this and this)

  • The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11. Indeed, former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke told Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig:

    After 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.

    The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.

    (4:30 into this video).

  • Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarch long before 9/11

  • Cheney and Rumsfeld actively generated fake intelligence which exaggerated the threat from an enemy in order to justify huge
    amounts of military spending long before 9/11. And see this

  • The decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made
    before 9/11

  • It was known long before 9/11 that torture doesn’t work to produce accurate intelligence … but is an effective way to terrorize people

  • And – sadly – America played dirty games to justify and win wars before 9/11

Posted in USAComments Off on Everything We’re Doing Now Was Planned BEFORE 9/11

The Plan to Destabilize Syria



The operations conducted against Libya and Syria involve the same actors and strategies. However, their respective outcomes will differ since the situations in these countries are not comparable. Thierry Meyssan analyzes the semi-failure experienced by the colonial and counter-revolutionary forces, and predicts a pendulum reversal in the Arab world.

By Thierry Meyssan

June 21, 2011 “Voltaire” — The efforts to overthrow the Syrian government have a lot in common with what has been undertaken in Libya. However, the results are substantially different owing to each country’s social and political background. The project to break up these two States simultaneously was initially brought up by John Bolton on 6 May 2002 when he was serving as Undersecretary of State in the Bush administration. It’s implementation by the Obama administration nine years down the line – in the context of the Arab Awakening – is not without problems.

Like in Libya, the original plan intended to bring about a military coup, but it soon proved impossible owing to the lack of willing Syrian military officers. According to our sources, an analogous plan had also been envisaged for Lebanon. In Libya, the plot was leaked and Colonel Gaddafi proceeded to have Colonel Abdallah Gehani arrested [1]. In any case, the initial plan had to be revised in light of the unexpected “Arab Spring” scenario.

Military action

The central idea was to foment unrest in a well circumscribed area and to proclaim the establishment of an Islamic emirate that would serve as a platform for the dismemberment of the country. The choice of the Daraa district can be explained by its proximity to the Jordanian border and the Israeli occupied Golan Heights. This layout would make it easy to funnel supplies to the secessionists.

An incident was contrived involving students who engaged in provocations. It succeeded beyond all expectations given the brutality and stupidity of the local governor and police chief. When the demonstrations started, snipers were positioned on the roofs to shoot at random into the crowd and against the police forces. A similar script had been used in Benghazi to fuel the revolt.

Other clashes were planned, invariably in a border area to secure a support base, first in Northern Lebanon, then on the border with Turkey.

The skirmishes were led by small commandos, mostly made up of some forty men, combining individuals recruited on the spot with foreign mercenary overseers belonging to Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s network. Bandar travelled to Jordan where he supervised the kick off of operations, together with CIA and Mossad officials.

But Syria is not Libya and the outcome was reversed. Indeed, whereas Libya is a state that was created by the colonial powers which united Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan by force, Syria is a historical country which was reduced to its simplest form by those same powers. Therefore, while Libya is spontaneously at the mercy of centrifugal forces, Syria attracts centripetal forces bent on reconstructing Greater Syria (comprising Jordan, occupied Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus and part of Iraq). Syria’s population today cannot but repudiate any plan to partition the country.

Also, a parallel can be made between Colonel Gaddafi’s authority and that of Hafez al-Assad (Bashar’s father). They rose to power during the same period and both made use of their intelligence and brutality to hold sway. Bashar al-Assad, on the contrary, did not seize power nor did he expect to inherit it. He accepted to fill the office of president when his father died because his older brother had perished in an accident and because only his family heritage could have prevented a power struggle among his father’s generals.

Although it was the army who went to look for him in London, where he was quietly practicing his profession as an ophthalmologist, it is his people who be-knighted him. He is undeniably the most popular political leader in the Middle East. Up to two months ago, he was also the only one who moved around without armed guards, and felt comfortable in a crowd.

The military operation to destabilize Syria and the propaganda campaign that came with it have been orchestrated by a coalition of states under US coordination, in exactly the same way that NATO coordinates its member and non-member states to bombard and stigmatize Libya. As indicated above, the mercenary forces have been provided with the compliments of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was forced to knock on several doors, including in Pakistan and Malaysia, seeking to boost his personal army deployed in Manama and Tripoli. As an example, we can cite the installation of an ad hoc telecommunications center on the premises of the Ministry of Telecommunications in Lebanon.

Far from arousing the population against the “regime”, this blood bath triggered a national outpouring for President Bashar al-Assad. Aware that they are being drawn into a civil war by design, the Syrians are standing shoulder to shoulder. The overall number of anti-government protest rallies garnered between 150 000 and 200 000 people out of a population of 22 million inhabitants. By contrast, the pro-government drew crowds the likes of which the country had never seen before.

The authorities reacted with calm in the face of such events. The President finally enacted the reforms that had been on his agenda for a long time, but which the majority of the population had resisted for fear they might westernize their society. Anxious not to fall into archaism, the Ba’ath Party has embraced a multiparty system. The army did not crackdown on the demonstrators – contrary to what the Western and Saudi media have reported – but reined in the armed groups. Unfortunately, the high-ranking military officers, most of whom were trained in the USSR, failed to practice any restraint towards the civilians who were caught in the middle.

The economic war

At that point, the Western-Saudi strategy needed to be revised. Realizing that military action would fall short of plunging the country into chaos in the near term, Washington decided to undermine Syrian society in the middle term. The rationale is that the policies of the Al-Assad government have been forging a middle class (the true mainstay of a democracy) and that it would be feasible to turn this class against him. In that case, an economic collapse of the country would have to be engineered.

Now, Syria’s main resource is oil, even if its production cannot compare in volume with that of its rich neighbors. To market the oil, Syria must have assets deposited in Western banks to serve as guarantee during the transactions. It would be enough to freeze them in order to pull the country down. Hence, the expediency of tarnishing its image to mold western public opinion into accepting the “sanctions against the regime.”

In principle, an asset freeze requires a resolution by the UN Security Council, which appears problematic. China, for one, may not be in a position to oppose it since it has already been blackmailed to renounce its veto power in the Libyan context under threat of losing access to Saudi oil. But Russia could do it, without which it would lose its naval base in the Mediterranean would have to keep its Black Sea cooped up behind the Dardanelles. The Pentagon has already attempted to intimidate Russia by deploying its guided-missile cruiser, the USS Monterrey, in the Black Sea to underscore the futility of Russia’s naval ambitions.

Be that as it may, the Obama administration may decide to revive the 2003 Syrian Accountability Act allowing it to freeze Syrian assets independently of a UN resolution or Congress approval. Recent history has shown, especially as regards Cuba and Iran, that Washington can easily convince its European partners to endorse sanctions that it applies unilaterally.

Thus, the stakes have currently shifted from the battle field towards the media. Public opinion will allow the wool to be pulled over its eyes all the more given its ignorance of Syria and its blind faith in the new technologies.

The media war

At first, the propaganda campaign focused the public’s attention on the crimes allegedly committed by the “regime” so as to avert any questions regarding the nature of the new opposition. In fact, these armed groups have little in common with the intellectual dissidents that drafted the Damascus Declaration. They emerge from Sunni religious extremist circles. These fanatics repudiate the religious pluralism of the Levant and long for a state to their image and likeness. They don’t challenge President Bashar Al-Assad because they deem he is too authoritarian, but because he is an Alawi, that is a heretic in their eyes.

Ever since, the anti-Bashar propaganda has been based on a reality reversal.

An amusing example is the case of the blog “Gay Girl in Damascus”, created on 21 February 2011. Edited in English by 25 year-old Amina, the website became a source of reference for Western media. Therein the author described the plight of a young lesbian under Bashar’s dictatorship and the day-to-day unfolding of the terrible repression unleashed against the revolution. As a gay woman, she garnered the protective empathy of Western web surfers who mobilized as soon as her arrest by the secret services of the “regime” was announced.

However, as it happened, Amina was a fiction. Betrayed by his IP address, a US 40 year-old “student” was discovered to be the real author of this masquerade. This propagandist, who was allegedly preparing a PhD in Scotland, recently participated in a pro-Western opposition conference held in Turkey, urging for a NATO intervention. He quite obviously did not attend in his capacity as a student [2].

What is particularly surprising is not so much the gullibility of the internet surfers who swallowed the lies about the fake Amina, but the outpouring of the defenders of freedom in support of those who trample those same freedoms. In secular Syria, private life is sacrosanct and homosexuality, though prohibited by the texts, is not curbed. It may cause malaise within the family, but not in society. On the other hand, those who are upheld by the media as revolutionaries, and that we consider instead to be counter-revolutionaries, are vehemently homophobic. They are even contemplating the introduction of corporal punishment or, in some cases, the death penalty to punish that “vice.”

Reality reversal is a principle being applied on a large scale. We may recall the United Nations reports on the humanitarian crisis in Libya alleging that tens of thousands of immigrant workers were fleeing the country to escape from violence. The conclusion drawn and spewed by the Western media was that the Gaddafi “regime” had to be toppled in favor of the Benghazi rebels. And yet, it was not the government of Tripoli who was responsible for this tragedy, but the so-called revolutionaries in Cyrenaica who were hunting down black Africans. Stirred by a racist ideology, they accused them of being at the service of Colonel Gaddafi and lynched whoever they could get their hands on.

In Syria, the images of armed groups perched on the rooftops and firing at random into the crowd or on police forces were broadcast on national television networks. Yet, these same images were relayed and used by Western and Saudi television channels to attribute these crimes to the government of Damascus.

At the end of the day, the plan to destabilize Syria is not working all that well. It succeeded in persuading public opinion that the country is in the grips of a brutal dictatorship, but it also welded the vast majority of the Syrian population firmly behind its government. Ultimately, the plan could backfire on those who masterminded it, notably Tel Aviv. In January-February 2011 we witnessed a revolutionary wave in the Arab world, followed in April-May by a counter-revolutionary wave. The swing of the pendulum is still in motion.

Thierry Meyssan:  French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.

[1] “French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November”, by Franco Bechis, Libero (Italie), Voltaire Network, 25 March 2011.

[2] “War propaganda: gay blogger in Damascus”, Voltaire Network, 13 June 2011.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The Plan to Destabilize Syria

Turkish Actions Designed To Trigger NATO Confrontation With Syria?



By Rick Rozoff

June 21, 2011 “Scoop” — Last week, a feature by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton excoriating the political leadership of Syria appeared in the London-based Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat. Saudi-supported and printed in twelve locations, it is considered to be among the most influential newspapers in the Arab world.

As such, her comments (in English and Arabic) were intended to signal to Arab readers and the world at large that the American position toward Damascus is becoming more stringent and confrontational, evoking Clinton’s statements toward the leadership of Ivory Coast and Libya earlier in the year.

Her characteristically imperious, contemptuous and inflammatory comments, indeed threats, included:

“In his May 19 speech, President Obama echoed demonstrators’ basic and legitimate demands…President Assad, he said, could either lead that transition or get out of the way.

“It is increasingly clear that President Assad has made his choice.”

“…President Assad is showing his true colors by embracing the repressive tactics of his ally Iran and putting Syria onto the path of a pariah state.

“By following Iran’s lead, President Assad is placing himself and his regime on the wrong side of history…”

“If President Assad believes he can act with impunity because the international community hopes for his cooperation on other issues, he is wrong about this as well. He and his regime are certainly not indispensable.”

The Wall Street Journal reported on June 18 that the Washington administration is preparing a case against Syrian President Bashar Assad and other government officials at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. The same newspaper feature added that “The U.S. is also exploring ways to more directly target Syria’s oil and gas revenue…”

On June 14 four members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, including the military alliance’s three European powerhouses – Britain, France, Germany and Portugal – proposed a draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council aimed at Syria. Three days later in Berlin German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy confirmed their governments would push for a new UN resolution targeting Syria. In Sarkozy’s words: “France, hand in hand with Germany, calls for tougher sanctions against Syrian authorities who are conducting intolerable and unacceptable actions and repression against the population.”

The USS George H.W. Bush nuclear-powered supercarrier and its assigned carrier strike group and carrier air wing – with 9,000 sailors, 70 aircraft and four guided missile destroyers and cruisers – is in the Mediterranean Sea not far from the Syrian coast. One of the destroyers, USS Truxtun, just left the Israeli port city of Haifa after a two-day stopover.

The USS Monterey guided missile cruiser is docked off the Georgian Black Sea city of Batumi currently and will re-enter the Mediterranean soon. Deployed as the first warship assigned to the U.S.-NATO potential first-strike pan-European interceptor missile system, it can launch Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as Standard Missile-3 interceptor missiles.

The guided missile destroyer USS Barry left Gaeta, Italy where nine other US. warships have been stationed, on June 17 after a five-day port visit. USS Barry is part of the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group, headed by the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan, used at the beginning of the U.S.-NATO Libyan campaign in March and currently in the Mediterranean.

The Pentagon and its allies – every nation in the Mediterranean is now a NATO member or partner except for Libya, Syria, Cyprus (under renewed and intensified pressure to join the bloc’s Partnership for Peace program) and Lebanon (whose coastline has been blockaded by NATO states’ military vessels since 2006) – have the military hardware in place for a replication of the 95-day war against Libya directed at Syria: Scores of warplanes on carriers and on bases in Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Turkey and guided missile ships ready to launch Tomahawk missiles.

On June 19 Ersat Hurmuzlu, senior adviser to Turkish President Abdullah Gul, told the United Arab Emirates-based Al Arabiya television channel that Syria has less than a week to respond to what Reuters described as “calls for change.” Hurmuzlu’s exact words were:

“The demands in this field will be for a positive response to these issues within a short period that does not exceed a week.

“The opposite of this, it would not be possible to offer any cover for the leadership in Syria because there is the danger …that we had always been afraid of, and that is foreign intervention.”

Although the last sentence can be read as either warning or threat, it is in fact the second. The statement as a whole is an ultimatum.

Since the war against Libya was launched by U.S. Africa Command under the codename Operation Odyssey Dawn to the present NATO-run Operation Unified Protector in place since March 31, air operations have been run from NATO’s Air Command Headquarters for Southern Europe in Izmir, Turkey.

In March Turkey supplied five ships and a submarine for the blockade of Libya’s coast and on March 28 Hurriyet Daily News announced that Turkey was “assuming control of the Benghazi airport, and sending naval forces to patrol the corridor between the rebel-held city and Crete,” quoting Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan:

“Turkey said ‘yes’ to three tasks within NATO: the takeover of Benghazi airport for the delivery of humanitarian aid, the task about control of the air corridor and the involvement of Turkish naval forces in the corridor between Benghazi and Crete.”

In 2003 the U.S. ambassador to NATO at the time, Nicholas Burns, stated in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

“NATO needs to pivot from its inward focus on Europe – which was necessary and appropriate during the Cold War – to an outward focus on the arc of countries where most of the threats are today – in Central and South Asia, and in the Middle East.

“NATO’s mandate is still to defend Europe and North America. But we don’t believe we can do that by sitting in Western Europe, or Central Europe, or North America. We have to deploy our conceptual attention and our military forces east and south. NATO’s future, we believe, is east, and is south. It’s in the Greater Middle East.”

Earlier this month Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul announced that Izmir will also be the new home of the Alliance’s Land Force Command, consolidating and transferring ground forces currently stationed in Germany and Spain to the Izmir Air Station.

On June 17 Turkey took over command of Standing NATO Maritime Group-2 which, with Standing NATO Maritime Group-1, is part of the NATO Response Force and centers its activities in the Mediterranean. Each group consists of between 4-8 warships – destroyers and frigates – and since 2005 has expanded its missions through the Suez Canal to the Gulf of Aden and the Somalia coast, circumnavigating the African continent in 2007 and traveling the length of the Atlantic coast of the U.S., then entering the Caribbean Sea the same year, the first time NATO had ever deployed to the Caribbean. The NATO naval groups have also sailed to Africa’s Gulf of Guinea, the Persian Gulf and the Baltic Sea among other locations.

Turkey hosted a conference of Syrian opposition forces called “Change in Syria” from May 1-June 2 in the city of Antalya. Although held under the sponsorship of the Egyptian-based National Organisation of Human Rights, logistics and security were provided by the host country.

Had Syria allowed a gathering of Turkish opposition groups whose express intention was the overthrow of the government in Ankara, one can only imagine the Turkish administration’s reaction.

On June 13 Britain’s The Guardian, since the Balkans crisis began in the early 1990s never slow to fan the flames of moral panic over humanitarian crises, with techniques ranging from hyperbole to hysterics, in order to alarm and neutralize its readership into acquiescence to Western military action (while claiming formally, if not convincingly, that it is not advocating the latter), ran an editorial titled “Syria: Butchery, while the world watches,” which let the cat out of the bag regarding the prospect of U.S. and NATO military intervention in Syria by stating:

“Turkey, a member of Nato, could yet drag the west in, if it decides its own interests require action to defend its borders from the [Syrian] refugees The world would then pay a high price indeed for having pretended that Assad was somebody else’s problem.”

On June 19 the major Turkish daily newspaper Zaman quoted Veysel Ayhan of the Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies harking back to the rationale for NATO’s first military actions 16 years ago:

“Remember when NATO was accused by the international media and public of not being able to prevent 8,000 Muslim Bosnians from being murdered in front of the world’s eyes? As a member of NATO and a country whose border is about to witness such a massacre by the Syrian army, Turkey will not allow such a thing to happen again, especially before its own eyes.”

Last week Turkey’s President Erdogan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu were reported to have toughened demands on Syria in a meeting with President Assad’s special envoy Hasan Turkmani in Ankara, and on January 18 Al Arabiya reported that Ankara had dispatched an envoy to Damascus to demand that Assad’s brother Maher relinquish his command of the Republican Guard and the Fourth Armored Division.

Zaman recently cited what was identified as a pro-government Syrian official saying to the United Arab Emirates-based daily The National:

“The West wants to put the region under Turkish control like in the Ottoman days. Turkey is a NATO member and embodies a safe kind of Islam for the West, so they have done a deal to give everything to Ankara.”

Should a conflict erupt between Turkey and Syria on their border, NATO will be obligated under its Article 5 collective military assistance clause to enter the fray on Turkey’s side. Should NATO intend opening hostilities against Syria, no better pretext could be devised than that scenario.

In February of 2003, on the eve of the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq, in NATO’s words “Turkey requested NATO assistance under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty.”

“NATO’s Integrated Air Defence System in Turkey was put on full alert and augmented with equipment and personnel from other NATO commands and countries.”

Four Alliance Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft were deployed from their base in Germany to the Forward Operating Base in Konya, Turkey. Three Dutch and two American Patriot missile batteries were deployed to the country in March of that year, and “Preparations were made to augment Turkey’s air defence assets with additional aircraft from other NATO countries.”

Article 4 of the 1949 Washington Treaty, NATO’s founding document, states:

“The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.”

Article 5 says:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

If Turkey opens armed hostilities with its neighbor, the conflict will not remain a local one for long.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Turkish Actions Designed To Trigger NATO Confrontation With Syria?

Egypt: Zionist ‘spy’ fluent in Arabic



Cairo daily reports thatZionist spy Ilan Grapel’s interrogation sessions are held without help of interpreter since he ‘speaks Arabic fluently’

Egyptian daily al-Masri al-Youm reported Wednesday that Zionist apy Ilan Grapel, who was arrested in Egypt last week, does not require the help of an interpreter in his integrations, as he is fluent in Arabic.

Cairo may be trying to use this “damning” evidence to substantiate its espionage allegations.

A legal source quoted by the paper said that Cairo authorities had proof that Grapel met with Egyptian revolutionaries during the days of riots in Tahrir Square.

The interrogations have so far ascertained that Grapel entered Egypt through the Cairo International Airport on the first week of the anti-regime riots, using his American passport. He claimed to be a correspondent with a foreign news agency.

At this point, al-Masri al-Youm said, Zionist spy Grapel joined a group of “real reporters,” but parted with them several days later, in favor of what the newspaper called “his mission.”

Egypt’s al-Ahram weekly reported that Grapel was allowed to speak with his parents for the first time Tuesday. The conversion lasted nearly an hour, during which he “stressed that he was detained legally, according to a Prosecution Warrant, that the intelligence officers are treating him humanely and that all his needs are being met.”

Posted in EgyptComments Off on Egypt: Zionist ‘spy’ fluent in Arabic

Terrorist Efrati says mistook his victim for ‘terrorist’



Former Zionist chief bodyguard convicted of attempted sodomy spins yet another story, claims he thought woman he attacked was a ‘terrorist’ causing him to revert to military mode’

Terrorist Erez Efrati, the former Zionist chief of staff’s bodyguard convicted of attempted sodomy and sentenced to eight years in prison and two years probation, claimed Wednesday that the reason he attacked his victim was that he mistook her for a “terrorist.”

Efrati struck a plea bargain in 2010, when he confessed to and was convicted of attempting sodomy on a 22-year-old woman after his bachelor party at the Tel Aviv Port. His case in now pending a Supreme Court appeal.

Erez Efrati, convicted of attempted sodomy in plea bargain, sentenced to eight years in prison, two years probation, ordered to pay NIS 150,000 compensation

“I wish to tell the court about the events of that night from my perspective, of what I felt during the ravishment of the poor girl,” Efrati told the court.

“I was walking without any clear direction or reason, without knowing. Everything was flashing before my eyes. I felt my heart pounding… I was walking really fast when I saw a dark figure and it was walking towards the car. And just like in a military, I opened the car door and grabbed the keys from the ignition switch. I thought she was a terrorist,” described Efrati.

Efrati’s testimony caused quite a stir in court as the rape victim burst into tears.

Justice Edmond Levy intervened and told Efrati his story was “a new scenario, and if he means it he should have told it to the District Court.”

The case dates back to November 2009, when Efrati was leaving his bachelor party, under the influence of alcohol. He seized the complainant as she was entering her vehicle, parked near the Tel Aviv Port, and dragged her into the bushes where he beat her, tore her clothes, and attempted to sodomize her.

Efrati initially denied attacking the woman, and later said he could not be held responsible for his actions because he had suffered alcohol poisoning. He later abandoned this claim and admitted to attempted sodomy as part of a plea bargain. The charges against him were subsequently changed from aggravated rape to attempted sodomy.

Efrati apologized and said he was aware that his victim “went through an ordeal.”

“I want to say that I take full responsibility for the damage and pain I’ve caused. I think about it everyday. Moreover, I don’t only say it but I also do it. I began treatment a few months ago to understand what had happened and how I got myself into this situation. I’m digging deep within me. In one moment my life turned upside down. Her pain is important and I’m trying to learn and understand,” claimed Efrati.

Justice Levy then addressed Efrati and said: “It’s good that you’re trying to learn, but while you are trying to rebuild your life, there is a woman’s whose life has been completely destroyed and she might never be cured.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Terrorist Efrati says mistook his victim for ‘terrorist’

Shoah’s pages