Archive | December 6th, 2011

Italian city near Milan votes to condemn Pizzarotti


Italian city near Milan votes to condemn Pizzarotti for their involvement in the Israeli hi-speed train crossing the occupied West Bank.

Please sign in support:

If organizations would like to send letters of support, please send to: and we will forward to the council member who presented the resolution.

And please share widely!

Press release:

Rho City Council (Milan) approves resolution condemning Pizzarotti

The Italian company condemned for involvement in the Israeli high-speed railway that crosses the occupied Palestinian territories

On 30 November, the City Council of Rho, in the province of Milan, approved a resolution expressing “moral and political condemnation of Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. for its participation in the project for the construction of the A1 Jerusalem – Tel Aviv railway”.

Pizzarotti is a contractor for the Israeli project for the new A1 high-speed railway that will connect Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The new railway cuts through the occupied Palestinian territories for 6.5 km in clear violation of international law and human rights, including illegal Israeli confiscation of Palestinian land in the villages of Beit Iksa and Beit Sourik. In addition, the logistics center and road network for the massive tunnel boring machines and the transport of material from the tunnels excavated by Pizzarotti are causing the destruction of ancient olive groves and agricultural land recognized by the Israeli Supreme Court as a “fundamental resource for subsistence” for the communities. Art. 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the occupying power from destroying real or personal property except in cases of absolute military necessity.

The Italian Coalition Stop That Train applauds the decision of the Rho City Council, which is based on respect for human rights and follows the example set by Deutsche Bahn. The German railways, on the recommendation of the German Minister of Transport, withdrew from the A1 project in March 2011.

While Pizzarotti betrays its own company code of ethics, which includes “support and respect for human rights”, the Rho City Council upholds the principles of its Statute, recognizing “as essential values respect for life, the inviolability of human dignity, the rights of the person and the family.”

Stop That Train calls on local governments throughout Italy to join the “Pizzarotti Free Cities” campaign, approving similar resolutions against Pizzarotti, until it ceases involvement in projects in violation of international law.

Italian Coalition Stop That Train


The Italian Coalition Stop That Train, comprising some 90 organizations, national and international, including Israel, as well as local groups throughout Italy, calls for the immediate withdrawal of Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. from the Israeli project for the A1 railway.

The A1 project and involvement of Pizzarotti are detailed in the report prepared by the Coalition of Women for Peace – Israel, Crossing the Line: The Tel Aviv-Jerusalem Fast Train

Text of the resolution approved by the City Council of Rho: [in Italian]

To sign in support of the Rho City Council: 

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Italian city near Milan votes to condemn Pizzarotti

Saudi Arabia: The Zionist King &Truth About Qatief


To who looking for the truth of what happened in Qatif

To who cares for Human Rights

To those who reject violence and torture

This is what happened in Qatif with photos and video

Finally, this work to souls:Nasir Almohaishy, Ali Alfilfil,Muneeb Aladnan,Ali Alqurayreedh

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Saudi Arabia: The Zionist King &Truth About Qatief

Mysterious blasts, slayings suggest covert efforts in Iran


ed note: “However, many former U.S. intelligence officials and Iran experts believe that the explosion — the most destructive of at least two dozen unexplained blasts in the last two years — was part of a covert effort by the U.S., Israel and others to disable Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. The goal, the experts say, is to derail what those nations fear is Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons capability and to stave off an Israeli or U.S. airstrike to eliminate or lessen the threat.
“It looks like the 21st century form of war,” said Patrick Clawson, who directs the Iran Security Initiative at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Washington think tank. “It does appear that there is a campaign of assassinations and cyber war, as well as the semi-acknowledged campaign of sabotage.”


Attacks targeting nuclear scientists and sites lead some observers to believe that the U.S. and Israel are trying to derail Iran’s programs.

British Embassy attackIranian students break into the British Embassy in Tehran late last month, where they started a fire and removed the British flag. (Abedin Taherkenareh, European Pressphoto Agency / November 29, 2011)


By Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington—

At an Iranian military base 30 miles west of Tehran, engineers were working on weapons that the armed forces chief of staff had boasted could giveIsrael a “strong punch in the mouth.”

But then a huge explosion ripped through the Revolutionary Guard Corps base on Nov. 12, leveling most of the buildings. Government officials said 17 people were killed, including a founder of Iran’s ballistic missile program, Gen. Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam.

Iranian officials called the blast an accident. Perhaps it was.

Decades of international sanctions have left Iran struggling to obtain technology and spare parts for military programs and commercial industries, leading in some cases to dangerous working conditions.

However, many former U.S. intelligence officials and Iran experts believe that the explosion — the most destructive of at least two dozen unexplained blasts in the last two years — was part of a covert effort by the U.S., Israel and others to disable Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. The goal, the experts say, is to derail what those nations fear is Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons capability and to stave off an Israeli or U.S. airstrike to eliminate or lessen the threat.

“It looks like the 21st century form of war,” said Patrick Clawson, who directs the Iran Security Initiative at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Washington think tank. “It does appear that there is a campaign of assassinations and cyber war, as well as the semi-acknowledged campaign of sabotage.”

Or perhaps not. Any such operation would be highly classified, and those who might know aren’t talking. The result is Washington’s latest national security parlor game — trying to figure out who, if anyone, is responsible for the unusual incidents.

For years, the U.S. and its allies have sought to hinder Iran’s weapons programs by secretly supplying faulty parts, plans or software, former intelligence officials say. No proof of sabotage has emerged, but Iran’s nuclear program clearly has hit obstacles that thwarted progress in recent years.

“We definitely are doing that,” said Art Keller, a former CIA case officer who worked on Iran. “It’s pretty much the stated mission of the [CIA’s] counter-proliferation division to do what it takes to slow … Iran’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

Iran insists that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only.

Many Western experts are convinced that American and Israeli engineers secretly fed the Stuxnetcomputer worm into Iran’s nuclear program in 2010. The virus reportedly caused centrifuges used to enrich uranium to spin out of control and shatter. Neither the U.S. nor Israeli government has acknowledged any role in the apparent cyber-attack.

Nor did anyone claim responsibility after two senior nuclear physicists were killed, and a third wounded, by bombs attached to their cars or nearby motorcycles in January and November last year.

Militants waving pictures of one of the slain scientists stormed the British Embassy in Tehran last week, setting fires and causing extensive damage. Several European countries recalled their envoys from Iran after the British government closed its embassy and expelled Iranian diplomats from London.

Like the deaths, the explosions have drawn special scrutiny in the think tanks of Washington, where Iran watchers have tracked reports of unexplained blasts in Iranian gas pipelines, oil installations and military facilities.

In October, Iranian news services reported three such explosions in a 24-hour period. The blasts killed two people. Another large blast was reported last week in Esfahan, Iran’s third-largest city.

Some analysts suspect that the CIA and Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, are involved, with possible help from the MEK, a fringe Iranian group that the State Department lists as a terrorist organization, although it has many allies in Washington’s foreign policy establishment. Based in Iraq, the group is believed to have links to dissident networks inside Iran.

Iran claims to have arrested dozens of CIA informants in recent months, and U.S. officials acknowledge that a handful of informants in Iran have been exposed. What they did, or where, is unknown. In October, U.S. officials announced that they had uncovered an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

Some analysts caution against assuming the CIA is orchestrating all the attacks in Iran, arguing it gives U.S. intelligence far too much credit. But that doesn’t preclude U.S. support for allied spy services in Europe and the Middle East that also target Iran. Still, there is more speculation at this point than hard evidence.

A cyber expert who works closely with U.S. intelligence said he is convinced that Israel, not the U.S., launched the Stuxnet attack because U.S. government lawyers would not approve use of a computer virus that could spread far beyond the intended target, as Stuxnet apparently did. That caution, of course, presumes the lawyers knew the virus would spread, and that’s not clear. The expert would not speak publicly about classified matters.

Whether the White House would authorize the targeted killing of Iranian scientists is far from certain. An executive order signed by President Reagan in 1981 prohibits direct or indirect involvement in assassinations, although the term is not defined.

President Obama has authorized the killing of Al Qaeda members and other suspected militants, including at least one U.S. citizen in Yemen.

Some analysts claim that the U.S. would not back a bombing campaign that has killed Iranian workers at oil refineries and other civilian sites. It would amount to sponsoring terrorism, a charge Washington regularly levels at Tehran.

“I do not believe that the U.S. has participated in either attacking scientists or physical attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities,” said Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence official who helped expose the faulty intelligence cited by the George W. Bush administration before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. “Selling them bad parts, introducing malware — that does seem to me within the realm of what one might expect from U.S. intelligence activities.”

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA operative who specialized on Iran, said he doesn’t believe that the CIA could mount a sophisticated covert campaign of sabotage inside Iran, where the U.S. has not had an embassy since 1979. Gerecht long has urged the CIA to mount more aggressive operations against Iran.

“I just think trying to maintain and run a paramilitary covert action group inside Iran is beyond America’s covert capacity,” he said.

Whatever the cause, headlines about unsolved killings, unexplained explosions and sinister computer viruses have rattled Iranians, especially those who work in the nuclear program, analysts said.

Perhaps that’s the point.

“All these things have a profound effect,” Clawson said. “You have to watch your back when you go to work. You’re not certain what’s going to happen when you turn on your computer. You’re not certain whether you can talk to your colleagues.”

Posted in IranComments Off on Mysterious blasts, slayings suggest covert efforts in Iran

Saudi dissidents turn to YouTube to air their frustrations


“The Arab Spring has yet to touch down on the sands of Saudi Arabia, and advocates face an uphill battle mobilizing an apathetic general public that seems to accept the country’s all-powerful monarchy.

Now, however, young Saudi videographers are using YouTube to air a series of video reports that reveal the underside of life in the world’s biggest oil producer.

The narratives are compelling and the journalism impassioned as they guide their audience through slums in the major cities, satirize the severe national housing shortage and ridicule the government’s failure to respond.

Judging from the number of times the videos have been viewed and the comments posted by embittered viewers, the muckraking venture is a hit. The biggest testament to its success, however, comes from the Saudi interior ministry: Days after “Poverty in Saudi Arabia,” the latest video, was uploaded to YouTube, the ministry detained reporter Feros Boqna and two colleagues, Hussam al Drewesh and Khaled al Rasheed, and held them for almost two weeks for questioning.

Since its posting, the Arabic version of “Poverty” has been viewed more than 1.5 million times. That would be equal to nearly one-tenth of Saudi Arabia’s population of 18 million.”


Roy Gutman

McClatchy Newspapers


RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The Arab Spring has yet to touch down on the sands of Saudi Arabia, and advocates face an uphill battle mobilizing an apathetic general public that seems to accept the country’s all-powerful monarchy.

Now, however, young Saudi videographers are using YouTube to air a series of video reports that reveal the underside of life in the world’s biggest oil producer.

The narratives are compelling and the journalism impassioned as they guide their audience through slums in the major cities, satirize the severe national housing shortage and ridicule the government’s failure to respond.

Judging from the number of times the videos have been viewed and the comments posted by embittered viewers, the muckraking venture is a hit. The biggest testament to its success, however, comes from the Saudi interior ministry: Days after “Poverty in Saudi Arabia,” the latest video, was uploaded to YouTube, the ministry detained reporter Feros Boqna and two colleagues, Hussam al Drewesh and Khaled al Rasheed, and held them for almost two weeks for questioning.

Since its posting, the Arabic version of “Poverty” has been viewed more than 1.5 million times. That would be equal to nearly one-tenth of Saudi Arabia’s population of 18 million.


“Wake me when the people take control over their own fate, when justice (is) spread without hindrance, when people say what is right without fear of punishment,” one commenter identified as Nour al Riadh posted. But the comment was soon removed and no new comments are allowed.

King Abdullah, 88, commands respect for his record of reforms and for his role as protector of Islam’s holiest places. The ruling House of Saud is closely tied to the Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam, which enforces Sharia religious law through the use of religious police, dominates public education and has fought to keep women in an inferior position.

But social grievances appear to be numerous and widespread, and, prior to their removal, some of the responses to “Poverty” on YouTube criticized the king.


The film that landed its producers in trouble was part of a series called “Maloob Alayna,” which translates to, “We’ve been cheated.” It opens with Boqna saying to young Saudis in luxury cars, “If you are fine?” Each replies: “Then we are fine.” The camera then cuts to a slum where no one is fine.

The opening was a subtle poke at the King, who in the past has used the line: “If you are fine, we are fine!”

“These clips we are going to watch are not from Somalia. It’s in Saudi Arabia, in the Jarradiah neighborhood, less than five kilometers from the center of Riyadh,” says Boqna, an earnest and engaging young man who, judging from the video, is probably in his mid-20’s. Efforts to reach him for an interview were unsuccessful.

One Saudi man he interviews has 11 children to feed and a net monthly income of $1,200, half of which goes to rent. The family has enough money left over only for flour and one meal a day. The imam at the local mosque reveals that in order to raise money for the household, the parents are sending out young sons to sell drugs, and the women engage in prostitution.


Boqna proposes an obvious solution: for charitable groups to visit the poor, “to know their needs and then later to bring supplies and goods to these poor people.” He does just that on film and proposes setting up a website to funnel charity to the poor around the country, a project that appears to be on hold.


An even bigger hit is “Monopoly,” a black comedy satirizing the housing shortage by Bader Alhomoudi. The 22-minute acted production portrays a generation of young professionals whose salaries don’t allow them to contemplate buying even an apartment. In its first month, it was viewed 1.48 million times.


“Monopoly” opens at sunrise on the Persian Gulf, where Mohammad al Qahtani, a young Saudi, rolls out of his Chevy van in white pajamas and praises God for his good fortune. It’s clear that he spent the night in the vehicle. A Koranic verse is chanted as he performs his morning ablutions in the sea, and it comes across as ironic.

“Thy Guardian Lord hath not forsaken thee, nor is he displeased. Did He not find thee an orphan and give thee shelter? And he found thee wandering and gave thee guidance, and He found thee in need and made thee independent. “

Sitting in the van with a bedspread behind him, Qahtani declares that he’s planning to get married, as soon as the bride’s family approves. “I don’t lack anything, as you can see,” he says, indicating the interior of the van that the viewer realizes will be their home. “I only need to redecorate the place with new furniture.”

A friend has offered to help him tint the windows. “You know how newlyweds need their privacy,” Qahtani says.

There are a number of droll vignettes, but the most vivid scene is a re-enacted nightmare, where Saudi princes, presumably landowners, transform into dogs, pounce on a young professional and kill him.


A Saudi economist, Essam al Zamil, appears in the film to explain that the reason for the shortage of dwellings is sky-high land prices, caused by the absence of taxes on unimproved property.

While the film doesn’t explicitly explain the “Monopoly” of its title, a leading Saudi human rights activist said in an interview that it comes down to one thing: “All the land is owned de facto and de jure by the royal family,” said Mohammed al Qathani, president of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association. He noted that only 22 per cent of the families in Saudi Arabia own their own homes, and 78 per cent must rent.


The video that perhaps cuts closest to the bone is “On the Other Side,” an earlier production by Boqna. A copy of the video is still available on YouTube, though it can only be viewed through a reposting. It, too, begins with a Koranic verse to criticize the regime: “Surely, kings, when they enter a country, despoil It, and turn the highest of its people into its lowest. And thus they will do.”

The opening scene is one of residential decay, accompanied by the verse, “The choice is yours: either refresh your nose with the fragrance of flowers” — the film then shows heaps of garbage — “or swim in one of these streams” — as the video shows sewage on a street. “Or maybe you would like to gladden your eyes with the sight of a unique building, whose wires have turned into trees, woven intricately to hug the post and the walls.”

It focuses on neighborhoods in Jeddah, and other towns, and even in Mecca, but the only images of Mecca are from above, via Google Earth.

The narration savages the princes of the realm, asking viewers, “Did you know that the funds that went into building this neighborhood are less than what it costs to build a palace for one prince, and what is allocated for its services is less than one-fifth what is spent to maintain a prince’s palace?”

The criticism, while harsh, seems unlikely to have an immediate impact. “There is no urgency among the people,” says Jamal Khashoggi, a former newspaper editor who’s now organizing an all-news television channel. “The people in Saudi Arabia who are asking for a more modern concept of the monarchy is only a small elite. There is no widespread movement…The concept of rights is not very strong.”

Still, it would appear that those in power are aware — and unhappy — with the criticism.


“Poverty in Saudi Arabia” (English subtitles)

“Monopoly” (English subtitles)


WikiLeaks: Saudi crackdown on Shiites has echoes in Bahrain

WikiLeaks cable: Protests and arrests in Saudi Arabia

WikiLeaks cable: Saudis crack down in Al-Ahsa

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Saudi dissidents turn to YouTube to air their frustrations

Syria: Mr President Free Razan Ghazzawi


ANOTHER human rights violation! Free Razan Ghazzawi now! Mary Rizzo: THEY ARRESTED RAZAN! I HATE THEM! because for years she has blogged about the prisoners in the Damascus Spring, she has blogged about all the detained bloggers, she is a human rights activist, she is a decent human being who I love very much. i hate them i hate them.. Damn fascists!!!! i hate you fascists!!! I guess you guys don’t know Razan Ghazzawi. She’s been a friend of mine for about 12 years, a Syrian who supported Hezbollah publicly and loudly and who now realizes that they don’t give a shit about “Syrians”, and they probably never did.

So many Syrians saying the same thing, not ZIONISTS; not Israheil apologists, has got to make people sit up and think! but they go on repeating the same sort of stuff. The Local Co-ordination Committees activist network say Syrian blogger Razan Ghazzawi 30, was arrested on Sunday at the Syrian-Jordanian border as she was on her way to attend a workshop for defenders of freedom of the press in the Arab world in Amman as the representative of the Syrian Centre for Media and Free Expression. “She was arrested as she presented her passport to immigration at the Syrian border post of Nassib to cross to Jordan,” one of her friends told Reuters.

Ghazzawi’s last posting on the release of fellow blogger Hussein Ghreir, freed last week after 37 days in jail. Ghazzawi said Ghreir was lucky because he had spent most of his incarceration in a regular jail, compared to detention at secret police dungeons, home to “the worst kinds of torture”. Write a comment…HOW could you all ACCEPT such CRUELTY.. SPEAK


(Link to statement in Arabic)

Authorities in Syria arrested Syrian blogger, feminist, and activist for free expression Razan Ghazzawi on December 4, 2011. She was at the Jordanian border, traveling to attend a conference on media freedom in the Arab world. She was representing the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM), where she works as a coordinator.

Razan, a poet and critic as well as an activist, studied English literature at Damascus University and comparative literature at Balamand University in Lebanon. Since 2009, she has blogged on human rights, international solidarity, and Syrian politics at She is one of very few bloggers in Syria who writes under her own name; and she has consistently spoken out for women, for ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, and for all victims of discrimination or abuse.

For many of us in Egypt, in the region, and around the world, Razan is a mentor, an ally, and a personal friend. Her principled commitment to human rights has been an example to us. Her courage and her willingness to face danger head-on have been an inspiration.

In one of her last blog posts before she was arrested, Razan wrote: “I do not believe in a ‘national consciousness,’ I don’t believe in nationality …Once we drop hyphenations, we become as one.” In that spirit, we say: Razan’s struggle is our struggle. The Syrian people’s battle for freedom is our battle. Now we ask you for your solidarity and support.

What can you do?

1) Contact Syrian diplomatic representatives in your countries immediately. In faxes or phone calls, urge:

  • that Razan Ghazzawi be released unconditionally;

  • that she be protected from torture or ill-treatment while she remains in detention;

  • that all political prisoners in Syria be released;

  • that Syria end arbitrary arrests, torture and ill-treatment of detainees, and violence against protesters and opposition members.

A list of addresses and phone numbers for Syrian embassies and consulates can be foundhere, or here.

2) Organize peaceful vigils or demonstrations at Syrian embassies or consulates calling for the release of Razan Ghazzawi and all political prisoners in Syria.

Additional resources:

Facebook page Free Razan Ghazzawi” (Arabic): link to
Twitter: freerazan#

This statement is signed by:

  • Ahmad Ragheb – Human rights activist-Executive director (Hisham Mubarak Law Center)

  • Dalia Abd El Hameed – Human rights activist – Gender officer (Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights)

  • Mona Seif – Human rights activist (No to Military Trials)

  • Mozn Hassan – Feminist, human rights activist- Executive director (Nazra for Feminist Studies)

  • Scott Long – Human rights activist (Human Rights Program, Harvard Law School)

  • Tarek Moustafa – Feminist, human rights activist (Nazra for Feminist Studies)

  • Yara Sallam – Feminist, human rights activist (Nazra for Feminist Studies)

Posted in Human Rights, SyriaComments Off on Syria: Mr President Free Razan Ghazzawi

Dare I say its name?


The term White Supremacism defines the likes of KKK, of racists, neo-nazis etc, and projects a notion of wickedness and evil .

Wherever suitable, the term is used freely and without hesitation, generally by the Left, including the anti-Zionist Jewish Left. No one thinks twice before accurately using the term to portray anyone who claims that so called “White” people are superior to “people of colour”.

In some instances, the term is used in association with those who express concerns that the cultural identity of their society might be threatened by immigration. In other instances, the term “White supremacist” is used against historians and researchers who raise uncomfortable questions about official historical narratives enforced by the establishment.

The Ku Klux Klan has been described as a Christian, as well as a white, supremacist group. So are many white supremacist groups in the United States today. George W. Bush’s support for fundamentalist Christianity has been linked to his having a “Christian supremacist vision” in his policies in the Middle East.

The racist delusion of “White supremacy”, is a reality involving generally unsavory individuals, overall a small fringe groups of white people. The term does NOT imply that all, or that most whites are supremacists.

The use of the term “White supremacists” in relation with precisely such people, is perfectly legitimate and legal, anyone can utter it when suitable without having to fear censorship, slander or smear. It seems pretty elementary that whomever uses the term to define people holding such “white supremacist” opinions, does by no means imply to be anti-whites or white-hater.

Under no circumstances would be Non-white people forbidden to criticise or discuss the problem of White-supremacism.

I never came across of a non-racist white person who would claim that the issue of “white-supremacy” is a “White-Only” issue, implying that only white people have the right to discuss, to examine or to expose “White-Supremacists”. In fact the contrary is true, all non-racists are always encouraged to publicly discuss, oppose, and demonstrate against “White Supremacy”, even within the main stream media.

The parallel between “White-Supremacy” and “Jewish Supremacy” is inevitable, both holding the same antiquated tenet of superiority of one ethnic and/or religious group over another, irrespective of the moral depravity of these claims and that science having debunked such racist proclamations as being pure bogus nonsense.

However, comparing the two reveals something that should be evident to anyone interested in humanity, society, progress, ethics, news, politics and affairs of state.

The contrast between the two could not be greater.

Indeed, proportionally to their respective demography, “White supremacy” is an extremely fringe phenomenon, generally relegated to some remote muddy training camps in rural America, where alcoholism is more awash than any form of political influence. The KKKs and otherwise White Supremacists are shunned and loathed publicly, and are at the outer margin layer of society. They are in fact so rare, that they are almost museum ripe.

“Jewish Supremacy” however, exists on a much wider and deadlier scale. Firstly “Jewish supremacism” in its different shades, covering a whole spectrum of intensity and visibility, represents a huge segment of the Jewish demography. Secondly, these “Jewish supremacists” have irrefutably a considerable political influence, and arguably they shape governmental policies.

Yet, the Anti-Defamation League condemns as “antisemitic” any writings about “Jewish Supremacism” and labels any person who utters the words as “anti-Semite”.

They even crown as “anti-Semite” whomever dares to demand the truth and asks for an independent investigation to uncover the real story of 9/11.

When someone uses the term “Jewish Supremacy” referring ONLY to SOME Jewish groups and individuals who are extremely racist against non-Jews, the truth-tellers are accused of anti-Semitism. Perplexedly, the accusations come even from the non-racist liberal Jews, who then insist to pretend that the truth-teller is attacking ALL Jews.

Free-thinking, Non-Jews are gagged; they are forbidden to criticise and to discuss the ominous social threat “Jewish supremacism” represents. The pretext invoked for this blackout is that this issue is an internal Jewish problem, and outsiders should not interfere with such private internal Jewish matters!

Well, as one who endears such values as Free-Thinking, Democracy, Science, Equality, and the Right to Freedom of Expression, excuse my rage and pardon my language, but I have to say: HELL NO !

I and all of us non-Jews have every right in the world to write about, to expose and to challenge any supremacism, but especially Jewish supremacism as it thrives amongst some Jewish people and some very influential Jewish groups.

Legally and morally, I have every right to do so because I am personally affected by it,

My own life is negatively affected by it,

My family and my people are negatively affected by it,

And the whole Arab and Muslim world is tragically affected by it.

Hundreds of millions of humans are tragically affected by the wars and hatred fomented by Jewish supremacists in this gradually more violent twenty fist century.

When our very existence is threatened and when the sanctity of life itself is rescinded because we are seen by some Jewish people as Goyims, “creatures” of lesser value compared to Jewish lives, I have every right to scream my head off to expose this sociopathic… “Jewish supremacists”.

When our land and property are stolen from us at gun point by Jewish people who claim entitlement to others’ property because they say God favours them and gave it to them, I have every right to pound the words … “Jewish supremacists”.

When we are treated like animals by those who according to their Talmudic- kabbalistic books see us as two-legged animals created only to serve the Jews, I have every right to shout out loud… “Jewish supremacists”.

When our children are hunted down like fish in a barrel, because our children only have “animal souls”, unlike Jewish children who were given “divine souls”, I have every right to cry… “Jewish supremacists”.

I will not be silenced, and will shout what the world dares not to say its name:

I will shout “Jewish Supremacists” until the world hears my cry.

Therefore, I call upon Jewish people who are sincerely concerned about anti-Semitism, to seriously inspect and to act against their brethren’ anti-gentile-ism and anti-humanism, which to my horror I have discovered in their most authentic and revered books; in the documented Talmud, in the Jewish Law (Halacha), in the public statements of many rabbis and their pseudo-secular political allies, in the actions of Jewish-settlers in Palestine, and even in the writing of one of the most reputable Jewish philosophers Moses Ben Maimon. also known as Maimonides.

“Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah is considered by traditionalist Jews even today as one of the chief authoritative codifications of Jewish law and ethics”source

Moses Ben Maimon (Maimonides) talks about the right of the Jewish king to “ wage a milchemet hareshut, (war of aggression) i.e. a war fought with other nations in order to expand the borders of Israel or magnify its greatnessand reputation”.

He also sees no problem with subjugating and enslaving gentiles

“They shall be your subjects and serve you”

“The subjugation they must accept consists of being on a lower level, scorned and humble. They must never raise their heads against Israel, but must remain subjugated under their rule. They may never be appointed over a Jew in any matter whatsoever”

Nor does this “chief authoritative codifications of Jewish law and ethics” see any ethical predicament with “Jewish wars” of extermination and annihilation.

When I first came across the ugly ideology that festers amongst the Jewish supremacists group Chabad Lubavitch, I assumed that it was only a worm in the can.

When I started digging deeper, I was horrified to discover that it wasn’t just a worm in the can, it was an enormous CAN of WORMS.

It goes further than a statement by a “lunatic” rabbi, or a “bizarre” book by a settler extremists, or some violent behaviour of fringe fanatical group.

I came to discover racism and supremacy with unparalleled proportions which not only thrives amongst the very vibrant, powerful and extremely influential Jewish group Chabad Lubavitch, but also extends within some mainstream Jewish philosophy, literature and sacred books.

To my horror and dismay I discovered that such condescending ideology has its roots in the “sacred” books of TalmudHalachaand Tanya, all of which explicitly divides people into two categories: Jews (refined ethical humans with divine souls) and non-Jews (corrupt sub-humans with animal souls). The Tanya explicitly declares that unlike the Jewish souls, “The souls of the nationsof the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever”

Palestinian child looks in horror at her doll vandalized by soldiers
with the Hebrew word shiksa- whore

“Jewish supremacy” exists and it is not mere “Zionist supremacy”, it is much older, more fanatical, more sinister and more dangerous than Zionism, it goes further and deeper than Jewish nationalism or Jewish imperialism. It has its roots deep in the very ideology, laws and practice by many Hasidim who interpret the word “Chosen” to mean far more than message-carriers with their living-example, and instead understand it to mean: Jewish people (materialized by “Israel”) have the divine right to lead and dominate. Should it be called Political Judaism, the deluge of corroborating evidence would be overwhelming.

Anyone who even superficially scrutinizes Zionists and its crypto-Zionist variety as they support directly or indirectly the Jewish-Zionist colonization of Palestine, can easily distinguish the ideological cross pollination between Talmudists and the so called “secular” Zionists with all their networks of support and influence.

Former Chief Rabbi of “Israel” Rabbi Ovadia Yosef with Benjamin Netanyahu

Former Chief Rabbi of “Israel” Rabbi Ovadia Yosef with Sharon

Former Chief Rabbi of “Israel” Rabbi Ovadia Yosef with Yitzhak Rabin

Former Chief Rabbi of “Israel” Rabbi Ovadia Yosef with Ehud Olmert

Ovadia Yosef: “The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews”

In the face of these disturbing facts and distressing reality concerned and progressive Jewish friends should ask themselves some very painful and daring questions: could it possibly be that after all, the whole world might not be so twisted, so irrational, so insane, so full of nonsensical “intrinsic” hatred, and what appears to be waves of inexplicable eruptions of “anti-Semitism” might have something to do with such blatant anti-non-Jewish racism? Might these eruptions have some comprehensible and rational explanations that are linked to Talmudic supremacy and its condescending view of the other, non-Jew? Could it perhaps be that these erratic but recurrent eruption were/ are reactions to what people perceive as anti-Gentile racism; the patronizing and exploitation of that which is of “lesser value”, the “other”, the “Goy”?

Rather than continuing to deny or obscure the facts by labelling those who expose the facts as anti-Semites, sincere Jews should stop blaming the victims for uncovering these facts, and take a more honest and courageous look within their books and their community, shedding off the state of denial, facing the truth and exposing the horror that, very unfortunately, has found fertile-ground amongst their people.

No, to discuss and to argue openly and honestly against this sociopathic villainy that is Jewish supremacism, does not equate by any shape or manner to uttering one of these primitive blanket accusation that “Jews are evil by nature” or “all Jews believe such insanity”, or other such nonsense, far from it. What it really is, is unequivocal condemnation of a racist and supremacist ideology that has deceived SOME Jewish people and set them apart from the rest of humanity. An ideology that had caused them and continues to cause them to be willingly segregated and ghettoized, being as it may physically, emotionally, mentally or even spiritually.

To discuss and to argue honestly and openly about this abominable ideology, is in many ways a statement of trust and hope, that the doors of change and transformation are always open, amending and overcoming burdens of racist philosophies are always possible, and that can be through the extirpation of that archaic monster that has invaded them and deceived them. In fact, to put this subject on the table is a firm statement against racism, hence against anti-Semitism! I hope that Jewish people, at least those amidst them who are not yet polluted by this nefarious supremacist nonsense, will be able ultimately to reconcile themselves with the message of the Prophets, and the message of Humanism, and thus join mankind again, coming back from their exclusionary tribalism.

Unfortunately, overcome by emotions, many liberal Jews perceive this exposure of such ideological predicaments and the genuine desire to address in order to get rid of and overcome, they see it as personal attack on them and on Jewish people as a whole. This entangled emotions forms a blind spot which makes it hard for them to see that which is ugly, and consequently creating intellectual blockage; they react by closing up their thinking faculty, stiffening their minds, taking a strange position of denial and defensiveness that resembles only the reaction of Zionists when confronted with their crimes.

Undoubtedly, obscuring the problem and deflecting people away from it does not make it go away. To the contrary.

With all my heart, I do acknowledge the shock and empathize with the heartrending agonizing pain that comes with such blunt revelation and unfamiliar frankness. I also do understand the psychological limitations that may alter and fog the perception of reality when the reality is too painful to face, however, I long to see my good Jewish friends having the moral courage to look eye to eye through the blind-spot of their fears and apprehensions. I long to see them face up to and address the alarming and damaging problem that lurks beneath the surface, away from their anti-racist radar.

My writings are intended as wake up calls to open the eyes of those concerned to the utterly devastating reality which if not dealt within time, would only cause catastrophic ramification upon all Jewish people. Not because I say so, but because this is the nature of human-societies, human psychology and human behaviour.

NO ONE likes to be viewed as inferior or treated as a lesser-being. period.

And if they are, sooner or later they will revolt and flip the tables. I cannot bear to think of that scenario. it is frightening.

Furthermore, as a person who cares with all her heart for every human no matter their ethnicity, or wealth, or religion, I am very worried about the quasi-certainty that racially (and religiously) motivated mass-murder of unprecedented scale, will be the consequence of the current hatred fomented by Jewish supremacists against people who happen to be Muslims.

Ultimately no one will be able to control such mass movements of bloodthirsty hatred, and foremost what is called “blow-back” might well, as it has happened in the past, hit people who happen to be Jewish, on an equally massive scale. It is our duty, whatever our ethnic, cultural, social, religious or national background, to act with great determination against the sectarian drift that Jewish supremacists have been taking, splitting apart general human and social cohesion, and excluding themselves away from, setting themselves apart and above Humanity to bring upon some sinister and archaic, domination, or the illusion thereof.

It appears to me that authentic Judaism, as taught by the prophets has been long hijacked, hardly anything is left of its original teachings. What we have now is an infestation of extreme ideology propagated by some wicked, cruel, violent, arrogant, regressive self-worshiping supremacists. The world is slowly, very modestly still, discovering this reality, and maybe we will all suffer the consequences of the delay and denial, before this battered world takes an honourable stance against it.

That day is no doubt coming, and coming soon insha’Allah

With all love and affection to my brothers and sisters in humanity, with all the tenderness and care for the welfare of all human beings and life as whole, and with all the honesty and sincerity in my heart, I am writing to inform and to point out DANGER. I foresee many warning signs, and my hope is that Jewish people of good will would not shy away anymore, and would take notice of this inherently catastrophic problem (to both Jewish and non-Jewish alike), discuss it, address it, and try to find ways to combat it and deal with it.

To get rid of anti-Semitism once and for all, all what is needed is that Jewish people of good will to pull their sleeves up and to start digging, knocking down false gods, weeding supremacist ideologies that has found a haven amongst some of their people. If they insist to speak in the name of their “Jewish values” they need to reclaim the prophetic and authentic Judaism and “Jewish values” back from the Talmudists who had disfigured it and turned it into an ugly destructive killing machine.

They also need to come to the realization also that they can’t have it both way: insisting on attributing the words “Jew”/ “Jewish” to describe someone/ something good, yet getting infuriated when the words are affiliated with someone/ something bad.

In other words, those interested in “saving” the Jewish people, should start their rescue operation by waging a campaign for the “spiritual rescue” of Judaism and its followers. By acknowledging the spiritual downfall, identifying where did it all go wrong, then “spiritual rescue” might be followed by physical rescue once and for all, thus, overcoming the age-long gentile-phobia, the persecution complex, and the distinction mania.

A meaningful and lasting change requires an individual courageous inner journey to be undertaken by everyone who desires real rescue, an inner Jihad if you will.

As for the entity called “Israel”, all observers notice that the tide has changed; the “fortune” that accompanied this Frankenstein is fading by the minute. The reasons as to why this entity is beginning to lose its grip and WILL ultimately vanquish and arrive to total disintegration and decay in spite of all its weaponry, armies, wealth, arrogance, aggression and disregard of human rights and International Law, is as natural and organic as the principles of life itself.

“Israel” is an artificial creation, a myth that came into being through using other myths as pretexts;

“exclusivity” of an imagined “race”;

“distinction” of its imagined “mission”;

and “uniqueness” of its imagined perpetual “suffering”.

Such skewed perception of reality cannot survive the test of time, the inevitable will happen and sooner or later reality will hit them in the face.

Collectively, this entity with such grandiose image of itself, has become a force of destruction, it carries within its womb the seeds of its own demise.

In 2003, the theorist and historian “Israeli” military strategist, Martin van Creveld declared the following:

” “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome Most European capitals are targets for our air force … We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under”

Their very own chief Rabbi of “Israel”, Ysrael Meir Lau calls the whole world a battleground!

“The battlefield is not just in Gaza strip, the battlefield is everywhere where a Jew exists. The battlefield for our survival, for our eternity is over the seas, in North, South, West and East, wherever are Jews and the Jewish community exists”

But contrary to their assumption, all people are not blind and deaf, and instead we see the battle as being now defined:

A battle of Civilization VS Barbarity;

Cooperation VS Conflict;

Brotherhood VS Enslavement;

Equality VS Supremacy;

Universal VS Individual;

Modesty VS Arrogance;

Sharing VS Accumulating;

Generosity VS Selfishness.

The central battleground happens to be the Land we dare to call Holy.

The Palestinian People happen to be at the forefront of this decisive battle for the survival of humanity and its most cherished and refined values.

The battle is no doubt a spiritual one as well as it is physical.

Our beautiful world and the good people in it are under unprecedented assault; they have been savagely attacked, their lives have been attacked, their livelihood, their values, their homes, their freedoms, their very security, and their intelligence.

Our whole beloved planet simply has been exploited and vandalized almost beyond recognition.

People of good will, those who LOVE the world and desire more than anything to foster and protect LIFE, have no option but to come together and attend the world, everyone according to their ability and aptitude.

Recently, a very dear friend of mine was outraged to learn about 9/11 cover-up crimes, “Do you think anyone will ever be held to account for this obscenity?” she asked.

My response to her was:

“Many people of all background are pushing hard for this because the evidence of crime cover up is so overwhelming and the lies are so blatant that it feels like a slap on the face of every human being with a one brain cell.

The case against the perpetrators is so powerful and the evidence so overwhelming that if it were go to court right now, the case would be won IF, and only IF, there was still a functional Judicial System.

But my fear and expectation are a little grim unfortunately, I think it’s too late for that, my fear dearest is that even the judicial system has been hijacked by the same criminals who have an agenda of creating a Talmudic NWO through mass extermination and who would stop at nothing to implement it.

Daniel Ellsberg is a man who has the credentials and track record to be trusted. He made public the “Pentagon Papers” which basically toppled a US presidency and shook the US at its foundations. In 2007 he wrote an astounding sentence in the foreword to Norman Solomon’s book “Made Love, Got War”:

“Today, the Defense Department’s least acknowledged mission is mass extermination” Daniel Ellsberg

By now, I guess it is quite obvious who took over the Defense and Security Departments, as well as Foreign Policy.

Furthermore, what disturbs me even more is those who are NOT part of the evil network, yet they hysterically deny its existence and they deny the evil agenda of their people while they adamantly refuse to look at the hard evidence

Having said that, I am confident that mankind will be provided with the necessary resolve, courage and creativity to rid it self of those who strive to enslave, divide and destroy.

Exclusion and superiority by their very nature are mechanisms of elimination and destruction, including self-elimination and destruction.

Sustainable human societies functions in ways that these supremacists have no understanding, control or mastery of. Systems of Justice will inevitably re-emerge on the ruins of rotten old ones. With the hard work, dedication, steadfastness, energy, sacrifice and love of those who are sincere, undoubtedly, a more just system will organically rise from the ashes to replace that which has caused the world so much pain and agony.

The same system we see all around us in this fabulous mysterious universe of ours, dancing between utter mayhem and chaos to supreme balance and harmonious order, and between utter annihilation to new creation.

It’s the very same marvellous Cycle of Life, that irresistibly strives towards perfection; towards the Most Sublime, Most Gracious, Most High.”

And so it goes


Posted by nahida -Exiled Palestinian

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Dare I say its name?

The Spider’s Web


By Nahida the Exiled Palestinian

The Spider’s Web

The ADL and other Jewish Zionist organizations continue to agitate the public with the scarecrow of anti-Semitism attempting to suppress truth about the illegality, brutality and barbarity of the zionist project. They continue to moan about the life-old crime of anti-Semitism that has plagued the planet and caused “unique” and “immeasurable suffering” for the Jews throughout history. They continue to whine about the alleged increase of anti-Semitism, as unexplained unwarranted and inherent phenomenon within the goyim, who are uncontrollably driven by some kind of primitive, bizarre and blind hatred of the Jews, absolutely for no particular reason!

Simultaneously, they continue to use their power of influence, manipulating the players (with the carrot and stick trick) in the media, in the political sphere and in the world of academia to muffle even the faintest voices that attempts to be a witness of truth.

They pressure organizations to cancel events, even those who are as mild as troops dancing, artists singing, children drawing or performers playing.

They force universities to close down courses, and professors to lose their jobs even when all they do is to provide knowledge, accredited by reputable sources and researchers, and under the right to freedom of information.

They coerce websites to delete articles & videos or be taken to court, force politicians to publicly apologize or lose their seats, news reporters to favourably inscribe or lose their careers.

They persist to suppress testimonies of professionals, doctors, and witnesses of all walks of life, intimidate judges and threaten, kill and celebrate the murder of human right activists.

They demand that countries introduce new laws to suppress Academic Freedom, they cause innocent people to be imprisoned or deported, and put pressure on governments to even change International Law and Universal Jurisdiction for the sole reason of protecting Jewish-Zionist war criminals who committed crimes against humanity.

This double act of playing the ultimate perpetual helpless victim who suffers endlessly of the world’s anti-Semitism on the one hand while acting with supreme power and impunity as a well organized group with high degree of influence and authority, on the other, only exposes a degree of hypocrisy and deception of unprecedented proportions.

The Jewish zionists don’t understand that they cannot have it both way, whimper as the ultimate victim and behave like the decisive authority; their game is just too embarrassingly and shamelessly obvious.

Furthermore, it cannot escape sharp-eyed analysts that the massive over-representation of Jewish Zionists in sensitive key position in politicsmedia, and the world of finance is in absolute contradiction with ethos of objectivity, fair representation and equal opportunity.

One finds him self compelled to ask some questions:

How did the Jewish Zionists reach a degree of organized control that exceeds the diverse norms of human proclivity?

Moreover, how on earth did they manage to deceive most of the world to achieve and maintain this oxymoron: superlative manipulative power along with the swindle of ultimate victimhood?

Furthermore, for the love of humanity, where is the ADL outcry against the most aggressive, most violent form of racism and supremacy pervasive throughout their own communities, namely, the concept of chosen-ness, exclusivity, supremacy andTalmudic attitude towards the Non-Jews?

How did they manage to conceal this bizarre supremacist ideology with its rotten core which thrives in various degrees amongst Jewish communities, which also animates and feeds the most primitive feelings of vanity, arrogance, selfishness and sense of entitlement to leadership and to ownership of that which is not theirs?

The Jewish Zionists systematically muffle the debate about the Zionist’s crimes, they throw labels and accusations at any one who dares to question the ideological concept of Chosen-ness which animates their narcissistic sense of superiority.

The Jewish Zionists systematically throw sand in the eyes of those who notice that things don’t quite add up, those who ask questions about fundamental issues related to the disproportionate over-representation and powerful lobbies.

In their usual hasbaric method of “perception management” and “damage control”; articles are published, alleged “scientific research” is conducted, and discussions are broadcasted; all pretending to “discover” what they call the “secret of the “unique Jewish success”

Is it their study of the Talmud?

Is it their chosen-ness?

Is it their Jewish values?

Is it their “unique Jewish gene”?

Is it their DNA?

Is it their history of persecution?

Is it their superior IQ?

Taking into consideration these basic facts:

1- Despite claiming otherwise Jews are not a race, they do not share the same ethnicity nor do they share unified genes. They do not possess a unique Jewish DNA

2- Comparative studies of IQ between races are meaningless, it is disregarded by most respected scientists as pseudo science.

3- Jews do not even share one culture, British Jews have little in common with Ethiopian Jews and German Jews have little in common with Yemeni Jews, etc.

4-Jews do not speak the same language nor do they share the same history. They lived and still live separated geographically and historically.

5- Like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and other faiths, Judaism is religion and nothing else.

With the above in mind, it becomes evident that claims of “uniqueness of Jewish talent and “superior Jewish intelligenceboasted as an explanation of their achievement, influence, and control, and a justification to exploit others. These claims are ludicrous and nothing but a myth fit only to appear in an illusory pre-historical book by pro-hysterical fanatics.

Under the false pretence that they’re “one race” with “one culture” and “one history”, created for a “special mission”, and equipped with “special soul” and “supernatural power” to accomplish leadership of mankind, the Jewish zionists managed to deceive a huge segment of the world population, including non-Zionist Jews.

It appears that they still prefer to inhabit a divided world based on racial superiority. It is this fascination with racist fantasies that lures them to chase the mirage of their distinction, in vain, trying to “prove” their “superiority”, “scientifically”.

Yet, the truth is simple and not difficult to comprehend, in view of social patterns of behavior that are marked by exclusion and favoritism. Some would describe it tribal-like, or club-like, or fraternity-like, in essence always chose to privilege whomever qualifies for membership, and that is by birth, i.e. irrespective of circumstances and qualifications or lack thereof:

Hence, when a group in its dealings and interactions with others behaves like a club or a caste of which only those privileged by birth can become members, when children of that group are brought up with a sense of severe trauma hammered in by mythical or real stories of perpetual persecution, when they grow up imagining that the whole world hates them for no other reason except that they are Jews, when members are indoctrinated with false beliefs of distinction, dissimilarity, exceptionality and even superiority, and when the group’s aims are exclusively focused at protecting and fulfilling the interests of members of that club at the cost of all non-members, the outcome will be a well coordinated, well motivated, and well organized network, hence the “secret” of “Jewish success” that every one seeks to discover, becomes easy to understand, it actually lies in one word:NETWORKING

…… …….. …….. …..NETWORKING

…… …….. ……..NETWORKING

…… …….. ……… ……. …….NETWORKING……. ………… ………… ………….. networking……. ………… ………… ………….Networking……. ………… ………… Networking….. ….. ……..networking

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . networking

. . . . . . . . . .networking

. . . . . . . . .networking

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . networking

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . networking

. . . .networking . . . . . . . .

. . . .networking. . . . .
. . . . . . . .networking
. . . . . . . .networking. . . . . . . . .networking. .networking. . . . . .. . . .. . .
. . . . .networking
networking . . .
. . . . .networking. . .
. . . .networking
. . . . . .networking
. . . . . .networking

Even the half-Jewish are not forgotten from being part of the Web

That highly organized global network functions with the process of “Unnatural Selection”, that is structured to mentor future-leaders, to amalgamate and augment Jewish-zionist leadership. It bases its preference on “favouritism”, not on merit, aptitude, suitability, ability or fitness for the job, but rather on training and promoting those who are part of the network, who are programmed from a very young age to aspire and strive for leadership position.This network has exceedingly overgrown; its Web is literally strangling the planet; with an ideology bordering on paranoid lunacy, an exclusionist system that views the other with suspicion, hate and vengefulness while holding the key to Pandora’s Box; the survival not only of mankind, but of all biological life as we know it, is threatened with extinction.

If we want our world to have a chance of survival, that Web needs to be dismantled. If not stopped in time, biocide, not just genocide, will be the new description of their next war of aggression.

That Web will not be dismantled by the hands of those who build it, too much at stake for them to lose, too many privileges that cannot be sacrificed, not even to save the world.

Despite what is said above, I am fully aware that not all Jews are taking part in that Web, but I am also aware that a significant majority of Jews do take part, and this actively.

Indeed, according to polls:

95% of US Jews support Israel as a Jewish state

90% of British Jews believe that Israel is the ‘ancestral homeland’ of the Jewish people

Which basically means that the vast majority of world Jewry consider it their privilege to rob other people of their homes and homeland, they see themselves entitled to claim other people’s property, and to commit whatever crimes necessary in order to secure their own interests. The vast majority of world Jewry support the theft of Palestine, the ethnic cleansing, dispossessing and slow genocide of its people for the sake of their “tribe”.

Therefore, I am calling on Jews who are not part of that network, those who refuse to be partners in crime, those who are really sincere about their stance with truth and justice; those who are willing to see the truth, hear the truth and speak the truth.

The challenge laying ahead of you is threefold:

Exposing, opposing, detaching yourself from the criminal entity which calls it self the Jewish state”. This “Jewish state” makes the claim to be the “safe haven for the Jewish people”, while at the same time it denies the reality that it was created by terrorist conquest, and embeds itself on stolen land of another people after having dispossessed and dispersed them, and perpetuate itself through ever worsening crimes.

Exposing, opposing and fighting the supremacist ideology of truly racist and exclusionary nature, that thrives within Jewish circles and networks. This ideology carries a sociopathic core concept of “chosen-ness” which sets them apart (and above) from the rest of humanity, and locks them permanently in mental and psychological ghettos.

Exposing, opposing and challenging the excessive and ill-used power and influence acquired by corruption and manipulation instead of merit. This undeserved accumulation of power and capital by this Judeo-zionist networks in the fields of finance,media and policy making, has been realized at the expense of the majority of communities amongst which they live. The conflict of interest of an over-represented minority concentrating power and capital, versus an under-represented majority, is blatantly obvious.

Are you up for the challenge?


Posted by nahida -Exiled Palestinian

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on The Spider’s Web

Expanding Holocaust Denial and Legislation Against It


Michael Whine*

Over half the states of Europe now criminalize Holocaust denial. They accept the premise that deniers are extremists who use denial, among other means, to rehabilitate Nazism. Their legal rationale in doing so is usually that denial negates the historical facts established at Nuremburg in 1945 rather than that it constitutes offensive or threatening speech. International agreements take the same line and this was reinforced and given a legal basis in April 2007 by the EU Common Framework Decision, which requires European states to criminalize denial. Legislation, however, has not stopped extremists from continuing to promote Holocaust denial and they are now joined and invigorated by Iran, which promotes it as state policy. Nevertheless, states now accept that Holocaust education is vital and several intergovernmental initiatives offer hope for the future.

Holocaust deniers, and the media they use, are changing as a consequence of international political developments. It is necessary to update earlier analyses by this author of Holocaust denial in the United Kingdom.Those works noted, to begin with, that the media for promoting denial had been revamped in light of technological advances, just as the nature of the propaganda itself was changing. New forms of this propaganda encompassed pseudoscientific books and papers; crude denial material, usually published in leaflet form by small neo-Nazi groups; and what can be called political denial, which includes the most recent and increasingly potent source, namely, Islamists as well as Internet and television transmissions within some Muslim states.

Many of the pseudoscientific publications available internationally were published under cover of fictitious academic publishing houses. These works included, for example, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur Butz, Did Six Million Really Die? by Richard Harwood, and The Leuchter Report.Historians challenged these and rebutted their false theses.

The very public destruction of David Irving’s already tarnished reputation, as a result of his libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, effectively undermined the position of the pseudoscientific deniers, as did the more recent conviction of Germar Rudolf.2 Some years ago Fred Leuchter attempted to prove technically that Zyklon B was not used in the gas chambers. His lack of any engineering qualification was the subject of a successful criminal action in the American courts and his capacity to comment was curtailed.3

In Britain, distribution of the crude leaflets published by Lady Jane Birdwood’s English Solidarity Organisation, Combat 18, and the National Front was halted after the criminal convictions of some of the main actors. These only took place after the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) and the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) came into force. These measures gave the police powers of arrest for the distribution of material that incites racial hatred, and of immediate arrest without a warrant for suspected racially motivated public-order offenses. They effectively put a stop for some years to the widespread dissemination of Holocaust-denial material in Britain by the far Right.

Thus, whereas in the 1980s and 1990s Britain became a world center for publishing Holocaust-denial material, in many languages and for many markets, the British courts have successfully prosecuted such works despite the lack of specific Holocaust-denial legislation, where it contained material that incited hatred against Jews.5

This author’s previous work also reviewed the genesis and progress of international agreements against anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, including that promoted online. In this regard, too, there are new developments.

Holocaust Denial and the Internet

An increasing amount of Holocaust denial and trivialization propaganda comes from the Middle East. It is being transmitted primarily through the Internet, and also through print media and television. This, in turn, appears to be encouraging the far Right in several countries to resume promoting denial after a lull of several years, and even after the criminal convictions of some of its earlier proponents.

Holocaust trivialization and inversion have also become more common, possibly because outright denial itself has been criminalized in some jurisdictions.6 The trivialization argument is usually that far fewer Jews were murdered from 1939 to 1945 than the generally agreed figure of around six million, that the majority died of illness contracted in the death camps, or that the plight of the Palestinians in 1948 was worse than what befell the Jews. The inversion argument portrays Israel and the Jews’ behavior toward the Palestinians as being at least as bad as that of the Nazis toward the Jews.

In all cases the logic follows a similar route: to shift the moral responsibility for genocide, and to portray the victims as the new perpetrators. The promoters of these arguments come from a wider range than the outright deniers and may include the Arab and Muslim states, nonstate propagandists within those countries, as well as some ideologues and activists on the political far Left.7

The promotion via the Internet of Holocaust denial, trivialization, and inversion poses new challenges. The founders of the Internet intended it to be a domain for free speech, unhindered by any restrictive legislation. Over the past ten years this ethos has been challenged by antiracist and Jewish NGOs, and recently by some governments concerned that political extremists have seized on the freedoms of cyberspace to spread incitement and hatred. Of increasing concern is that those most influenced are the young, who may be less able to differentiate authoritative and factual material from propaganda.The governments of those countries most affected by the Nazi takeover of Europe, and the Holocaust, have most strongly called for legislation to criminalize denial propaganda, including that online.

A second challenge posed by online Holocaust denial is one of jurisdiction, even if states have laws that criminalize it. Canada, Australia, France, and Germany, adopting different approaches, have recently brought successful criminal prosecutions against deniers, and the sites that published their material, within their own jurisdictions. But jurisdictions stop at states’ borders.

Hence, denial and racist sites have relocated to jurisdictions where no supervisory regime exists or where there are no legal sanctions. One of the Internet’s founding fathers recently asserted that the Internet should not allow itself to be used for hate promotion.9 Nevertheless, the influence of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution plays an important part in determining international attitudes toward online hate. Internet service providers in the United States and elsewhere, however, have generally proved responsive to criticism that they host denial and other hate sites, and have enforced contractual nonhate terms-of-service obligations on users.10

International Agreements

Diplomatic pressure from some states, and particularly from NGOs, has prompted European intergovernmental organizations to pass resolutions and conclude agreements commemorating the Holocaust and condemning its denial or trivialization. These include: the Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, by which the signatory states agreed to institute educational programs and national commemorative initiatives; the European Parliament Resolution on remembrance of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and racism; and the various declarations of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including the Permanent Council Resolution (2004), the Berlin Declaration (2004), the Cordoba Declaration (2005), the Brussels Declaration of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (2006), and a resolution passed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2007.11

In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) (reconstituted in March 2007 as the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) published the Working Definition of Antisemitism, intended as a guide for criminal justice agencies. The RAXEN network of focal points monitoring racist violence identifies Holocaust denial as a specific form of anti-Semitism.

The Working Definition notes, among other things, that:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).12

At the international level, the United Nations was finally persuaded to address the issue of the Holocaust. In 2005, it established 27 January as the International Day of Commemoration in Memory of Victims of the Holocaust. It now marks this day annually at Security Council headquarters in New York.13  In January 2007, the UN General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution condemning Holocaust denial, with only Iran dissenting.

This states:

Noting that 27 January has been designated by the United Nations as the annual International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust,

1. Condemns without reservation any denial of the Holocaust;

2. Urges all Member States unreservedly to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any   activities to this end.14

A recent poll of the OSCE’s fifty-six member states reported that thirty-nine (71 percent) have now established a Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) or commemorate Holocaust victims. Of these, nineteen (33 percent) have HMD on 27 January and fifteen (27 percent) on a different day; six (11 percent) incorporate commemoration of Holocaust victims into their national memorial days.15

Thus, Holocaust denial is now universally recognized as a specific form of hate. Many states deem it to constitute criminal behavior that is subject to sanction. Until recently, however, the Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime had been the only international agreement requiring states to criminalize denial. Article 6 of the Additional Protocol states:

1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to establish the following conduct as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right: Distributing or otherwise making available, to the public through a computer system, material which denies, grossly minimises, approves or justifies acts constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as defined by ternational law and recognised as such by final and binding decisions of the International Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, or any other international court established by relevant international instruments, and whose jurisdiction is recognised by that Party.

2. A Party may either

a) require that the denial or the gross minimisation referred to in paragraph 1 of this article is committed with the intent to incite hatred, discrimination or violence against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a pretext for any of these factors, or otherwise.

b) reserve the right not to apply, in whole or in part, paragraph 1 of this article.16

To date, twenty-one states have signed this protocol and ten have ratified it.17

National Legislation

Fourteen European states have now criminalized Holocaust denial. All have adopted the basic premise that deniers are extremists who use denial as a means to rehabilitate Nazism. Thus, denial activity strikes at the heart of democratic governance in a continent that was torn apart from 1939 to 1945.

An additional consideration is that deniers use Holocaust denial to incite hatred against Jews. They usually claim that Jewish demands for reparations and restitution for property stolen during the Nazi era are specious and based on a falsification of history. There was no Holocaust, or the consequences were much less serious than Jews say they were, hence Europeans and European governments are being conned by the Jews. Almost invariably this constitutes incitement against Jews and Jewish communities, and frequently has led to violence against Jews and Jewish institutions. Again this undermines fundamental concepts of civil liberty and fundamental rights.

The assumption that Jewish organizations urge legislation against Holocaust denial because it constitutes offensive speech is not completely correct.  They also do so because they know from experience that the Jews are always the first in line; a society’s treatment of its Jews is a paradigm for how it will treat all minorities. Jews’ experience in the post-World War II era suggests that their rights are best protected in open and tolerant democracies that actively prosecute all forms of racial and religious hatred. Holocaust survivors themselves have been an important source of support for legislation. In France, for example, they have pressed for prosecutions under the Gayssot Act of 1990 (see note 21 below)

The European states that now criminalize Holocaust denial posit that such denial constitutes an attempt to justify crime, incites hate crime, or seeks to undermine the findings of the International Military Tribunal of August 1945 (the Nuremberg Tribunal). Criminal prosecutions have also taken place in Canada and Australia, but using other legislation. In both cases, though in different ways, this legislation addresses the issue of “offending speech” to a defined section of the community.

In Austria, article 3h of the Prohibition Act (Verbotzgesetz) states that:

a person shall also be liable to a penalty under Act 3g if, in print or a broadcast, or in some other medium, or otherwise publicly in any manner accessible to a large number of people, he denies the National Socialist genocide, or other National Socialist crimes against humanity, or seeks to minimise them in a coarse manner, or consents thereto or to justify them.

Punishment is by imprisonment for one to ten years, and if the offender or his activities are considered particularly dangerous, for up to twenty years.18

In Belgium, article 1 of the law of 23 March 1995 states that:

Whoever, in one of the circumstances indicated by Article 444 of the   Penal Code, denies, grossly minimises, tries to justify or approves of   the genocide committed by the German National-Socialist regime during the Second World War will be punished by imprisonment of 8 days to 1 year, and to a fine of up to 5000 francs.19

In the Czech Republic, article 261a of the amended constitution of 16 December 1992 states that:

the person who publicly denies, puts in doubt, approves or tries to justify Nazi or communist genocide, or other crimes against humanity of Nazis or communists will be punished by prison of 6 months to 3 years.20

In France, article 24 bis of the amended Press Act of 29 July 1881 states that:

those who have disputed, by one of the means stated in article 23A, the existence of one or more crimes against humanity as they are defined by the article of the statute of the International Military Tribunal, annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, and which were committed by members of an organisation declared criminal by the application of Article 9 of the above-mentioned statute or by a person found guilty of such crimes by a French or an international tribunal, will be punished with the penalties foreseen by the sixth paragraph of the Article 24.21

In Germany, article 130 of the amended Penal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany states that:

(3) Whoever publicly, or at a meeting, denies, diminishes, or approves of an act committed under the regime of National Socialism, of the kind described in article 220A, paragraph 2, in a way likely to disturb public peace, shall be punished by imprisonment up to 5 years, or a monetary fine.22

In Liechtenstein, article 283 of the Penal Code states that:

Public denial or trivialisation or attempts to justify genocide or other crimes against humanity constitute a criminal act.23

In Lithuania, Holocaust denial is illegal with prison sentences of two to ten years and a fine.24

In Luxembourg, Article 457-3 of the revised Criminal Code states that:

it is forbidden to contest, trivialise, justify or deny publicly the existence of crimes against humanity or war crimes linked to the Holocaust.25

Successful Prosecution

In the Netherlands, there is no primary legislation against Holocaust denial but article 137 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes defamation and religious and racial incitement, has been the basis for two successful prosecutions. The first was against Siegfried Verbeke, a Belgian national whose appeal against the May 1996 verdict by a Hague court was turned down on 25 November 1997.26 The second occurred on 21 December 2004 when the District Court of Hertogenbosch convicted Ivo Janssen for having deliberately insulted Jews on his website by posting links to denial sites, including one that published Did Six Million Really Die?27

In Poland, denial of the Nazi crimes committed during 1939-1945, and of Communist-era crimes, is illegal under article 55 of the 1998 Law on the Institute of National Remembrance-Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation. This states that:

He who publicly and contrary to facts contradicts the crimes mentioned in Article 1, clause 1 shall be subject to a fine or a penalty of deprivation of liberty of up to three years. The judgment shall be made publicly known.28

In Portugal, article 240(2) of the Criminal Code punishes anyone who

in a public meeting, in writing intended for dissemination, or by any other means of social communication, defames or insults an individual   or group of individuals on grounds of their race, colour, or ethnic, national or religious origin, particularly by denying war crimes and crimes against peace or humanity, with the intention of inciting to or encouraging racial or religious discrimination.29

In Romania, Emergency Ordinance 31/2002 of the Penal Code prohibits publicly denying the Holocaust and its consequences. Penalties range from fines to fifteen years’ imprisonment.30

In the Slovak Republic, an amendment to section 261 of the Criminal Code ,which punishes public sympathy for fascism or any similar movement, allows the criminal prosecution of

public negation, doubts, acceptance or justification of fascist crimes or other similar movements.31

In Switzerland, article 261 bis of the Penal Code states that:

He who publicly incites hatred or discrimination toward a person or group of persons because of their racial, ethnic or religious adherence;

He who, publicly, propagates an ideology with the intention to belittle or denigrate in a systematic manner members of a race, ethnic group or a religion;

He who, for the same reason, organises or encourages actions of propaganda or participates in them;

He who, publicly, by word of mouth, in writing, by image, by gesture, by assault or in any other way, belittles or discriminates in a way which affects the human dignity of a person or a group of persons because of their race, their ethnic belonging to their religion or who, for the same reason, denies, grossly minimises or tries to justify a genocide or other crime against humanity;

He who refuses to give to a person or group of persons, because of their racial, ethnic or religious belongings, a prestation destined for public use, shall be punished with imprisonment or with a fine. (prison: three years maximum; fine: up to Sfr. 40,000).32

In a recent setback in Spain, the Constitutional Court overturned the legislation that criminalized Holocaust denial in an appeal case initiated by far-Right activist Pedro Varela. According to government leaders, however, the legislation seems likely to be reinstated. Foreign Minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos asserted: “Even if this means changing the penal code, we must overturn this decision…. this government or any other government will never permit Spain to become a center for neo-Nazi activity.”33

Adversaries of legislation against Holocaust denial have argued that such laws restrict the basic human right of freedom of expression. An authoritative answer was given by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in its judgment of 24 June 2003 against French denier Roger Garaudy. He had appealed against the dismissal of his earlier appeal by the French Court of Cassation following his conviction for several offenses involving denial.

The ECHR noted that:

There are limits to freedom of expression; the justification of a pro-Nazi policy cannot enjoy the protection of Article 10 and the denial of clearly established historical facts-such as the Holocaust-are removed by Article 17 from the protection of Article 10. As regards the applicant’s convictions for denying crimes against humanity, the Court refers to Article 17: in his book the applicant calls in question the reality, degree and gravity of historical facts relating to the Second World War which are clearly established, such as the persecution of Jews by the Nazi regime, the Holocaust and the Nuremberg trials. Denying crimes against humanity is one of the most acute forms of racial defamation towards the Jews and of incitement to hatred of them.34

The European Common Framework

The European Parliament is now moving to rationalize and make consistent European states’ laws against racial and religious hatred. Early in 2007, the German Presidency announced its plan to ensure the passage of the Common Framework Decision, which had been the subject of negotiation since 2001 and requires European states to legislate against racism in general, encompassing Holocaust denial.35 This was agreed in Luxembourg on 19 April 2007.

Article 1 of the Common Framework Decision states that:

1. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable: (a) publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.

(b) the commission of an act referred to in point a) by public dissemination or distribution of facts, pictures or other material.

(d) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, where the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.36

Article 1 (c) refers to denial of genocide, as defined in articles 6, 7, and 8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The Framework Decision had hitherto been held up by objections from Italy, Ireland, the UK, and some Scandinavian countries, which see blanket legislation against Holocaust denial as an infringement of the free-speech prerogative their states guarantee. To meet these objections, additions were made to the draft document that allow prosecutions only where Holocaust denial is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred (article 1 1c). This was further reinforced by a codicil stating that:

1a) For the purpose of paragraph 1 member states may choose to   punish only conduct which is either carried out in a manner likely to disturb public order, or which is threatening, abusive or insulting.

1b) For the purpose of paragraph 1, the reference to religion is intended to cover, at least, a conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.

2. Any Member State may, at the time of the adoption of this Framework Decision by the Council, make a statement that it will make denying or grossly trivialising the crimes referred to in paragraph 1(c) and/or (d) punishable only if the crimes referred to in these paragraphs have been established by a final decision of a national court of this Member State, or by a final decision of an international court.37

The additional clauses meet the objections raised by the UK in particular, and allow for prosecution only where Holocaust denial is intended to incite hatred. An academic publication where specific aspects of the Holocaust might be debated, however inaccurate historically, would therefore be permissible. European states now have two years to enact legislation which ratifies the Framework Decision, if they do not have laws which meet the common criteria.

Recent Convictions

The momentum to institute criminal proceedings, however, has not diminished in recent years, and some states continue to demonstrate their commitment to prosecute offenders. According to the Austrian authorities, for example, more than two hundred criminal convictions were secured under their prohibition statute from 1999 to 2006.38

Ernst Zündel, a German citizen formerly domiciled in Canada, was sentenced in February 2007 to five years on fourteen counts of incitement at his trial in Mannheim, Germany. For more than twenty years Zündel had been a prominent publisher of neo-Nazi and denial material in Canada, which he illegally exported to Germany and Austria. His first trial some months earlier had been terminated because of the behavior of his defense attorney Sylvia Stolz.39

In the 2007 trial, Stolz was finally banned from the court on the ground that she was trying to sabotage her client’s trial, and she had to be replaced. She has also now been charged with incitement, attempting to thwart a prosecution, and using symbols of a banned organization. During Zündel’s first trial she repeatedly disputed the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis, called for hatred against Jews, and ended a legal document with the words “Heil Hitler.”40

In March 2006, Germar Rudolf, whom the United States had extradited to Germany, was also convicted by a court in Mannheim for denying the Holocaust in his pseudoscientific Rudolf Report. He was sentenced to two and a half years in prison.41

In March 2007, Bruno Gollnisch, a French Member of the European Parliament and deputy head of the National Front, was fined $6,450 and given a three-month suspended sentence for publicly disputing the facts of the Holocaust. He also was ordered to pay $71,200 in compensation to those who had brought the action against him, and was suspended for five years from his teaching post at Jean Moulin University in Lyon.42

John Gudenus, a former representative of the far-Right Freedom Party in the Austrian Bundesrat, was sentenced to a year’s probation in April 2006 after publicly claiming that there were no gas chambers. He had been forced to resign from the Austrian National Council in 1995 for a similar public statement.43

In September 2006, however, in Torun, Poland, prosecutors dropped a criminal case against Radio Maryja commentator Stanislaw Michalkiewicz. They accepted that a broadcast he had made on 27 March 2006 did not constitute an intentional action ridiculing or denigrating the Holocaust, and that he had not denied the Nazi crimes in Poland. Michalkiewicz had labeled restitution efforts by Polish Jews as extortion and had belittled the facts of the Holocaust but was not guilty of a criminal offense.44

Back in December 1999, a court in Opole (Silesia) had found history professor Dariusz Rarajczak guilty of denial. He received no punishment because the book he had written, Tematy niebezpieczne (Dangerous Themes), had only a limited distribution. He was, however, barred from teaching for three years.45

In July 2007, the leader of the Hessen branch of the German National Democratic Party, Marcel Woll, was imprisoned by the Friedberg county court for publicly proclaiming that state-sponsored school trips to former concentration camps amounted to “brainwashing.”46

In August 2007, the Austrian denier Gerd Honsik was arrested in Spain in connection with an outstanding conviction for publishing books and leaflets disputing the number of Jews killed. He had fled to Malaga to escape imprisonment.47

In Greece, the public prosecutor brought a case under Law 927/1979 of the Criminal Code against Kostas Plevris, author of the book Jews: The Whole Truth and publisher of the extreme-Right weekly Eleftheros Kosmos, both of which allegedly deny the Holocaust. An amendment to this law, which criminalizes “acts or initiatives aiming at racial discrimination,” allows the public prosecutor to bring charges ex officio.48 On 13 December 2007, Plevris was convicted and sentenced to fourteen months’ imprisonment.49

In Belgium, the Forum of Jewish Organisations in Flanders filed a complaint against former senator Roeland Raes of the Vlaams Blok party (now reconstituted as the Vlaams Belang) for denying the existence of Nazi death camps during an interview on Dutch television. Raes was indicted in March 2007 and his trial was due to reconvene in December.50

In France, Vincent Reynouard was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and fined 10,000 euros in November 2007 for denying the Holocaust in a pamphlet he had published in 2005. Holocaust? The Hidden Facts was sent to museums and town halls across the country and described the Holocaust as an “old propaganda theme.” His sentence is stated to be the heaviest  handed down to date in France.51

The Iranian Government’s Initiative

As stated, the latest and most determined impetus to promote denial comes from the Middle East. Unlike previous initiatives, this has the clear backing of governments.

In February 2006, in what was clearly an Iranian-government-initiated response to the Danish cartoon controversy, the Tehran daily Hamshahrilaunched an international competition to find the “best twelve cartoons about the Holocaust.” Masoud Shojai, organizer of the exhibit for the cartoons, said, “You see they allow the Prophet to be insulted. But when we talk about the Holocaust, they consider it so holy that they punish people for questioning it.”52 The winner of the competition, Abdollah Derkaoui of Morocco, received $12,000 for his work depicting an Israeli crane piling cement blocks on Israel’s security fence, on which was a picture of Auschwitz, thereby obscuring the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.53

The Tehran Holocaust Conference, held in December 2006 by the Iranian government, should be seen in the light of the government’s other long-term strategies. These include, among others, the Shiite challenge to the Sunni and particularly Saudi leadership of the Muslim world, extending Iranian power in the Gulf region, and the campaign to delegitimize Israel and gain control of Jerusalem. Israel having in part been established as a haven for Holocaust survivors, one aim of the Tehran conference was to cast doubt on the Holocaust and therefore on the necessity for Israel.54

The conference was organized by the hitherto respected Institute for Political and International Studies, linked to the Foreign Ministry. Sixty-seven participants came from thirty countries, and particularly noteworthy was the wide range of the participants’ backgrounds and beliefs. They included David Duke, the American white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader; European neo-Nazi propagandists; members of the Jewish anti-Israeli Neturei Karta sect; Shiraz Dossa, political science professor at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia; and an anti-Hindu campaigner for Dalit (“untouchable”) rights.55

The conference came in the wake of an aborted March 2006 conference, also organized by Iranian-government-linked entities, which was abandoned when the German authorities withdrew the passports of the would-be participants from that country. As a consequence only two of the foreign invitees, the Australians Frederick Toben and Richard Krege, attended alone and instead embarked on a lecture tour of Iranian universities.56

Toward the end of the two-day December conference, the Iranian government announced the establishment of the Foundation of Holocaust Studies to promote “the study of the Holocaust”-that is, denial. The director, Mohammad Ali-Ramin, plans follow-up conferences and announced the appointment of a group of advisers who include the UK-domiciled Michelle Renouf, supporter of David Irving and other deniers.57 Other members are Christian Lindtner of Denmark, the abovementioned Frederick Toben of Australia, Serge Thion of France, and Bernhard Schaub of Switzerland.

On her return from the Tehran conference to London in early 2007, Renouf began to write and lecture on denial. Although her only audiences in Britain so far have been tiny neo-Nazi groups such as the New Right Group on 14 January and the British People’s Party on 20 January, she also has spoken in the United States and has given interviews on Iranian television.58

David Irving

The Iranian initiative coincided with renewed far-Right activity, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe where right-wing parties sometimes constitute the main parliamentary and extraparliamentary opposition. Although Holocaust denial is not part of these parties’ platforms, their presence has made it easier for David Irving, for example, to visit several countries since his early release on probation and lecture there to invited audiences. He had served eighteen months of a three-year sentence received in Austria in 2005 for Holocaust-denial offenses committed in 1989.

In January 2007, Irving visited several former death camps in Poland and carried out research for a new book.59 In March he was in Hungary, to which he had been invited by his new publishers Sandor and Tibor Gede, to launch the Hungarian version of his book Nuremberg: The Last Battle. He also spoke on 15 March at an open-air rally of the far-Right Justice and Life Party, which ended in a riot with police arresting scores of neo-Nazi demonstrators though this was after Irving had left.60

In April, Irving exhibited his books at a book fair in Barcelona and spoke at a meeting organized by the abovementioned Pedro Varela.61 However, he was denied a place at the 52nd Warsaw Book Fair after complaints to the organizers, and was asked to remove his stand and books after he had set them up.62

On 23 March, Irving was interviewed on the Italian SKY TG24 documentary program Controcorrente (Countercurrent). He claimed that engineering techniques supported his contention that mass gassings could not have occurred at Auschwitz.63 An Italian bill to outlaw denial was recently withdrawn by the government because of free-speech concerns, though Irving had been refused entry into the country during the 1990s.

Future Outcomes

Irving’s renewed activity will provide a boost to Holocaust denial. As Medoff and Grobman note:

The prosecution and imprisonment of prominent Holocaust-deniers in Europe dealt a serious blow to the Holocaust-denial movement in 2006. Some civil libertarians decried the use of laws prohibiting Holocaust-denial, but there was a noticeable decline in denial activity, following the jailing of the movement’s best-known figure, David Irving, in Austria, and the prosecution of prominent activists Ernst Zündel, and Germar Rudolf in Germany. The release of Irving from prison in December 2006, after serving about one third of his three year sentence, is likely to re-invigorate the denial movement in the years ahead.64

Likewise, the Iranian government’s encouragement and assistance will provide a further boost, and possibly financial rewards.

Recent initiatives include the International Holocaust Revisionist Conference organized by Eric Gliebe of the white-supremacist National Alliance, which took place in Hillsboro, West Virginia, on 26-27 May 2007. Among the speakers were Canadian Paul Fromm, Michelle Renouf, and veteran deniers Arthur Butz and Willis Carto.65 The far-Right Argentinian Second Republic Movement plans to hold a “multidisciplinary international conference on the Holocaust debate” in Buenos Aires in 2008 to “establish the true nature of power and leverage exerted by International and Local Zionists [sic] organizations and interests in our country.”66

It does not appear that the international criticism, and the criminalization of public denial activity in almost half the states of the European Union, will stop the denial promoters. Instead they may shift the focus of their activity to those states where no criminal sanctions exist. The legal and political environment in the states that have legislation may be too hostile to risk further prosecution, particularly for the older activists such as Faurisson or Irving who have previous convictions and may now face severe penalties if convicted again.

The United States will continue to allow Holocaust-denial activity because of the First Amendment guarantees, although mainstream Internet service providers have been prepared, when requested, to remove posters of hate speech from their sites. Deniers may therefore have to rely increasingly on sympathetic hosts. The United States also will continue to present an attractive destination for deniers, particularly the older, better-known activists whose entry is not barred as their criminal convictions are not for crimes recognized by American courts. Moreover, paid personal appearances and book-sale opportunities provide a source of income otherwise denied them in Europe.

Former Soviet Union and EU accession states may be particularly reluctant to legislate against speech, however offensive and even if it incites hatred. They are still affected by their experiences in the twentieth century when freedom of speech was severely curtailed by the Nazis and then by the communists. Hatred promotion will continue in some former Soviet-bloc states such as Ukraine, where the privately funded MAUP university in Kiev offers courses on anti-Zionism and publishes anti-Semitic texts, and where David Duke has lectured. In these states there currently is no legislation and no political will to confront denial activity, though the Ukrainian government has recently been responsive to criticism over MAUP.

Holocaust denial will continue throughout the Arab and Muslim world, promoted by the state-controlled and private media, for the reasons noted above. This is despite the recognition by some local political leaders and spokesmen of the harm that denial activity causes to these countries’ international reputation, as in a recent statement by Egyptian Ahmed Aboul Gheit. On 21 April 2007, he pointed out that Egypt had voted for the abovementioned UN General Assembly Resolution and supported the EU Common Framework Decision.67

On 8 June 2007, in a fence-mending exercise at an OSCE intergovernmental conference, the Egyptian representative denied that there was anti-Semitism in the Arab world.68 It is, though, a fact that anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are now endemic in the Arab world and that state institutions play the key role in impelling them.

The Necessity of Holocaust Education

The existence of legislation that criminalizes Holocaust denial, and a history of prosecuting it in a particular country, may seem to be a sufficient deterrent in itself. But the fact that there are repeat offenders such as Faurisson suggests that this is not the case. Prominent activists in those EU countries that maintain a hostile legal environment have not stopped publishing denial material nor making public statements, sometimes via their national media, denying all or important elements of the Holocaust. As noted, they may merely shift the locus of their activity.

The abovementioned Stockholm Declaration has led to a proposal for a more comprehensive education regime for the young entailing mandatory courses for all students. Such a program is now being put in place by the International Taskforce and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). This more realistic and effective solution would create an environment where denial activity would find little or no support. At the time of writing, seven OSCE participating states have begun to use teaching materials developed by the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam in their education systems, and a further three are working with ODIHR to do the same.69

At the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, information officers from UN Information Centres in eleven Latin and Central American states recently launched a program titled “The History of the Holocaust: Confronting Hatred, Preventing Genocide and Cultivating Moral Responsibility.” In an address to participants, Kiyo Akasaka, UN under-secretary general for communications and public information, stated that: “History has shown that the Holocaust was intimately linked to the founding of the United Nations. I urge you to be curious, ask questions and reflect on ways in which you can enhance outreach activities in your respective countries in the areas of Holocaust remembrance, human rights and genocide prevention.”70

To defeat denial, more effective than laws alone is education-coupled with the widespread understanding that denial is a means to undermine or falsify the established facts of history, promote neo-Nazi ideology, attack democracy, and delegitimize the state of Israel. However, from a moral and historical perspective it is equally important that European states legislate to outlaw this form of hatred, which has the capacity to unravel the cohesion that these states have worked to achieve since 1945.

*     *     *


*    This article is based on the author’s chapter in Ivan Hare and James Weinstein, eds., Extreme Speech and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming, 2008).

1. Michael Whine, “Holocaust Denial in the United Kingdom,” in Jan Herman Brinks, Stella Rock, and Edward Timms, eds., Nationalist Myths and Modern Media: Contested Identities in the Age of Globalisation ( London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2005),; Michael Whine, “Progress in the Struggle against Anti-Semitism in Europe: The Berlin Declaration and the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 41, 1 February 2006,; Michael Whine, “Cyberhate, Antisemitism, and Counterlegislation,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 47, 1 August 2006,

2. “German Holocaust Denier Rudolf Jailed for 30 Months,” Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 15 March 2007.

3.  Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Fred A Leuchter Jnr., Cambridge District Court, 11 June 1991, Cambridge, MA. By reaching a consent agreement with the court, Leuchter avoided a custodial sentence and a fine for practicing engineering without a license.

4. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,; Crime and Disorder Act 1998,

 5.  For example, Lady Jane Birdwood was convicted in April 1994 for possessing and distributing threatening, abusive, and insulting literature that contained Holocaust-denial statements; Charlie Sargent, Will Browning, and Martin Cross were convicted for stirring up racial hatred in 1994 for publishing Combat 18, a magazine that denied the Holocaust; Nick Griffin and Paul Ballard were convicted in April 1998 for publishing The Runemagazine, which contained denial material; Simon Sheppard was convicted in June 2000 for publishing leaflets that contained statements ridiculing the Holocaust.

6. See Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Holocaust Inversion: The Portraying of Israel and Jews as Nazis,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 55, 1 April 2007.

7. For discussion of the issues, see ibid.; Manfred Gerstenfeld,  “Ahmadinejad, Iran, and Holocaust Manipulation: Methods, Aims, and Reactions,”Jerusalem Viewpoints, 551, 1 February 2007.

8. The issues and potential remedies were debated at the OSCE Meeting on the Relationship between Racist, Xenophobic and Anti-Semitic  Propaganda on the Internet and  Hate Crimes, Paris, June 2004,

9.  Stephanie Nebehay, “Web Co-Inventor Backs Licensing,” Reuters, 27 November 1999.

10. Whine, “Cyberhate.”

11. Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, Stockholm, 26-28 January 2000,;

Resolution on the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and racism, European Parliament, Brussels, 27 January 2005; Combating Anti-Semitism, Decision No. 607, Permanent Council, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, PC.DEC/607, 22 April 2004; Berlin Declaration, Bulgarian Chairmanship, the Chairman-in-Office, Berlin, 2004,; Cordoba Declaration, Slovenian Chairmanship, Chairman-in-Office, Cordoba, 9 June 2005,; Resolution on combating anti-semitism and other forms of intolerance, Declaration of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, Brussels, 3-7 July 2006; Resolution 1563, Combating anti-Semitism in Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 4 June 2007.

12. Working Definition of Antisemitism, European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Vienna, 16 March 2005,  http://eumc.europa.en/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf.

13. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the Holocaust Remembrance, A/RES/60/7, New York, 1 November 2005,

14. Holocaust denial, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 61/255, adopted 26 January 2007, A/RES/61/255, New York, 22 March 2007.

15. List of participating States having established Memorial Days, OSCE ODIHR, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Programme, Warsaw, 1 October 2006.

16. Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 28 January 2003,


18. Prohibition Act, Law Gazette No. 13/1945, as amended by Federal Law Gazette No. 48/1992, cited in Nina Osin and Dina Porat, Legislating against Discrimination:  An International Survey of Anti-Discrimination Norms (Leiden and Boston: Tel Aviv University and Martinus Nijhof, 2005), 87.

19. Law of 23 March 1995, Le Moniteur Belge, No. 7996, Brussels, 30 March 1995.

20. Hate Crime Legislation in European Union Member States (Paris: European Jewish Congress, 2007).

21. Law of 29 July 1881, as amended by Act No. 90-615 of 13 July 1990, cited in Osin and Porat, Legislating, 306.

22. Federal Law Journal, 1994, cited in Osin and Porat, Legislating, 330.

23. Combating Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region: An Overview of Statistics, Legislation, and National Initiatives (Warsaw: OSCE/ODIHR, 2005), 136.

24. Hate Crime Legislation.

25. Combating Hate Crimes, 138.

26. “Netherlands,” Country Reports, Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, Tel Aviv University, 1998,; also [Dutch]

27. Dorien Verhuist, “Conviction for Holocaust Denial on Website,” Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam,

28. Act of 18 December 1988 on the Institute of National Remembrance-Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation,

29. Combating Hate Crimes, 144.

30. Monitorul official al Romaniei, 28 March 2003, cited in “Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania,” presented to President Ion Iliescu, Bucharest, 11 November 2004, 36.

31. Combating Hate Crimes, 148-49.

32. Osin and Porat, Legislating, 869.

33. “Spanish FM: Constitutional Court Decision ‘Must Be Overturned,'” European Jewish Press, 15 November 2007, (viewed 19 November 2007).

34. Information Note No. 54 on the case-law of the Court, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, June 2003, Article 17 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is designed to prevent abusers of rights from claiming protection that might be conferred by other articles. It states that: “Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.”

35. Jane Paulick, “Germany Moves to Silence Holocaust Deniers across Europe,” Deutsche Welle (viewed 27 March 2007),,,2317216,00html; Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia, Press Release 8665/07 (Presse 84), Council of the European Union, Luxembourg, 17 April 2007.

36. Council Framework Decision on combating racism and Xenophobia, 8180/2/07REV2DROIPEN2a, Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union, Strasbourg, 17 April 2007.

37. Ibid.

38. Hate Crime Legislation.

39. “Zündel Sentenced to Five Years in German Prison,” Associated Press, 15 February 2007.

40. “German Lawyer for Zündel Charged with Incitement,” Associated Press, Globe and Mail, 20 March 2007.

41. “German Holocaust Denier Rudolf.”

42. “Fine for Gollnisch,” Jewish News, 25 January 2007.

43. “Austria,” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2006, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, 6 March 2007,

44. “Poland,” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2006, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, 6 March 2007, 7,

45. Mark Weber, “Polish Professor Fired for Dissident History Book,” Journal of  Historical Review, (viewed 31 May 2007).

46. “Neo-Nazi to Serve Time for Holocaust Denial,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 7 August 2007, (viewed 8 August 2007).

47.  “Arrested,” Jewish News, 30 August 2007.

48. Hate Crime Legislation.

49. Correspondence between author and Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece, 13 December


50.  “Belgian Ex-Senator on Trial for ‘Holocaust Denial,'” United Press International, 4 April 2007,; email to author from Forum of Jewish Organisations, 17 July 2007.

51. “Frenchman Convicted for Holocaust Denial,” Expatica News, 9 November 2007, (viewed 12 November 2007).

52.  “Iran Displays Holocaust Cartoons,” BBC News, 15 August 2007, (viewed 1 December 2007).

53.  “Moroccan Wins Iran Cartoon Contest,”, 2 November 2006 (viewed 1 December 2006).

54. Gerstenfeld, “Ahmadinejad.”

55.  “International Conference-‘Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision’ (Tehran,

       10-12 December 2006),”; also

56. “The Mashhad ‘Holocaust’ Conference-6 March 2006,” Adelaide Institute,

57. “Founding of the International ‘Holocaust’ Research Committee (Tehran, 13 December 2006),”

58. “Leeds BPP Meeting a Huge Success,” British People’s Party, 20 January 2007,

       (viewed 21 January 2007).

59. “Real History, and a Radical’s Diary,”

60. “David Irving: Controversial Historian in Hungary for Book Signing, Speeches,” Budapest Sun, 14 March 2007,; “Hungarian Protests Turn Violent,” BBC News, 15 March 2007,; “Revisionist Historian to Join the Far-Right on Emotionally Charged National Holiday,” Budapest Times, 14 March


61. “Real History and a Radical’s Diary,” 27 April 2007, (viewed 8 May 2007).

62. Lynette Owen, “Irving Booted out of Warsaw Fair,” The Bookseller, 25 May 2007. Video footage of Irving’s expulsion is also available on YouTube at,34397,4142913.html.

63. “British Historian Denies WW11 Gassings,” Associated Press, 23 March 2007.

64. Rafael Medoff and Alex Grobman, “Holocaust Denial: A Global Survey-2006,” David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, Washington, DC, 2007,

65. Ralph Forbes, “Nationalist Free Speech Meeting a Success Despite Sabotage Gambits,” National Alliance News, (viewed 29 June 2007). See also 2007 Holocaust Revisionist Conference DVD, Catalog Item 891, National Vanguard Books, available at (viewed 1 December 2007).

 66. “New Holocaust Debate to Be Held in Argentina,” statement by the Argentine Second Republic Movement, British People’s Party, (viewed 28 March 2007).

67. “Egyptian Minister Reacts to EU Decision on Criminalizing Anti-Holocaust Remarks,” MENA news agency [Arabic], BBC Monitoring, 21 April 2007.

68. Rauf Saad, assistant to the minister of foreign affairs of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Plenary Session 1, OSCE Conference on Combating Discrimination and Promoting Mutual Respect and Understanding, PC.DEL/543/07, Bucharest, 8 June 2007.

69. Christian Strohal, Address by the director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 672nd Session of the Permanent Council, Vienna, 28 June 2007. See also “ODIHR Tackles Anti-Semitism with Innovative Education Materials,” OSCE Highlights, 31 May 2007.

70. “UN Joins with Holocaust Museum to Foster Genocide Prevention, Remembrance,” UN News Service, 15 May 2007,

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Expanding Holocaust Denial and Legislation Against It

Families vow to find the truth


See Also at

On December 4, 1971 the UVF bombed McGurk’s Bar in North Queen Street killing 15 Catholics including women and children and wounding 17 more. The bombing was set against the backdrop of one of the most violent and destructive periods of the Troubles.

The week before McGurk’s was bombed, the IRA had conducted a major bombing offensive across the North and on December 2 three republican prisoners escaped from Crumlin Road gaol. The security force presence was high in the city.

On the evening of December 4, without warning, a UVF bomb exploded in the popular, family-run bar in the New Lodge.

Less than a day after the bombing the recently formed Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) section of the British army began circulating the lie that the bomb was an IRA own-goal and the victims were IRA bomb makers. Many people, particularly the families, have long suspected that there was collusion between the bombers and the security forces.

The families have been campaigning since the bombing to get to the bottom of how far that collusion went but it has only been in recent years that a significant breakthrough has been made. Through research by the families, the Pat Finucane Centre and British-Irish Right Watch documents have been uncovered which, say the families, prove the British government were working with the UVF.

In July 2009 they uncovered a Director of Operations Brief which showed that the Army Technical Officer on the scene minutes after the explosion believed the bomb “to have been planted outside the pub”. “This is diametrically opposed to the lies that Palace Barracks and the RUC promulgated thenceforth and lays bare collusion and cover-up,” says Ciarán MacAirt, who lost his grandmother Kitty Irvine in the bombing and who has been central to the families’ campaign for the truth.

He also points to documents uncovered by the Pat Finucane Centre at the National Archives at Kew which show notes of the North’s Prime Minister at the time, Brian Faulkner, meeting with the British Home Secretary in the days after the bombing. Ciaran says these notes justify the families’ assertion that the McGurk’s Bar cover-up went straight to the top of the political establishment. “However, they also raise serious questions regarding the professionalism of the investigations by the Historical Enquiries Team and the Office of the Police Ombudsman,” he said.

“Those investigations, and particularly the Police Ombudsman’s report released in the summer of 2010 — which had to be withdrawn because of a string of embarrassing errors — have only served to strengthen the families’ resolve to let the world know that truth of what happened.”

In February 2011 another Ombudsman report said the original RUC investigation was biased in favour of the view that the IRA were responsible. However, it didn’t go as far as to say the RUC had colluded with the UVF bombers — a further disappointment to the families.

Ciarán MacAirt says the research by the families and groups like the Pat Finucane Centre, most of which is available on the website, will continue until the world knows the truth of what happened on that horrific night 40 years ago.

Posted in UKComments Off on Families vow to find the truth

The ridiculous burdens borne by Gaza medical patients


From time to time, the Palestine Center distributes articles it believes will enhance understanding of the Palestinian political reality. The following article by Rami Almeghari was published byElectronic Intifada on 30 November 2011.

“The ridiculous burdens borne by Gaza medical patients”

By Rami Almeghari

My family’s lengthy journey to seek medical treatment for my wife began in 2007 as infighting broke out between Fatah and Hamas. We joined the ranks of hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza heading for hospitals in Egypt.

My wife, who is also the mother of our four children, had to wait a month before she could receive treatment at the Nasser Institute in Cairo. On our way back to Gaza, we endured further waiting in the nearby Egyptian beach town al-Arish, hoping that we and many thousands of others who happened to be stranded in Egypt along with us would eventually be able to go back home.

We were stranded because the internal fighting was followed by the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip and an Egyptian government decision to shut down Gaza’s main gateway to the outside world, the Rafah crossing terminal.

Because my wife and I are Palestinian and have lived through occupation and repression and siege, we remained steadfast, even as we were separated from our beloved children and the rest of our family for two consecutive months. Eventually, we came back to Gaza through a small commercial Egyptian-Israeli crossing in the Naqab (Negev) desert, called al-Auja.

Four years later, we have now returned to the same hospital, the Nasser Institute in Cairo. For the past five weeks, we have been staying here, and we are expecting to stay several weeks longer.

The facilities and standard of care at this hospital are much more advanced compared to those available in Gaza. My wife is receiving the care she needs and is trying to cope with both her health condition but meanwhile suffers the agony of being away from our children.

Absurd obstacles

Though we finally accessed medical treatment, unlike other less lucky families in Gaza, the obstacles we have encountered are absurd.

In August, we had to wait at least two weeks until my wife’s MRI scan results appeared. Then we had to wait two more weeks for the doctor’s final word about her case.

It was truly ridiculous that we should have waited that long in another country’s hospital, when we could have received the results and the doctor’s advice back home in Gaza, near our beloved children and without disrupting our lives.

Why don’t we have good medical staff in Gaza, who are well-trained and highly qualified, and can practice preventative medicine?

Isn’t it ridiculous that we have to travel long distances — approximately 500 kilometers in our case — and have no choice but to stay in a different country? Isn’t it ridiculous that we are forced to be away from our loved ones, who could help comfort us if they were nearby?

Isn’t it ridiculous that Palestinian medical staff are not being sent abroad from Gaza on training courses? Isn’t it ridiculous that instead of investing in the health of its people, the Palestinian Authority has spent the millions of dollars it receives from donor countries on its repressive security forces?

Isn’t it ridiculous that due to the lack of advanced medical technology in Gaza, one has to go to another country for diagnosis, medical checkups or treatment, even if that country is our twin, Egypt?

Following one month of medical checkups and diagnoses by expert Egyptian doctors, we have finally been informed that we should come back in three months’ time for possible treatment.

Less than three months after we were last here, doctors in Gaza referred us once again to the same Cairo hospital. And now we are in Cairo, where my wife is receiving daily treatment for a tumor that is not less hated than our conditions in the occupied Gaza Strip, where Hamas’ blue uniform police regime rules, which has split from the equally useless red carpet reception, protocol-based Fatah regime in the occupied West Bank.

Bitterness at being separated from children

Having been in Egypt for the past five weeks has required me not only to be my wife’s husband but also to act as her nurse and to stand in for her parents, her brothers and sisters and her beloved children.

Throughout this period, especially when she feels very tired as a result of her treatment, I feel a great deal of bitterness because of the lack of support around us, the lack of people who could help comfort my wife, people who could help do household chores for her, people who could give her the warmth she needs. Our four children, Muhammad (5), Nadine (8), Aseel (13) and Munir (12) could help warm their mother and be warmed by her, if she was hospitalized in Gaza, not Cairo.

Isn’t it ridiculous that a daily short therapy session for a period of six weeks, obliges us to stay away from our homeland, away from our children and relatives, and away from my work?

Isn’t ridiculous that Gaza’s health system is still suffering hugely, despite the fact that the Palestinian Authority, prior to Hamas’ takeover of Gaza four years ago, received hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from international donors?

Isn’t ridiculous that both Hamas and Fatah are fighting over the Palestinian Authority, a masquerade authority that has no defined border lines, an authority that has no air or sea ports, an authority that has no genuine control over border crossings, an authority whose budget is dependent on foreign aid?

Isn’t it ridiculous that all treatment that Gazans receive at Cairo-based hospitals are being covered financially by the internationally-funded Palestinian Authority? Isn’t it ridiculous that an amount of 73 million Egyptian pounds, almost ($12 million) is still owed by the Palestinian Authority to the Nasser Hospital Institute of Cairo, alone?

Isn’t that ridiculous when that $12 million could have been invested in improving our Palestinian health system? Isn’t it ridiculous that the situation in Gaza has forced thousands of Palestinian patients and their families out of Gaza, to bear mountains on their shoulders — burdens that be carried by nobody? These are the questions that occupy my mind as I wait in the hallways of the Nasser Institute Hospital.

Posted in GazaComments Off on The ridiculous burdens borne by Gaza medical patients

Shoah’s pages


December 2011
« Nov   Jan »