Archive | November 29th, 2011

Millions Gather in Syria’s Squares to Express Condemnation of Arab League Decisions and Reject Foreign Interference


 in Uncategorized 


Sana News Agency

Millions of Syrians flooded the squares of Syrian cities and towns on Monday, gathering in Damascus, Aleppo, Hasaka, Deri Ezzor, Raqqa, Sweida and Tartous to proclaim their rejection of the Arab League’s conspiring decisions against Syria, pledging to protect Syria at any cost.

Huge masses flocked to Saba Bahrat Square in Damascus and Saadallah al-Jabri Square in Aleppo in condemnation of the Arab League  decisions and in rejection of the foreign interference.

The participants in the rallies stressed adherence to the national unity and independent national decision-making.

Similar rallies took place in Saadallah al-Jaberi square in Aleppo city, al-Barid Square in Tartous city, al-Qutayfeh in Damascus Countryside, Shahba in Sweida, the President Square in Raqqa, and al-Mesherfeh town in Homs countryside, with the participants voicing their condemnation of the Arab League decisions against the Syrian people and their rejection of the foreign interference.

The participants pointed out that Syrians became aware of the conspiracy since its beginning, realizing that this conspiracy targeted the entire Arab nation as well as Syria and was disguised as calls for reform and democracy, prompting Syrians to wonder how can those who claim to advocate democracy in Syria make such claims while they themselves subverted human rights to benefit themselves and keep their people out of the scene, all while the Syrian people are deciding their fate in plain view of the whole world.

The participants said that everyone must chose Syria today since it is currently facing the most violent conspiracy in its history, a conspiracy involving Arab and international sides, affirming that Syrians are prepared to wage this battle and emerge victorious.

They also noted that the Syrians’ rallying around their leadership and their creativity in finding solutions and launching national initiatives protected Syria’s independent decision-making and confused the conspirators.

In Damascus city, Saba Bahrat Square was packed with crowds who chanted national slogans, calling for national unity and stressing their rejection of the Arab League decisions and foreign interference in the internal affairs of Syria.

Participants in the march vowed loyalty to the homeland and promised to continue their struggle and step forward to protect Syria, appreciating the sacrifices of the Syrian Arab Army.

In Aleppo city, huge crowds of people flocked to Saad Allah al-Jaberi Square to say that Syria will remain strong, waving the Syrian flag in an expression of loyalty to the homeland.

Participants in the march denounced the Arab League decisions against Syria, stressing that Syria will remain immune to imperialist countries and Zionism which have been endeavoring for several years to destroy the resistance of Syria.

In Tartous city, crowds flocked to the Square of Tartous Municipality to express their condemnation of the Arab League decisions against Syria and their resolve to defend their country and the nationalist role of Syria.

Participants affirmed that the Syrian people can overcome the conspiracy, by virtue of the people’s awareness and rallying around the Syrian leadership and commitment to the national unity, calling on all Syrian people to work hand in hand to protect Syria and preserve its sovereignty.

In Der Ezzor city, a mass rally was held at the Saba Bahrat Square to express commitment to destroy all conspiracies hatched against Syria.

Participants in the rally said the Arab League decisions address the Syrian citizens directly because the Syrian people defend the Syrian stances which support resistance and reject foreign dictations.

In al-Hasaka city, huge crowds flocked to the President Square to reject foreign interference in Syria’s internal affairs and the Arab League decisions against Syria.

Participants said that the history of the Arab world is nowadays chronicling the bravest epic of struggle between the countries which support the Arab rights and resistance with Syria on top, and the blood traders and neo-colonialists who claim to be Arabs.

In Homs city, thousands of people flocked to the main square of al-Mishrfeh town to convey a message to the world expressing the unity of the Syrian people adding that no one can make them bow to foreign dictations or abandon the national and patriotic stances.

Participants condemned the Arab League decisions against Syria, pointing out that the Syrian people stand by the Syrian leadership and that “Syria will remain the homeland of steadfastness  at whose borders all conspiracies are destroyed”.

In the city of al-Shahbaa in Sweida province, grandchildren of Sultan Basha al-Atrash waved the Syrian flag and photos of President Bashar al-Assad stressing that the “homeland whose sons are willing to sacrifice their lives to protect its sovereignty will remain immune to all conspiracies”.

Al-Shahbaa people stressed their rejection of the economic sanctions imposed recently by the Arab League on Syria considering them as “void by all standards”.

In al-Quneitera city, thousands of people gathered at Khan Arnabeh Square to express their condemnation of the Arab League decisions and their rejection of foreign interference.

Al-Quneitera people held the Arab League responsible for each and every drop of blood spilled on the Syrian soil as a result of media misleading and foreign conspiracies.

They also stressed their rallying around the leadership of Syria and their support to the reform process commenced by President al-Assad.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Millions Gather in Syria’s Squares to Express Condemnation of Arab League Decisions and Reject Foreign Interference

Turkey raises Syria military option


 in Uncategorized 

Zionist agent Turkish FM says Ankara reluctatant to use force, but preparing itself for ‘any scenario’


Turkey on Tuesday raised the option of military intervention in neighboring Syria while Russia rejected even an arms embargo as Damascus tries to stifle anti-government protests.

Highlighting divisions among foreign powers on how to deal with the bloodshed in Syria, Turkey’s foreign minister said Ankara was reluctant to take a military option but was ready for “any scenario”.

Western powers have long ruled out any Libyan-style military intervention in Syria to halt the crackdown, in which more than 3,500 people are believed have been killed in eight months.

But Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggested military force remained an option, albeit apparently a remote one, if Assad did not heed calls to halt the violence.

“If the oppression continues, Turkey is ready for any scenario. We hope that a military intervention will never be necessary. The Syrian regime has to find a way of making peace with its own people,” he told Kanal 24 TV.

Davutoglu also raised the possibility of a buffer zone if the violence provoked a flood of refugees, an idea used by Ankara inside northern Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1991. While NATO bombing of Libya was crucial in helping rebels to oust Muammar Gadhafi, Western countries are more cautious about Syria, which lies at the heart of Middle East conflicts, borders Israel and Lebanon and maintains close ties with Iran.

In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected calls at the United Nations for an arms embargo against Syria, saying that a similar move against Libya had proved one-sided, helping rebels to topple Gadhafi in August.

“We know how that worked in Libya when the arms embargo only applied to the Libyan army. The opposition received weapons, and countries like France and Qatar publicly spoke about it without shame,” he told a news conference.

Moscow, which has also been critical of further sanctions slapped on Syria by Western and Arab League states, has close political and strategic relations with Assad’s government and has been one if its main arms suppliers.

Alluding to Western powers and the Arab League, Lavrov said it was time to “stop using ultimatums” to pressure Damascus and repeated Russia’s calls for dialogue between the government and its foes, whom Moscow says share blame for the bloodshed.

“For the most part, armed groups are provoking the authorities. To expect the authorities to close their eyes to this is not right,” Lavrov said.

A UN commission of inquiry said on Monday that Syrian military and security forces had committed crimes against humanity including murder, torture and rape, and called for an arms embargo on Syria.

Russia teamed up with China last month to veto a Western-backed U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Assad’s government. Both countries have oil concessions in Syria while Russia also has a little-used naval base there and provides military advisers to the Syrian army.

“The longer what is happening in Syria goes on, the more it troubles us,” added Lavrov. Moscow has urged Assad to implement reforms but rejects calls for his resignation and accused Western nations of trying to set the stage for armed intervention.

Syria accounted for 7 percent of Russia’s total of $10 billion in arms deliveries abroad in 2010, according to the Russian defense think-tank CAST.

Davutoglu said the possible scenarios included setting up a buffer zone to contain any mass influx of Syrian refugees.

“If tens, hundreds of thousands of people start advancing towards the Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey borders, not only Turkey but the international community may be required to take some steps such as buffer zone. We don’t want that to happen but we must consider and work on that scenario,” he said.

The Turkish army set up a security buffer zone inside northern Iraq during in 1991 and has maintained small detachments there ever since.

A former friend of Syria, Turkey has fallen out with Assad and has said it will implement some sanctions agreed by the Arab League over the weekend. Davutoglu said he was making the same mistakes as Gaddafi and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein by unleashing oppression that only fueled more opposition.

However, he said Damascus still had a chance to accept international observers proposed by the Arab League.

Another Turkish minister said Ankara would conduct trade with the Middle East via Iraq if the violence worsened in Syria.

Turkey’s state-run Anatolian news agency quoted Transport Minister Binali Yildirim on Tuesday as saying that Ankara would open new border gates with Iraq if necessary.

Yildirim said the sanctions would not harm the Syrian people. “We plan to conduct transit shipments through new border gates in Iraq if the conditions in Syria worsen,” Yildirim said.

Turkey will selectively impose those sanctions announced by the Arab League to avoid harming the Syrian people, the Turkish newspaper Sabah reported on Tuesday.

The Arab League imposed the sanctions on Sunday and the European Union weighed in one day later.

Sabah said Syrian government accounts at the Turkish central bank will be suspended, official sales to the Syrian state will be halted and a travel ban will be imposed on Assad and his family.

However, civil aviation flights will not be halted and Turkish Airlines services to Damascus will continue. It did not identify sources for the story.

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Turkey raises Syria military option

Lebanese MP: Syrian Protesters Only Want Overthrow, Not Reform


 in Uncategorized 

“They cover up their intentions with demands and these demands are acceptable and dialogue is needed, but whenever we compromise on one issue, they demand something else”

Daily Star

BEIRUT: The head of the Free Patriotic Movement, MP Michel Aoun, said Syrian protesters’ initial calls for reform in the country were always a cover for their desire to overthrow President Bashar Assad’s government.

“They cover up their intentions with demands and these demands are acceptable and dialogue is needed, but whenever we compromise on one issue, they demand something else,” Aoun told a Syrian delegation called “Syrian mothers.”

“Until they finally confessed that their desire is to overthrow the regime and its head.”

A key ally of Syria in Lebanon, Aoun has maintained that protests in the neighboring country have been fueled by the West in a bid to over throw the government as part of a larger conspiracy against the region.

“[Protesters’] demands are not only for reform because if reforms were implemented, the Syrian people can remove unwanted officials through the electoral process, so why the violence?” he asked.

The Metn MP also criticized Turkey’s continuous calls for Assad to step down, asking what interest Turkey has to call for change in Syria.

“There are a lot of people in Turkey who do not have rights. Turkey should concern itself with its internal [issues] and then try to grant rights that the Syrian people are calling for,” Aoun said.

Aoun also advised the Syrian people not to repeat the Lebanese experience of civil war. He added that after the loss of such a war comes regret because it will never be solved satisfactorily.

Syria has been under Arab and international pressure to end violence against protesters who for eight months have been demanding reform and the fall of the Baath party’s 40-year rule.

“How can I believe that the international community which supports the violent movement in Syria wants human rights?” Aoun said, referring to the U.S. administration’s call for the protesters in Syria not to disarm.

The eight-month old crisis has resulted in the death of over 3,500, according to the U.N.

Posted in LebanonComments Off on Lebanese MP: Syrian Protesters Only Want Overthrow, Not Reform

Dorothy Online Newsletter


Dear Friends,


After 2 days of struggling with 3 different technicians, and without yet entirely solving the computer problem, we have at least found a reason for my messages coming out blank, and hope that this message will arrive in all your households with the material below.  Computers are wonderful.  I would have a really difficult time now without mine.  But they can also be frustrating creatures—in some cases, apparently, even for the experts.


There are 8 items below, all home-grown. That is, they are either from Haaretz or from email messages about events and situations here in Isra-Pal.


Item 1 is about a usual subject here: house demolitions.  This is a subject that I find particularly painful.  I can’t help but wonder how I would feel were I suddenly to be deprived of my home.  A house is more than just a place to rest one’s self or to eat or shower or sleep.  It is part of one’s identity—the place where one raises or has raised children, a place full of memories, of pictures.  For many it is also a work place, and so on and so forth.  What a cruel miserable act, the demolition of a home!


Item 2 is along the same lines—not about demolitions but about collective punishment—another typical Israeli way of dealing with human beings who aren’t Jews.


Item 3 relates that the Higher Education Committee is to vote on a report that among other things claims that the politics-government faculty at BGU is tainted with too many leftists.  Some object, but I’ll bet that the report goes through.  TV news a few days ago announced that there is a possibility that the faculty will be shut down. Academic freedom, where art thou?


Item 4 demands that Israel lift the travel ban from Shawan Jabarin, the director of the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq.  In plain terms, the ban is in this case a human rights crime.  But since governments in the world do nothing to stop Israel , its leaders do as they please.


In item 5 Israel , believe it or not , apologizes! The apology is to an American reporter who was pregnant and was nonetheless badly mistreated when entering Gaza . Notwithstanding her request not to be x-rayed, because it might harm the fetus, she was—not once, not twice, but thrice.  Nice that the government is apologizing. But that will be of small help if the baby suffered any harm.


Item 6 is a longish article. It’s title in English, “A surefire way to keep Israeli Arabs from voting,” is appropriate to only one part of the subject. It does not say anything about the larger subject—that of how the ultra religious right is taking over Israel .


Item 7 is a poverty report for Israel .  While Israel continues building colonies like crazy, and especially in and around Jerusalem , 1 of very 10 Israeli families lives under the poverty line.  Not mentioned in this report but related on tonight’s TV news, 60% of Israel ’s elderly live in poverty.  Many of these are Holocaust survivors. 


Item 8 is Today in Palestine .  There is some overlap with the above, but not much.


Hoping this reaches you, and hoping still for a better tomorrow.





1. Demonstration against house evictions, Silwan, East Jerusalem . 25.11.2011. cc: flickr.


Parashat “Toldot” : The weekly report of Rabbis For Human Rights



This past week we succeeded, with public pressure, to prevent the eviction of Samarin family from their home in the Silwan neighborhood. We also succeeded to renew the harvest in El Jenia (but we found out that are problems again).  However, the demolitions in South Hebron Hills continue and police violence during the anti social policy of the government protests have become routine. Please join our activities and read the newsletter of Parashat “Vayetze..Secure Donation. Shabbat Shalom.



שומרי משפט

הרכבים 9 ירושלים, 94362   טל: 02-6482757   |   פקס: 02-6783611   דוא”ל :


2.  Tuesday, November 29, 2011

From; on behalf of; Tuwani Team []

On the night of November 28th, a Palestinian man threw two Molotov cocktails at the Israeli military checkpoint in the neighborhood of Qitoun in Hebron . In response, the military and border police fired tear gas, entered houses in the neighborhood and forced about 50 men to stand outside in the cold for almost exactly two hours while they checked their ID’s. The military arrested one Palestinian man and detained three more after they allowed the residents of the neighborhood to return to their homes.

At about 10:20 PM, soldiers came back from one of the houses with clothes that they claimed belonged to the man who threw the Molotov cocktails.

During the incident, Palestinians passing the checkpoint reported that soldiers were beating one of the detained men. Later on, other passersby reported that soldiers were holding a man on the ground and sitting on him.

At around 10:40 PM, the commander declared a closed military zone and ordered internationals to leave the area, including three members of Temporary International Presence in Hebron . Members of TIPH are allowed by mandate to observe the military. When internationals asked the commander to show them the order, he refused, saying that he didn’t have to show it. The military detained three members of International Solidarity Movement , but released them later.

Military actions that target groups of people in response to the actions of a few are illegal according to the Geneva Conventions.

CPT-Palestine in At-Tuwani,

South Hebron Hills



Twitter @cptpalestine


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:

    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:


3.  Haaretz

Tuesday, November 29, 2011


Education body to vote on report on ‘slanted’ BGU faculty

Panel member admits criticism in report may also have been political.



By Talila Nesher


The Council for Higher Education is set to vote Tuesday to ratify the external report it commissioned on the political science faculties at Israel ‘s universities, including Ben-Gurion University of the Negev ‘s Politics and Government Department, which came under heavy criticism. The document lists a series of shortcomings at Ben-Gurion University and even advises, as a last resort, closing down the department entirely if the problems are not resolved.


The report also refers to the fact that students at the Ben-Gurion University department are exposed to the personal political opinions of their professors, noting: “Lecturers must ensure that their personal opinions are presented as such, so that the students can judge things from a critical perspective and be exposed to a wide range of perspectives and alternatives.”


Further to claims by members of the teaching staff at Ben-Gurion’s Politics and Government Department that the committee’s work was motivated by political considerations, committee member Prof. Galia Golan , from the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, has told Haaretz that the shortcomings exposed at the Negev institution may indeed have been politically biased.


“I felt that some of the committee members, with specific political opinions, were trying to find fault with the place,” Golan said. “I don’t know if these were instructions from above, but I felt that things were not being conducted fairly.”


According to Golan, the same supposed shortcomings that were revealed at Ben-Gurion University weren’t even mentioned in the reports on the other institutions, “because they weren’t perceived as problematic.”


Golan said that “with regard to Ben-Gurion University , [committee] members tended to ignore the positive things and underplay their significance.


“My efforts to convince the committee otherwise came to naught,” she added. “The attitude toward the university was unlike the attitude elsewhere.”


Golan, who refused to sign the section of the report dealing with the Ben-Gurion University department, also recently sent a letter to the Council for Higher Education warning of the document’s lack of fairness and urging that the matter be considered before the conclusions are adopted.


“Distinct political opinions influenced the judgment of some of the [committee] members,” Golan told Haaretz. “The chairman of the committee actually tried to be as neutral as possible; but in the end, people were guided by a political approach.”


According to Prof. David Newman , the dean of Ben-Gurion’s Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and one of the founders of its Politics and Government Department, “The department has become a target for attack by all those who wish to suppress any pluralist dialogue and trample every piece of academic freedom. One brief glance at this activity is enough to grasp the inherent danger it poses for the existence of Israeli democracy.”


A statement from the Council for Higher Education said: “We totally reject the claim of political considerations … The evaluation committee is made up of experienced individuals of academic renown in Israel and abroad. The assessment of the Political Science Department at Ben-Gurion University was conducted in the same manner in which the other institutions were assessed.


“The committee, which carried out an independent assessment, was of the opinion that the Ben-Gurion University department is acutely lacking senior staff at the core of the field, and that this requires immediate rectification.”


4.  November 29, 2011


[forwarded by Sam B]


Israel : Lift Travel Ban on Human Rights Defender [1]

Shawan Jabarin Unable to Receive Award, Attend Rights Meetings


http://www.hrw.orgHuman Rights Watch



 ( Jerusalem ) – Israeli authorities in the West Bank should lift the travel ban imposed since 2006 on West Bank resident Shawan Jabarin, the director of the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem said today. Israeli authorities violated Jabarin’s due process rights in imposing the ban and have not produced any evidence that would justify continuing to restrict him from travel, the groups said.


The ban has prevented Jabarin from leaving the West Bank to receive a prestigious human rights prize from the Danish PL Foundation, participate in a European Union forum on human rights, and attend a Human Rights Watch advisory committee meeting in New York City . Jabarin attempted to travel yesterday, but told the rights groups that Israeli authorities turned him back at the Allenby Bridge crossing with Jordan , citing the travel ban.


“The ban preventing Shawan Jabarin from traveling abroad to receive an award is emblematic of the arbitrary restrictions placed on Palestinian human rights defenders and civil society activists,” said Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s interim MENA Programme Director. “It must be lifted, and the Israeli authorities must stop using unspecified security concerns to obstruct the work of Palestinian human rights activists.”


Israel , which controls all border crossings between the West Bank and Israel as well as Jordan , has prohibited Jabarin from traveling outside the West Bank since 2006, when he became director of Al-Haq, a leading human rights organization in the West Bank. Israel had allowed Jabarin to travel abroad eight times in the previous seven years.


The Israeli military previously claimed in court that Jabarin was an activist in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which Israel considers a terrorist organization, and that his travel abroad for even a limited period would endanger Israel ’s security. However, Israeli authorities have not charged Jabarin with any crime or given him an opportunity to confront the allegations against him. The Israeli High Court of Justice has upheld Jabarin’s travel ban on security grounds, but did so based on secret information that Jabarin and his lawyer were not allowed to see or challenge.


“It is hard to believe any claim that Jabarin’s travel to Denmark to receive a human rights award would harm Israeli security, the more so when any evidence is kept secret,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “While civil society groups recognize Jabarin’s courageous work, Israel is punishing him with a travel ban.”


Under Jabarin’s leadership, Al-Haq has frequently criticized rights violations by Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Jabarin, for instance, last year confronted PA officials over allegations of torture on an Al Jazeera broadcast.


The Danish PL Foundation awarded its 2011 Prize for Freedom jointly to Al-Haq and the Israeli rights group B’Tselem. The Foundation was established in 1984 by Poul Lauritzen, a Danish businessman and member of the Danish resistance during World War II. Previous recipients of the foundation ’s annual prize include a Turkish playwright, Polish Solidarity members, and human rights activist Moncef Marzouki, currently the interim president of Tunisia .


“I deeply regret that at this important occasion, held in appreciation of the struggle for human rights, I will stand without Shawan at my side,” said Jessica Montell, executive director of B’Tselem. “Shawan’s absence is an example of the ongoing severe violation of the freedom of movement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.”


In 2009, Al-Haq and B’Tselem were also jointly awarded the Geuzen Medal, an annual human rights prize given by a Dutch group that had resisted the Nazi occupation in World War II. Israel barred Jabarin from traveling to the Netherlands to receive the award.


The PL Foundation prize ceremony will be held in Copenhagen on November 29. Nina Atallah, the head of Al-Haq’s monitoring and documentation department, will try to travel to the prize ceremony.


Human Rights Watch will host a meeting of its Middle East and North Africa Division’s advisory committee, of which Jabarin is a member, in New York City on December 6 to discuss the organization’ s work in the region. The advisory committee is comprised of independent human rights activists, legal scholars, journalists, and others from around the region.


On December 8 the EU-NGO Forum on Human Rights will convene EU states, institutions, and nongovernmental groups in Brussels . According to the invitation Jabarin received, the forum, organized by the European Commission and the European External Action Service , willdiscuss the implementation of the EU’s guidelines on international humanitarian law and its human rights strategy.


Article 12 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which the International Court of Justice and other legal bodies have determined applies to the occupied Palestinian territories, states that everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his or her own.




Source URL:





5.  Haaretz

Monday, November 28, 2011


Israel apologizes to American journalist for overly intrusive search

New York Times correspondent Lynsey Addario was strip searched at Gaza checkpoint despite asking not to go through X-ray machine out of concern for her unborn baby.



By The Associated Press

Tags: Gaza Israel US


Israel’s Defense Ministry apologized Monday for the treatment of a pregnant American news photographer who said she was strip searched and humiliated by Israeli soldiers during a security check.


Lynsey Addario, who was on assignment for the New York Times, had requested that she not be forced to go through an X-ray machine as she entered Israel from the Gaza Strip because of concerns for her unborn baby.


Instead, she wrote in a letter to the ministry, she was forced through the machine three times as soldiers “watched and laughed from above.” She said she was then taken into a room where she was ordered by a female worker to strip down to her underwear.


In the Oct. 25 letter sent by the newspaper said Addario, a Pulitzer Prize winner who is based in India and has worked in more than 60 countries, had never been treated with “such blatant cruelty.”


The ministry said an investigation found that the search followed procedures but noted that Addario’s request to avoid the X-ray machine had not been properly relayed.


Addario said she made the request not to go through the X-ray machine before arriving at the crossing.


“We would like to apologize for this particular mishap in coordination and any trouble it may subsequently have caused to those involved,” the statement said.


It said that security is tight on the border with Gaza “in order to prevent terror from targeting and reaching Israel ‘s citizens.”


The New York Times bureau chief in Israel , Ethan Bronner, welcomed the planned changes but said the newspaper remains shocked at the treatment Addario received and how long the investigation took.


Foreign journalists working in Israel have repeatedly complained of overly intrusive security checks by of Israeli authorities. Israel says the inspections are necessary measures.


6.  Haaretz

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

A surefire way to keep Israeli Arabs from voting

Against the wave of anti-democratic legislation, the meaning of conservatism is turned around; refraining from action becomes active political cooperation with the trampling of democracy.



By Sefi Rachlevsky


Constitution, Law and Justice Committee chairman David Rotem’s description of Zahava Gal-On as ” not even a beast” is, in his context, accurate. According to Rotem’s theology, and that of most Orthodox Jews in Israel , Gal-On is indeed barely a beast. You see, there’s a hierarchy. Everything living thing has a soul. Above that is the spirit, which is bestowed solely on Jewish men, but which enters the Jewish woman through a kosher union with her husband (which is why it is forbidden to marry a woman who was widowed three times; the assumption is that the spirit of her first husband is knocking off anyone else who enters ).


The highest essence of spirit, the neshama, is the privilege earned by Jewish men through the study of Torah. A heretical woman, who is a leader and who speaks out against religious extremism, is considered rabble and less than a “gentile” or a beast.


It’s not for nothing that several leading rabbis prefer a firing squad than hearing women sing. From the Shulhan Arukh code of Jewish law they draw the assertion that the most severe of all transgressions is the useless spilling of seed. This is compared to murdering one’s children, as it is written, “your hands become full of blood.” The demons responsible for tragedies are born from Jewish seed that was wasted. The Tikun Hatzot ritual of lamentation, a prayer recited after midnight, was created to combat them.


This is the reason for the hiding and silencing of women, so as not to excite the men, which might lead to improper ejaculation.


Those who believe this are not a fringe group. Nearly 53 percent of first-graders classified as Jews now study in religious and ultra-Orthodox schools, and the prevailing theology in most of them teach these things as fact. Just as the Jewish man is a human being, those women who make their voices heard are less than beasts.


Those who fear the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood – and certainly those who would celebrate the victory of political Islam as an excuse for maintaining the settlements – ought to look in the mirror. The conclusion from the increasing control exerted by religious radicalism in the region is simple. The primary power of the various “Brotherhoods” stems from the subsidized religious and educational autonomy that has fashioned what has become the obvious for millions. This is what makes Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein’s decision to grant immunity to racist incitement presented as theology and Jewish law so serious. This immunity enables the flow of billions to incitement-ridden rabbinic education, which fashions an “obvious” that permits the killing of non-Jews and the silencing of women.


The resemblance to the “Brotherhoods” continues when it comes to practical politics. The Brotherhoods are prepared to be elected, but don’t want to allow anyone to defeat them. That’s the way Rotem’s gang operates. They’re interested in changing the rules so that no one can replace them at the ballot box.


The crushing of substantive democracy is but one stage. The main thing is to change the election laws. It’s not for nothing that the gang is working to retroactively change the rules governing elections within the Israel Bar Association. It’s not “merely” an effort to gain control over the Judicial Appointments Committee; what’s important is to set a precedent of changing election rules.


The political leader of the Jewish Brotherhood, who goes by the catchy name of “Ketzaleh,” Yaakov Katz, has revealed his plan. The so-called Grunis law, which he initiated, was, by his own declaration, an important stage in gaining control of the Supreme Court, silencing “that miserable bunch who believe in the laws of the gentiles” on the court and legislating wild laws to impose halakha (Jewish religious law ) on the State of Israel.


There were three reasons why Justice Asher Grunis “merited” to serve this plan to gain control, firstly, because it’s important to prevent another woman from serving as Supreme Court president. Jewish law, which forbids hearing women sing, also forbids listening to anything of importance they have to say. A female court president is like an idol in the sanctuary.


Secondly, it’s important to them to show that it is possible to change the rules on an ad-hoc, personal basis, and have the Supreme Court reconcile itself to being prevented from choosing a female president and instead, crowning Ketzaleh’s choice. Thirdly, Grunis is considered an opponent of judicial activism.


Rotem’s gang intends to change the laws for electing the Knesset in a way that will keep them in power, just like the other “brothers” in the region. The plan includes invalidating Arab lists like Balad, while an anti-activist court will not intervene. In response, Israeli Arabs are likely to boycott the ballot, leaving the general election for Jews only.


Also on the way are changes to laws and regulations that would permit voting from abroad, which would add right-wing emigrants to the voting rolls and later allow Orthodox hordes to vote from Brooklyn and impose the Rotem gang on all the country’s beasts.


The Supreme Court ought not cooperate with Ketzaleh’s plan; it should avoid using laws passed for specific persons and allow Miriam Naor to become its president, with Grunis as her deputy.


Against the wave of anti-democratic legislation, the meaning of conservatism is turned around. Refraining from action becomes active political cooperation with the trampling of democracy.



Tuesday, November 29, 2011


Israel ‘s National Insurance Institute : One in ten families suffer from hunger

Study involving 5,000 families finds 19 percent suffer from food insecurity; says solution lays in encouraging employment and increasing stipends.



By Dana Weiler-Polak


A survey conducted recently by Israel ‘s National Insurance Institute, the first of its kind, found that 19 percent of families in the country suffer from food insecurity, 10 percentsuffer from hunger and two percent suffer from severe hunger.


The survey, which included 5,000 families, corresponds with Israel ‘s poverty rate data, according to which 19 to 20 percent live under the poverty line.


The survey also found that 13 percent of families don’t have sufficient food, and a third of the families surveyed have opted to buy other products instead of food. 12 percent rely on the assistance of their family or friends.


The National Insurance Institute said that “encouraging fair employment of those who are capable of working may decrease the economic distress found in the survey.” An analysis of the report added that “this is the preferred solution for the needs of the poor population, which suffers from food insecurity and can make a living.”


However, the National Insurance Institute said that among the poor population there are those who do not work for various reasons. These include handicapped people and people who tend to sick family members. The proposed solution for this population, according to the report, is stipends.


The analysis also claims that the existing stipends are not enough for a dignified living, and urged the government to raise the payments significantly. “On the other hand,” the report said, “a government that widely supports charity food organizations contributes unwillingly to an increase in demand.”


Labor Party leader Shelly Yachimovich said that “an enlightened and modern society is judged by its poor and their ability to survive, and according to the state’s own data, the jungle economy – of which Netanyahu is an advocate – leaves… the weakest behind and sentences them to a life of poverty and survival.”


8,  Today in Palestine

November 28, 2011

Posted in Nova NewsletterComments Off on Dorothy Online Newsletter



 Gilad Atzmon: The following lengthy article by Red Scribblings  proves that the issues raised by The Wandering Who are at the centre of today’s philosophical and ideological thinking. It is no secret that Zionist lobbies together with some Jewish anti Zionists are desperate to stop the book or its author. I believe that they would actually do themselves a big favour reading the book first.

Political Islamist – Osama bin Laden

Theodore Herzl – Jewish analogue of political Islamist?

The controversy over Gilad Atzmon and his book The Wandering Who, which I recently reviewed on this blog, raises a lot of important questions about history and the politics of the last two centuries. I make no apology for writing about this question again because some of the issues he raises are of great importance to questions relating to war and peace, the nature of contemporary capitalism, national questions and the composition of major classes in society, particularly the capitalist class. All these questions are of central importance to anyone who wants to see capitalism superseded by socialism – they also touch intimately on questions intertwined with the causes of at least one world war in living memory, as well as other traumatic and world historic events including the currents wars and now revolutions shaking the Middle East and neighbouring regions and states. So its pretty important.

Atzmon is not a Marxist thinker, but an idiosyncratic left-wing liberal, born and raised in a racist ethnocracy. His own rejection of a racist upbringing and his privileged birthright as a Jew in a Jewish state, has generated some ferocious rhetoric and not a little incoherence and misunderstanding by friend and foe alike in some cases. But Atzmon’s writings are significant: this is also acknowledged by his enemies, usually rabid Zionists though also a few semi-Bundist socialists who on most issues are on the opposite side of the barricades to the Netan-yahoos. My point here is not to dwell on that conflict, but to acknowledge the significance of his work on ‘Jewish identity’. If it was just, as his enemies proclaim, reheated anti-semitism from the pre-WWII years, Atzmon would be unable to defend himself against a tidal wave of universal opprobrium.

After all, even many on the far right in Western countries are themselves keen to distance themselves from anti-semitism because it is no longer useful to them – anti-Muslim hate is much more de rigeur. So how come, if Atzmon is anti-semitic, is he getting a hearing from many broadly on the left of the political spectrum? It does not make sense. The only explanation for this that his enemies can put forward is to start talking about how the left itself is hostile to people of Jewish origin purely because of that origin. But that is a nonsensical allegation that I will not address here except to note that it is usually the refuge those pushing some kind of racist anti-Arab agenda, or opportunists of various kinds aiming to suck up to people with these kinds of views. And many of those abused in this way by Zionist right-wingers and their gentile reactionary allies are themselves Jewish.  No-one of any integrity believes this allegation so I will say no more about it.

Despite his evident differences with Marxism, which he has derided as ‘psuedo-scientific’, Atzmon is putting forward something useful to Marxists in addressing the Jewish question. He puts forward a theory about the politicisation of Jewish identity that basically divides its bearers into three categories. One is a religious identity, that of believing practitioners of Judaism. Two is those who are born Jewish, who may or may not be religious Jews, and who basically regard themselves as citizens of whatever state they reside in, and attach no particular political significance to their Jewish identity. And then there is what Atzmon calls the third category, of those Jews for who being Jewish is a political identity above all, and indeed appears to be the most important aspect of their political persona. He considers the first two ‘categories’ to be basically harmless; the third anything but.

Atzmon states that this ‘third’ category of Jews act as a ‘tribal’ or communalist body, claim to speak for ‘the Jews’ as a whole, and act as a collective in maximising their influence against other national/ethnic communities, particularly Arabs, though not limited to them. Atzmon further states that this ‘third category’ movement, as part of its communal project, acts to ‘infiltrate’ the corridors of power particularly in advanced countries like Europe and America, basically to fight for ‘Jewish’ interests, which today are expressed through the interests of the Israeli state. This latter supposition is the most contentious aspect of Atzmon’s theories and I will put off discussing that until I have examined some of its antecedent arguments.

There is nothing odious or even unusual about the logic Atzmon uses to divide Jews into three categories. A very similar schema can be used to divide up Muslims, and many of Atzmon’s most vehement critics would have no problem in making such distinctions. One could say that a first category Muslim is simply an ordinary believer who is purely religious in motivation and does not concern himself or herself with politics. A second category Muslim is a believer who may well involve themselves in politics in some way, but does not make the Muslim religion or identity the focal point of their political activity. The third category of Muslim would then be a Muslim who is involved in political activity whose central aim is to promote Islam, or the perceived interest of Muslims, as their prime concern and reason for political activity.

Many of Atzmon’s critics would have no problem in dividing Muslims up in this way and would of course have a ready-made term available to describe the ‘third category’ of Muslims. Such people they tend to call ‘political Islamists’. This is uncontroversial among liberals and the left: while there are wide differences on how to relate to those who are politically active as Muslims, with some writing off all such people as irremediably reactionary while others adopting a more nuanced position, there is little dispute about the existence of political Islam, and therefore three basic categories of Muslim identity. No one on the left goes around denouncing anyone who recognises the mere existence of political Islam as a distinct category as racist or Islamophobic.

When it comes to making such distinctions among Jews, however, the reaction from both progressive and right-wing Jewish activists and their cheerleaders on the gentile left is quite hysterical. Thus the campaign against Atzmon, recently taken up in  an unsuccessful attempt at banning his music by the Zionist-influenced ‘anti-fascist’ campaigning group ‘Hope Not Hate’ and the Zionist anti-Muslim hate site Harry’s Place. No one with any sense on the left expects much from these people, who spend more time witch-hunting anti-imperialists and anti-war activists particularly from the Middle East than any purely nominal ‘anti-fascism’. But more serious people on the left have also reacted with horror to Atzmon’s making such distinctions among Jews.

Jewish and Islamist politics – parallels and differences

There are some important differences between Jewish politics and Political Islam that make such a comparison not as straightforward as all that. One important one is that there is no significant secular form of political Muslim communalism. Because Islam is a pan-national religion that is the majority in a range of countries from Morocco to Indonesia, those secular forms of politics that have evolved tend to be based on one or another form of nationalism – Arab nationalism, nationalist politics in Pakistan (initially defined against India), Indonesian nationalism, etc. Pan-Islamic politics is most definitely not secular, but aims to appeal to people of disparate nations on the basis of loyalty to Islam. This is most definitely not parallel to Jewish politics.

Jewish politics as a form of communalism is mainly secular and largely the creation of atheists. The reasons for this are complex and go back into history. Abram Leon, the Trotskyist who authored The Jewish Question during the Second World War (before being himself murdered in the holocaust), provided the framework for much of this understanding, describing the Jews as having been a class of pre-capitalist traders in feudal society, apeople-class who performed a necessary economic function and whose religion and identity became adapted to reflect their social role. For Leon, the reason for the Jews’ survival as a distinct religious community was linked to that economic role. With the advent of the capitalist mode of production, growing up within feudal society and eventually overturning it, that role became obsolete.

The result was a pretty complex evolution for the Jews, they became hated competitors for the emerging bourgeoisie, having had a monopoly position in the role of financiers and merchants under feudalism. At the same time, Jewish merchants did make careers for themselves under the new mode of production and became sometimes a target of social discontent that the bourgeoisie managed quite skilfully to steer away from itself towards ‘Jewish’ capital. But in any case, the medieval religious form of the Jewish religion was obsolete and in no shape to drive the former people-class forward in a new world.

The threat of disintegration, assimilation, and the obsolescence of the old Judaism led to the emergence of reform Judaism as the capitalist mode of production fully emerged in the 19th Century, and at the same time, even more strikingly, a movement to define the Jews as a people in secular terms, as described recently by Tel Aviv Professor Shlomo Sand in his remarkable study The Invention of the Jewish People. The most obvious manifestation of this was Zionism, in terms of the project to completely re-create the Jews as a fully-fledged nation with its own territory.

The real point of all this being that unlike with Islam, where specifically Muslim communalist politics takes a form that is overtly, sometimes fanatically religious in ideology, the opposite is true with Judaism. Specifically Jewish politics has not, for the reasons sketched out above, been generally religious, but secular. Indeed religious trends, with some more recent and derivative exceptions in Israel itself, have been generally less inclined to communalism than the secularists.

This paradox makes the Jewish question quite difficult to get a handle on, and more to the point is that in criticising Jewish communal politics one appears to be specifically attacking the secular and apparently modernising trend among this people, which is the opposite of the way such matters are usually approached. But the reason for this is that the Jews are not a nation, and the attempt to re-create them as such could only have reactionary results. As we see today with the anti-democratic monstrosity that is Israel, the ethnocratic tyranny, created through the dispossession of another people, that threatens the peoples of the Middle East with a nuclear holocaust.

So that is where Gilad Atzmon is fundamentally correct. In differentiating between the three ‘categories’ of Jews, and focussing his attack only on the third ‘category’, he is making an important contribution to the understanding not only of the Jewish question, but of the world we live in today.

The conclusion he derives from this, about the alleged proclivity of bearers of the ‘third category’ Jewish identity to infiltrate the corridors of power, is what has led to the controversy about his alleged ‘anti-semitism’. He writes in his book about the Book of Esther in the Hebrew bible as a blueprint for this, the story of a Jewish woman who married the king of Persia without her Jewish origin being known and was supposedly able to avert a genocide of the Jews through her influence at court. The story, as Atzmon points out, is almost certainly fictional, but he sees it as a paradigm of not only the tactics of Israel’s supporters today in seeking through lobbying to promote Israeli interests, most notably in the US, but also of similar tactics by ‘third category’ Jews throughout the whole period since the birth of the concept of the Jews as a putative nation in the 19th Century.

“Justifying” or explaining?

In a particularly sharp way, Atzmon pointed out in 2009 some of the likely consequences of Israel’s unremitting and brazen brutality against the Palestinians and other surrounding peoples in terms of re-generating hatred of Jews:

“Hitler was indeed defeated, Jews are now more than welcome in Germany and in Europe, yet, the Jewish state and the sons of Israel are at least as unpopular in the Middle East as their grandparents were in Europe just six decades ago. Seemingly, it is the personification of WW2 and the Holocaust that blinded the Israelis and their supporters from internalising the real meaning of the conditions and the events that led towards their destruction in the first place. Would the Zionists understand the real meaning of their Holocaust, the contemporary Israelite may be able to prevent the destruction that may be awaiting them in the future.” (Saying No to the Hunters of Goliath)

This article and this passage in particular produced a pretty hysterical reaction, not just from Zionists (which is to be expected), but also from many on the Jewish left. Tony Greenstein, for instance, accused Atzmon of ‘justifying the holocaust’ with this passage.

The hysteria involved in this accusation is obvious with a little sober reflection. First of all, if Atzmon was indeed ‘justifying the holocaust’ he really must be more Nazi than any other neo-Nazis. For of course, the tactic of neo-Nazis such as David Irving and Richard Verrall, when confronted with the utterly despicable act of racist mass murder that was the holocaust, is not to brazenly justify it and say that the victims got what they deserved. Such a position would be complete political suicide for anyone who came out with such hate-filled invective. Rather, the tactic of neo-Nazis is to deny that there was any genocide, and to look for some means to cast doubt on it.

Atzmon is also, falsely accused of holocaust-denial by some of the same people. But no one seems to notice that the two accusations contradict each other. To justify the holocaust you have to acknowledge that there actually was a holocaust. Conversely, if you regard (or claim to regard) the holocaust as a piece of fiction, it is not possible to ‘justify’ it – justifying a fiction (real or alleged) is an impossible, chimerical task!

So why the hysterical response to this stern warning to the Israelis about the likely consequences of their brutality? The hysteria is prompted in reality by the implication in the above passage that there may have been something in the conduct of powerful Jews prior to the Nazi genocide that contributed to the Jews being hated enough in Europe for a genocidal backlash to happen. This appears to be what Atzmon believes. Is this true? I do not profess at this point to definitively know. It is however possible. And more to the point, this is a legitimate subject for political debate, there is nothing ‘racist’ in raising it. A simple analogy with the present day will be sufficient to indictate why asking this question is not racist.

Causes of Islamophobia

Take the question of Islamophobia today. It is self-evident that fighting Islamophobia is the duty of every decent socialist and anti-imperialist. Those supposedly on the left who fuel it, the likes of the Alliance for Workers Liberty or the even more loathsome elements around Harry’s Place, cannot be regarded as comrades or progressives at all. But it is not enough to condemn Islamophobes when analysing the causes of Islamophobia.

The fact is that some reactionary elements among Muslims also bear responsibility for promoting Islamophobia. Atrocities like the 9/11 attacks, 7/7, the Bali bombing, the attacks in Africa and Spain, etc have fuelled Islamophobia, and provided much ammunition to Islamophobes. Indeed, the most nihilistic elements among Islamists quite deliberately fuel Islamophobia and calculate that they will benefit from it.

The classic recent example of this is the activities of Al Mujaharoun, the group around Anjem Choudhury which plays a cat-and-mouse game with British governments determined to stamp it out by repeatedly dissolving in the face of a ban and re-forming under different names. Its organisation of a demonstration in Luton in March 2009 excoriating dead British soldiers as scum and psycho-killers who allegedly deserved to die and ‘burn in hell’ was a provocation aimed at provoking Islamophobia. It had the desired effect, as it crystallised for the first time a specifically Islamophobic fascist group in Britain – the English Defence League was formed directly as a result of this provocation.

It is not in the slightest bit racist to say that. Nor is it incompatible with the fight against Islamophobia. What is however characteristic of Islamophobia is to equate all Muslims, or even all political Islamists, with the like of Al Qaeda or Al Mujaharoun. Some political Islamists have played a progressive role in the struggle against Islamophobia. One example springs to mind immediately – the role of the Muslim Association of Britain, which has links with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in being one of the three organisations that came together to form the mass anti-war movement that shook Tony Blair’s warmongering government and mobilised two million people in the massive anti-war demonstration of February 15th 2003.

The fraternal links that this forged between Muslims and non-Muslims in opposing the war has limited the growth of Islamophobia even to this day – things would likely be a lot worse were it not for what happened during this period. Those on the left who tried to abort this progressive collaboration, and baldly equated the MAB with Al Qaeda etc, played an utterly reactionary role.

Jewish communal politics and anti-semitism

Going back to the issue of Jewish communal politics, Atzmon is on strong ground when he attacks the various rabid Zionist neocons, or the likes of Lord Levy in the Blairised Labour Party, as partisans of Jewish communalism in promoting what appear to be Israeli interests in the British or US governments. If this is what these people are doing, and they are pretty brazen about it, how is it racist to point this out? The question of why they are able to get away with this is a different question, and Atzmon’s non-Marxism and hostility to what he calls ‘psuedo-scientific materialism’ means he gives emphasis to the subjective aims and objectives of these communalist Jewish politicians, and not to the material interests of the bulk of the non-Jewish Western ruling classes which give them that latitude. But nevertheless to attack such people for promoting ‘Jewish’ interests is no more racist than to accuse Al Qaeda of promoting antagonism between Muslims and non-Muslims.

So, were there elements of Jewish communal politics that existed prior to the holocaust, and prior to the formation of the state of Israel for that matter, that helped create the climate of hatred of Jews that made the holocaust possible politically? From my understanding, and by an analogy with the present day situation of Islamophobia, there may have been such things. But they were subordinate and subsidiary to the overriding factors that drove anti-semitism in the pre-WWII period. Just as today, while some elements of political Islam bear responsibility for the growth of Islamophobia, it is fundamentally driven by imperialist and Zionist interests in the domination of the Middle East.

Pre-war anti-semitism was above all a counter-revolutionary paranoia and demonology, emanating from the ruling classes of capitalist Europe which was shaken by the spectre of Communism and the Russian revolution. Unable to admit, even to themselves, that the economic system from which they drew their wealth and privileges was disfunctional and provoking legitimate social protest and the possibility of revolution, they looked for a demonic force as the culprit instead.

The prominence of Jews, driven by their oppression under Tsarism, in the Russian Revolution, and the prominence of emancipated Jews in the earlier bourgeois revolutions in Europe, which the bourgeoisie was always ambivalent about because of the risk that mobilising the masses posed to all privilege, even that of the bourgeoisie itself, as it benefited from a revolution that made it the ruling class, led it to see revolution as a demonic, harmful thing. Which of course must be the work of a demonic, ‘alien’ force. The Jews being the most obviously visible ‘alien’ force involved in revolutions became the demon of the revolution in the eyes of the bourgeoisie.

That was the primary cause of pre-war anti-semitism. But the ruling class is not omnipotent. It does not just click its fingers and get the masses thinking the way it wants. In order to get the lower orders thinking the way it wants, it needs suitable propaganda, that is effective. It is a fact that, as a result of the legacy of the origins of the Jews as a financial-trading ‘people class’ in the medieval period, they are overrepresented among powerful bankers and the like. This was just as true in pre-war period as it is today.

Take a look at some examples: Goldman Sachs. This US investment bank is, as is well known, very conspicuously Jewish owned. It has interests in Israel, but it is hardly Israeli or particularly bound to Israel. Its interests are far wider that that, in fact world-wide. It is almost a century older than Israel, and as solidly American as the Ford Motor Company. Its world-wide interests, its ruthlessness and its profit-gouging proclivities have gained it the nickname of the Vampire Squid.

In the current Euro-crisis, close associates of this predatory investment bank have recently been appointed to head the European Central Bank, and as Prime Ministers of Italy and Greece without popular election, a development that has fuelled fears of an anti-democratic takeover of European politics by banking interests led by Goldman Sachs. This kind of role, and the perceptions it generates, are not of course confined to Goldman Sachs. The Rothschild family, based mainly in Europe, has a similar reputation itself going back centuries.


In  the pre-WWII context, were these Jewish-owned financial organisations involved in promoting specifically Jewish communal politics or just pure-ruthless money-making? It is not really completely clear; there are some grounds for suspicion of this particularly in terms of funding of the early Zionist movement and the colonisation of Palestine, but nothing conclusive. But here is the point: the over-representation of Jews in finance and banking related companies etc, which is quite marked, itself cannot but fuel suspicions of clannishness, self-interest and mutual aid based on communal lines. Because of the power that such over-representation gives, it can easily be perceived as an aggressive act even if that perception is not given more credence by visible self-interested behaviour. And of course, that the latter never happened is hard to believe, particularly given the influence of Zionism whose strategy was always oriented to the recruitment of powerful people to its cause.

This is in some ways deeply unfortunate, a product of the one-sided development of a culture derived from the Jews’ past as a people-class. That as may be, but that over-representation is a material factor fuelling such suspicions and allowing ideologues an open goal in inciting hostility to specifically Jewish capital instead of capital as a whole. Combined with the bourgeois class-based paranoia about Jewish radicalism, this is certainly enough to explain the potency and appeal of pre-war anti-semitism and why it was able to reach genocidal proportions in a major capitalist crisis.

The chief driving force of this was the latter bourgeois paranoia, and thus Atzmon is almost certainly wrong in extrapolating from today’s widespread anger at Israel back in time to the pre-WWII period. However, the analysis I am putting forward here derives in large measure from a Marxist analysis of the class consciousness, or ‘false consciousness’, of the bourgeoisie, and it is hardly surprising that someone who rejects Marxism would not concur with it.

The perception of the Jews as a threat to the capitalist order is no more. The conservative, counter-revolutionary evolution of Israel has largely put paid to that idea. Israel is now one of the key props of worldwide capitalist reaction. What exists today is a different combination of factors, the same over-representation of Jews in the sphere of finance-capital, this time combined with the activities of those who seek influence to promote Israeli state interests.

In contrast to the pre-war situation, when you had a combination of this over-representation with the bourgeoisie’s fantasy about Jews as a revolutionary infestation infecting an otherwise conservative working class population, today you have two realfactors in combination – the same over-representation with the existence and activities of the Zionist lobby. These are ample grounds to characterise this combination as a real, dangerous communalist, counter-revolutionary phenomenon, not the kind of phantasm that was the basis for pre-war anti-semitism. There is nothing racist or wrong in pointing out the over-representation of Jews who rabidly support Israel and its crimes in positions of power and influence in Western societies, in pointing to the sinister and anti-democratic significance of this and demanding that this be reversed.

However, its significance should not be exaggerated – it still exists basically by permission of the non-Jewish ruling classes of the advanced Western countries, who could brush if off very easily if they were minded to do so. For their own reasons of class interest, they are not so minded.  Because of the previous history of racist anti-semitism, this issue is capable of generating considerable misunderstanding. It has to be theorised very clearly in order to avoid an escalating series of misunderstandings and confrontations with honest people who are hostile to Israel and its crimes, but fear anti-semitism also.

Progressive or reactionary?

One manifestation of Islamophobia, as I pointed out earlier, is the equation of all forms of political Islam as utterly reactionary. I think an analogous error is possible with ‘third category Jews’ as Atzmon so defines them, and one legitimate criticism of Atzmon is that he sometimes makes this error. Recently he has taken to using the insulting designation ‘AZZ’ in referring to those anti-Zionist Jewish activists who denounce him as an anti-semite. ‘AZZ’ being a abbreviation for ‘Anti-Zionist Zionists’.

In its own way, this is as absurd as the Tony Greenstein self-contradictory accusation that Atzmon ‘justifies’ the holocaust while simultaneously ‘denying’ it (see earlier). When self-contradictory accusations are levelled in the course of a political feud, it is always a sign that something has gone wrong with the reasoning of the person levelling them. One is either a Zionist, i.e. a supporter of the Zionist project of Israel, or one is not. One cannot be both, they are mutually exclusive. This tortured formulation is a sign that Atzmon has lost sight of the fact that there are different trends among the ‘third category Jews’ as he (correctly) characterises them, just as there are differences between political Islamists.

The proportions are different between the progressive and reactionary components among political Islamists and political or ‘third category’ Jews. Because many of those who gravitate towards political Islam are driven there as a reaction to imperialist oppression and the apparent failure of secular and leftist alternatives. Whereas because Israel is an oppressor state, based on the dispossession of the Palestinian Arabs, and its overseas supporters act as auxiliaries of that oppression, the bulk of ‘third category Jews’ are reactionaries. But because there is a real history of oppression also among Jews, and a real tradition of struggle against that, there is also a minority trend among the ‘third category’ that are progressive anti-Zionists. Hence such formations as ‘Jews Against Zionism’, ‘Jews for Justice for the Palestinians’, etc.

Actually, if you look at the material produced by Atzmon, and many of his ‘AZZ’ critics, and remove the material that relates to their internecine conflict, you will find that there is much in common between them. Much of their material denouncing the Israeli state is very similar in its outspokenness and potency, which is why on several occasions I have noticed perceptive Zionist reactionaries, commenting on their in-house propaganda and discussion sites (such as Harry’s Place) note this and express the hope that these two trends will tear each other to pieces.

At the moment this complex issue is causing deep divisions among partisans of the Palestinians, and a great deal of confusion and rancour, to the benefit only of Zionists. Yet the differences are real and important, and cannot be simply wished away. The only way they can be overcome is through a process of discussion and clarification, as calmly and rationally as possible. In that spirit, this blog links to both anti-racist, anti-Zionist trends, to Gilad Atzmon’s website and Tony Greenstein’s blog. Hopefully this article will contribute to that process and bring some light to the debate.


The Wandering Who-A Study of Zionist and AZZ tactics – available on


Egypt: Urgent Statement: Speech Strike Against Gagging


Militarists told me that my case differs from the case of Alaa Abd El Fattah, because Alaa isn’t tried as being a political activist… I look in their eyes and ask them, …“Is it a confession that I am being tried as being a political activist?”.

Since the coup d’etat of Tantawi in 11 February, militarists practiced gagging by all means. They imprisoned politicians and bloggers, they terrorized revolutionaries, tried media personnel and confiscated newspapers… For that, I ought to announce it explicitly, “our mouths were gagged”. For that, I decided to enter tomorrow’s morning in a speech strike for 3 days, objecting gagging mouths which the military council practice and objecting the continuation of my confinement aiming at preventing me from exposing the violations of militarists. I don’t consider myself a prisoner, I consider myself abducted by the gang which occupied Egypt and usurp the right of its people in freedom and democracy… I am a prisoner of war for the occupying army of Tantawi
which doesn’t get tired of attempting to oppress the revolution and kneeling the revolutionaries.

Unfortunately, the army deals with me as a hostage (as it dealt with Ilan Grapel), in which they pickle customer and retain him for the longest possible time so that they can barter him by the biggest possible price… But unfortunately, they don’t realize that each day I and my fellow revolutionaries spend in prison is going to increase the gap between the revolution and the military establishment, and is going to increase the price which they would have to pay some day.
The army should realize that it would pay the price of each day I spend in my imprisonment… I know that they are taking revenge to the painful blows I directed at them in the past, but this is a childish behavior because the one who directed painful blows in the past is able to direct
more painful blows in the future.

Continue building up the wall of the prison – tomorrow the revolution will rise and won’t let anything

Down with the military rule

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg general prison

Andreas Speck at War Resisters’ International
Conscientious Objection Campaigning Worker
5 Caledonian Road – London N1 9DX – Britain
tel +44-20-7278 4040  – fax +44-20-7278 0444
Skype warresisters

Use encryption! More information at

Support War Resisters’ International! Donate today!

Posted in EgyptComments Off on Egypt: Urgent Statement: Speech Strike Against Gagging

25 Million U.S. Unemployed And Underemployed


Making No Effective Protest, Economist Says

By Sherwood Ross

Although America’s 25 million unemployed and underemployed could be a powerful force for social change, they aren’t combining in any effective way to protest, an eminent business authority writes.

“Activism has given way to acquiescence,” writes Louis Uchitelle, even though “unemployment is once again stubbornly high in the aftermath of a recession that has left the economy persistently weak.”

Worse for the jobless, unemployment is no longer seen as “a failure of the nation’s employers to generate enough demand for workers. That was and still is the reason, but it failed as an explanation and as a prod to action,” Uchitelle writes. Instead, “the unemployed are persistently blamed for their own unemployment, which eases pressure on government to help them.”

Uchitelle, who covers economics for The New York Times, writes that the commonly held belief about unsuccessful job-seekers today is “if only they acquired enough education and skill” they would be hired.

Writing in the November 28th issue of The Nation, Uchitelle recalled that in Sept., 1981, 260,000 people marched on Washington to protest President Ronald Reagan’s mass dismissal of the nation’s air traffic controllers the previous month because they failed to heed his order to end a strike. Today, he says, the unemployed don’t think in terms of mass protests.

Edward Wolff, a labor economist at New York University, says, “It is remarkable how passive the American people are about unemployment.” Wolff and others blame this attitude on the decline of union power and the failure of the air traffic controllers’ strike “which undermined the sympathy toward organized labor that had been characteristic of Americans since the ‘30s.”

“People don’t cooperate with each other,” adds Richard Sennett, a New York University sociologist. “They’ve lost the desire to do s and te skill that cooperation requires, so when things fall apart, they react as if it were their individual failure and are passive about it.”

Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress, asks, “Why aren’t people angry about unemployment? Well, really, why aren’t people angry about declining living standards?”

The passivity of the jobless can be laid in part at the feet of President Obama who is plugging the vague American Jobs Act, which the public hopes will bring relief. “Obama has done an extraordinary job of dampening potential unrest,” says Richard Freeman, a Harvard labor economist. “The unemployed have been unwilling so far to go against the president, and he is living on that, above the fray.”

Uchitelle notes that unrest has been dampened by the disbursal of Federal disability benefits that go to more than 10 million people and the rise in the number of young people living at home, as well as house-sharing.

He suggests that the Occupy Wall Street movement might spur the unemployed “to finally speak out forcefully in their own behalf.” Uchitelle notes, however, that extended jobless pay benefits—currently a maximum of 53 weeks compared to the standard 26 weeks—”helps to relieve the hardship and to silence the recipients, some of whom fear that the extra monthly checks might be cut off if they speak out.”

A Democratic president seeking to follow in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt, which Obama is not, might figure that FDR’s New Deal approach worked once and likely will work again. He might call for a massive pubic works build-up, as the AFL-CIO currently is urging, seconded at their last parley by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Mr. Obama might even tear a page out of President Reagan’s book and ask private sector employers to step up hiring. He might call for government to team up with the private, vocational training professionals to teach the jobless new skills for talent-short industries, expanding vocational training to new millions. Instead, Obama is spending billions to expand CIA and Pentagon military ops to chase terrorists in Africa as well as in the Middle East, just what the nation’s 25 million unemployed and underemployed don’t need and, I daresay, don’t give a damn about.

Posted in USAComments Off on 25 Million U.S. Unemployed And Underemployed

Is German Chancellor Angela Merkel A Former Communist Spy?


The Legacy of Post WWII Political Intrigue and Espionage

  by  Trowbridge H. Ford

editing… Jim W. Dean

Angela Merkel

Whenever a sovereign nation is conquered by another, its inhabitants, whether they be from its elite or dregs, ultimately have a hard time adjusting to foreign occupation because they don’t know how long it will last, and what it may be replaced by.

The process is made more difficult if it seems that there is no alternative to the conquerors, especially if they appear to represent some wave of the future.

But then, there are always surprises in history, and some seemingly sure things turn out to be nothing more than delayed dead ends.

Of course, the alternative to such a course is to continue to fight the occupiers tooth and nail as there seems to be no choice about the matter, but the costs of such a course are usually devastating.

The best example of the latter is the sad fate of Poland when it was confronted by nemeses on both its borders as World War II approached. It refused to compromise with either of its threatening neighbors, and paid heavily for its choice.

The victim of yet more partitions of Poland, it still refused to accommodate with either of its invaders. Poland was the only country in Europe, when overrun, refused to recognize and cooperate with its conquerors.

Katyn Forest – Initial Excavations

In fact, it proved so obstreperous to its Soviet occupiers that they felt obliged to execute the leading officers of its military in the infamous Katyn Forest massacres for fear that they would fight with the invading Nazis when the showdown between Berlin and Moscow finally occurred.

The uncooperative Poles in the German occupied areas fared even worse as they were forced to fight back because of the Nazi liquidation of increasing numbers of its Jewish citizens, culminating in the infamous elimination of the Warsaw Ghetto.

The Poles preferred, in sum, partitions of their country aka Polonization rather than experience some kind of ‘Quisling’ rule – the sobriquet given the German occupation of Norway under the collaborationist administration of Vidkun Quisling.

Traditionally, the term Polonization had meant the political and cultural expansion of the country at the expense of its neighbors, especially Germans and Lithuanians, but now the term was used to identify the reverse process.

Ever since the failed Warsaw uprising of 1831, except for the chaos left after the collapse of World War I, the Poles had been resigned to the fate history had dictated for them, as was amply demonstrated when neither the French nor the British supplied the help they had promised when the Nzai blitzkrieg struck in 1939.

The trouble with this passive, go-it-alone strategy by the Poles when it came to improving the nation’s fortunes was that it could easily be sidetracked by others.

When the prospects of its government in exile in London started to improve, its head, General Wladyslaw Sikorski, was conveniently assassinated in Gibraltar by the Brits, it seems, in July 1943.

General Sikorski

Sikorski was a courageous leader who was willing to make hard choices, deciding better ‘Stalin than Hitler’ immediately after the Nazi forces invaded the USSR.

His vigorous cooperation with them promised some hope for the Poles in the postwar settlement – what Churchill recognized, and had MI6 apparently sabotage the plane’s controls while it was refueling, making it look like a Soviet plane, parked next to it, had been its source.

Without Sikorski, the anti-communist Poles tried to go it alone when the Soviets forces approached Warsaw, but Stalin would not hear of it.

The postwar settlement in Poland was the most repressive of all in Eastern Europe. The country itself was a convenient hodge-podge at German expense which just provided another example of Polonization.

The terms of the Yalta Conference guaranteed that its politics would be Soviet-dominated, and the consequences were the least troublesome to its authorities when it came to anti-regime efforts, as the Vasili Mitrokhin files from the KGB demonstrate.

There is hardly any mention of Poland in the book Christopher Andrew wrote about it, The Sword and The Shield, until the revival of Catholicism during the late 1970s under Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, and the rise of Lech Walesa’s Solidarity Movement in the 1980s.

Until then, the Polish regime had essentially bought off its opponents under the watchful eye of Moscow. When the fear of Soviet military intervention collapsed in Poland, the regime fell surprisingly quickly, like a stack of cards.

For anyone living in Europe after WWII, especially in the Soviet bloc, Poland offered the least insights into how to deal with Soviet Communism domestically, and how it would fare in the world.

Poland seemed like the worst place to choose as a jumping off spot for some kind of better future as the soft, repressive character of its communist regime appeared like a fixed monolith, quite impervious to change, because of the immediate presence of the USSR right next door – what turned out to be a paper tiger when Mikael Gorbachev took over.

Actually, a more flexible, compromising attitude towards an invader seems like a more profitable course for an subject country, as France experienced under Nazi rule, and after its liberation. Paris, always worried about the discontinuaties of its turbulent past, always kept a lifeline to its republican past, no matter how comforting the autocratic ways of Marshal Pétain, and the prospects of the Nazi invaders seemed while it too experienced partition with the creation of the Vichy regime.

The duplicity of all concerned was well-illustrated by the behavior of the National Assembly which voted away its power after the fall of France, only to try to restore itself after the departure of the Germans. The Marshal’s infamous Deputy Premier, Pierre Laval, and then his successor, Admiral Darlan, were quite prepared to work for the Nazis until it seemed much more profitable just to work for themselves.

Charles de Gaulle – The Statesman

The same transition occurred within the population at large, as the chorus of support for Pétain turned slowly in favor of a unified resistance. General de Gualle was transformed from a troublesome traitor into the nation’s savior.

Insignificant resistance groups became the National Resistance Council, and right-wing hopes of an administered autocracy were dashed by the fiascoes in Vichy.

One can still only wonder if liberation would have turned out so well if Churchill’s dealing with the difficult General had resulted in this one’s assassination too.

When Churchill only informed de Gaulle of the D-Day landings after they occurred, he reacted so furiously that the British Prime Minister wrote him “..a letter,” Gordon Wright has written in France in Modern Times, “breaking off all personal relations and ordering de Gaulle off British soil.” (p. 394) Fortunately, the letter was not sent.

The experiences of Poland and France during WWII, and in the post-war world must have influenced everyone growing up in their mutual neighbor, Germany, West and East, especially one who moved from zone one to the other. The whole socializing process on either side of the border would have created all kinds of problems between peers and parents.

And it would have become even more disruptive if there was an ideological-religious difference between parents and children. The divided character of the country would have proven most vexing to all Germans, as they seemed caught up in an endless quandry of occupation – what no one really knew the outcome of, and when it would occur.

This analysis seems germane while trying to put together the life of Angela Kasner, eldest daughter of Lutheran priest Horst Kasner, and current Chancellor of the German Federal Republic, especially since she is most reluctant to talk about it. Born in Hamburg in 1954, and moved to East Germany shortly thereafter as her father obtained a pastorship in Quitzow, near Perleberg, in nearby Brandenburg, she had the Cold War almost embedded in her very bones.

Her father was born in the Pankow district of Berlin, then part of the Soviet sector. Her mother’s parents still lived in Elblag – formerly East Prussia’s Elbing – in Poland when Angela was born. The area was allocated to the USSR under the terms of the 1939 Treaty with the Nazis, and was sold to the Soviets in January 1941 for $7,500,000, so the Kasners were victims too of various invasions and partitions. After WWII, the area became part of Kaliningrad, and remains so.

The Kasners’ move to the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was apparently an effort to better position themselves for whatever happened to their divided country, particularly since they lived further in the GDR, setting up a household in Templin, 80 kilometers north of Berlin.

While Horst was trying to improve relations between the West’s and the East’s Lutheran churches, Angela was attending state schools, becoming a member of its Free German Youth (FDJ) program, though she did not take part in its Jugendweihe, the secular coming of age rite, preferring to be confirmed in the Lutheran church. Apparently, there was growing tension between the stern father, and the ambitious, talented daughter. Angela became so proficient in Russian that she ever won a prize.

After Angela graduated from secondary school in 1973, though, details about who she was becoming, and what she was doing become few and far between. She attended the University of Leipzig. She also married in 1976 fellow undergraduate student Ulrich Merkel, explaining that it was considered the thing to do, though they never had any children, and the marriage started breaking down as soon as she got appointed to Berlin’s Academy Sciences where she became FDJ’s secretary for recruiting, aka ‘agitprop’, children of its members into its program, showing that she was covertly supporting the GDR’s future. In fact, she was so busy doing other things that it wasn’t until 1986 that she finally completed her Ph.D degree.

Quantum chemistry aka quantum physics is a highly theoretical field which combines quantum mechanics with general field theory, and has all kinds of practical applications regarding plasmas, nuclear rehabilitation, and electromagnetism. The Soviet Union had built all kinds of nuclear devices on a crash basis – weapons, power plants, nuclear-powered submarines, radioisotope thermo-electric generators (RTGs), etc. – and were becoming concerned about what to do with them when they were no longer useful.

There were nuclear power generating plants all around the country whose safety was becoming questionable, nuclear-powered submarines around the ports of Murmansk, Archangel and in the Baltic which were dangerously rotting away, and spent RTGs littering the Kola Peninsula.

While the Soviets did not have the resources to deal with these problems, they looked to the East Germans – whose Berlin Academy of Sciences still had a great reputation in the field – to find the know-how, given its contacts in the West. The Berlin establishment traced its origins back to 1700 when the Prussian Academy of Sciences was started, and included among its membership such distinguished scientists as Gottfried Leibniz, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein.

Even though it had only been revived by the GDR after WWII, it still had over 200 members, including some two dozen from the West. It had grown now to include research in quantum chemistry – where Angela was working at its Central Institute for Physical Chemistry.

To take advantage of Merkel’s potential, Markus Wolf’s foreign section of the Stasi, the Hauptverwaltung Aufkluring (HVA), recruited her, it seems, to handle illegal agents the GDR was sending across The Wall to gather secrets from research facilities in the Federal Republic (FRG), France, Norway, and other Western countries – what she had learned about from her meetings and contacts at the Institute.

The future seemed to be turning in the GDR’s favor since détente had been established between Washington and Moscow, and the two German states had recognized one another’s existence in 1972. Most important, the Stasi had nursed along Willy Brandt’s bridge-building government towards the GDR until 1974 when its spies in the Chancellor’s Office, the Guillaumes, were exposed, Gunter declaring proudly: “I am an officer of the (East German) National People’s Army!” (Quoted from Andrew, p. 445.)

Despite Wolf’s claims after the GDR’s collapse that this was a grave mistake – what Andrew believes – it was deliberate, thinking that it would just enhance the GDR’s Eric Honecker’s potential in German reunification.

Thanks to the KGB Archives that its librarian Vasili Mittrokhin supplied Andrew, we now know about the extensive use of Stasi ‘Romeo’ spies who provided the KGB with all kinds of information. The glaring exception was the performance of Wilhelm Kahle (codenamed WERNER), a laboratory technician who assumed in the GDR the identity of a West German resident, and worked in the West in various capacities, and capitals, particularly in labs at Cologne and Bonn universities.

By the late 1970s, though, his intelligence take had become too thin, though quite extensive, resulting in a ten-volume file in the Archives, that the KGB became suspicious of his bona fides, especially when it learned through his communications with his mother in East Germany that he was fearful of being recalled to Moscow because of the wealth he had amassed in Paris.

In 1978, Kahle was summoned back to Moscow, and given a lie detector test on a contrived basis just to determine how unreliable he had become. It proved that it was extensive, resulting in its putting its most accomplished agent, codenamed ANITA – who spoke both German and Russian fluently – on the case. It was one of putting a ‘Juliet’ on a runaway ‘Romeo’, apparently a first in intelligence history. A

fter intensive questioning during their liaisons, Andrew wrote, “ANITA’s report confirmed the Centre’s suspicions.” (p. 450) She wrote that he had become an ideologically unreliable, completely self-serving agent who had no qualms about using others, even targets, for his own purposes. “As a result of ANITA’s report,” Andrew concluded, “Kahle appears to have been sidelined. He was formally removed from illegal work in 1982.”

The trouble with Andrew’s treatment of ANITA is that he never explained how she had become such an important counterintelligence specialist, who she might be, and why he never explained in the notes the disposition of her case since the Berlin Wall had come down, and the Cold War was over.

Then Andrew went out of his way in the notes to make it appear that all ‘Romeos’, except Wolf’s spy FELIX, had been identified – even going out of his way to account for the identity of “Franz Becker” aka Hans-Jurgen Henze (note 57, p. 649) – when there is no identification of either Kahle and his superior ‘Romeo’ ANITA.

Also, there are questions about what she might have done for the KGB after Mitrokhin’s records ran out. She could well have been the KGB agent who infiltrated Egon Bahr’s entourage – what Andrew mentioned when he discussed SDP Chancellor Helmut Schmidt’s dealing with the newly elected President Reagan after a month’s delay of his visit to Washington.

KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov explained, thanks to the KGB agent’s report “of special importance”, to the Soviet chief Leonid Brezhnev, that the delay was “designed to enable Washington to gain time to build up its armaments with the aim of overtaking the USSR in the military field.” (Quoted from ibid, p. 455.)

The KGB source also stated that there were all kinds of Western agents flooding Bonn to stop the growing commercial contacts between the FRG and the USSR, especially the proposed construction of a pipeline to bring natural gas from Siberia to the West – what Schmidt, to Moscow’s delight, was vigorously pressing ahead with.

With the KGB’s agent – stationed in the GDR, and apparently Angela Merkel – tipping off Moscow about Washington’s new arms race, it was hardly surprising that she finally received her Ph.D. in quantum chemistry. Thanks to her contacts, and the input from various illegals in the West, she had obviously learned alot about what was going on in the field.

Just compiling her agent reports into a coherent document would have been enough for the Institute to give her the degree. More important, the whole field was becoming much more important with the Soviets having to face nuclear rehabilitation with its aging nuclear arms, and everyone having to worry about nuclear meltdowns of atomic plants – what happened at Chernobyl just when she received her doctorate.

Unfortunately for Merkel, her hopes for Honecker’s all-German socialist republic did not work out, at least as far as we know now. Thanks to the Reagan arms buildup, and Gorbachev’s refusal to engage in an arms competition after the near fatal non-nuclear showdown with the Anglo-Americans – what was to be triggered by the assassination of Sweden’s statsminister Olof Palme – the communist Soviet bloc, and its individual states underwent deadly collapse, triggered by the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Merkel, to cut her losses from potential blowback, suddenly got involved in politics, joining East Germany’s new party, Democratic Awakening. Following the first democratic election in the GDR, she became deputy spokesperson for the pre-unification Prime Minister Lothar de Maiziere, a long-time Christian Democratic politician, and suspected agent of Erich Mielke’s Stasi – an allegation which led to his disappearance from politics after Helmut Kohl’s CDU/CSU gained control of a united Germany.

Kohl’s promotion thereafter of Merkel, aka his ” Madchen”, cost him dearly though. He had to engage in all kinds of bribes to get the Stasi to destroy embarrassing files, especially those relating to ANITA. and when he refused to identify who supplied the money, he was finished politically after 16 years in office.

Along the way, there was the surprise assassination of Scheswig-Holstein’s Prime Minister Uwe Barschel who had just been defeated in a lander election under most suspicious circumstances which still have not been clarified, his killers identified and prosecuted. Barschel was also a member of the CDU, the party Merkel had to join if she ever had any chance of becoming a political leader in West Germany. Barchel’s murder – whatever the reason and by whom – cleared the way for Merkel’s advancement no matter what actually transpired.

Then the intelligence coordinator of the Chancellor’s Office, Ernst Uhrlau – who went on to become the director of Germany’s foreign intelligence service (BND) -went to the greatest lengths to retrieve a Stasi index file of its agents (Operation Rosewood) that the CIA had, and was refusing to turn over.

“It is unacceptable in the long run,” Uhrlau explained to the Associate Press on December 10,1998 regarding the possibilities of blackmail, “for the German government that relevant files are sitting in the United States, and a possible or likely double in Russia.” After a two-year effort, the files were returned to Berlin.

It was not prepared for the fact that Moscow long had held the most dangerous ones, those regarding ANITA, and they had been released to the world by the tome that Christopher Andrew wrote, thanks to the Archive Mitrokhin he had access to. This book was doubly troublesome because by that time Merkel had married, it seems, her old flame, WERNER aka Wilhelm Kahle and now divorced Joachim Sauer.

They had had at the same time similar totally unexplained careers at the Central Institute of Physical Chemistry. Sauer is even more tight-lipped about his life than she is, even declining to mention that he was born in East Germany in Senftenberg, 50 kilometers north of Dresden – where he called his mother when he got into the KGB’s soup.

Of course, this would explain why Sauer has adopted such a low-profile existence to Merkel’s growing importance and popularity. He seems afraid that someone, especially one of his ‘honey trap’ victims might still recognize him. It would also explain why his wife has the best relation with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and why she has apparently been blackmailed by the Mossad when it comes to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, EU policy towards Iran, and missteps by the Pope when it comes to The Holocaust.

In fact, she until recently followed a policy so favored by the Social Democrats in the current economic meltdown that her CSU Economics Minister Michael Glos suddenly resigned about two years ago – what the press explained in terms of an alleged lack of input when it came to economic policy-making, but he explained ominously: “She always believed I didn’t have a clue about a lot of things.”

It seems that as other people learn more about who Angela Merkel really is, she will have increasing political difficulties. She has taken incredible risks in our ever-changing world, but still is coping with all its problems.


Posted in GermanyComments Off on Is German Chancellor Angela Merkel A Former Communist Spy?

Something’s Rotten in the Heart of Western Governments


Beware politicians cloaked in the American flag or diplomats sporting Union Jack kippahs…

by Stuart Littlewood

When Marcellus, in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, famously says, “Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark”, he means that the body politic is rotting from the top down and the corruption stinks to high heaven.

410 years later the Bard’s words are especially applicable to the so-called political élite of the Western world. The stench of their corruption is assailing the nostrils of more and more people and causing mass nausea.

Thankfully some small but effective relief is available in the United States courtesy of the Council for the National Interest Foundation (CNIF), an independent non-profit concern that provides information and analysis on the Middle East and its relationship to the United States.

The CNIF has been doing an excellent demolition job on US foreign policy and exposing how it is dangerously at odds with American values and national interests.

The CNIF hammers home the necessity for voters and their elected officials to be free from the undue influence and pressure of foreign countries and their lobbyists.

Jewish Zionist domination, manipulation, censorship and control – lock, stock and barrel of American life.

The US’s uniquely massive support for Israel, says CNIF, has cost trillions of dollars and multitudes of lives.

It has diminished America’s moral standing in the world, lessened its domestic freedoms, and exposed the American people to unnecessary and growing peril.

And yet America’s taxpayers give Israel over $8 million per day. And since the US is in deficit, this means borrowing the money, handing it to Israel, then paying interest on it for evermore afterwards. 10 million American families are reportedly sliding into foreclosure; but the US administration continues to heap tax money onto Israel.

It is not as if Israel is a close ally. The Israeli regime spies on America incessantly. Its forces have killed and injured numerous Americans with impunity.

And Israel has repeatedly stolen US technology and passed it on to other nations, some of them America’s enemies.

In 1967 Israel attacked the USS Liberty, killing or injuring over 200 American servicemen. A high ranking independent commission in 2003 found that Israel had committed an act of war against the United States.

Yet the US President at the time (Johnson), and his secretary of defense (McNamara), are said to have recalled rescue aircraft and ordered a cover-up.


Israeli aggression and defiance of international law, human rights conventions and UN resolutions, have created enormous hostility throughout the world, much of which is directed at the US as Israel’s number one buddy, funder and protector.

Furthermore Israel’s nuclear arsenal is a menace both to the region itself and far beyond. It has refused to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty and the British American Security Information Council has found that in Israel “nuclear weapons are being assigned roles that go well beyond deterrence.”

The fact that such weapons are in the hands of Israel’s psychopaths makes it perfectly understandable that other nations in the region wish to acquire them as a deterrent.

US intelligence agencies have so far found no concrete proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Iran, of course, is not happy to be constantly threatened with sanctions and pre-emptive strikes. It demands that the American authorities publicly apologize to the Iranian government and its citizens “for the false accusations they publicized against Tehran in violation of international norms and regulations”.

In a letter handed to the Swiss Embassy, which represents US interests since Iran and Washington severed diplomatic relations in 1980, Tehran also demanded compensation for material and moral damages caused by America’ anti-Iran publicity campaign.

Have you had enough, yet, of your compromised politicians sending our exhausted military to fight wars for Israel under false pretenses?

Have you had enough, yet, of your compromised politicians sending our exhausted military to fight wars for Israel under false pretenses?

You’d think that a supposedly responsible superpower like the US would seek to re-establish diplomatic links rather than stay in a sulk for 30 years and spitefully snipe and intimidate through third parties.

America is seen to have the unmistakable hallmarks of a playground bully who could drag us all into another world war.

As for Israel’s war crimes in Jerusalem, the West Bank and especially Gaza, the racist regime uses American weapons in violation of US laws, killing and maiming huge numbers of civilians, women, and children.

This endless killing spree funded by American taxpayers and shielded by the US government has caused a burning hatred of the US throughout the Muslim world.

Britain, as America’s and Israel’s bitch, is also feeling the heat and putting herself in peril.

A red rag cover-up

Meanwhile, on the British side of the Atlantic former ambassador Craig Murray has numerous well-placed informants and is busy blowing the lid off one of the slimiest intrigues ever exposed at Westminster.

Craig Murray Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist

On his website Murray has penned a marvellous piece titledGould-Werritty: A Real Conspiracy, Not a Theory. Gould is the British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and Werritty is zionist stooge Adam Werrity, friend and “adviser” to disgraced defence secretary Liam Fox.

“There is a huge government cover-up in progress over the Werritty connection to Mossad and the role of British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould, and their neo-con plan to start a war with Iran,” says Murray. He had made a Freedom of Information request for all communications between Gould and Werritty and was astonished to receive a midnight reply that his request was refused because it was “likely to exceed the cost limit”.

This was like a red rag to a bull. And it coincided with attempts to obstruct MP Paul Flynn while questioning Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell on the Gould-Werritty connection at the House of Commons Public Administration Committee. Flynn was repeatedly interrupted by Robert Halfon MP who, says Murray, receives funding from the same Israeli sources as Werritty and was formerly Political Director of the Conservative Friends of Israel.

Murray’s concerns centre on the numerous meetings between Fox, Werrrity and Gould, and especially their “private dinner” in Tel Aviv with Mossad. Murray claims that Gould met Werritty many times more than the twice that O’Donnell listed in his “investigation” into the affair.

Gould-Werritty: A Real Conspiracy, Not a Theory

Murray observes: “It is now evident that not only did Fox, Gould and Werritty have at least five meetings while Fox was in power – with never another British official present – they had several meetings while Fox was shadow Foreign Secretary.” He acknowledges that O’Donnell was correct in saying that what Fox and Werritty were up to in opposition wasn’t his concern. But what Gould – a senior official – was doing with them most certainly was. “A senior British diplomat cannot just hold a series of meetings with the opposition shadow Defence Secretary and a paid zionist lobbyist. What on earth was happening?”

O’Donnell, replying to Flynn’s questions about the dinner date with Mossad, said: “The important point here was that, when the Secretary of State had that meeting, he had an official with him—namely, in this case, the ambassador. That is very important, and I should stress that I would expect our ambassador in Israel to have contact with Mossad. That will be part of his job. It is totally natural, and I do not think that you should infer anything from that about the individual’s biases. That is what ambassadors do.”

But Murray is adamant. “I know from a mole that the plot involves a plan to attack Iran.”

Many will feel it is intolerable for a Christian country like Britain to be represented by a Jew, especially in the Middle East and more especially in Israel where there is bound to be a conflict of interest. There used to be a rule in the Foreign Office, I understand, preventing such person being appointed. Why was that rule disregarded?

Gould has been photographed wearing a Union Jack kippah in a tacky attempt to convince us he’s batting for Britain. Can an ardent zionist Jew be anything but an Israel-firster? You may well ask… Fox and Werritty are both zionist sympathisers, as are foreign secretary Hague and prime minister Cameron.

All of them appear firmly wedded to the principle expressed in Fox’s idiotic declaration that “in the battle for the values that we stand for… Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together…” Fox was the man the Jewish Chronicle hailed as “a champion of Israel within the government”, though of course there are many others – 80 percent of Conservative MPs for a start.

Mad, mad world of diplomacy

It is time to fire the liars. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” . –Edmund Burke

It is time to fire the liars. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” . –Edmund Burke

The American and British publics have been shamefully caught up in more than enough zionist warmongering plots. Iraq, which we subjected to 12 years of cruel sanctions and subsequently bombed back to the Stone Age, killing hundreds of thousands, was never our enemy. Libya was not our enemy. Iran is definitely not our enemy. Nor is Afghanistan; nor Syria; nor Lebanon; nor Palestine; nor Egypt.

As I write, reports are coming in that Iran’s parliament has voted to expel the British ambassador, presumably in retaliation for the British chancellor George Osborne’s announcement last week of fresh punitive measures targeting Iranian financial sectors, including the Central Bank of Iran. The bill now needs the approval of the Guardian Council.

The UK Foreign Office says it will to react “robustly” if Iran expels its ambassador. “This unwarranted move will do nothing to help the regime address their growing isolation or international concerns about their nuclear programme and human rights record. If the Iranian government acts on this, we will respond robustly in consultation with our international partners.”

However, for some seven months this year the Foreign Office didn’t bother to send an ambassador to Tehran when the last one finished his stint in March. Hague and Cameron, like Obama and Clinton, apparently think it unimportant to maintain senior level contact with the country they say is dangerous and must be crippled by sanctions or smashed by war.

Welcome to the mad, mad world of zio-British and zio-American diplomacy.  Shouldn’t they be straining every sinew to strengthen links with Iran, too long neglected? Or are we supposed to applaud this supremely casual attitude in the matter of key relationships that could mean life or death for millions?

The stench of “something rotten in the state” is becoming unbearable. Would the Council for the National Interest Foundation care to set up a branch here in the UK, please, and help clean up and disinfect?

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation.  He is a frequent contributor to My Catbird Seat. For further information please visit

Free Palestine’ Book Now On Internet

Alison Weir, President of the Council for the National Interest Foundation (CNIF) Bibi more powerful than Obama?

Iran and The International Bureau of Double Standards


Posted in EuropeComments Off on Something’s Rotten in the Heart of Western Governments

Don’t mention the ‘A’ word: attack on freedom of speech turns into another own goal

 by Ben White 



Last Thursday, I participated in a debate on Palestine/Israel organised by the University of Birmingham Debating Society. The format of the event was similar to the BBC television show ‘Question Time’, with six panellists taking both pre-prepared questions, and points from the audience. The debate was held in conjunction with both the Jewish Society and Friends of Palestine Society, a rare occasion when the two groups have shared a platform.

The whole debate can be watched on YouTube, but one of the talking points of the evening came when, barely half an hour in, an audience member asked the panel if Israel is an apartheid state. The chair’s unexpected reply was that this was not a subject that could be discussed: “I’ve been told I can’t have that as a question”, she stressed (watch here). Inevitably, all the panellists then proceeded to address the issue – Victor Kattan said he’d refer to “A”.

What the audience didn’t know is that in the run up to the event, members of the Jewish Society had pressured the Debating Society to prohibit my book ‘Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide from being available for purchase. Despite the fact that J-Soc was free to make available any of their own literature without restriction, J-Soc students threatened to withdraw their official association with the event, if I brought along copies of my book to sell. Eventually, they backed down when the Debating Society refused to concede the point.

But that’s not all. Further crucial context is the adoption by the Birmingham student union in 2010 of the notoriously politicised and discredited ‘EUMC working definition of antisemitism’. This 2005 document, left to gather dust by the EUMC’s successor body the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), has been ably critiqued by Richard Kuper herehere, and here, and also by Antony Lerman here.

In fact, earlier this year, the Universities and College Union (UCU) voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion that criticised the way in which the working definition “is being used to silence debate about Israel and Palestine on campus”.

Thus after the J-Soc attempts to prevent the sale of my book, the debate organisers were understandably anxious about encouraging a question on apartheid that could see them accused of racism, according to an interpretation of the student union policy.

This was the first time that the Debating Society had held an Israel-Palestine debate since the EUMC motion passed; it was, in effect, a test case. What transpired on Thursday not only showed the extent to which groups will go to stifle discussion of Israel’s crimes, but also how such efforts  can so often spectacularly backfire.

Posted in UKComments Off on Don’t mention the ‘A’ word: attack on freedom of speech turns into another own goal

Shoah’s pages


November 2011
« Oct   Dec »