Archive | February 18th, 2012

The Rancid Stew of Zionism, Palestine Activism and Social Networking


I’m just amazed at what I’ve been seeing since I began using Facebook and three years ago as an activist for Palestine.  What I’d wanted from the social networks were two things – to get to know other activists and to be able to use the internet to campaign for the end of the occupation of Palestine.  One would think this would be a fairly simple endeavor – just sign up on some websites, get into the social networking, and everything would work like a smoothly oiled machine.  I’d find the good guys and fight the bad guys.  Little did I know what I’d be getting into; what I’ve found is a rather dirty world of bigotry, personal attacks, backbiting, hypocrisy  and hidden agendas beyond what I’d ever imagined.  


This online horror show has no beginning, but it seems to have a fulcrum or central focus around which everything else revolves.  The fulcrum, of course, is Facebook, where the world has bared its soul, distance no longer exists, and one can create an alternate reality and/or identity if one wishes.  Facebook has also become a battleground between the factions that support Israel and those that don’t, which of course is to be expected – but what is not expected is that the battle lines have been drawn, erased and drawn again, not in straight lines but in convoluted tangles of intrigue and insanity.  


There are some Facebook groups which profess to be embracing the idea of peace and “coexistence” between Israelis and Palestinians.  This would be simple, and satisfactory, if the memberships of these groups were genuinely dedicated to this purpose, but hidden agendas abound.  I joined two of these groups for short periods of time, only to end up leaving them because I couldn’t deal with the blatant racism, Islamophobia and hatefulness which were supported and condoned by the administrators.  Both groups were made up of Zionists and those who support Palestinian Liberation, but the groups themselves were run by Zionists.  In fact, one group was administered by a settler in the West Bank, who confessed to a friend that his desire was to see all Palestinian Muslims convert to Judaism and live in Israel as Jews. 

In this particular group it was also obvious that some members were working for JIDF; a perusal of their Facebook profiles showed they had few friends, no photos and no posts on their walls, and it was evident that they spent all their waking hours posting and commenting on the group’s wall.  What struck me as important about these groups was that ultimately, pro-Palestine activists were demonized and then removed involuntarily, kicked out for defending Palestine against Zionist lies.  One such activist is Greta Berlin, one of the founders of the Free Gaza movement, who was harassed and bullied by one Zionist who has pretended to be pro-Palestine.  This same crypto-Zionist “activist” also tried the same tactic on me when I came to Greta’s defense.  Greta had been accused of being a holocaust denier simply because someone had tagged her in a photo which was supposedly anti-Semitic.  Greta didn’t even know the tagged photo  was on her Facebook wall. 

But no apology was forthcoming, no attempt was made to undo the damage, but instead a somewhat well-known Zionist supporter who calls herself a Muslim and, amazingly, a descendant of both Jesus Christ and Eleanor of Aquitaine, zoomed in to cause a fitna in her insane support of Zionism while lamely making the assertion that she supports Palestine.  This woman, the so-called descendant of Jesus Christ, viciously attacked several members of the group, and was fully supported by the others in a grotesque tableau of mob cyber-violence. This rather odd person has also publicly asserted that her family wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  Mental illness and delusion seem to be common on Facebook.


The rottenness extends to backdoor communications with thinly veiled threats, including my being sent the lyrics to Bob Dylan’s song “Masters of War” by a rabid supporter of none other than cult hero Ken O’Keefe:

“And I hope that you die, and your death’ll come soon.  I will follow your casket in the pale afternoon.   And I watch while you’re lowered down to your deathbed, and I’ll stand over your grave til I’m sure that you’re dead.”   


The above was sent via Facebook message to myself and to several other activists who have openly questioned Ken O’Keefe’s fundraising methods and how he spends donated monies.


The spreading of rumors and lies among squabbling activists seems to happen often on Facebook.  There is an intolerance of anything that disrupts the politically correct thinking, but it seems more likely that the narcissism apparent in many activists becomes more pronounce when someone dares to disagree with them.  In a recent such episode, I voiced a differing opinion on a friend’s wall, and the friend responded by publicly criticizing and chastising me for being “impolite.”  When I responded in a private message, I expressed my disappointment in being treated so rudely and unfriended this woman, who reacted by sending a message around to our mutual friends which accused me of being a “spy,” among other things:


“DEAR FACEBOOK FRIENDS, especially the 178 FRIENDS that I have in common with MARY SHEPARD. About a year ago, I had a hunch that Mary could be someone that we should be weary of. This gut feeling has been confirmed. I have been sent information about this American woman living in Egypt who is also a recent convert to Islam. She is someone that we definitely do not want amongst us. If you have Mary as a friend, I would seriously consider removing her and blocking her. I will not use the 3 letter word that begins with the letter S and ends with a Y, but regardless of whether she is or isn’t, I am posting this with the best intention…OUR safety! Greta Berlin Adam Sam Alison Weir Ancient Spirit Anne Amna Elliott Ayah Fargone Brad Truthseeker David Albuquerque David Evans Jeff Zavala”


The above was circulated on Facebook by a woman I had known for about a year; she is in all appearances a normal, reasonable person, well educated and gainfully employed.  However, on Facebook she seems to have lost all sense of reality and has allowed herself to engage in juvenile rumor mongering and absurdity, which I seriously wonder whether she would do under any other circumstances.  What is astonishing is that not once did this otherwise intelligent woman question just how the hell one would come to know anyone, online or offline, is a spy.  Is there a way to google it?  Is there a list somewhere?  In the world of Facebook, such questions never arise, so of course there is no need for them to be answered.  The weirdness continued with her replies to my response, one of which is this:


“I would never deny it! Why would I? Mary, there is a FB message that was sent to me about YOU and I trust what has been said about you and the person who sent it to me. If you are working for someone…you should be more careful. If you aren’t,  you should be more polite, respectful and courteous. You can listen to this advice if you want, but I really don’t care if you don’t….it’s up to you. I liked you too, but regardless of what you think of me now…you can take this advice and get on with your life or not. I have notified all my friends in Egypt and Gaza about you and I have forwarded the information about you that was sent to me. Please do not contact them.”


Elsewhere, so-called activist Ken O’Keefe, when confronted with questions as to the legality and propriety of his fundraising tactics, reacts by viciously badmouthing and verbally crucifying those who dared to cross him:


“Never mind me, this has never been a personal dispute, this is about infiltration, lies and Zionist styled treachery, taken right out of the Zionist handbook.  But despite the early success of this plan it is beginning to crumble, and soon enough even the idiots are going to take a big bite of humble pie and admit, “I was a flippin idiot!”  Bank on this. And a special note of shame shall go to any and all Muslims who bought into, fed or spread this backbiting and slander, something that every genuine Muslim knows is expressly condemned in Islam.  Here is an example of how you have been played, by a false Muslim like Catherine Myles;”


Ken O’Keefe insists “this has never been a personal dispute” but goes on to make it personal, uttering derogatory religious remarks against those he perceives as his enemies; in fact, he publishes a list on his website of the “idiots,” and my own name appears on that list.  But it gets much worse.  Mr. O’Keefe further destroys the credibility of Palestine activists by engaging openly in discussions supporting the demonization of Judaism:


 Ken O’Keefe “Ryan, you have a great mind, but your youth does at times breed an arrogance. The truth is that the mere mention of “Jew” has been so stigmatised that decades of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians has been given cover because of the fear of saying the truth, the culprit in this massive crime has been the “Jewish” state of Israel, with the US importantly, providing the means. 


“In Israel the word and meaning of “Zionist” is a non-issue, most Jews in Israel do not even use that term, read Gilad Atzmon’s latest book to understand this. It is Jews, some Zionist, some not, that have an incredible grip on power and this power threatens our very existence. You may be down with not using Jew to explain what Jews are doing, but thankfully this tendency is not so paralysing as it has been for the decades since World War II. 


“The truth is the truth, and so I repeat, Jews have a special burden, similar to that of the “decent Germans” of Nazi Germany. When the Germans failed to reign in the Nazi regime, look what happened. Likewise, Jews had better reclaim their religion and destroy the widely practised Jewish ideology that says Jews are “the chosen ones” and the rest of us are “Goy” who can be lied to, stolen from, tortured and killed… because God said it is just fine. This has nothing to do with Zionism, this is Judaism that says this and we can witness it on a myriad of levels. Am I saying all Jews? Absolutely not. Am I saying Muslims and Christians are innocent? Hell no. But any person, whether it was a Jew, a Muslim, Christian, Nazi, whatever, who claims to be “the chosen ones” and acts like they can do whatever they wish no matter how vile, is an enemy to all. With the Jewish state of Israel threatening to kick off the end of the world, it is time all Jews of conscience scream and shout we are not better than the rest of our human family, and we do not support the racist Jewish state of Israel at all. There is no racism or bigotry in what I am saying here, but mind controlled people will see these words as such, and it is just such conditioning that needs to be destroyed so that truth can be seen and spoken without hindrance.”


A response by one of Ken’s friends:


Patrick Soddof Willis “As long as people are willing to turn away from reality, we will have masters. The jews have a long history of exploiting weaknesses in the human condition. A long and extremely well documented one. Even going back to biblical times, where the usurers were lobbed out of the temple, if you go for that kinda thing.  By deception shall we make war. There are always those that are more than willing to be deceived.  There are followers, and there are leaders.”


Winding through this rubbish pile is also the snake of Islamophobia, and it pokes its head out every chance it gets, whether it’s within the words used by a Zionist settler or a westerner professing to “respect the culture” of Gaza.  On one so-called “balanced discussion” group page, one commenter says he is “proud to have haji blood on my hands.”  One other Muslim is called “pig face boy” and another makes the assertion that it is permissible or even desirable for Muslims to lie.  “I have heard that Muslims are allowed to lie and this comes from the Quran,” says a Zionist Jew in his pseudo-sincere efforts to contribute to “peace and coexistence.”  There were claims made that Islam causes “suffering,” no doubt as a lame attempt to deflect attention from the true cause of suffering in Palestine and elsewhere in the world – Zionism.  Yet the common Zionist refrain is, “The clear majority of Arabs/Muslims support violent terrorism against Jews – it’s a sad fact.”  


Clearly, with such putrefaction in the world of Palestine solidarity and activism, it appears that there is little hope for any progress.  After the recent bus crash in the West Bank which killed 10 Palestinian children, the dregs of humanity climbed up out of their cesspits to celebrate the deaths; do peace-loving people produce such ilk?  By the same token, the hunger strike of Khader Adnan, an act of nonviolent resistance to administrative detention and maltreatment by the occupier forces, is met with either indifference or self-soothing denial; Khader is, of course,  a “terrorist who threatens the security of Israel.” 

No questions are asked as to his guilt or innocence – it is enough that he is supposedly a member of Islamic Jihad.  Guilt by association is enough for the morally lazy and ethically impoverished to wash themselves of any involvement or culpability for what, at this writing, may very well be the death of a young father who chose to use his own body to fight the brutality of occupation.


The finishing touch on this decomposing mixture consists of the immortal words of Norman Finkelstein, former anti-Zionist Jewish guru, who has pronounced the BDS movement a “cult,” and who went on to condemn the entire solidarity movement as one which will never succeed.  Overnight, as in the case of Judge Goldstone, Finkelstein has gone from persona non grata in the Zionist world to becoming the prodigal son, returning to the Israel-supporting fold.  One must wonder whether, like Newt Gingrich, he’s made friends with Sheldon Adelson. 


I’m hoping the sludge will be shoveled up and tossed away, and after the criminals who have ripped off money meant to help the people of Palestine, the psychotics who see fit to turn on their fellow activists have received proper treatment, and the ideologically confused have meditated or prayed their way to a clear path, we can salvage this endeavor, concentrate on the task at hand and accomplish our goal.  Inshaallah.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on The Rancid Stew of Zionism, Palestine Activism and Social Networking

The Case Of Uri Avnery I: “Shukran, Israel” Analyzed And Refuted



Uri Avnery:

A Zionist warmonger

masquerading as an

activist for “peace.”

by Jonathan Azaziah

Prelude: This is the first of a two-part series examining several critical positions of ‘Israeli’ “peace” activist Uri Avnery and how these positions relate to the overall rapidly-deteriorating status of the International Palestine Solidarity Movement. In this volume, Avnery himself is unabashedly slammed as an enemy of the Palestinian people and his piece “Shukran, Israel”, which is an attack on indigenous Islamic Resistance throughout the Middle East, is mercilessly skewered for the pack of Zionist lies that it is…

On January 2nd, 2012, Uri Avnery (real name: Helmut Ostermann), highly-touted ‘Israeli’ “peace” activist, released an article entitled “Shukran, Israel (1),” a fusion of colonial arrogance, Jewish supremacism and malicious Zionist propaganda that shocked me, infuriated me and made me chuckle after the rage simmered to a serenity at the thought of this diatribe even being composed to begin with. “Shukran, Israel” is the central focus of this paper but a few other key ‘gems’ from the wily old man will be mentioned for the sake of perspective. We will unforgivingly and devastatingly proceed with the review and deconstruction in just a moment.

Before the commencement however, something needs to be said that should have been said a long, long time ago. The reason why it hasn’t been said is a relatively simple, albeit terribly sad one: ‘activists’ within this ever-declining ‘movement’ do not have the courage to speak up because of fear; fear of being labeled “anti-Semitic” by the Zionist Power Configuration whose tentacles have deeply penetrated the solidarity network, as evidenced by the recent inexplicable expulsion of leading activist and thinker Dr. Francis Clark-Lowes from an important branch of the UK Palestinian Solidarity Movement (2). These ‘activists’ are intellectual, spiritual and political cripples posing as revolutionaries. Their cowardice has allowed the aforesaid supremacism to prosper under the guise of solidarity; another ‘mask of Zion.’ So here, let it be said; nay, let it be screamed so the skies tremble, and those activists with dignity never allow themselves to be silenced again.

Uri Avnery… you are not a peace activist. You do not represent solidarity. You are not a friend of Palestine. You are not a comrade of the oppressed anywhere and you never will be. You are an occupier, Uri Avnery. You are a land thief. You are a usurper. You are a colonist. You are a settler. You are an ethnic cleanser. You are an uprooter. You are a cold-blooded murderer. You are a planter of bombs. You are a butcher of men. You are a killer of women. You are a slaughterer of children (3). You are a terrorist. You have no right giving speeches. You have no right writing articles or books. You have no right to freedom. You deprived Palestinians of their very lives; you stole their lives, Uri Avnery. You stole their freedom and you stole their homeland. You, and every single other Zionist fanatic who served in the sadistic, bloodthirsty Irgun terror gang deserve perpetual imprisonment for the horrific crimes against humanity that you committed. You helped bring the Zionist entity into being and to this exact moment, you ‘fight’ to defend its criminal existence. That makes you a criminal. You are a Zionist, and Zionists have no place in holy Palestine. They never will and you never will. Ever.

It was tremendously vital for this to be stated in such unequivocal terms because Uri Avnery has been given a place in the discourse for Palestine’s liberation for far too long. Due to this, his supremacism has seeped through the cracks and infected the psyches of many; his analyses, some staunchly Zionist, some categorically and venomously false and others a mixture of both, are praised and looked upon as sources of sagacity. From this day forward, let this cease to be the case. Let the struggle of Palestine be spoken of by the dispossessed and those who wish to see them return to their homes, not those who carried out the dispossessing, like Uri Avnery.

Uri Avnery would

like the Resistance

movements of the region

to say “thank you” to ‘Israel’

for violating the humanity

of their people. Preposterous.

“Shukran, Israel”: An Amalgamation of Supremacism, Orientalism and Zionist Lies

From the onset of Uri Avnery’s atrocious smear of indigenous Islamic Resistance across the Muslim world, two specific narratives immediately emerge and intertwine with one another throughout. The first is the yarn of the Jewish supremacist and the second is the line of the colonialist. One may argue that the narrative could be reduced to one, that of the Zionist, which wouldn’t be an observation of inaccuracy but it would not be an observation of totality; hence the need for dichotomy. The latter, that of the colonialist, will be dealt with first. Essentially, the premise of “Shukran, Israel” is that Islamic Resistance groups should be thankful to the Zionist entity for their current positions of popularity and power. Without the Zionist regime, Avnery opines, these parties wouldn’t be where they are today. This, at its very core, is colonialist in nature: the indigenous should thank their colonizer for colonizing them, giving them purpose, providing them structure and freeing them from their previously pointless lives.

Avnery would quite literally like these parties to bow down before the illegitimate Zionist regime in gratitude. But gratitude for what exactly? What is this colonialist delusion actually suggesting? There is nothing benevolent about the Zionist entity; nothing pure, nothing decent and nothing even relatively redeemable on any kind of humanitarian level. The Zionist entity is a terror state; a usurping beast that has no ‘right to exist’ and was founded with an inspiration derived from the deepest, darkest caverns of criminality. It is an entity of baby murder, women slaughter and monstrous ethnic cleansing. Obviously, Avnery would like these Resistance groups to say “Shukran, Israel” for massacring, demolishing, uprooting, dispossessing, looting, bombing, raping, pillaging and plundering Palestine and its people. The reason why these groups exist to begin with is because ‘Israel’ was erected illegally and barbarically on Palestinian land; if the Zionist entity didn’t exist, Resistance to it wouldn’t exist either, because the peoples of the land, Muslim, Christian and Jew alike, would be living in peace, harmony and brotherhood, as they did prior to Zionist terror gangs carrying out Plan D and ethnically cleansing close to 800,000 Palestinians from their homeland. With this firmly in mind, it becomes exceptionally evident that Avnery’s suggestion is not only delusional and colonialist, but utterly insane.

‘The good Rebbe’ Menachem

Mendel Schneerson and

Uri Avnery are brothers 

in Jewish supremacism.

The Jewish supremacist angle to Avnery’s drivel isn’t even subtle. The very title of the piece betrays its blatancy. While he constantly attempts to portray himself as a secularist,  his tribal adherence to chosen-ness, and therefore, his Jewish supremacism, is as clear as day. The genocidal Chabad Lubavitch supremacist Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, spiritual guide to the Zionist policymakers who masterminded the dismemberment and butchering of Iraq (4), once declared, “Every Jew, men and even women and children, brings about the existence of the entire creation, they become masters over the world, and thus every single creation owes them recognition for this good (5).” Avnery’s piece represents a microcosm of Schneerson’s madness. ‘Israel’ is the Jewish ‘state’, comprised of Jews from the world over. In the mind of the Jewish supremacist, all creation flows from this living, ‘nation-state’ embodiment of Jewishness. There is no doubt that Avnery harbors this Judeocentric view or something closely resembling it, considering that he vehemently believes in the existence of the Zionist entity.

In his piece, Avnery pays homage to the Talmud, the most important book in supremacist Chabad Lubavitch’s ideology and in general, the holiest book of Judaism, as confirmed by the rabbinate’s highest-ranking ‘sages (6). He abhorrently writes, “Generations of Jews have been brought up on the Talmud, which is mainly a compilation of legal precedents, and their minds have been honed by legalistic arguments. Not for nothing are Jewish lawyers in demand the world over.” The Talmud is no such thing; it is a book written by megalomaniacal rabbis to train their Jewish supremacist devotees in the ways of subversion, murder, theft, circumvention, genocide, exceedingly vile anti-Gentile racism, pedophilia, disturbing rituals and denigration of prophets, including Jesus Christ the Messiah (‘Isa al-Masih in Arabic), who is designated by the Talmud as a black magic practitioner, sexual deviant and son of a whore who is rotting in his own excrement in the fires of hell (6). Of all irrelevant things to invoke in this piece, Avnery decided to invoke the Talmud; a transparent indication of his tribal need to acknowledge Jewish supremacy even when it isn’t pertinent to the matter at hand because, to the Zionist Jew, his supremacy always is the matter at hand, regardless of what the matter is.

Hamas, the Islamic

Resistance of illegally

besieged Gaza and all of

occupied Palestine, is NOT

a creation of the Zionist entity.

Hamas According To Avnery: Creation Of Shin Bet

It is odd that a person who vociferously prides himself on being an activist for ‘peace’ would repeat the most disgraceful hasbara in an attempt to get his point across. In light of everything written so far however, it isn’t so odd, is it? Avnery’s ‘peace’ activist persona is nothing but a ‘Mask of Zion’ and the point of his piece is the injection of more disinformation into the discourse on Palestine to malign real threats to Zionist hegemony. The first target of Avnery’s horrid hasbara is Hamas, the Islamic Resistance of illegally besieged Gaza. Prior to smearing Hamas though, he writes, “The General Security Service (known as Shin Bet or Shabak) had an active interest in the flourishing of the mosques. People who pray five times a day, they thought, have no time to build bombs.” What pathetic and egregious remarks. Maybe one should send a newsflash to Uri Avnery to remind him that the predominant religion wholeheartedly believed in by the majority of the Palestinian people is Islam. Yet again, the orientalism surfaces, by associating Islam, the religion of the indigenous, with primitiveness and passiveness, as if one who believes in it is incapable of engaging in Resistance to tyrannical occupation.   

It is particularly nauseating that he would suggest Shin Bet would encourage Palestinians to turn to Islam. Palestinians need no such encouragement. Belief in Islam has been an integral element to their Resistance to 100 years of Jewish colonization and 64 years of Zionist occupation. Their faith in ALLAH (SWT) has granted them steadfastness, the likes of which the world has never seen, in the face of unrelenting ‘Israeli’ brutality. Palestinians view their survival on their land as a heavenly miracle; after a century of the Zionist entity’s mass murder campaigns, assassinations, home demolitions and acts of resource theft, the Palestinians remain. And the Palestinians will always remain, in their sincere opinion, because of ALLAH (SWT), because ALLAH (SWT) rewards those who are steadfast. Belittling the faith and dignity of a people under siege to justify a warped political thesis is revolting; just revolting. Avnery (baselessly) writes that Shin Bet initiated this policy of “turning the Palestinians towards Islam” to undermine the PLO and its chief component, Fatah, but this is massively false.

Yasser Arafat began selling

Palestine down the river long

before this horrific, treasonous moment

with Zionist war criminal Yitzhak Rabin.

The PLO began undermining itself when it turned away from its founding principles and began making backroom deals with the Zionist entity, culminating in the collaborationist disaster of the Oslo Accords. In September 1970, Fatah presented a revolutionary document to the Second World Congress on Palestine, laying out a strategy for the liberation of all Palestinian lands, those stolen by the Zionists during al-Nakba and al-Naksa. The document also made it clear that all peoples, Christians, Muslims and Jews alike, would be granted Palestinian citizenship upon liberation of the lands and expulsion of all colonizers and usurpers. These righteous and admirable ideas of restoration would vanish quickly unfortunately. To attain support from the Soviet Union, and as a means of internationalizing its representation of the Palestinian people, the PLO dropped these ideas in late 1973 and began secret contacts with the ‘Israelis’ as well as Zionist sympathizers in the West. The PLO leadership was prepared to give away all of the Palestinian people’s rights for a “mini-state”; for normalization with Zionism (7). Palestinians were quite aware of the PLO’s treachery and due to this, many found themselves supporting Hamas because the Islamic Resistance was unequivocally committed to liberating every inch of Palestine.

Which brings us to the origins of this rotten Avnery-repeated hasbara which surmises that Shin Bet directly created or indirectly facilitated the growth of Hamas: the ‘Israeli’ military-intelligence establishment, through and through, top to bottom, in a clear Zionist PSYOP to discredit the Resistance. There is no Arab source for this scandalous ‘bombshell’. Two pieces and two pieces only are incessantly quoted regarding the alleged ‘Israeli creation’ of Hamas; one piece is from the normally-reliable Global Research, entitled “Hamas is a creation of Mossad (8),” and the other is from the Zionist propaganda rag The Wall Street Journal, entitled “How Israel Helped To Spawn Hamas (9).”

The Global Research piece staggeringly quips that “Hamas and Ariel Sharon, see eye to eye; they are exactly on the same wave length,” simply because Hamas rejected the treasonous Oslo Accords which legitimized the Zionist theft of Palestine. A brazen assertion if there ever was one, especially considering Hamas is resisting Zionist occupation and Sharon is one of the worst and most animalistic Zionist war criminals to ever set foot in Palestine. The source for the claims in the Global Research drivel is none other than ‘Israeli’ historian Ze’ev Sternhell, a professional hasbaranik for the usurping regime and a Zionist war criminal who served as a Golani Brigades commander in multiple ‘Israeli’ wars of expansion, including al-Naksa. Sternhell views ‘Israeli’ war crimes during al-Naksa as a “return to humanity” and al-Nakba as a “a miracle” and “a historic event informed by an almost metaphysical dimension.” Sternhell also unashamedly admits, “I am not only a Zionist, I am a super-Zionist. For me, Zionism was and remains the right of the Jews to control their fate and their future (10).” Even though that “future” is built on the bodies of murdered Palestinians, on top of ethnically cleansed land. Sternhell on Hamas is about as credible as Paul Wolfowitz on WMDs in now-annihilated Iraq.

The Wall Street Journal

is a propaganda rag of

ultra-Zionist media mogul

Rupert Murdoch. Everything

that it publishes benefits Zionism.

It must be noted that the Wall Street Journal is an influential hasbara rag owned by notorious ultra-Zionist Rupert Murdoch, a multi-billionaire with Orthodox Jewish roots who is deeply concerned about the Jewish ‘state’, who is tremendously connected to the Zionist inner circle that carried out the 9/11 false flag attack and who is friends with a plethora of prominent ‘Israeli’ war criminals (11). Also, Murdoch’s Jewish mother makes it a point to routinely convene with a supremacist rabbi from the Melbourne branch of Chabad Lubavitch (12). The fact that a piece depicting Hamas as a creation of the Zionist regime would appear in a paper with a heavy pro-‘Israel’ bias is proof in and of itself that this information only benefits Zionism and only hurts the Resistance. “How Israel Helped To Spawn Hamas” is loaded with Zionist ‘perennial victim’ propaganda to a suffocating extent and its only sources are half a dozen officials from the Zionist occupation army, all of whom brag about their close contacts and interactions with Hamas at its very inception. This however, is the farthest thing from concrete evidence. 

The military of the Jewish ‘state’ is not a reliable source on any level; it is trained in the art of deception and this art is embedded in its protocol. Lying, cheating, subverting, distorting, all represent the actions of the ‘Israeli’ military in its attempts to defend the Zionist entity from criticism and there is no better example of this than the skullduggery on full display during the Operation Cast Lead genocide (13). The psychological warfare was global, with official Zionist occupation army spokespersons and unofficial Zionist fanatics engaging in an international media assault against anyone pointing out the Zionist entity’s crimes against humanity in illegally besieged Gaza (14).

The martyr Sheikh

Ahmed Yassin, founder

of Hamas. Murdered by

the Zionist entity on

March 22, 2004. Palestine

still sheds tears for this giant;

this hero.

Ironically, the lone Palestinian quoted in the Wall Street Journal’s piece of hasbara is a supporter of Hamas who vehemently denied that his group had any association with the Zionist regime. The piece also made numerous attempts to smear the righteous martyr Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, founder of Hamas, by depicting him as a Zionist collaborator and downplaying ‘Israeli’ aggression against him. Avnery echoes the downplaying in his piece, “Yet it took Shabak more than a year before it arrested Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, the Hamas leader.” His insinuation is insulting. The Sheikh was known to all in the Arab world as a staunch force against Zionism and its illegal occupation of all of Palestine. There were countless threats on his life at the hands of Shin Bet, Mossad and elite units of IOF since 1987. His arrests, imprisonments and tortures that followed during his time in lock-up are also well-known; these ‘Israeli’ measures are particularly despised and decried because the Sheikh was a blind man and confined to a wheelchair, an example of his monumental courage as well as ‘Israel’s’ legendary cowardice.

Uri Avnery and the Zionist writer behind the putrid Wall Street Journal hasbara should be reminded of the ‘Israeli’ oppression of the Sheikh, as well as the two public assassination attempts against him, with the second one of course, being a ‘success’ for the Zionist regime. On March 22nd, 2004, an ‘Israeli’ helicopter gunships fired missiles into the Islamic Association Mosque in al-Sabra neighborhood of central Gaza City as Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and dozens of worshipers were leaving after the completion of Fajr, the Islamic dawn prayer. The savage Zionist attack not only murdered the 66-year old wheelchair-bound Sheikh, but at least 7 Palestinian civilians and gravely wounded 17 others, including the Sheikh’s two sons (15). This also serves as a destroyer of Avnery’s sheepish claim that the Zionist entity has some sort of affinity for mosques, as if the 34 mosques totally destroyed in Operation Cast Lead (16) and more than six decades of Zionist destruction, desecration and confiscation of Palestinian religious properties (17) weren’t proof enough.

Hezbollah, the righteous

Islamic Resistance of Lebanon,

was NOT created by ‘Israel’ or

encouraged by it; Hezbollah has

been a thorn in the side of Zionism

from the very beginning of time.

Hezbollah According To Avnery: “Encouraged” By The Zionist Entity

The second target of Uri Avnery’s orientalist-supremacist assault on indigenous Islamic Resistance is Hezbollah, the righteous Islamic Resistance of Lebanon. Avnery elevates himself to another level in this section however as he transcends mere orientalism. To make it extraordinarily clear, what Avnery did with this piece vis-à-vis the oppressed people of Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah is a gross perversion of the historical record and a dastardly insult to any and every soul who fought and died in the struggle against the illegal 22-year Zionist occupation of Lebanese land.

Avnery writes, “The Israeli soldiers were received as liberators {in Southern Lebanon} — liberators from the PLO, which had turned this area into a state within a state.” What a monumentally detestable lie. The people of Southern Lebanon have been vigilantly opposed to Zionism even prior to the creation of ‘Israel,’ as they were quite aware of the original Zionist intention to colonize and ethnically cleanse Lebanese land up to the Litani River as part of ‘Greater Israel’. The people of Southern Lebanon did not forget the Salha Mosque Massacre of 1948, in which Zionist terrorists marched 105 Lebanese men, women and children into the mosque of the small village and didn’t stop shooting until everyone was dead. The people of Southern Lebanon did not forget the Houla Massacre, also of 1948, in which ‘Israeli’ occupation forces burned 85 Lebanese civilians alive and ethnically cleansed nearly 11,000 Lebanese from their lands (18). And during the 1978 Zionist invasion, Operation Litani, and the 1982 Zionist invasion, Operation Peace For Galilee, Palestinians and Lebanese fought together against ‘Israel’s’ aggression, with many Lebanese even comprising the ranks of Palestinian Resistance groups (19).

Sayyed Musa al-Sadr:

the spiritual godfather of

Lebanese Resistance who Uri

Avnery completely ignored 

in his “analysis.”

Avnery’s next lie, is this one, “It took the Shi’ites just a few weeks to realize that they {the Zionist invaders} had no intention of leaving. So, for the first time in their history, they rebelled.” Where to begin with this orientalist-supremacist inanity? The Zionist intent to spread division through sectarian rhetoric is obvious, deliberate and trashy. Shi’a are not the only religious group in Southern Lebanon and they, like the smaller communities of Sunni, Druze and Christians, were acutely aware of the Zionists’ machinations to steal and divide their lands, hence their Resistance to the occupation from genesis. Avnery’s history is off by about two decades; the uprising against the Zionist occupation was not the first uprising in the history of the Lebanese Shi’a. The righteous, charismatic and unifying Lebanese-Iranian cleric, Sayyed Musa al-Sadr, who disappeared in Libya in 1978, was an inspiration to the abjectly impoverished Shi’a of Southern Lebanon, as well as the other ethnic and religious communities, and as early as 1960, the Shi’a were protesting for equality and an end to the terrible discrimination that they had dealt with for decades.

Sayyed Musa al-Sadr is the missing link in Avnery’s hasbara festival. He founded the Amal Movement in 1975 in hopes of deterring ‘Israeli’ aggression against Lebanon, maximizing the struggle to liberate Palestine and reforming the Lebanese political system which was disgustingly set up on ethno-sectarian lines by French colonialism. When the Sayyed vanished in 1978, it threw Amal into chaos. A power struggle ensued and many members who wanted to maintain their dignity and righteousness and preserve the Sayyed’s teachings, broke away.

These breakaway members would join the growing number of revolutionary youth inspired by architect of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Khomeini, preeminent Lebanese religious authority Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah and revolutionary Lebanese cleric Sayyed Abbas al-Musawi, who was later brutally assassinated by the Zionist regime along with his wife and son on February 16th, 1992. Hezbollah had a brotherly working relationship with the PLO while it clung to its righteous and revolutionary principles, with the two coordinating numerous retaliatory attacks against the Zionist occupation as early as 1973, 9 years before Hezbollah was officially founded with its trademark name. But as the PLO began its shift towards collaboration and increased its corrupt, abusive policies towards both the Palestinian refugees and the poverty-stricken Lebanese Shi’a, its relations with Hezbollah badly deteriorated (20).

Nabih Berri: head of

Amal and current Speaker of the

Lebanese Parliament; Berri

and his thugs did the dirty work

of ‘Israel’ during the Lebanese

civil war by fighting Hezbollah

and the Palestinian refugees. 

Meanwhile, when the dust settled in the battle to control Amal, it was current Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri who emerged as the head. Under his command, and in collusion with the Syrian regime of Hafez al-Assad, Amal launched the ‘War of the Camps,’ besieging, shelling, assaulting and starving the Palestinians in Lebanon’s refugee camps for over three years and spilling the blood of thousands, including women and children (21). Women who attempted to escape the War of the Camps to attain supplies for their children were shot dead by Amal snipers (22). To this day, Berri strives to deprive the Palestinian refugees of Lebanon their basic human rights (23), and unlike the other war criminals of the Lebanese civil war, a conflict started and sustained by the Zionist entity (24), Berri refuses to apologize for the horrific crimes that his militiamen committed (25); he refuses to admit that Amal performed a great service for the Zionist entity and that it committed high treason against the cause of Arab liberation. If Sayyed Musa al-Sadr is alive and well, he is shaking his head in sheer disgust and if he has passed away, then he is spinning in his grave over what Amal became in the wake of his disappearance.

While the leader of Amal seeks to maliciously hurt Palestinians, Hezbollah enjoys more than 90% support from the Palestinian refugees confined to camps (20). The Islamic Resistance of Lebanon offers the Palestinian refugees social services and carts water into the camps on a daily basis (26). Hezbollah has guarded the Palestinian people of the camps from any and every threat since its official birth in 1982, with its mujahideen giving their very lives for their brothers and sisters, and Palestinians humbly and triumphantly acknowledge this (27). While Amal and the Syrian regime starved the Palestinian refugees, Hezbollah smuggled food to those in need. While Amal sniped women and children, Hezbollah fought Zionism and its proxies, direct and indirect, including Amal. While Amal embarrassed the memory of Sayyed Musa al-Sadr, Hezbollah fought to honor it.

Avnery actually had the gall to pen this ‘nugget’: “To outflank Amal, Israel encouraged a small, more radical, rival: God’s Party, Hezbollah.” No further analysis is needed; the facts of history laid out above in meticulous detail lay waste to the former Irgun terrorist’s nonsense. Because Hezbollah is the only power to militarily defeat the usurping Zionist entity, not once, but twice, in 2000 and 2006, it shouldn’t be too strenuous to comprehend why Avnery would purposefully and horrendously distort history to smear this group of righteous men. Axiomatically, he was merely behaving like the Zionist he is and doing his utmost to defend the precious Talmudic enclave built upon the bodies of slaughtered Palestinians and Lebanese that he just so happens to call ‘home.’

The Muslim Brotherhood

is not what it used to be and

not, by any means, what it seems.

Avnery On Egypt’s Ikhwan: Geopolitical Idiocy

The frequent use of the term “Islamist” throughout “Shukran, Israel” is one of the largest indicators that the piece is written from a hyper-orientalist perspective. It is the ultimate sign of ignorance regarding all matters pertaining to Islam. Originating in the bigoted minds of French ‘scholars’ a little over 250 years ago, the term was popularized by the ‘war on terror’, an Orwellian, neo-‘Israeli’ declaration of global war on all nations resisting the hegemonic aspirations of the Zionist Power Configuration that was designed entirely by Zionist warmongers (28). It is a term that has been rejected by all scholars and clerics of note in the Islamic world, Sunni and Shi’a alike; anyone who uses this term, whether knowingly or unknowingly, has fallen into the Zionist trap. Avnery falls into the ‘knowingly’ category.

Avnery accurately points out that the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimun; Ikhwan for short) was created in Egypt 20 years before al-Nakba and because of the fervent anti-Zionist stance of its founder, the great martyr, Sheikh Hassan al-Banna, it sent volunteers to fight against the creation of the usurping regime. Many Ikhwan members valiantly died fighting for the preservation and freedom of Palestine. He also accurately renders that with the expansion of ‘Israel’ during al-Naksa (and all of the brutality before it, which Avnery conveniently fails to mention), Ikhwan’s popularity soared.

But what Avnery left out is that with the martyrdom of al-Banna at the hands of the Egyptian monarchy, and the subsequent martyrdom of his spiritual successor, the highly-revered Syed Qutb, at the hands of the justifiably paranoid Nasser government, the moral fiber that held Ikhwan together plummeted. And while Ikhwan still provided vast social services to the people of Egypt, everything from housing to education, food to health care, its allegiances shifted away from Palestine and the oppressed peoples exploited by imperialism and colonialism, paying homage to them only in rhetoric. Ikhwan found a home with the devilish, reactionary House of Saud, which became its principal and habitual financier, as well as support from the CIA, which used it as a tool against Nasser and future endeavors in psychological warfare to mask aggression against Islamic countries (29).

The relationship between

the usurping Zionist entity

and the House of Saud has

become so close, one cannot

determine where ‘Israel’ begins

and where Saudi Arabia ends.

Flush with Saudi funds and CIA protection, Ikhwan expanded, establishing branches throughout the Arab world. It is integral to understand that Saudi money… equals Zionist money. The House of Saud has been a dear ally of the Zionist entity since the earliest days of Saudi Arabia’s establishment, in which the kingship promised its British masters that it had “no objection” with Palestine being given to “the poor Jews (30).” Decades and decades of collaboration followed, with a Zionist-Saudi nexus being established to not only undermine Palestine and its fight for liberation at all costs, but all nationalist Arab-Islamic movements that sought freedom from Zionist domination. Since al-Nakba, Saudi princes and government officials have regularly met with Zionist entity leaders. The House of Saud applauded as the Zionist entity massacred more than 1,400 Lebanese in 2006, stood silent as it mass murdered 431 children in illegally besieged Gaza in 2008-09 and is now actively working with ‘Israeli’ intelligence to destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran (31). Thus, unequivocally, Ikhwan, is a Zionist tool. Nothing remains of the original Ikhwan model set up by the great martyr Sheikh Hassan al-Banna, excluding Hamas; nothing at all.

And it is here where the geopolitical idiocy of Avnery is exposed. He wrote his piece under the impression that Ikhwan hates ‘Israel’ but despite this, it should thank the Zionist entity for its meteoric rise to power. It is the exact opposite that is true. Ikhwan should thank the Zionist entity and shake the hands of its leaders because that is what friends do; that is what allies do. The Zionist entity and Ikhwan are partners in the repression of the Palestinian cause and Arab-Islamic Resistance in general.

The multiple factions of Ikhwan across the region, now backed by GCC giant Qatar too, are ready, willing and able to kowtow to all demands of the Zionist entity and its Lobby-controlled surrogates in the United States (32). Egypt’s Ikhwan has already given guarantees to the Zionist-occupied United States government that it will respect the traitorous Camp David Accords (33). Ikhwan’s denials of this are overridden by the fact that Zionist-occupied Washington has pledged $150 million to the Ikhwan-controlled Egyptian Parliament (34). That kind of money simply wouldn’t be on the table without guarantees for the Zionist entity.

While Tunisian youth parties move to criminalize normalization with the usurping Zionist regime (35), Ikhwan’s Tunisia branch, al-Nahda, opposes this revolutionary move and confirmed it during a recent trip to Washington D.C. at WINEP, the research wing of AIPAC (36). While in the American capital, al-Nahda also forged links with the US Congress’ top Zionists, including Joe Lieberman and Gary Ackerman (37). And there is no place where Ikhwan is dirtier or where its partnership with Zionism is more evident than in Syria, where the powerful Saudi-Qatari-funded branch has rigorously worked with Mossad and its American partners in the Zionist-founded, Zionist-controlled National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to destabilize Syria, overthrow the vastly-popular Assad government and replace it with an anti-Resistance regime totally subservient to the House of Saud and the Jewish supremacist entity (38). All of these acts of treason must be part of Ikhwan’s “luster,” as Avnery calls it.

The closeness between

the Zionist entity and

Ikhwan deepens in the


As the shadow relationship between ‘Israel’ and Ikhwan flourishes, the Zionist media continues its relentless campaign of incitement against Ikhwan, depicting it as an existential threat to the Zionist entity. This too is by design. While there indeed are revolutionary aspirations and anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist and anti-Western sentiments amongst the Arab youth, the “Arab Spring”, a name originally conceived by Zionist warmonger Charles Krauthammer in 2005 (39), is an operation of mass Zionist subversion launched by the international intelligence directorate of ‘Israel’ and its global network of sayanim to erode the sovereignties of all neighboring Arab states under the guise of “democracy” and foster the illusion of an atmosphere of hostility against the Jewish ‘state’, setting the stage for another 1967-style war of Zionist expansion (40). ‘Israeli’ military measures are already underway in the Sinai to recapture the territory it abandoned under the false pretext of ‘peace (41).’

It isn’t expected that Avnery would reveal this kind of information, nor is it expected that Avnery should even be aware of it. What is expected is that Avnery, a Zionist living on stolen Palestinian land, keeps his immensely moronic opinions of Arab-Islamic history and Arab-Islamic Resistance to himself.

Proudly sporting his peace activist

‘Mask of Zion,’ Uri Avnery

repeats the same warmongering

Zionist lies against Iran.

Avnery On The Islamic Republic Of Iran: Unadulterated Zionist Audacity

The final target of “Shukran, Israel” is none other than the revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran. Strangely, Avnery fully admits in the piece that there was a treacherous and incestuous relationship between the US-UK-installed Shah and the Zionist entity. He notes the fortunes made by ‘Israeli’ arms dealers from selling guns to the brutal Shah regime. He notes that Shin Bet provided training to SAVAK, the Shah’s secret police, including in the area of torture. He notes that the Shah built oil pipelines to the Zionist entity, plundering Iran’s natural resources to please his ‘Israeli’ bosses and went as far as allowing ‘Israeli’ generals to use Iran as a launchpad to train Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq to undermine the revolutionary government that toppled the monarchy in Baghdad. The Islamic Revolution of 1979, led by the aforementioned Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Khomeini, overthrew the Shah and vowed never to cooperate with the Zionist entity again. Not only for the sake of Iran but for the sake of humanity.

Why then, should the Islamic Republic be thanking the entity that helped a demonic dictator oppress and torture its people for nearly three decades? According to Avnery, because the Revolution’s Resistance to Zionism has helped unify the nation and without it, the Islamic Revolution would have gone nowhere. More unadulterated Zionist audacity wrapped in orientalist-supremacist trash. The real reason for including Iran in “Shukran, Israel” is revealed with this statement, “It seems that all Iranian factions — including the opposition — now support the Iranian effort to obtain a nuclear bomb of their own, ostensibly to deter an Israeli nuclear attack.” Avnery is spreading Zionist warmongering propaganda while masquerading as a ‘peace’ activist. Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon. And despite all of the bellicose rhetoric in the Zionist media to the contrary, there isn’t a lick of evidence to substantiate the claims. Period (42). And the “Iranian factions” mentioned by Avnery aren’t unified in their desire to acquire a non-existent nuclear weapon, they are unified in their commitment to defend Iran from Zionist aggression (43). Avnery has an ostensible problem with getting his facts straight, like all Zionists do.

Iran has been targeted

by the Zionist entity

since the triumph of the

Islamic Revolution in 1979.

After the overthrow of the Shah, still the Zionist entity has tormented the Islamic Republic of Iran. It backed Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran, a disastrous act of aggression that left 400,000 Iraqis and over one million Iranians dead after 8 years of Western-fueled war. It launched an all-out hasbara assault in an attempt to malign the revolution, disseminating ‘Israeli’-intelligence-cooked lies about backroom weapons deals between Khomeini and the Zionist occupation. It has armed, funded and worked intimately with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an international terrorist outfit responsible for the deaths of more than 16,000 Iranians since 1979. It has instigated unrest on the streets of Tehran with the NED-engineered “Green Revolution.” It has attacked Iran with vicious cyber warfare; yes, the Stuxnet Virus was made in ‘Israel.’ And as of recent, its Mossad has infiltrated several levels of Iranian society to carry out acts of war (44).

So should Iran thank ‘Israel’ for ordering its Mossad to assassinate 32-year old nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan (45)? Should Iran thank ‘Israel’ for ordering its Mossad to pose as CIA agents to recruit Jundallah terrorists to carry out acts of mass murder against Iranian civilians (46)? Should Iran thank ‘Israel’ for ordering its Mossad and its proxy, the MEK, to bomb an Iranian missile base and murder up to 40 soldiers in cold blood (47)? Should Iran thank ‘Israel’ for calling on the world to aerially and navally blockade Iran, even after its lobbies in Europe and America pressured those governments into passing crippling sanctions against the Islamic Republic (48)? The answer of course, is no; no, it absolutely, positively shouldn’t. And it is just downright repugnant for anyone to suggest that it should. “Shukran, Israel” is the embodiment of this repugnance. 

~ End Of Part I ~ 

Next: Uri Avnery’s support for war criminal Barack Obama, the aggression against Libya and the ongoing destabilization of Syria are exposed, the current state of the International Palestine Solidarity Movement is picked apart in graphic detail and a call for revolution is issued… 


(1) Shukran, Israel by Uri Avnery,

(2) The Wandering Hugh by Gilad Atzmon, deLIBERATION

(3) Uri Avnery Interview by Jon Elmer, The Progressive

(4) Libya: The Zionist Dragon And The Drums Of War; Section – Conclusion: Purim And Occupation by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(5) “Jews Brought About The Existence Of The ENTIRE Creation” Says Rebbe Menachem Schneerson! by Nahida Izzat, Salem News

(6) The Truth About The Talmud: A Documented Exposé Of Supremacist Rabbinic Hate Literature by Michael A. Hoffman II, Independent History and Research

(7) The Hidden History Of Zionism; Chapter 13 – A Strategy For Revolution, Pages 126-129 by Ralph Schoenman, Veritas Press

(8) Hamas Is A Creation Of Mossad by Hassane Zerouky, Global Research

(9) How Israel Helped To Spawn Hamas by Andrew Higgins, The Wall Street Journal

(10) Amazing Grace: An Interview With Ze’ev Sternhell by Ari Shavit, Haaretz

(11) Murdoch’s Deeply Hidden Jewish Roots – A Biography by Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press

(12) The Rabbi And The Dame by Henry Benjamin, J-Wire

(13) Israeli Lies by Dr. Elias Akleh, Counter Currents

(14) Lies And Israel’s War Crimes by Ben White, The Electronic Intifada

(15) Israel Assassinates Sheikh Ahmed Yassin by The Electronic Intifada/The Palestinian Center For Human Rights

(16) Cash Shortage Hampers Rebuilding Of Mosques Destroyed by Israel by Eva Bartlett, Inter Press Service

(17) Destruction Of Waqf: The Grave Offences Of The Israeli State by Mya Guarnieri, Al-Akhbar English

(18) Palestine; Chapter – Zionist Terror by Harun Yahya, Harun Yahya Books

(19) A War That Never Occurred by Professor As’ad Abu Khalil, The Angry Arab News Service

(20) Will Hezbollah Support Right To Work For Palestinian Refugees? by Dr. Franklin Lamb, The Palestine Chronicle

(21) 13 Years After Massacre, Beirut’s Palestinians Are Still Under Siege by Stephen J. Sosebee, Washington Report On Middle East Affairs

(22) Waging War On The Camps, Once Again by Andrea Becker, The Electronic Intifada

(23) Living War: Palestinians Refugees In Lebanon by Stefan Christoff, The Electronic Intifada

(24) The Anniversary Of The Lebanese Civil War: The Wars That Never End by Professor As’ad Abu Khalil, The Angry Arab News Service

(25) Lebanon In The Eyes Of Palestinian Refugees by Qassem Qassem, Al-Akhbar English

(26) Interview With David Lewis: Negotiating With Hezbollah by PBS Frontline World

(27) Bourj El-Barajneh: Searching For Meaning In A Refugee Camp by Ramzy Baroud, the Palestine Chronicle

(28) September 11, 2001: Zionist Shock Therapy And The Birth Of The Lie by Martin Iqbal, Empire Strikes Black

(29) Washington’s Secret History With The Muslim Brotherhood by Ian Johnson, The New York Review Of Books

(30) Saudi Monarchy Founder Assured UK On Palestine by Press TV

(31) Saudi Arabia, Zionism, Peace And The Palestinian Cause by Haytham A. K. Radwan, Intifada Palestine

(32) The Ugly Face Of The Muslim Brotherhood by Professor As’ad Abu Khalil, Al-Akhbar English


(33) U.S.: Muslim Brotherhood Gave Assurances On Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty by Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz

(34) US Pledges $150 Million To Help Egypt’s Transition by Reuters Africa

(35) Tunisians To Launch Campaign Against Normalization With Israel by The Middle East Monitor

(36) Mr. Ghannouchi Goes To The Washington Institute by Maidhc Ó Cathail, The Passionate Attachment

(37) An-Nahda And US Zionists by Professor As’ad Abu Khalil, The Angry Arab News Service

(38) Syria Under Fire: Zionist Destabilization Hits Critical Mass by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(39) The Arab Spring Of 2005 by Charles Krauthammer, The Seattle Times

(40) TUT Podcast Jan 10, 2012: Sheikh Imran Hosein by The Ugly Truth

(41) PSYWAR: The Fake Fall Of Tripoli And The Zionist Dragon’s Butchery Across Palestine II by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(42) US, Israel Agree: Iran Not Building Nukes by Ray McGovern,

(43) Iran Opposition Will Unite With Government Should Israel Attack by Haaretz

(44) Ofergate: The Latest Zionist Propaganda Blitz Against Iran by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(45) Sunday Times: Mossad Agents Behind Iran Scientist Assassination by Haaretz

(46) False Flag by Mark Perry, Foreign Policy Magazine

(47) Mossad-MEK May Have Bombed Iranian Missile Base, 40 Dead And Wounded by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam

(48) ‘Massive’ Blockade Needed To Stop Iran Threat, Steinitz Says by Flavia Krause-Jackson and Tal Barak Harif, Bloomberg Business Week

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on The Case Of Uri Avnery I: “Shukran, Israel” Analyzed And Refuted

Abstractions Versus the “Real World”: Economic Models and the Apologetics of Greed


By Prof John Kozy

Global Research

Economists build models by subtracting from reality the characteristics they deem unessential to the economic situations they model. The result is a bare bones description consisting of what economists deem economically essential. Everything that is discarded (not taken into consideration in the model) is called an “externality.” So the models only work when the externalities that were in effect before the models are implemented do not change afterward. The realm of economic models can be likened to the realm of Platonic Ideas. Both realms are static and unchanging throughout all time. Unfortunately the real world constantly changes. Since externalities are excluded from all economic models and can be expected to change after any model is implemented, all economic models necessarily fail. Economists are frauds and economics amounts to nothing but an apologetics of greed.

In the 1980s, manufacturers of apparel began offshoring their production to underdeveloped countries, one of which was Bangladesh. Economists endorse this practice; they have a model that justifies it.

Offshoring production to underdeveloped nations gives needy people jobs, increases their incomes, reduces poverty, and expands their nations’ GNPs. It also enables people in developed nations to purchase products produced offshore at lower prices enabling them to consume a wider range of things. As a result, everyone everywhere is better off.
Convinced? Most economists are, but it hasn’t worked that way. Everyone everywhere is not better off—as the whole world now knows. Why?

In the latter part of the 80s or early part of the 90s, a large retailer (don’t remember which one) thought it would be a good idea to bring an employee of a factory in Bangladesh to America to see how the clothing the factory was producing was being marketed to Americans. So a Bengali woman was selected to represent her factory and brought to America. This idea didn’t work out well. The woman not only saw how the products were being marketed but how much they cost and she was infuriated. She knew what she and her coworkers were being paid, about two percent of the price of the garments. She did not remain silent and was quickly sent back to Bangladesh. Here is the gist of her story:

She said she and her coworkers were not financially better off after being hired by the factory. Yes, the wages were better than those that could have been earned before, but they weren’t much benefit. Why? Because when the paychecks began to arrive, the local landlords and vendors increased prices on everything, so just as before, all of their incomes went to pay for basic necessities. The landlords and vendors got the money; the workers were not better off, and those in the community who were not employed by the apparel factory were decidedly worse off. It fact, it quickly became apparent that the workers were working for nothing. They did the work; the landlords and vendors got the pay. But, of course, the country’s GNP was better, which is all that matters to economists who still claim that Bangladesh’s economy is improving.
And although Americans were able to buy the apparel more cheaply than they could have before the manufacturing was offshored, the American apparel workers who lost their jobs are decidedly not better off.

Two conclusions follow from this scenario: employment alone is not a sufficient condition for prosperity; full employment can exist in an enslaved society along side abject poverty, and an increasing GNP does not mean that an economy is getting better. Remember these the next time the unemployment rate and GNP numbers are cited. Those numbers mean nothing.
More than thirty years has now passed and nothing has changed in Bangladesh. Most Bengalis still continue to live on subsistence farming in rural villages. Despite a dramatic increase in foreign investment, a high poverty rate prevails. Observers attribute it to the rising prices of essentials. The economic model described above just does not work, not in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Explaining why reveals what’s wrong with economics and why current economic practices, which have not essentially improved mankind’s lot over the last two and a half centuries, won’t ever improve it.

Economists build models by what they call “abstraction.” But it’s really subtraction. They look at a real world situation and subtract from it the characteristics they deem unessential. The result is a bare bones description consisting of what economists deem economically essential. Everything that is discarded (not taken into consideration in the model) is called an “externality.” So the models only work when the externalities that were in effect before the models are implemented do not change afterward.

For instance, had the Bengali landlords and vendors not raised their prices after the factory was opened, the employees would have been better off. But the greed of the vendors and landlords was not taken into consideration by the model. The realm of economic models can be likened to the realm of Platonic Forms or Ideas. Both realms are static and unchanging throughout all time. Unfortunately the real world, as Heraclitus knew, is not static—change is ever-present, “No man ever steps in the same river twice.” Since externalities are excluded from all economic models and can be expected to change after any model is implemented, all economic models necessarily fail. Economists are frauds and economics amounts to nothing but an apologetics of greed. The world that economists model is imaginary, not real.

Don’t believe that what I have described takes place only in the underdeveloped world; it takers place everywhere a profit driven economy exists. I well remember working in Washington, D.C. as a staffer for a U.S. Senator. One year, a pay raise was scheduled to take effect the coming January. Shortly after Thanksgiving Day, prices began rising in all the area’s stores. The workers who received the raise were no better off in January that they were in October. The raise was siphoned into the pockets of vendors.

Free market economic conditions create a situation in which vendors always prevail. In the end, they get all the money. The economy’s business is business and it is protected by the legal system. Because prices cannot be controlled in a free market economy, vendors can always set them high enough to get all the money. Economists call it inflation, and the only way it can be controlled is by reducing the amount of money available for the taking. Reducing the amount of money available for the taking reduces wage levels and keeps workers poor. The business cycle is an excuse business uses to take back any gains workers have acquired. The American financial industry bribed the Congress to amend the Bankruptcy code in 2005 even though no financial institution was in any danger of collapse because of consumer bankruptcy filings. In 2008, the same financial industry brought down the world’s economy, began foreclosing on people’s houses, and forced thousands into bankruptcy.

After reading this article, do you believe that both revising the bankruptcy code and the financial collapse were coincidental? The whole point of a free market economy is to take back all the money paid to employees so that the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. What happened in Bangladesh happens everywhere all of the time. Humanity is enslaved by these economic practices but the enslavement is carefully and continuously hidden. Workers, those whose efforts keep the society functioning and produce all of its wealth, are mere fodder—farm fodder, factory fodder, and when necessary, cannon fodder.
As a result,

“most of the new jobs being created are in the lower-wage sectors of the economy – hospital orderlies and nursing aides, secretaries and temporary workers, retail and restaurant. Meanwhile, millions of Americans remain working only because they’ve agreed to cuts in wages and benefits. Others are settling for jobs that pay less than the jobs they’ve lost. Entry-level manufacturing jobs are paying half what entry-level manufacturing jobs paid six years ago.
Other people are falling out of the middle class because they’ve lost their jobs, and many have also lost their homes. Almost one in three families with a mortgage is now underwater, holding their breath against imminent foreclosure.

The percent of Americans in poverty is its highest in two decades, and more of us are impoverished than at any time in the last fifty years. A recent analysis of federal data by the New York Times showed the number of children receiving subsidized lunches rose to 21 million in the last school year, up from 18 million in 2006-2007. Nearly a dozen states experienced increases of 25 percent or more.”

In America, just as in Bangladesh, the vendors have emptied the people’s pockets. All economic models can be rendered ineffective by how the actions of people change externalities. Governments try to restrain such uncontrolled changes by enacting regulations, but conceiving of effective regulations that cover all eventualities and that cannot be gamed is impossible. All market economies motivated by profit are founded on unfairness as should be easily seen. In any financial transaction between two parties motivated by profit, one party wins and the other party loses, because it is mathematically impossible for both parties to profit at the same time. One person’s profit is another person’s loss.

So if bettering the human condition is an economic goal, no economy motivated by profit will succeed in doing it. Unless people stand up for humanity, most humans will always be slaves. People should honestly be asked whether this is the world they want to live in. No economist, apparently, has the courage to stand up and ask. Why is that? If you know a working economist, please ask her/him!

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Abstractions Versus the “Real World”: Economic Models and the Apologetics of Greed



By Nile Bowie

Global Research

Between the chaos and artillery fire unfolding in Homs and Damascus, the current siege against the Ba’athist State of Bashar al-Assad parallels events of nearly a century ago. In efforts to maintain its protectorate, the French government employed the use of foreign soldiers to smother those seeking to abolish the French mandated, Fédération Syrienne. While former Prime Minister Faris al-Khoury argued the case for Syrian independence before UN in 1945, French planes bombed Damascus into submission. Today, the same government – in addition to the United States and its client regimes in Libya and Tunisia – enthusiastically recognize the Syrian National Council as the legitimate leadership of Syria. Although recent polls funded by the Qatar Foundation claim 55% of Syrians support the Assad regime, the former colonial powers have made a mockery of the very democratic principles they tout.

Irrespective to the views of the Syrian people, their fate has long been decided by forces operating beyond their borders. In a speech given to the Commonwealth Club of California in 2007 retired US Military General Wesley Clark speaks of a policy coup initiated by members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Clark cites a confidential document handed down from the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2001 stipulating the entire restructuring of the Middle East and North Africa. Portentously, the document allegedly revealed campaigns to systematically destabilize the governments of Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Iran.Under the familiar scenario of an authoritarian regime systematically suppressing peaceful dissent and purging large swaths of its population, the mechanisms of geopolitical stratagem have freely taken course.

Syria is but a chess piece being used as a platform by larger powers. Regime change is the unwavering interest of the US-led NATO block in collaboration with the feudal Persian Gulf Monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). This is being accomplished by using Qatar-owned media outlets such as Al-Jazeera to project their version of the narrative to the world and by arming radical factions of the regions Sunni-majority population against the minority Alawi-Shia leadership of Assad. Since 2005, the Bush administration began funding Syrian opposition groups that lean toward the Muslim Brotherhood and their aspirations to build a Sunni-Islamic State. The Muslim Brotherhood has long condemned the Alawi-Shia as heretics and historically attempted multiple uprising in the 1960’s. By arming radical Sunni factions and importing Iraqi Salafi-jihadists and Libyan mercenaries, the NATOGCC plans to topple Assad and install an illegitimate exiled opposition leader such as Burhan Ghaliun (leader of the Syrian National Council) to be the face of the new regime.

The recent example of implementing foreign policy by arming Al-Qaeda fighters in Libya has proved disastrous – as the rule of law passes from the NATO-backed Libyan Transitional Council to hundreds of warring guerilla militias. At a meeting between Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Hillary Clinton, Davutoglu pledged to find ways outside the United Nations Security Council to pressure Assad. In addition to bolstering longstanding sectarian divides in Syria, the US is smuggling arms into Syria from Incirlik military base in Turkey and providing financial support for Syrian rebels.Syrian opposition forces led by defected Syrian colonel Riad al-Assad have been trained on Turkish soil since May 2011. Exclusive military and intelligence sources have reported to Israel’s DEBKAfile that British and Qatari special operations units are assisting rebel forces in Homs by providing body armor, laptops, satellite phones and managing rebel communications lines that request logistical aid, arms and mercenaries from outside suppliers.

Although the UK has vehemently denied these reports, Qatar’s leader Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani recently suggested sending troops into Syria to battle Assad’s forces. Military bases situated near Turkey’s southeastern border with northern Syria have become a crucial hub used for the delivery of outside supplies. Unmarked NATO warplanes near Iskenderum have received fighters from Libya’s Transitional National Council wielding weapons formerly belonging to Gaddafi’s arsenal. Abdel Hakim Belhaj, (former leader of the extremist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group turned NTC military governor at the directive of NATO) is leading the infiltration of Libyans into Syria in person with the help of the Turkish government. It has also been reported that Mahdi al-Harati, resigned from his functions as deputy chief of the Military Council in Tripoli to oversee the Free Syrian Army.

Syrian press has also reported that armed terrorist groups brandishing up-to-date American and Israeli weapons have roamed the countryside of Damascus committing blind acts of terror by setting off explosive devices and kidnapping civilians. As the NATOGCC continue to insist that Assad is committing acts of genocide against unarmed civilians, one must draw correlations between events reported by the Syrian state media and recent statements released by the leadership of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, praising the arrival of Iraqi fighters in Syria and advising rebels to use roadside bombs. Paradoxically, Al-Qaeda front man Ayman al-Zawahri has called on Muslims from across the Arab World to mobilize and support the Free Syrian Armyafter the disappointing Russian and Chinese veto at the UNSC. Few things are more absurd than the notion of Al-Qaeda terrorists – unanimously portrayed as ostensible “savages” by virtually all-Western media sources – entrust the apparatus of the United Nations and their capacity to resolve the Syrian conflict. The true purpose of Al-Qaeda and its role in influencing foreign policy has never been more evident.

Surely, Assad accusing foreign-sponsored terrorist groups of fomenting violence in Syria is simply evidence of his illegitimacy – as Western and Gulf allies assert. Even as Syrian state TV broadcasts reports showing seized weapons stockpiles and confessions by terrorists describing how they obtained arms from foreign sources, the NATOGCC continues to draft legislation in an effort pressure the Assad regime into dissolution. In the face of an outright campaign of foreign-funded sabotage, Syrian hackers have targeted Al-Jazeera’s “Syria Live Blog”, which provides ongoing coverage of the unrest. The hacker-ring boldly denounced Al Jazeera for broadcasting”false and fabricated news to ignite sedition among the people of Syria to achieve the goals of Washington and Tel Aviv.”

Through the fiery rhetoric of Susan Rice and her relentless condemnation of Assad – like Gaddafi before him – the United States is again attempting to invoke the Right to Protect (R2P) doctrine to take direct action against the Assad regime. In another parallel to the Libyan conflict, the UN’s astounding official death toll in Syria is taken solely from human rights groups, backed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Criminal Court and the Syrian National Council. The official numbers rely exclusively on an obscure organization known as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights(SOHR) – based in London, not Damascus – whose evidence is largely reliant on hearsay, pixelated YouTube videos and activist Twitter feeds. SOHR’s disputed reports present evidence that would not hold up in any court of law, much less should it be the basis of United Nations resolutions. The Observatory’s director Rami Abdelrahman collaborates directly with British Foreign Minister William Hague and derives legitimacy solely from connections with corporate/foundation-funded civil society networks. Claims that Assad’s security forces indiscriminately kill scores of newborn babies are palpably a product of Britain’s foreign office.

As a further indication of the on-going media war in Syria, none is more telling than the report produced by the Arab League’s observer mission into Syria. The contents of the report were completely ignored by the corporate-media after Qatar disputed its findings, the only nation to do so in the Arab League’s Ministerial Committee. The report unalterably concluded that the Syrian government was in no way lethally repressing peaceful protestors. Furthermore, the report credits armed gangs with the bombing of civilian buses, trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and the bombing of bridges and pipelines. During an interview with Arab League observer Ahmed Manaï, he praises the Sino-Russian veto at the UNSC and encouraged the Syrian leadership to implement reforms. Manaï states, “The Arab League is entirely discredited by burying the report of its own observers’ mission and its appeal to the Security Council. It missed the opportunity to participate in the settlement of the Syrian affair. All it can offer in the future will be worthless.”

While the initial observer report is predictably absent from mainstream media coverage and cited as inept (presumably for contradicting the official line of the allied Western-Gulf powers), Arab League mission leader Mohammed al-Dabi officially resigned, stating, “I won’t work one more time in the framework of the Arab League, I performed my job with full integrity and transparency but I won’t work here again as the situation is skewed.” The United Nations and the Arab League are now considering what was originally a joint observer mission – now referred to as a peacekeeping mission. The Arab League, in tandem with Saudi Arabia is preparing a nearly identical resolution calling for an armed peacekeeping council to present to the UN. Much like the indistinguishable saber rattling seen before Libyan intervention, the new resolution condemns Assad for lethal repression and calls for a transitional shift to democracy. The resolution is expected to create similar Sino-Russian divisions over its implementation, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Gennady Gatilov, previously scorned the document as “the same unbalanced draft resolution text.”

The conflict in Syria has brought light to longstanding Cold War divisions between world powers. The Sino-Russian veto of the UNSC resolution calling for intervention has blocked the opportunity for Western powers to exert overt aggression, as demonstrated by NATO in Libya. Instead, it appears that the Assad regime will be destabilized through covert mercenary groups bent on committing blind acts of terrorism by means of sniper assassinations and roadside bombs. Learning from the Libyan experience, Russia and China perceive the UN Human Rights Report authored by Karen Koning AbuZayd, a director of the Washington-based corporate-funded think-tank, Middle East Policy Council – to be explicitly comprised; victims among the civilian population are a result of armed paramilitaries doing battle with the Syrian military in residential areas. In an interview with former Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov pledges that Russia will protect Iran, Syria, and the world from American fascism. In a show of support for the Syrian government, Russia has sent a large naval force into the region and China has further warned against a strike on Syria.

It is truly a paradox that the countries least fit to dictate principles of human rights, do so largely unhindered on the world stage. Without hesitation Hillary Clinton proclaimed, “What happened yesterday at the United Nations was a travesty” referring to the Sino-Russian veto. She then called for the formation of an international alliance between the war-profiteering elite of the West and absolutist Wahhabi Persian Gulf monarchies – amusingly titled, the Friends of Syria. International calls to abstain from violence have done little to influence the Gulf Cooperation Council and their brutal crackdown against Shiites in Bahrain. Incredibly, Saudi Arabia has entered the dialogue on human rights and democracy promotion – perhaps the world’s most defining feudalistic theocracy, a nation that prohibits political parties and national elections and executes those who apostatize Islam.

Iran’s Press TV news network has reportedly leaked intelligence exposing the American agenda in Syria. The report calls for the recognition of the Syrian National Council as the legitimate government and their positioning in Turkey to work against the Assad regime. Washington would then task Turkey with sending troops into Syria to arm the opposition forces, followed by Wahhabi fighters and Libyan mercenaries. Ominously, the intelligence stipulates that Israel will enter the fray to carry out military operations against Syria. If the regime fails to dissolve, Syrian state television channels will be taken down and Assad will be assassinated. Considering how other enemies of the West have faired in recent times, the sequence of events reported by Press TV would be largely unsurprising. The Wahhabis of the Persian Gulf are playing junior to American aggression in an effort to dominate the Shia-Alawi religious faction presently upheld by the leadership of Syria and Iran, but also to secure their places as regional powers.

Domestic affairs in Syria are of little consequence to the powers trying to topple the nation; the real priority is to further isolate Iran by eliminating its Shia-Alawi ally in Damascus. Israel reaps enormous benefit from toppling the Assad regime, as the Syrian Nation Council pledges to cut ties with Iran and discontinue arms shipments to Hezbollah and Hamas. If Syria falls and Iran is directly threatened, the potential for a regional conflict of the utmost seriousness exists, assuming China and Russia move in to defend Iran.

Such a conflict would create detrimental implications for the global economy, potentially triggering a hyper-inflationary financial crisis. William Hague and billionaire financiers behind the civil society groups bestowing legitimacy to violent opposition actors are not the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. Although the reforms have been slow, the Assad government is in the midst of drafting a new constitution. Syria’s sovereignty has come under direct fire from powers claiming to be defending Syria’s people. An attempt on the life of Bashar al-Assad may have similar consequences to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. As the Syrian National Council familiarly calls for the implementation of a no-fly zone over, those members of the International Community with any integrity left must work diligently to diffuse conflict in the region.

Posted in IranComments Off on GEOPOLITICAL DESTABILIZATION AND REGIONAL WAR: The Road To Tehran Goes Through Damascus

IOC/Saudi Arabia: End Ban on Women in Sport


Saudi Policy to Bar Women, Girls Violates Olympic Charter

  • The female basketball team of Jeddah United warm up in Jordan on April 21, 2009. Jeddah United is the only private sports company with women’s teams.


‘No women allowed,’ is the kingdom’s message to Saudi women and girls who want to play sports. The fact that women and girls cannot train to compete clearly violates the Olympic Charter’s pledge to equality and gives the Olympic movement itself a black eye.
Christoph Wilcke, senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch

(Los Angeles) – As the world prepares for the 2012 Olympics, the Saudi government is systematically discriminating against women in sports and physical education, and has never sent a female athlete to the Olympics, with no penalty from the international Olympic authorities, Human Rights Watch said in a new reportreleased today. Human Rights Watch called on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to make ending discrimination against women in sports in the kingdom a condition for Saudi Arabia’s participation in Olympic sporting events, including the 2012 London Games.

“‘No women allowed,’ is the kingdom’s message to Saudi women and girls who want to play sports,” said Christoph Wilcke, senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The fact that women and girls cannot train to compete clearly violates the Olympic Charter’s pledge to equality and gives the Olympic movement itself a black eye.”

The 51-page report, “‘Steps of the Devil’: Denial of Women and Girls’ Right to Sport in Saudi Arabia,” documents discrimination by Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Education in denying girls physical education in state schools, as well as discriminatory practices by the General Presidency for Youth Welfare, a youth and sports ministry, in licensing women’s gyms and supporting only all-male sports clubs. The National Olympic Committee of Saudi Arabia also has no programs for women athletes and has not fielded women in past Olympic Games.

In its interviews with Saudi women and international sporting officials, the report found that Saudi government restrictions put athletics beyond the reach of almost all women. There is no government sports infrastructure for women, with all designated buildings, sport clubs, courses, expert trainers, and referees limited exclusively to men. The ban on women’s private, for-fee sports clubs has forced women to restrict themselves to fitness gyms that rarely feature swimming pools, a running track, or playing fields for team sports. Membership fees there are beyond the means of many ordinary Saudi women and girls. Official sporting bodies hold no competitive sports for Saudi women athletes in the kingdom and do not support Saudi sportswomen in regional or international competitions.

Saudi Arabia is one of only three countries in the world never to have sent a female athlete to the Olympics. The other two, Qatar and Brunei, do not bar women from competitive sports and their women athletes have participated in other international sporting competitions. Qatar has supported sports for women over the past decade and said that it plans to send women athletes to the London 2012 Olympic Games.

While the IOC has criticized Saudi Arabia for failing to send women athletes to the Olympics, it has not conditioned the kingdom’s participation on ending discrimination against women in sports. In July 2011, IOC spokeswoman Sandrine Tonge said that the IOC governing body “does not give ultimatums nor deadlines but rather believes that a lot can be achieved through dialogue.” The IOC charter, however, asserts that sport is a right for everyone and bans discrimination in practicing sports on the basis of gender. In 1999, the IOC banned Afghanistan under the Taliban from participating in the 2000 Sydney Olympics due, in part, to the Taliban’s discrimination against women in sport.

Human Rights Watch called on Saudi Arabia to act within one year to introduce physical education for girls in all schools, open women’s sections, and allocate funds to women’s sport in the youth ministry, the Saudi National Olympic Committee, and Saudi sports federations. The organization said that these steps are necessary evidence of a Saudi effort to end discrimination against women in sports and thus a prerequisite for allowing the kingdom to be represented in Olympic events.

“The IOC should live up to Olympic values and press the Saudis to start women’s sport programs as a condition for remaining within the Olympic family,” Wilcke said. “Sports can be a great cause for good, but forcing Saudi women to watch all-male teams represent them every four years can only demoralize those aspiring to sporting glory.”

Women and girls are not only denied the thrill of competition, but also the physical and psychological benefits, leading to longer, healthier lives, that participation in sports conveys. Obesity rates have been growing in Saudi Arabia in recent years, in particular among women, as have related diseases, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. In Saudi Arabia, between two-thirds to three-quarters of adults and 25 to 40 percent of children and adolescents are estimated to be overweight or obese, according to a scientific article in Obesity Reviewin 2011.

Addressing health threats through expanded sports opportunities for women and girls has also been supported by Saudi religious leaders. For example, Shaikh Ali ‘Abbas al-Hikmi, a member of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, the highest religious body, considered women practicing sport an “Islamic necessity” and ‘Adil al-Kalabani, former chief imam of the Holy Mosque in Mecca, supported opening women’s sports clubs.

Other government clerics of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, like Shaikh Dr. Abd al-Karim al-Khudair, however, have decried women’s sports as “steps of the devil” leading to moral corruption. The government has clamped down on women’s gyms, closing and denying licenses to several unauthorized facilities in 2009 and 2010. Now, only “health centers,” often attached to hospitals, may cater to women wanting to exercise.

One of the women interviewed for the report, Dima H., told Human Rights Watch that her happiest moments growing up were when she played soccer with her brothers, but that she was only able to play sports within the guarded compound of ARAMCO, the Saudi national oil company, which employs many Westerners and where women are also able to drive.

Girls, unlike boys, receive no physical education in state schools, and inferior quality physical education in the private schools that offer the subject. Of 153 youth ministry-supported sports clubs in the country, none have a women’s team. Only one private sports company, Jeddah United, boasts women’s basketball teams, while other women’s soccer teams train informally and play in underground leagues.

Even at state universities, there are few possibilities for women to practice sports. One female professor told Human Rights Watch that her dean introduced a sporting facility for female students, including basketball and table tennis, some four years ago, but that the sporting facility remains unused and the dean had since been edged out for being “too progressive.”

Human Rights Watch said that the exclusion of women and girls from sports and exercise in Saudi Arabia is part and parcel of the wide-scale, systematic discrimination against them in the country. Women have no rights to function as autonomous human beings; instead they are required to obtain permission from a male legal guardian (a father, son, or husband) to carry out ordinary life activities, including employment, education, medical procedures, opening a business or bank account, traveling, marrying, or driving. While Saudi vowed to reform its guardianship system in 2009, it has failed to take any measurable steps to reform the system. Women also face legally mandated segregation in all public places, including the work place, schools, and universities.

Human Rights Watch said that ending discrimination in sports has the potential to widen cracks in the guardianship system and other discriminatory practices.

“Saudi Arabia has one of the worst records of respecting and protecting the rights of women,” said Wilcke. “As the Olympics approach, it is time for Saudi Arabia to end this abusive system that denies women and girls the right to participate in sports and public life.”

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on IOC/Saudi Arabia: End Ban on Women in Sport

Dying2Live -Solidarity with Khader Adnan


Khader Adnan has been held under Israeli administrative detention without charge or trial since December 17, 2011. He has been on hunger strike since that day as well, becoming the longest hunger striking Palestinian prisoner in history.

Posted in Human RightsComments Off on Dying2Live -Solidarity with Khader Adnan



Zio-Nazi Settlers

 Shoah video


A few comments on recent Norman Finkelstein interview with Frank Barat


By Gilad Atzmon

Arguing the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign with Norman Finkelstein from HuffPoMonitor on Vimeo.

Norman Finkelstein has recently bought himself a few enemies within the Palestinian solidarity movement for openly and enthusiastically advocating the Two States Solution. In the last interview it seems as if Finkelstein defends Israel’s right to exist.

From an academic point of view, Finkelstein has a point. He argues that in order to win we have to operate within the parameters set by international  law. However, some points should be made here.

It is far from being clear who sets the parameters of international law. Is it really the international community? Or is it just a few powerful Western countries looking into their own particular expansionist interests.

  1. It is also far from being clear whether the international law is either ethically or sensible. Is it ethical to let the Jewish State celebrates its exceptional symptoms at the expense of the indigenous people of the land i.e. the Palestinians?  Is it sensible to maintain an, aggressive, expansionist, racist, and exclusivist, nuclear Jewish State in Middle East? Is it safe? Is it good for world peace?

  2. It is far from being transparently obvious to me why an American Jewish academic or any other Western solidarity activist should have a say about the way or manner in which Palestinian should live on their land. I, for instance, have never come across a Palestinian academic preaching Britain to divide its island by resurrecting the wall at the Scottish border. The meaning of it is simple, there is something fundamentally pretentious in the solidarity discourse and in resolution discourse in particular. We, for some reason, like to tell others what is right or wrong.

  3. Do we need to discuss resolution for the conflict? Israel is already a one State, it has a single electric grid, one sewage system, one international pre dial number. Yet Israel is dominated politically by an oppressive and racially exclusive Jewish political philosophy. This has to be changed and it will be changed by means of resistance with our solidarity or without it.

  4. Yet, Finkelstein’s criticism of the solidarity movement is largely valid. The recent expulsion of Palestinians and academics from the UK PSC, proves that we aren’t just dealing with a ‘cult’ discourse as Finkelstein suggests, far worse, we are actually dealing with a rabbinical operation that exercises the most repulsive Judaic excommunication tactics.

  5. Finkelstein is correct when he suggests that the achievements of the solidarity ‘cult’ operations are pretty limited. However, he may fail to realise that solidarity with the Palestinian doesn’t end in the West, in NYC, London or Paris. The recent political triumph of Muslim parties in the region is fuelled by Hamas and Hezbollah victories. It is more than likely, that the Palestinians and the Aabs will liberate themselves.

  6. Unlike Finkelstein, I believe that the solidarity movement is already a mass movement. More and more people out there grasp that the continuum between Israel, AIPAC and the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) is the biggest threat to world peace. More and more Brits are astonished to find out that all the British political parties are controlled by the Israel Lobby (Friends of Israel), CFI, LFI, & LDFI . How many British politicians are as  friendly with Hartlepool or Penzance?   More and more Brits and Americans grasp that their politicians are for sale. They realise that on the Israeli shopping list, a Western politician comes out much cheaper than a tank. More and more Brits and Americans come to realise that in this crucial battle for elementary freedom  ‘We are all Palestinians.’

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on A few comments on recent Norman Finkelstein interview with Frank Barat

Tribalism, Racism and Projection – Part 2


By Gilad Atzmon

To read the 1st part click here.

Racism is a big word with some very bad connotations.  Being accused of racism is one of the most hurtful and potentially damaging labels around. And yet, how many ‘racists’ really think in ‘biological determinist’ terms? How many ‘racists’ out there really think in terms of ‘genes,’ or even ‘skin colour’? I guess not that many.

While acknowledging that racism had a significant cultural, and politically lethal impact between the late 19th century and the middle of the last century, in today’s politics, the word ‘racism’ is often misused, mistakenly used, or in some cases, consciously used to mislead and even to silence.

Though discrimination against minority groups is unfortunately common and totally unacceptable, it is not necessarily always motivated by crude racism. Islamophobia, for instance, is commonly regarded as a contemporary manifestation of racism but I would challenge such an understanding. Islamophobia, I contend, is not driven by racism, but rather, it is actually a crude symptom of intolerance — xenophobia manifested as hatred, bigotry and discrimination. My English Muslim convert friends are often subjected to abuse by Jewish campaigners (both Zionist and ‘anti’ Zionists) and the English Defence League — but not because of their ‘genes’, ‘biology’ or the colour of their skin, but rather because they are ‘different’; because they challenge Western value system and because they oppose Israel and its lobbies. Clearly, they are perceived by some as a ‘public enemy’ but that reaction cannot always be understood solely as ‘racism’ per se.

Similarly, it is beyond doubt that it is not easy to be black in ‘multi cultural’ Britain. Being a jazz musician I see first hand how my black friends are often treated in this country and I see plenty of evidence of institutional anti-black bigotry. I read about black youngsters being stopped and searched by police between one to four times a day. This is unacceptable and clear evidence of discrimination.

But is this really always about racism? Is it driven solely by ‘biological determinism’? Is it really about ‘genes’, ‘blood’ or ‘skin colour’?  This is indeed an open question and obviously I would not rule out the possibility of anti- black (biological) racism. However, I tend to believe that in contemporary multi ethnic societies, most cases of anti-black bigotry and discrimination are various manifestations of deep, thuggish xenophobic feelings mixed with some examples of deep, and sinister cultural intolerance. In other words, often enough, the contemporary bigot is not concerned at all with biological matters but rather with social constructs and culturally driven symbolism(1).  This is surely a matter of serious concern, and in some case it is driven by murderous inclinations and it must be dealt with, but it isn’t necessarily (biological) racism per se.

But if it is not racism, what is it then?  I reiterate, that these are better understood as different forms of deep cultural and political intolerance within the context of some severe and troubled ethnic interrelations.

So one might ask, why do we restrict our understanding of what fighting ‘racism’ means, when it is actually more likely to be forms of intolerance, ethnic tension and cultural discrimination which we should be protesting against?

I suggest that the confusion here between ‘deep intolerance’, ‘cultural discrimination’ and ‘racism’ is actually no coincidence — rather it is there to serve a clear Zionist political cause. Peculiarly enough, it is there to maintain a clear racial orientation and segregation at the heart of the multi-cultural discourse.  In many cases, those who ‘oppose’ racism must be able to think in racial categories first, otherwise their opposition would be in vain.(2)

Paradoxically then, ‘anti racism’ which many of us identify with, may in some cases evolve into a racially driven discourse. Often, it can even jeopardise the process of natural integration and the shift towards harmonious social relationships (3).  It may even dismantle true self-reflective and mirroring process amongst both the victim and the aggressor.

For within a public discourse controlled by ‘anti-racist’ ideology, the victim of any racist slur is immediately redeemed. He or she does not have to self-reflect on his or her actions, for there is not much he or she can do about their ‘biologically determined conditions’.  Zionists and Hasbara campaigners(4), for instance, tend to dismiss any possible criticism of Jewish politics and Israeli actions as ‘anti-Semitism’. By so doing, they basically ‘switch off’.  They are able to ignore their surrounding reality by referring to any possible criticism of their actions as just another example of blind, ‘racially’ driven hatred towards Jews.  Instead of taking the criticisms on board and examining them by means of self-reflection, Jewish political discourse has evolved into an insular and window-less discourse.

In the following video Israeli veteran MK  Shulamit Aloni admits that tossing ‘antisemitism’ is an old Zionist trick:

Equally, the so-called ‘racist’ or ‘aggressor’ can also dismiss the anti-racist call because his or her criticism is largely ignored. The ‘aggressor’ knows that in most cases, the issue is not actually about ‘race’ per-se but rather about some acute political, cultural and ideological issues, so this enables him or her to ignore the issue altogether. In spite of the fact that within the contemporary anti Zionist discourse no one criticises Jews for being Jews or employing any racially driven ideology or terminology, Israeli Hasbara and Zionists agents attempt to silence Israel’s political critics by tossing the anti-Semitic label in the air.

This tactic obviously fails to silence Israel’s critics but it certainly maintains an abyss of mutual deafness between Zionists and their critics. So we are left with two parallel discourses that have lost all hope of any future exchange.
I believe that this fact alone emphasises how grave is the prospect of peace.  Anti-racist politics is in constant danger of erecting walls of deafness that maintain intellectual, political and ethnic segregation at the heart of our public discourse. Rather than promoting hope, integration, tolerance, harmony, assimilation and dialogue – anti-racism could easily promote deafness and insularity exactly where attentiveness and exchange are most needed.

It took me some time to realise that in many cases it is Zionist and Jewish lobbies that maintain and promote the ‘anti-racism’ political discourse, and they do so for two main reasons:
Being submerged in a racially driven discourse themselves, they are bound to think in terms of racial political categories.

Racism/anti racism is convenient because it removes any responsibility from the victim. If Jews are hated just for ‘being Jews’, then the Jew is ethically flawless.

The implications of all this are grave – as long as Jewish identity politics  and Zionism are shielded by categorical definitions of ‘anti-racism’, Jews can avoid any form of self-reflection.
But Jews and Zionists are not alone here: the Left also is interested in an anti-racist discourse because it maintains the Left’s relevance as being in the vanguard of progressive ‘ethical insight’. The Left has set itself up as the defender of the weak, and this is indeed adorable. Through the years the Left has sided with the ‘blacks’, with the ‘Zionists’, with the ‘Jew’, with the ‘Iraqi,’ and even with the ‘Palestinian’. But for some reason, the Left has failed to side with the leading contemporary anti-imperialist force — the Muslim.

The Left has also failed to recognise that in Europe, the Muslim is the real oppressed working class and the Left clearly failed to side with the democratically elected Hamas or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. I suggest that the Left’s failure to side with the Muslim is symptomatic of a deep and inherent Western intolerance: the Left is not racist, but it is fundamentally soaked with cultural and ideological intolerance — possibly a state of mind related to the practicality and pragmatism of being ‘a progressive’ (5).  I guess that some people may feel very ‘special’ just because they believe in equality

Naturally, the ’cause’ of ‘anti racism’ binds together some elements within the Left with the Zionists and the Hasbara campaign. Arguably, so-called ‘anti racist’ politics has become just another symptom of the Zionification of the Western political discourse with the supportive Left seen as a mere Zionist instrument.  This may explain why the UK’s leading anti-racist campaign group Hope not Hate(6) is an offshoot of the  Zionist Searchlight Magazine,  it also explains why the same  Zionist Hope not hate attempts to censor the freedom of speech of Muslim leaders in Britain. It explains why the alleged ‘anti’ racist Harry’s Place  (closely affiliated with Hope not hate) won the UK section of the Islamic Human Rights Commission’s  ‘Annual Islamophobia Awards’ in 2006. 

In Germany the ‘anti’ racist Antideutsche –Anti Fa coalition is openly pro-Israel, pro-Zionist and also anti Islam.  My guess is that these rabid Zionist and pro Zionist campaign groups planted themselves at the heart of the so-called Left just to make sure that from there they would be better able to fight Israel’s enemies. But it goes further. In the last UK Palestinian Solidarity Campaign’s AGM, two Jewish campaigners who openly operate within an exclusive  ‘Jews only’ political cell (J-BIG) proposed a motion against racism. I guess that the absurdity of the situation is clear and doesn’t need further elucidation.

So, as we can now see, some of the leading supremacist and intolerant forces within our contemporary political discourse have managed to locate themselves directly at the very heart of the ‘anti-racist’ call.  Furthermore, as it becomes clear that Israel and its  lobbies are the driving force behind Islamophobia, it is pretty astonishing to find out that Zionist bodies also dominate the ‘anti-racist’ discourse.  The meaning of it is pretty simple – racism and its opposition has gradually become an internal Jewish affair.

The conclusion is simple. It’s time for us to move on, to admit that racism and biological determinism have no significant role in today’s public and political discourse. We must  re-think and redefine exactly what it is that leads towards social discrimination and cultural intolerance. Racism in its crude form largely belongs to the past. Our multi-ethnic universe is not inherently racist and therefore anti-racism cannot be a universal call.   In many cases, ‘anti racist politics’ is actually there to divert the attention from some institutional discriminatory policies and ideologies.

It is increasingly obvious that the anti-racism campaign, in its current form, is there to serve some clear political interests, and is largely controlled by racially driven Zionists, Jewish lobbies and Jewish pressure groups. It is there to silence any criticism of the Israeli lobby, Israel, Jewish politics and Zionism.

I began this paper by asking why should any Jew feel guilty for crimes that are committed by other people whom he or she does not know and with whom he or she is not affiliated? The answer should by now be obvious: Rather than liberating the rest of humanity from racism, Zionists, Hasbara campaigners and Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists should first emancipate themselves from their own racially-driven ideologies – And stopping projecting their own tribalism onto their surrounding reality would certainly be a good place to start.


I tend to believe that clashes between ethnic and political groups in Britain are fuelled by social tension and demography rather than by hatred towards skin colour.
One cannot contemplate over the meaning of anti X without obtaining first a certain comprehension of X Minority groups engaged in varied discourses of victimhood (for instance), may miss some opportunities to integrate into wider social, ethnic and political structures.
 Hasbara-Israeli propaganda. Which is in practice not different from Jewish secular sense of ‘choseness’.

According to its official website HOPE not hate is “Searchlight’s campaign to counter racism and fascism.”


Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Tribalism, Racism and Projection – Part 2

NATO to stay out of Syria, even with a UN mandate



Sec.-Gen. Anders Fogh Rasmussen urges Middle East countries to find solution for violence

ed note–remember as you read this–

Wilson promised to keep America out of WWI.

FDR promised to keep America out of WWII.

–promises, promises…

And if indeed there is ANY truth to Rasmussen’s statements, it is ONLY because Zionist-owned Nato knows that military action in Syria equates to problems with Russia.

ANKARA – NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the Western alliance had no intention of intervening in Syria even in the event of a UN mandate to protect civilians, and urged Middle East countries to find a way to end the spiraling violence.

Rasmussen told Reuters on Friday he also rejected the possibility of providing logistical support for proposed “humanitarian corridors” to ferry relief to towns and cities bearing the brunt of President Bashar Assad’s crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.

While NATO had acted under a United Nations mandate to protect civilians in Libya and had also received active support from several fellow Arab countries, neither condition had been fulfilled in Syria.

Asked if NATO’s stance would change if the United Nations provided a mandate, Rasmussen was doubtful.

“No, I don’t think so because Syria is also a different society, it is much more complicated ethnically, politically, religiously. That’s why I do believe that a regional solution should be found,” he said.

Thousands of civilians have been killed by Syrian security forces since an uprising against Assad’s rule began last March. The government says more than 2,000 soldiers and police have been killed by foreign-backed “terrorists”.

International powers along with the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League will meet in Tunis on Feb. 24 as part of a newly-created “Friends of Syria Group” to look for a way out of a crisis that has raised fears of wider sectarian strife between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims.

Trying Diplomacy

Turkey, a Muslim NATO member bordering Syria, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, has been at the forefront of regional efforts to persuade Assad to end the brutal repression and give way to protesters’ demands for more democracy and freedom.

Earlier this month, China and Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Syria that was partly based on an Arab League plan, prompting Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to accuse major powers of regarding Syria as a “bargaining chip.”

Iran is the Assad government’s other main source of support. Turkey has sought to play the role of “honest broker” between its Western partners and neighbouring Iran, over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme.

Iran was irked by Turkey’s agreement to host a NATO anti-missile radar defense system.

And concern has been voiced inside Turkey over the possibility that information provided by the radar system could be passed to Israel. Rasmussen sought to dispel such concerns.

“It is a NATO system and the data within that system will not be shared with third countries. It is a NATO system and of course we will share data within the NATO framework,” he said.

Having championed the cause for a Palestinian state, Turkey is now on bad terms with Israel, which is a regional partner of NATO, while not a member.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on NATO to stay out of Syria, even with a UN mandate

Shoah’s pages


February 2012
« Jan   Mar »