Archive | March 8th, 2012

The Tribal Nexus: Zionists And “Anti-Zionists” Unite To Ensure The Survival Of “IsraHell”

The tribal nexus is 
comprised of Jewish persons 
from the Zionist and 
“anti-Zionist” persuasions 
who seek nothing but 
the survival of “Israel.”
(Graphic by Skulz Fontaine)

by Jonathan Azaziah

Jesus Christ (A.S.), revered by Christians and Muslims alike as the Messiah, and cherished by Muslims as the most important prophet in Islam after the Holy Prophet Muhammad himself (S.A.W.W.), famously declared in the 24th verse of the Book of Matthew’s 6th chapter that, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.”

Once it is understood that Messiah Jesus (A.S.) did not declare war on “Roman imperialism” as so many deceptive Jewish “historians” would like us to believe, and that his revolution was a spiritual one waged to end the Jewish supremacism of the deranged ethnocentric-nationalistic Zealots and the twisted, vastly-powerful rabbinical cabal of the Pharisees (1), an ideology still  very much alive and well in modern day (2), the “Two Masters” principle becomes all the more prevalent to current geopolitical happenings, specifically in regards to occupied Palestine.

In the January/February 2012 issue of Moment Magazine, a Zionist rag founded by none other than Elie Wiesel (3), arguably the world’s most famous “Holocaust® survivor,” liar of gargantuan proportions and notorious propagator of some of the cruelest, crudest Holocaust® myths ever concocted (4), six of its writers put together a disturbing, shocking and revealing symposium entitled“What Does It Mean To Be Pro Israel Today (5)?” 

With such a title, in such a magazine, one would think that the adjectives “disturbing, shocking and revealing” would be wholly inapplicable and that “typical, unsurprising and boring” would be enormously more appropriate instead. But what makes this piece so bothersome (and loathsome) is that the persons who partook in the “pro-Israel” exercise of what the criminal usurping entity means to their Zionist hearts were not simply a group of hardline Netanyahuites and Liebermanists; no, not at all. It was also comprised of several  Jews who are considered to be prominent “Solidarity activists” and “critics of Israel.”

Jewish tribalism is the
800-pound gorilla in the
room that nobody wants
to deal with, despite its 
importance to protecting
the Solidarity Movement
from infiltration.
While there is indeed much offensive and racist Zionist propaganda present in the explanations of many of the participants which certainly deserves examination and subsequent deconstruction, that is not the purpose of this essay. The 800-pound gorilla in the room is the following question: why are “critics of Israel” and “Solidarity activists” taking part in a confab with rabid Zionist fanatics and unifying with them on the matter of being “pro-Israel?” Is it not frighteningly telling that Rabbi Michael Lerner, Cecilie Surasky of Jewish Voices For Peace and “Crisis of Zionism” author Peter Beinart all happily identify themselves as “pro-Israel” despite the fact that their reputations proceed them as something contradictory to this self-admitted truth?

And isn’t even more demonstrative that this view, no matter how well-masked it may be, is shared by Caroline Glick, editor of Zionist entity mouthpiece newspaper The Jerusalem Post, advisor with the neoconservative “Center For Security Policy” think tank and head of the brutally racist “Israeli” Internet-based show “LatmaTV (6)?”And Martin Peretz, one of America’s most influential, maniacal Zionists and who sincerely thinks that “Muslim life is cheap (7). AndMorton Klein, Nakba denier, devoted Zionist racist, ethnic-cleansing-advocate and longtime head of the powerful  Zionist Organization of America (8).

And Benny Morris, the ruthlessly racist Jewish supremacist “historian” who is quite proud of “Israel” for perpetrating the Nakba, who legitimately believes that Islam doesn’t value human life, who views Arabs as a whole as “barbarians” and Palestinians in particular as “wild animals who must be caged (9).” And maybe the most stunning of all, Kenneth J. Bialkin, a member of the Zionist criminal network that planned, executed and covered up the September 11th terror attacks, a Jewish supremacist who rejects the idea of Jews abandoning their “chosen-ness” and assimilating into the Gentile World and a Zionist stalwart who has headed (or currently heads) some of the most powerful Jewish organizations in the world, including the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the “Israeli”-military-intelligence-tied America-“Israel” Friendship League (10). 

Is something not vastly askew when persons such as this, some of whom are amongst the highest-ranking movers and shakers in the global Jewish-Zionist lobbying network, are working side by side with “friends of Palestine” to establish a certified definition for “pro-Israel” and at the very core of this effort is the solidification of the foreign Jewish invader-presence in Palestine which the sorely-missed revolutionary giant Malcolm X once rightfully observed “has no intelligent or legal basis in history?” Indeed it is. This is the very embodiment of the Jewish tribal nexus; Jews of different political persuasions, including those perceivably “hostile” to the Zionist entity, working in unison for the furtherance of Jewish interests at the expense of non-Jews who, in this case, are the occupied, colonized, besieged, ethnically cleansed and terrorized Palestinian people.

Zionism can morph into
different ideologies at will
to further its global agenda
but its supremacist core, 
stained with the blood of
millions, never changes.
One of the core principles of this Jewish tribal nexus is a political doctrine called “Morphing Zionism,” first identified by Palestinian luminary Nahida Izzat (11). This concept is an amalgamation of “Cultural Zionism,” founded by “spiritual” Jewish supremacist Ahad Ha’am (real name: Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg), and “Post-Zionism,” a common theme found in the discourse of the “Israeli left,” which, by the way, is in and of itself a blatant cover for Zionist crimes against humanity (12). Morphing Zionism seeks to impose Zionist (read: Jewish) culture on the aboriginal people of Palestine while “moving beyond” the history of Zionism, thus exonerating Zionist Jews from the heartless, vicious crimes that they have committed against Palestinians (and other regional Arab peoples) for more than a century. Morphing Zionism masks the injustice and sweeps the spilled blood under the rug. Morphing Zionism is the antithesis to the Right of Return and the full liberation of Palestine.

The long-term goal of the Jewish tribal nexus exposed (albeit inadvertently) by the Moment Magazine symposium is to internationalize Morphing Zionism, granting legitimacy to it and forever establishing Jewish supremacy over the land of Palestine. Whether this comes to fruition through the activism of hardline Jewish Zionists pushing for “two states” or dovish Jewish “anti-Zionists” pushing for “one state” does not matter to the Jewish Power Matrix; all that matters is that “Israel” remains sui generis on the international stage as a “Jewish homeland” that grants “citizenship” to every Jewish person on the planet even if they do not live on the stolen land.

“Greater Israel”
is the pinnacle state
of Morphing Zionism;
an “Israeli Empire” is
the ultimate goal of
the Zionist entity.
Assuredly, this perfidious plot will be resisted by the Palestinian people and their allies as they have resisted every Zionist plot before it; awareness however, must be raised as there is an additional stage, an apex, to Morphing Zionism. Once the Jewish-Zionist presence in Palestine is secured and internationally legitimized through whatever “solution” benefits World Jewry as a whole, therefore making it a conflict-free base for international Zionism to operate from, the plan to bring forth the real Zionist dream, “Greater Israel,” will kick into overdrive.

It must be unequivocally stated that the Jewish supremacists of “Israel” are not happy or satisfied with their current “land allotment.” They want more; they need more; they lust for more. Not until the oil-rich Arab lands encompassing an area that stretches from Nile of Egypt to the Euphrates of Iraq are conquered by Zionism, not until an “Israel Empire” spoken of by one-eyed war criminal and supremacist Moshe Dayan is erected in the name of “the Jewish people,” not until genocide befalls hundreds of millions of Arabs living on those aforementioned resource-lush lands at the Zionist entity’s hands and Judaic prophecy is fulfilled (13), will the Zionist leadership be content.

Morphing Zionism will first transmogrify “Israel” into a significantly larger “nation-state” that swallows nearly everything in the Middle East and then, according to the powerful Jewish supremacist group Chabad Lubavitch, an organization that has 4,000 centers across 70 countries and hundreds of CEO-like rabbis aggressively “marketing” their Jewish supremacism worldwide with hundreds of millions of shadowy dollars from the wealthiest members of the Jewish community (14), the Zionist entity will “miraculously expand and will be the size of the entire globe (15).” The Jewish tribal nexus is the herald of Morphing Zionism. It must be exposed then shattered so the cycle of deception comes to a screeching halt and the “anti-Zionist” Jews who are a major part of this nexus must be expelled from the ranks of the International Palestine Solidarity Movement for they are doing much more harm than good as it is clear where their loyalties rest. Nobody who identifies as “pro-Israel” has any right to speak on behalf of Palestine and they never, ever will.

The true face of “Israel” is
one of genocide, ethnic cleansing,
land theft, terrorism, human trafficking,
racism, torture and supremacism.
Anyone who identifies themselves as
“pro-Israel” is praising these crimes.
“Pro-Israel” In Perspective: A Redefinition That Will Stand The Test Of Time 

For far too long, “pro-Israel” has unacceptably been part and parcel of Solidarity discourse as a result of welcoming Jews into the movement who maintain their tribal allegiances to the enemy occupier. This has been tolerated due to the irrational fear of Jewish sensitivities that disgustingly but nevertheless clearly permeates all mainstream avenues of “activism.” The concept of persons who are “pro-Israel” and simultaneously “pro-Palestine” isn’t just nonsensical and categorically impossible on any sane, rational level, it is appalling and offensive to real activists who actually place Palestine and the other (equally-important) peoples oppressed by Zionism first on their agenda. The term “pro-Israel” is synonymous with vulgarity and its multi-faceted foundation of Zionist egregiousness should be defined as such for hereon out:

To be “pro-Israel” is to be pro-genocide, as evidenced by more than six decades of savage occupation and massacres, most famously the biblical-like slaughters of Arab men, women and children during the Zionist entity’s 2006 July War in Lebanon and its 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead in illegally besieged Gaza, as well as its ongoing criminal siege against the impoverished Strip (16). 

To be “pro-Israel” is to be pro-racism, as evidenced by any of the tens of laws within the Zionist entity’s system which elevate Jews above non-Jews in racial, colonial, discriminatory fashion; the most recent of which being the “marriage laws” that separate Palestinian spouses from being together to preserve a “Jewish majority” in Palestine (17).

To be “pro-Israel” is to be pro-ethnic-cleansing, which has been an ongoing Nakba since illegal Jewish colonization of Palestine began in 1881; one of the most recent examples is the Zionist occupation army’s expulsion of 120 Palestinians (18 families), including 66 children, from the Jordan Valley village of Khirbet Ibzeeq (18). 

To be “pro-Israel” is to be pro-land-theft, a practice intimately linked to the ongoing Nakba and just as old, as evidenced most recently by the Zionist entity’s decision to demolish a Palestinian community center (which included a children’s playground) in occupied Silwan, al-Quds, in order to make way for a new Jewish-only “visitors’ center” at the City of David National Park (19).  

To be “pro-Israel” is to be pro-human-trafficking, as the Zionist entity is not just a “prime destination” for this ungodly crime (20), but a global“haven (21),”  and it does nothing whatsoever to combat it (22).  

Every crime that the
Zionist entity commits
is based on the the deepest,
vilest racism: Jews reigning
supreme over non-Jews;
“God’s Chosen People”
over the “goyim.
To be “pro-Israel” is to be pro-terrorism, with a record stretching back more than six decades, including false flag bombings, high-level assassinations, funding and arming proxy groups, subversion, theft, etcetera. The most recent example is the Zionist entity’s bombing of a diplomat’s car in the Indian capital of New Delhi, which “Israel” immediately blamed on the Islamic Republic of Iran in its ongoing propaganda war against the Persian nation (23). 

To be “pro-Israel” is to be pro-torture, as most prominently evidenced by the gruesome, heinous and inhuman methods used by Zionist occupiers against the defenseless Palestinian people during the First Intifada (24) and the recent exposure of Shin Bet’s history of systematically subjecting Palestinian children to electrocution (25). 
To be “pro-Israel” is to be pro-supremacism, as infamously evidenced by former chief Sephardi rabbi of the Zionist entity, Ovadia Yosef (real name: Abdullah Yusuf, thus classifying the ‘good Rebbe’ as a self-hating Arab), who in his deranged October 2010 sermon declared, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel. In Israel, death has no dominion over them [the goyim]… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created (26).” 

Descriptions of the Zionist entity’s criminality and the twisted ideology that guides it can not just take up mere books but literally engulf libraries. This short list should drive the point home glaringly and proficiently enough. To summarize, to be “pro-Israel” is to be pro-inhumanity; pro-evil. To stand against this monstrous Zionist behemoth is to be pro-humanity; pro-good. One cannot be good and evil at the same time; this is elementary. To be “pro-Israel” is to stand with the enemy Zionist occupier in its furtherance of perpetuating injustice against the Palestinian people. “Pro-Israel” persons are friends of international Zionism; not friends of the oppressed. Anyone who says otherwise is presenting a false dichotomy to benefit the Jewish supremacist agenda.

Gilad Atzmon has become
a favorite target of the 
Jewish tribal nexus and 
its allies because he
is fearless enough to
take on the issue of
Jewish supremacism.
The Jewish Tribal Nexus And Its Orwellian Thought Police

A noteworthy occurrence that is quite central to the point of this essay and, verily, reinforces it to the letter, is the recent onslaught by the Jewish tribal nexus against brother Jihad (Gilad) Atzmon for the omnipresent Zionist accusation of “anti-Semitism.” Brother Jihad’s book, “The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics” and his overall philosophy has united Zionists and “anti-Zionists” against him because of his fearlessness in exposing Zionism as the latest manifestation of historical Jewish supremacism.

This constant saga of brother Jihad and his detractors has culminated in agroup of Jewish Marxists, along with Professor As’ad AbuKhalil (better known as The Angry Arab), signing a petition which eternally damns him as a “racist” and an “anti-Semite” without any explanation for their claims (27), exactly like what the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith does when smearing or defaming an opponent of Zionism. The ADL agrees with these Jewish Marxists and Professor AbuKhalil on Atzmon (28), as does the rabid Zionist fanatic and professional liar Alan Dershowitz (29). 

There is no academic merit to anything that the Jewish tribal nexus believes or says about brother Jihad; no academic merit at all. Because his words are indeed exceedingly critical of Jewish supremacism, this automatically, under the discourse approved by the Jewish-dominated academia of the West and America in particular, makes him (and anyone else for that matter who engages in such an exercise) a “racist.” This ridiculousness not only subverts true free speech but deflects discussion on the parent ideology that brought Zionism into being. These same persons have no issue at all criticizing generic monoliths like “white supremacy,” or “the white man,” or “Islamism,” despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Caucasian peoples are non-colonialist and non-imperialist and many of them have joined the fight against international Zionism. Moreover, the term “Islamism” is a deceptive, orientalist construct used by Zionism to demonize Islam and further the Zionist- manufactured crisis commonly known as the “clash of civilizations.”

The Spider of Zionism;
the web it weaves is
comprised of a tribal nexus
that transcends societal boundaries
and reaches the highest levels of
media, religion, finance and politics.
Why are these inherently bigoted and racist phrases acceptable to this Jewish Marxist enclave but the phrases “Jewish supremacism,” “the Jew,” “Judaism” and “Jewishness” aren’t? The phrases that they are comfortable with have no basis in any reality, political or otherwise, whereas the phrases that they deem “anti-Semitic,” or “racist,” are quite prolifically relevant and veracious when considering that the Jewish community at large is very much connected to a global, tribal lobbying network that suffuses media, religion, finance and politics (30). 

For the Jewish Marxists of the Jewish tribal nexus, they are doing their job: embodying the “collective mechanism” embedded in cultural Jewishness to protect “the tribe” when it is under threat and control the Solidarity discourse so the misbehavior of the Jewish community outside of Palestine is kept under wraps. For their collaborators, including the intellectuals, an uncomfortableness is maintained out of fear of being pegged with “anti-Semitism.” Again, ADL-like tactics emerge with prominence. Again, the agenda of “kosher” supremacism, the concept that Jews are literally above criticism of any kind, rears its ugly Zionist head.

The matter at hand however is not accusatory pettiness; what is at the forefront, as always, is the truth. Is there truth in what Jihad (Gilad) Atzmon says about “Jewish ideology” being intimately linked with Zionism? The answer is an emphatic “YES!” and for those persons of Jewish extraction who disagree due to a tribalism installed in their psyche from birth by Jewish supremacist culture, or persons of Gentile background who disagree due to an unprecedented amount of brainwashing at the hands of the Zionist media, the following examples alone eradicate the lie that Zionism is devoid of Judaic beliefs and patterns.

The racist, supremacist Talmud 
is integral to the foundations of 
Zionism; this lays waste to the myth 
that “Jewish ideology” plays no
role in the Zionist occupation
of Palestine.
Firstly, a copy ofTalmudic banking law, which forbids Jews from taking interest from another Jew but requires to take as much interest from a non-Jew as possible, is displayed in all branches of Zionist entity banks (31). Secondly, “Israelis” themselves frankly admit that the Zionist entity is“a country dominated by Orthodox rabbis (32),” and the religious Shas Party of the aforementioned Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has been described as “the unchallenged kingmaker of Israeli politics (33). And thirdly, “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (real name: Benjamin Mileikowsky) justrecently gave United States President Barack Obama the “Book of Esther” in scroll form to justify all-out aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran (34). The Book of Esther is the foundation of “Purim,” the Jewish holiday of revenge and genocide against Persia known, and the stories contained within it frighteningly embody subversion, the triumph of Jewry through lobbying and Jewish supremacism (35). 

Jewish ideology isn’t just “linked” with Zionism, it governs Zionism. And this is by no means a new phenomenon either; the founder of Zionism was the racist rabbi Moses Hess, a towering figure of Jewish history that has been forgotten (read: censored) by mainstream academics for obvious tribal reasons. The rabbi’s Jewish supremacism inspired him to create Zionism and make his dreams of returning to “Zion” a reality (36). 

Professor As’ad AbuKhalil, who has tainted his name and credibility by joining the Jewish tribal nexus’ war against Gilad Atzmon, and tainted it even prior to that by doing the ADL’s dirty work in smearing the brilliant Lebanese-American activist, thinker and journalist Mark Glenn (37), recently declared that, “If you find yourself on the same side of any issue–foreign or domestic–with Sen. John McCain, reexamine your positions.  Something is really wrong with your position (38). The professor now finds himself on the same side as the vile, treacherous ADL and the abhorrent Alan Dershowitz. He should take his own advice and reexamine his position because there is “something really wrong with it.” For the sake of the truth, Palestine and humanity as a whole, he should abandon his post as the “token Arab” of the Jewish tribal nexus’ Orwellian Thought Police and encourage others, Jews and non-Jews alike, to follow in his footsteps. Alas, this seems quite unlikely.

For the “Jewish Question”
to be solved once and for all,
Jews must abandon their allegiance
to the usurping Zionist entity as well
as their deep-rooted supremacism.
Conclusion: Yes, World Jewry Is Very Much Complicit In Zionist Criminality

Just as Britons, Americans, Canadians, etcetera are responsible for the crimes that their imperial governments commit (whether for “Israel” or otherwise), Jews are responsible for the crimes of the Zionist entity because it proclaims itself to be “the Jewish state,” it carries out wars of expansionist aggression in the name of protecting “the Jewish people” and its military and intelligence apparatuses carry the symbols and markings of the Jewish religion. If the usurping Zionist regime does not speak for the totality of World Jewry, then, obviously, World Jewry should speak out as a collective against it. Never has such a collective ever even remotely came into being; not once. In fact, the polar opposite is true.

A popular phrase in Solidarity discourse is “Not every Zionist is a Jew and not every Jew is a Zionist.” While this indeed may be accurate, it deserves an addendum. No matter how unsettling it may be, no matter how offensive it may sound, facts are facts, truths are truths. And the facts and truths say, unequivocally, that most Jews, unfortunately, are Zionists; most Jews support “Israel,” a racist, exclusivist, chauvinist “state” built on lies, massacres and dispossession of the Palestinian people; a “state” which discriminates and carries out atrocities against non-Jews on a regular basis.

95% of American Jewry supports the “right” of “Israel” to be a “Jewish state (39), which, for the record, has no legal basis in any reading of international law whatsoever; this is an invented “right” to suit the dementedness and Jewish supremacism of Zionism (40).90% of British Jewry sees Palestine as the “Jewish ancestral homeland,” 95% have visited the Zionist entity and 86% sees Jews as having a “special responsibility” of ensuring the “survival” of the Zionist entity (41). The “survival of the Jewish state” construct and the “Jewish wars of survival” idea are exclusively “Israeli” ideological developments that have been around since the Zionist perpetration of the Nakba and represent the foundational basis for the Zionist entity’s perverse falsehood-filled “war of independence” narrative (42). Does it not speak volumes beyond volumes that the overwhelming majority of these premier blocs of Western Jewry, which, is for all intents and purposes, the bulwark of World Jewry, is inextricably supportive of the Zionist entity?

And is it not worrisome that this kind of “moral” and financial sustenance goes to a supremacist society hellbent on destroying one Islamic country after another? More than 90% of “Israelis” supported the genocide that Zionist occupation forces carried out in Lebanon during the 2006 July War (43). 94% of “Israelis” supported the genocide that the Zionist occupation army carried out in illegally besieged Gaza during Operation Cast Lead (44). 71% of “Israelis” want to see America destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Zionist entity (45). And 70% of “Israelis” view themselves as the superior race on planet earth, “God’s Chosen People (46).” It is typical for supremacism to go with supremacism like lions go with lions and bears go with bears; “Israeli” Jewry and Western Jewry are connected at the hip in unity.

No matter how miserable and glum this reality may be, it is reality nonetheless. World Jewry is astoundingly Zionist and this tribal symbiosis that spans the globe through lobbying networks and business interests is tearing humanity apart. The Jewish tribal nexus is just one cog in the “Chosenite” machine that seeks to grind all “goyim” into dust after waging multiple Zionist wars of aggression against the Islamic world, Russia and China then anointing “the tribe” as the masters of a Global Jewish Imperium known as “The Jewish Utopia (47).” 

From the river, to the sea,
Holy Palestine, will be free;
the opinions and aspirations
of Zionist Jewry are utterly
irrelevant to this inevitability. 
Beneath the struggle of Zionism is the struggle against its parent company, Jewish supremacism, and as esteemed Jewish Holocaust® revisionist Paul Eisen recently wrote in a plea to his brethren to examine their behavior over the last 2,000 years, behavior that has led to so many expulsions and millennial enmity between them and Gentiles (48), Jews must free themselves from this exclusivist way of thinking and join humanity in the struggle against all forms of oppression. Whether World Jewry wants to admit it or not, the Zionist entity will indeed disappear from the pages of history soon and the people oppressed by this demonic usurping creature in the heart of the Islamic world will have the freedom to once again live in peace, harmony and friendship, as they did prior to the advent of Zionism,insha’ALLAH khair; it would be foolish although typical of the ghettoized mindset of tribalism to remain part of the international Zionist network futilely attempting to ward off the inevitable.

And so we shall end where we began, with the words of Messiah Jesus (A.S.), “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” With that said, which master will Jews serve? Humanity, in the name of the Creator? Or inhumanity, in the name of “the tribe?” Let there be hope that the aforementioned 2,000 years of history will not be an indicator of what choice will be made but if it is, let there be vigilance in the pursuit of justice against this supremacism and its imperialism which has tormented the Holy Land for far, far too long.

~ The End ~


(1) If Jesus Was A Rebel, Who Was He Rebelling Against? by Richard Edmondson, Uprooted Palestinians

(2) Dare I Say Its Name? by Nahida Izzat The Exiled Palestinian, Uprooted Palestinians

(3) About Moment by Moment Magazine

(4) A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel by Dr. Robert Faurisson, The Institute For Historical Review

(5) What Does It Mean To Be Pro Israel Today? by Daphna Berman, Sarah Breger, Nadine Epstein, Caitlin Yoshiko Kandil, Sala Levin and Amy E. Schwartz, Moment Magazine

(6) “When They Rape You Don’t Object”: Israeli “Satire” Show Incites Hatred Of Muslims, Europeans by Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada

(7) Martin Peretz Is Not Sorry. About Anything. by Stephen Rodrick, The New York Times

(8) Israeli-Palestinian Debate Provokes Heated Discussion by Rahwa Ghebre-Ab, The Michigan Daily

(9) Diagnosing Benny Morris: The Mind Of A European Settler by Gabriel Ash, The Electronic Intifada

(10) Mayor Giuliani, Senator D’Amato And Israeli Intelligence by Christopher Bollyn

(11) Morphing Zionism by Nahida Izzat The Exiled Palestinian, Uprooted Palestinians

(12) The Puzzling Matter Of The Israeli Liberals by Ramzy Baroud, The Palestine Chronicle

(13) Israel’s Grand Design: Leaders Crave Area From Egypt To Iraq by John Mitchell Henshaw, Media Monitors Network

(14) Chabad, A Success Story by Avi Becker, Haaretz

(15) What Will Be The Borders Of Israel After The Messiah Comes? by

(16) Israel “Committing Slow Drip Genocide” by Press TV

(17) Palestinian Families Denied Rights By Israel’s Racist Marriage Laws by Charlotte Silver, The Electronic Intifada

(18) Report: “120 Palestinians To Be Displaced Due To Military Orders” by Saed Bannoura, IMEMC

(19) Israel Approves New East Jerusalem Visitors’ Compound, Razes Palestinian Community Center by Nir Hasson, Haaretz

(20) Israel: Still A Destination For Human Trafficking by IRIN

(21) Israel A Human Trafficking Haven by Fox News

(22) Human Trafficking Report Ranks Israel With 3rd World Nations by Ynet

(23) Who Was Behind The Delhi Bombing? by Dr. Gareth Porter, Al-Jazeera English

(24) Torture In Palestine: A Glimpse Into Israel’s History Of Unrivaled Cruelty by Martin Iqbal, Empire Strikes Black

(25) Israeli Shin Bet Electrocuted Child Prisoners To Extract Confessions by Middle East Monitor

(26) Yosef: Gentiles Exist Only To Serve Jews by Jonah Mandel, The Jerusalem Post

(27) Not Quite “Ordinary Human Beings” – Anti-Imperialism And The Anti-Humanist Rhetoric Of Gilad Atzmon by The Monthly Review Zine

(28) ADL Enlists City Of Oakland To Block Atzmon Event by Rick Sterling and Henry Norr, Mondoweiss

(29) Why Are John Mearsheimer And Richard Falk Endorsing A Blatantly Anti-Semitic Book? by Alan Dershowitz, The New Republic

(30) The Spider’s Web by Nahida Izzat The Exiled Palestinian, Uprooted Palestinians

(31) Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight Of Three Thousand Years; Chapter 3 – Orthodoxy and Interpretation, Pages 42-43 by Professor Israel Shahak (RIP), Pluto Press

(32) Laying Down The (Oral) Law by Joshua Freeman, The Jerusalem Post

(33) Shas Sets Up Shop In U.S. by Nathan Guttman, The Jewish Daily Forward

(34) An Ancient Story Remains Current by Haim Shine, Israel Hayom

(35) Purim Special: From Esther To AIPAC by Gilad Atzmon, Counter Punch

(36) The Accusation Of “Anti-Semitism” I: Zionism, “Jewish Israelis” And Revisionism by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(37) Anti-Semitic Trash In Al-Manar by Professor As’ad Abu Khalil, The Angry Arab News Service

(38) John McCain Rule by Professor As’ad Abu Khalil, The Angry Arab News Service

(39) U.S. Jews And Israel Versus Barack Obama by Avi Becker, Haaretz

(40) The Rights Of Israel by Professor Joseph Massad, Al-Jazeera English

(41) Committed, Concerned And Conciliatory: The Attitudes Of Jews In Britain Towards Israel; Chapter 2 – Introduction, Page 9 by David Graham and Jonathan Boyd, The Institute For Jewish Policy Research

(42) The 1950s: Fighting A War For Survival by Aryeh Lova Eliav, The Jewish Daily Forward

(43) The American Public’s Support For An Attack On Iran Will Be Widespread But Short-Lived by Chemi Shalev, Haaretz

(44) Overwhelming Israeli Support For Gaza Op by Etgar Lefkovits, The Jerusalem Post

(45) Poll: 71% Of Israelis Want U.S.  To Strike Iran If Talks Fail by Aluf Benn, Haaretz

(46) Survey: Record Number Of Israeli Jews Believe In God by Nir Hasson, Haaretz

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

(48) Before It’s Too Late… #2 by Paul Eisen, deLiberation

Posted by 

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The Tribal Nexus: Zionists And “Anti-Zionists” Unite To Ensure The Survival Of “IsraHell”

U.S. Christian Zionist Donkeys Serve On Illegal Jewish Settlements


by Keith Johnson

Groups of Evangelical Christian Zionists from the U.S. are providing free labor to illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank of occupied Palestine.

According to National Public Radio“The Christian volunteers pay for their tickets and cover their own expenses to come. They work for about six weeks at a time, mostly in the wineries. Hundreds take part every year. It’s a kind of a work-stay program with a spiritual purpose.”

“We take the Bible and we look at those things and we see that one of the exciting things for us is that prophecy of scripture is being fulfilled,” says Tommy Waller, founder oHaYovel, a group that brings willing gentile slaves to what his website calls “the mountains of Israel—Where prophecy meets reality.”

“We don’t bring people here that are expecting mud baths and skin treatments and things like that,” says Waller. “We’re kind of rough guys, nice guys, a lot of us are rednecks from the South, wanting to do a good thing and to help people.”

Is that right, Waller? Let’s let Rabbi Ovadia Yosef tell you what his Talmud says you are, and why you’re really there:

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”

“In Israel, death has no dominion over them…With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant…That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”

“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created.”

Read the NPR transcript here and leave a comment.

Better yet, visit the HaYovel website and give Mr. Waller a piece of your mind.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI2 Comments

Did IsraHell Help Spark the Russia-Georgia War in 2008?


ed note–I have received lots of frantic emails from people panicked over the news that ‘a deal’ had been struck between the Russians and Israel and that this intimated that Russia was going to sell out Iran and Syria.

However, what we have to remember is this–what is the outcome of this latest ‘leak’ concerning emails originating with Stratfor, a known Israeli intelligence gathering agency? To cast Russia in an untrustworthy light at a time that she is becoming a major player in preventing more bloodshed in Syria and Iran.

So the long and short of it is that this is likely Zionist disinfo engineered to cause squabbling and mistrust between Russia and the other players in volved in all of this.

The Atlantic Wire

Fresh documents released by WikiLeaks raise new questions about the five-day war between Russia and Georgia in 2008. In particular, the role of Israel and its involvement in providing military intelligence to Russia in the run-up to the war.

According to a leaked e-mail from an analyst at the intelligence firm Stratfor, Russia and Israel engaged in a deal in 2008 in which Jerusalem provided the Kremlin with secret codes for Georgian UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) in exchange for information on Iranian missile systems. In the e-mail, a Stratfor analyst says “Israel and Russia made a swap – Israel gave Russia the ‘data link’ code for those specific UAVs; in return, Russia gave Israel the codes for Iran’s Tor-M1s.” In 2008, that ‘data link’ code was allegedly used by the Russians to take down a Georgian drone flying in Georgian air space, a defining moment in the months before the war.

As many have noted, any information gleaned from Stratfor e-mails should be taken with a grain of salt but the swap scenario is certainly plausible. The Russians would’ve been an ideal source of information for Israel, as Yaakov Lappin at The Jerusalem Post reports, because they sold Iran 29 launch vehicles carrying batteries of surface-to-air missiles in 2005, which make up Iran’s Tor-M1 defense system. The source who provided the information to Stratfor is ranked “A,” which according to its glossary, is the highest rank, meaning “Someone with intimate knowledge of the particular insight.” The particular item of intelligence is ranked ’1′ meaning “We can take this info to the bank.”

The origins of the war between Georgia and Russia remain subject to dispute. Russia maintains it invaded the Georgian enclave South Ossetia in response to Georgia’s moves to reclaim the separatist region. Georgia maintains it was responding to assaults on its peacekeepers in the region. In any event, one of the most widely-cited events escalating the conflict was Russia’s downing of Georgia’s drone in April 2008. Shortly after it happened, Georgia released this video of the attack:

Following the incident, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili blamed Russia for the attack and sent along the video to the BBC. Russians denied the allegations, calling them “nonsense” while rebels in Georgia’s other separatist enclave Abkhazia claimed they had taken down the drone. However, as C.J. Chivers writing for The New York Times reported, Georgians identified the craft in the video as an MIG-29 that could’ve only belonged to Russia. “Neither the Georgian Air Force nor the tiny contingent of Abkhaz planes in the separatist territory have MIG-29s,” he wrote. While Russians claimed the plane in the video was an Abkhaz L-39, Chivers wrote “The fighter plane seen in the Georgian video did not resemble an L-39, which has a distinctive silhouette, including a single tail.”

In any event, while we, unlike Stratfor, can’t take intelligence of the swap “to the bank,” it’s interesting to envision a scenario where the shadowy world of billateral arms agreements ends up pitting two U.S. allies, Israel and Georgia, against each other. As of today, none of the governments implicated in the leak have commented.

Posted in Russia1 Comment

Carter: Naziyahu too eager for war with Iran


The Washington Times

Former President Jimmy Carter expressed concerns Tuesday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be too willing to go to war with Iran.

“I don’t think that’s his first preference, but I think he’s much more eager to go to war with Iran than President Obama [is]. And I was glad to see President Obama discourage that immediate resumption of hostilities between Israel and its neighbors that the Israelis seem to be inclined to do,” the former president said in an interview with The Washington Times-affiliated “America’s Morning News” radio broadcast.

Mr. Netanyahu is in Washington this week to meet with Mr. Obama and other American leaders about the Iranian nuclear program, and Mr. Carter said “my hope is that President Obama will prevail and we can avoid war with Iran.”

“I think the economic sanctions would be adequate,” Mr. Carter added. “War with Iran can and should be avoided.”

The former president, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, predicted that the Camp David Accords, the 1979 peace treaty he brokered between Egypt and Israel, would survive the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Mr. Carter said he has met recently with the Muslim Brotherhood’s political and religious leadership, and “they know it’s very important to Egypt to maintain peace with Israel.”

“They assured me personally — and they have made public statements accordingly — that they will honor the peace treaty that I helped to negotiate back in 1979 … and I don’t have any doubt that they will carry out their promise to me.”

Despite his role in the Camp David negotiations, Israel’s first peace treaty with any of its Arab neighbors, Mr. Carter has seen his stock tumble in recent years in Israel and with the country’s American backers since his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid.”

Mr. Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” prompted rebukes and criticism of varying degrees, most notably from former President Bill Clinton and then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and an unwanted endorsement from Osama bin Laden.

The former president is promoting his latest book, “NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Carter: Naziyahu too eager for war with Iran

Occupy activists fear that America’s pro-IsraHell lobbyists want a war


“Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!” sings the AIPAC delegate, striding cheerfully through illegal Israeli settlements in his sharp tan suit.

Granted, the settlements are three feet high and made of cardboard, part of a pop-up anti-war occupation outside the conference of Israel’s top lobbying group, where President Obama is due to speak. As another war in the Middle East begins to look feasible, Occupy has begun to focus its energies on foreign policy.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful tax exempt lobby that provides campaign finance in return for promotion of what it deems Israel’s interests, pushed for a war in the Middle East in 2003. Activists with the Occupy movement, along with many others, are convinced that it now means to push for another. In the central Washington DC square leading to the conference, they have constructed mock- checkpoints and wear pink IDF uniforms with plastic guns, obliging the sharply-dressed AIPAC delegates to walk through.

“They’re disgusting,” whisper the delegates as they shuffle into line outside the conference centre. “They’re misinformed.” And what about war? “Well, we’ll just see what the president has to say,” says Talia, a student in the AIPAC line, smiling tactfully.

Many of the hundred peace protesters opposite have been campaigning for years before the Occupy movement sprang up last autumn to fight financial injustice. Now peace activists are using the “Occupy” brand to draw links between economic inequality in America and military spending abroad. “Money for jobs and education, not for war and occupation!” they chant, led by a girl in a headscarf whose voice cracks with emotion.

“Last year we galvanised the Palestine crowd but no one else seemed very interested,” says 24-year-old student Sasha Gelzin, one of the coordinators of Occupy AIPAC. “This year you’ve had the Arab uprisings and Occupy, you’ve had the thousands of activists making connections between domestic policy and foreign policy.”

The activists have called a parallel conference across the road from AIPAC. Ms Gelzin admits that the use of the “Occupy” name caused some problems: “In the beginning there was a lot of contention about using the Occupy name, given that this isn’t a grassroots effort, it’s a top-down effort.”

On Thursday, the Occupy Wall Street General Assembly in New York passed a motion of solidarity with Occupy AIPAC, although the issue of Israel had previously been avoided at central committee discussions because it was deemed too contentious. The issue, for many protesters, is as much about money as it ever was about race or religion – specifically, about stripping the lobbying money out of Washington politics and preventing another war of choice from draining more money from domestic spending.

“Follow the money, then you’ll always find the answer,” says one occupier who declined to give her name – which sounds reasonable before she launches into a theory about Zionist property developers bankrolling the 2001 attacks on the World Trade centre. Discussions of Jews, money, secret deals and nuclear weapons have a tendency to sound conspiratorial, and there are certainly times when the rhetoric at events like these begins to twist the lid off the jar of nuts.

But the greatest conspiracies happen in plain sight. AIPAC has long been understood to have had a great deal of unelected influence over US foreign policy and “de facto immunity” from investigation, as author Grant F Smith put it in a speech to the conference. The shadow of past, present and future wars in the Middle East has hung over the Occupy movement from the start, and activists are quite clear what they are here for: to prevent another war.

What it will take to achieve that is unclear.  The essential generational difference seems to be between those who believe that the outrage of right-thinking liberals in a room together is itself enough to effect change, and those who came to political awareness knowing different. For the handful of young representatives of Occupy skulking around the edges of the conference hall, including myself, the spectacle of peaceful marching and pamphleteering failing entirely to stop a war in the Middle East was our first real political memory. We remain sceptical about the possibility of things being different this time.

The conviction that the older generation of peace activists still nurses is, in effect, that American democracy does what it says on the tin: that if enough activists make their feelings about war with Iran clear, lawmakers half a mile away on Capitol Hill will simply take notice. The language of Occupy, however, is replete with the conviction that the “1%” – of which AIPAC are certainly members – could not care less about the democratic process. Amidst the litany of complaints, the call for direct action is becoming lost, and direct action is what Occupy has always been best at. As one speaker from Syria put it, those who will suffer at home and abroad in the event of war could do with “a little less kum-by-yah and a lot more kung-fu.”

At the end of the day, when veteran war reporter Chris Hedges gives a rousing speech denouncing AIPAC, the younger members of the audience are slow to join in the standing ovation. They know that Hedges recently denounced the tactics of some of the anarchist organisers who have driven the momentum of Occupy Wall Street as violent and dangerous. The tension between rhetoric and action, between passive protest and active resistance, may yet make a difference in whether or not America goes to war – and the generational choice is stark.

Posted in Campaigns, PoliticsComments Off on Occupy activists fear that America’s pro-IsraHell lobbyists want a war

The MEK’s Useful Idiots



If you are a Muslim American who is appalled by U.S. foreign policy, most specifically its penchant for invading Islamic countries in a bid to change their regimes, and you make the mistake of saying something to that effect on the phone or writing about your concerns in an email, there is a good chance that the FBI will come after you. You will in short order find yourself with a new friend who is a Muslim just like you and who shares your frustration with American foreign policy. At a certain point he will reveal his affiliation with a certain overseas group that is interested in obtaining revenge for all the Muslims who have been killed or injured by the United States. He will suggest that doing something about the problem would be neither sinful nor really wrong, and he will hint that he has access to the weapons or bombs that could be used for a revenge attack. You take the bait. The bomb or gun is a dud and the new friend turns out to be an FBI informant. Another “terrorist” is arrested and sent to jail for 20 years. End of story.

Americans who are not Muslim should be concerned by the repeated entrapment of so-called terrorists, first of all because the process reveals that our private communications are no longer very private. Second, the law enforcement use of a planted informant to encourage and enable someone to commit a crime used to be illegal. It is not so anymore.

Many of the terrorism cases are not related to actual terror but rather to what is described as material support. It is interesting to read what exactly the United States Code states. It is 18 USC § 2339A — Providing Material Support to Terrorists:

(a) Offense.— Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section [38 sections and acts are cited] or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.

(b) Definitions [my emphasis]: As used in this section—(1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials; … (3) the term “expert advice or assistance” means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.

To see how loose the definition of support can be, consider an actual case dating from September 2011. Pakistan-born Jubair Ahmad, 24, was accused of providing material support to the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which is designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization. Ahmad produced and posted a propaganda video for LeT “glorifying violent jihad” in 2010, some three years after he arrived in the United States with his parents and two younger brothers. “Terrorist organizations such as LeT … use the Internet and other media as part of well-orchestrated propaganda campaigns,” the FBI stated in its affidavit on Ahmad. Though the charge is not spelled out in any more detail, one would assume that Ahmad is considered to be guilty of providing “expert advice or assistance” to LeT.

Which brings me to the subject of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, better known as MEK. The MEK has been on the State Department roster of foreign terrorist organizations since the list was established in 1997. Its inclusion derives from its having killed six Americans in the 1970s and from its record of violence both inside and outside Iran since that time. The group was driven out of Iran, denied refuge in France, and eventually armed and given a military base by Saddam Hussein. Saddam used the group to carry out terrorist acts inside Iran. The MEK is widely regarded as a cult and is headed by spouses Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. Its members are required to be celibate, and there are reports that they are subjected to extensive brainwashing, physical torture, severe beatings even unto death, and prolonged solitary confinement if they question the leadership. One scholar who has studied them describes their beliefs as a “weird combination of Marxism and Islamic fundamentalism.” Like many other terrorist groups, the MEK has a political wing that operates openly, the National Council of Resistance, which is based in Paris, and another front organization called Executive Action, which operates in Washington.

The U.S. military and the CIA have in the past recruited MEK agents to enter Iran and report on nuclear facilities. Other MEK agents, recruited and trained by Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, have recently killed a number of Iranian nuclear scientists and officials. The group appears to have ample financial resources, and it is generally believed that at least some of the money comes from Mossad. The MEK is able to placefull-page ads in major U.S. newspapers and is also known to pay hefty speaker’s fees to major political figures who are willing to speak publicly on its behalf. The group claims to want regime-change in Iran to restore democracy to the country, an odd assertion as it itself has no internal democracy.

Because the MEK is a resource being used by Israel in its clandestine war against Iran, it is perhaps inevitable that many friends of Israel in the United States are campaigning vigorously to have the group removed from the terrorism list. Indeed, neocons at their various think-tanks and publications as well as AIPAC all support delisting the group. At this moment, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not surprisingly, appears to be inclined to give in to the pressure and delist the MEK once it completes its departure from Camp Ashraf in Iraq, where it has been based for the past 20 years. There might be some problem in arranging the move, as few countries want to take the MEK supporters, fearing that they would have to be deprogrammed from their brainwashing.

The MEK’s friends argue that the group has not killed anyone since 1999, though the recent assassinations employing MEK members belie that assertion, as do FBI reports revealing terrorist planning as late as 2004. Many speakers defending the MEK have also admitted that they do not know much about the group, most particularly in regard to its cult status, though they insist that their support is based on the fact that the organization is now not lethal (and, of course, the handsome speaking fees they have received).

The well-connected friendsof the MEK include well-known neocons like John Bolton and James Woolsey. And there is also the paid supporting cast including former head of the Democratic Party Howard Dean; former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani; ex-CIA director Michael Hayden; former generals Anthony Zinni, Peter Pace, and Hugh Shelton; former congressman Lee Hamilton; ex–attorney general Michael Mukasey; former Homeland Security director Tom Ridge; former national security adviser Jim Jones; ex-senator Robert Torricelli; former FBI director Louis Freeh; and former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. Current representatives Dana Rohrabacher and Brad Sherman also openly support the MEK and joined 96 other congressmen in calling for the lifting of the terrorism label.

Lee Hamilton has praised the MEK for providing useful intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facility at Natanz, but some of the intelligence in question is believed to be fabricated by the Mossad. Hamilton subsequently admitted that he was paid a “substantial amount” to speak and conceded that he might have been fooled by the group’s democratic credentials. “You always can be misled,” he said. Ethically challenged former senator and current lobbyist Robert Torricelli is less flexible, stating that he is “personally offended” by the group being listed as terrorist, noting that it can be “used” against Iran.

In August 2011, Rep. Ted Poe of Texas struck a similar note, referring to the MEK as “freedom fighters,” the only “real”opposition to the government in Tehran. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney advocates delisting the group so it can undertake “provocative actions” against Iran, which he describes as killing Iranians if and when they kill Americans. So the objective for some MEK supporters clearly seems to be to give a pass to a terrorist group and to even encourage it to undertake violent action, as long as it is “our” terrorist group attacking people that we consider the bad guys.

Given the history of the MEK as a terrorist organization and the deliberately broad wording of the relevant U.S. statute, it would seem that speaking on behalf of the group amounts to material support of terrorism. So I have to ask why is it that the numerous prominent MEK supporters are walking free while Jubair Ahmad can be called a terrorist for the exercise of what might well appear to be similar First Amendment rights in producing something for a website? Can it be that the richly compensated MEK spokesmen are too important to arrest? Or is there one justice system for working-class Muslims and another for blowhards like John Bolton? Or is it just a fool’s game with the usual Washington crowd queuing up for a bad cause because they are both lining their pockets and thinking they are helping Israel? In any event, it is a poor bargain for the rest of us, but that hardly seems to matter anymore.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on The MEK’s Useful Idiots

An American Judge Puts Islam Above the U.S. Constitution

zombie mohammad
Perce as Zombie Mohammad
by Bob Johnson


This past Halloween an Atheist was in a Halloween parade held in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania dressed as a zombie Mohammad. This upset an Islamic immigrant who attacked the Atheist and tried to remove the sign he was wearing around his neck which read, “Mohammed of Islam.” The attacker, Talaag Elbayomy, thought it was illegal in America to make fun of Mohammad as it is in Islamic countries.

Elbayomy was charged with harassment instead of assault. The case went to District Judge Mark Martin. Martin threw the case out and lectured the Atheist/victim, Ernie Perce, on showing respect for “revealed” religions, including Islam. He said he was a Muslim himself, although he later denied saying that even though he said it on an audio tape (here is a link to an excellent well written article about this case which makes clear he did say he was a Muslim). Unfortunately, the established media has not done a very good job at broadcasting this attack on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. (Please forward links to this article and use the social networking icons above to help correct this problem.)

Martin made a statement that shows he should never have become a judge in anything other than a Sharia court. Judge Martin told Perce “you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.” To the Islamic attacker he said, “Allah bless you.”

Since when is it illegal in the United States to parade as a zombie Mohammad??? America’s biggest positive is the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. There is nothing above the Bill of Rights and its guarantees of freedom of speech. (This is why nations based on religion, like Israel, don’t have a constitution – there can be no law higher than religious laws. This is one of the complaints Osama bin Laden listed against America in his open letter to the American people, that Americans put more importance on the U.S. Constitution than they do on God’s law, which to him was the Koran.) Once you limit free speech, you limit true progress. America’s founders, many of whom were Deists, knew this.

Thomas Paine called for a revolution in religion based on God-given reason and Deism in his monumental work,The Age of Reason, The Complete Edition. With judges like Martin and the growing number of dogmatic intolerant competing “revealed” religions spreading across the U.S. and the world, Deists and freethinkers need to take action now to bring about the revolution in religion while we still can.

Posted in USAComments Off on An American Judge Puts Islam Above the U.S. Constitution

Can the President Kill You?


Can the president kill an American simply because the person is dangerous and his arrest would be impractical? Can the president be judge, jury, and executioner of an American in a foreign country because he believes that would keep America safe? Can Congress authorize the president to do this?

Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to justify presidential killing in a speech at Northwestern University law school. In it, he recognized the requirement of the Fifth Amendment for due process. He argued that the president may substitute the traditionally understood due process — a public jury trial — with the president’s own novel version of it; that would be a secret deliberation about killing. Without mentioning the name of the American the president recently ordered killed, Holder suggested that the president’s careful consideration of the case of New Mexico–born Anwar al-Awlaki constituted a substituted form of due process.

Holder argued that the act of reviewing al-Awlaki’s alleged crimes, what he was doing in Yemen, and the imminent danger he posed provided al-Awlaki with a substitute form of due process. He did not mention how this substitution applied to al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son and a family friend, who were also executed by CIA drones. And he did not address the utter absence of any support in the Constitution or Supreme Court case law for his novel theory.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that the government may not take the life, liberty, or property of any person without due process. Due process has numerous components, too numerous to address here, but the essence of it is “substantive fairness” and a “settled fair procedure.” Under due process, when the government wants your life, liberty, or property, the government must show that it is entitled to what it seeks by articulating the law it says you have violated and then proving its case in public to a neutral jury. And you may enjoy all the constitutional protections to defend yourself. Without the requirement of due process, nothing would prevent the government from taking anything it coveted or killing anyone — American or foreign — it hated or feared.

The killing of al-Awlaki and the others was without any due process whatsoever, and that should terrify all Americans. The federal government has not claimed the lawful power to kill Americans without due process since the Civil War; even then, the power to kill was claimed only in actual combat. Al-Awlaki and his son were killed while they were driving in a car in the desert. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Constitution applies in war and in peace. Even the Nazi soldiers and sailors who were arrested in Amagansett, N.Y., and in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., during World War II were entitled to a trial.

The legal authority in which Holder claimed to find support was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was enacted by Congress in the days following 9/11. That statute permits the president to use force to repel those who planned and plotted 9/11 and who continue to plan and plot the use of terror tactics to assault the United States. Holder argued in his speech that arresting al-Awlaki — who has never been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime but who is believed to have encouraged terrorist attacks in the U.S. — would have been impractical, that killing him was the only option available to prevent him from committing more harm, and that Congress must have contemplated that when it enacted the AUMF.

Even if Holder is correct — that Congress contemplated presidential killing of Americans without due process when it enacted the AUMF — such a delegation of power is not Congress’s to give. Congress is governed by the same Constitution that restrains the president. It can no more authorize the president to avoid due process than it can authorize him to extend his term in office beyond four years.

Instead of presenting evidence of al-Awlaki’s alleged crimes to a grand jury and seeking an indictment and an arrest and a trial, the president presented the evidence to a small group of unnamed advisers, and then he secretly decided that al-Awlaki was such an imminent threat to America 10,000 miles away that he had to be killed. This is logic more worthy of Joseph Stalin than Thomas Jefferson. It effectively says that the president is above the Constitution and the rule of law, and that he can reject his oath to uphold both.

If the president can kill an American in Yemen, can he do so in Peoria? Even the British king, from whose tyrannical grasp the American colonists seceded, did not claim such powers. And we fought a Revolution against him.



‎”Holder argued that the act of reviewing al-Awlaki’s alleged crimes, what he was doing in Yemen, and the imminent danger he posed provided al-Awlaki with a substitute form of due process. He did not mention how this substitution applied to al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son and a family friend, who were also executed by CIA drones. And he did not address the utter absence of any support in the Constitution or Supreme Court case law for his novel theory.”


Posted in USAComments Off on Can the President Kill You?

Flying into Tel Aviv? Then it’s “Welcome to Palestine!”


By Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood explains why people of conscience, principle and respect for justice and the truth will always see Palestine as Palestine and will not forget that what is known as “Israel” is an extraneous implant build on the blood and ruins of a nation.

The other day someone kindly sent me an old link to an aviation forum where an irate passenger had written: “This morning (6 May 2003) on a flight from Rome to Tel Aviv, after landing the pilot announced in the microphone: ‘Welcome to Palestine’. I think this is the most disgusting thing for a pilot to say.”

It led to a long and acrimonious argument with many demanding dire punishment for the Alitalia pilot.

But he had a valid point.

A crime against humanity

Old Lydda, rooftop view about 100 years ago
Old Lydda, rooftop view about 100 years ago

Ben-Gurion airport, which serves Tel Aviv, was formerly Lydda airport. Lydda, a major town in its own right during the British mandate, was designated Palestinian in the 1947 UN Partition. In July 1948 Israeli terrorist troops seized Lydda, shot up the town and drove out the population. In this report by Donald Neff we’re told how, as part of the ethnic cleansing, the Israelis massacred 426 men, women and children. A total of 176 of them were slaughtered in the town’s main mosque. Of all the blood-baths, they say this was the biggest. See alsothis for lurid details. Here’s an extract:

Out of the 19,000 people who used to call Lydda home, only 1,052 were allowed to stay.

Yitzhak Rabin, the Nobel Prize winner, wrote in his diary soon after Lydda’s and Ramla’s occupation: “After attacking Lydda, Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: what is to be done with the population?, waving his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out!… (Soldier of Peace, pages 140-1)

The remainder were forced to walk into exile in the scalding July heat, leaving a trail of bodies – men, women and children – along the way. The cruelty, on top of being robbed of everything, was horrific.

The attack on Lydda was led by Israel’s great ‘hero”, Moshe Dayan, who was later to become defence minister and foreign minister, and witnessed by two American news correspondents. One recorded that “practically everything in their way died. Riddled corpses lay by the roadside.” The other wrote that he saw “the corpses of Arab men, women and even children strewn about in the wake of the ruthlessly brilliant charge”.

The murder spree was followed by systematic looting. Israeli troops carried away 1,800 truck loads of Palestinian property. Jewish immigrants then flooded in and Lydda was given a Hebrew name, Lod.

Let’s wipe ‘em off the map

So Israel has no real right to Lydda/Lod/Ben-Gurion airport – it was stolen in a terror raid, as was another town we hear so much about – Sderot.

That’s where, say Israel’s propagandists, Hamas rockets have been “raining down”. And that’s the main plank of their efforts to justify the bloodshed Israel has inflicted on the people of Gaza.

They use it ad nauseam to brainwash the media and their own people. Their stooges, returning to these shores after their indoctrination, repeat it here. They have studiously counted and broadcast the number of erratic, home-made Qassam rockets coming into Israel, without ever admitting to the huge number of missiles, bombs and shells that Israel’s high-tech military fires into Gaza with much more murderous effect.

Those sympathetic to Israel should know that Sderot has no business being where it is. It’s built on the lands of a Palestinian village called Najd, which was ethnically cleansed by Jewish terrorists in May 1948, just before Israel was declared a state and before any Arab armies arrived to defend the Palestinians. The 600-plus villagers were forced to flee for their lives. It happened at the fag-end of Britain’s watch as the mandated government, when they were packing up to leave. This and many other atrocities were committed while no-one was looking.

Palestinian Arabs owned over 90 per cent of the land in Najd. According to UN Resolution 194 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they have a right to return home. But as we have come to expect, Israel refuses to recognize the rights of others and will not allow them back. Anyway, what is there for them to return to? The 82 homes in Najd were bulldozed as part of Israel’s wipe-‘em-off-the-map policy.

Najd was one of 418 Palestinian villages and towns ethnically cleansed and erased by Zionist Jews. Its inhabitants presumably became refugees in nearby Gaza and their families are probably still living in the miserable camps there. The irony is that some of them could have been manning the rocket launchers.

When Barack Obama visited Sderot (he didn’t have the gumption to drop in on Gaza and shoot the breeze with the Hamas boys) he spouted the well-worn mantra backing Israel’s right to protect its citizens from rocket attacks. “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing.” Yes, well said, Obama. But let’s hope you wouldn’t be so stupid or arrogant as to settle your family on land stolen from your neighbour at gun-point.

Insult to our patron saint

Getting back to Ben Gurion’s air travellers, there’s another reason for British Christians as well as Muslims to take a very dim view of the thieving, destruction and ethnic cleansing of Lydda. It’s the birthplace of our patron saint, George.

George was a Palestinian born at Lydda and brought up in the Christian faith, although some sources think he was born in Cappadocea (Turkey) and taken home by his mother to her native Palestine when his father died.

Either way, he is inextricably linked to Lydda. He decided on a soldiering career, joined the Roman army at the time of Emperor Diocletian and rose to high rank. He became one of the emperor’s favourites, as his father had been, but when Diocletian’s fanatical slavishness to the Roman gods got out of control and he began slaughtering innocent Christians George stood up to be counted for his religious beliefs. He denounced the emperor and tore up his orders. Not surprisingly, he was arrested, imprisoned and tortured.

George was told his life would be spared if he made sacrifice to the Roman gods. He was offered riches if only he’d renounce his Christian beliefs. Instead, he prayed to his Christian God, who immediately responded, so we’re told, with thunderbolts and fireballs and an earthquake that shook the ground and destroyed the temple buildings. That sealed poor George’s fate. He bore his ordeal – being dragged through the streets, stretched on the rack, poked with red-hot irons, cut to ribbons on a wheel of swords, and dunked in quicklime – with such fortitude that Diocletian’s wife converted to Christianity on the spot. This matrimonial upset caused her to be condemned to death too.

The Romans were expert martyr-makers. George was finally beheaded at Nicomedia on 23 April 303 and buried at Lydda. He was soon a cult figure among soldiers around the world. In 494 George was canonized and became the warrior saint for many worthy enterprises.

The earliest known reference to him in Britain was in an account by St Adamnan, the 7th century Abbot of lona, who probably heard the story from a French bishop returning from Jerusalem. George was adopted by Richard the Lionheart as his personal saint in the Crusades. Later, King Edward III made him the patron saint of England and dedicated the Order of the Garter to him.

St George’s cross is England’s flag and it’s incorporated into the Union flag. Lydda, therefore, was and always will be of great importance to the English and indeed the British as a whole. The Crusaders built and rebuilt a church there which was dedicated to him. It was destroyed by Saladin during the Third Crusade in 1191 and the church that stands there now dates from 1872.

George – Al-Khadir – is also patron saint of Bethlehem and a figure sacred to Muslims and Christians alike. As one elderly Muslim Arab told me, George is special – he’s the only saint who could ride a horse. Stone carvings of George on horseback can to be seen in the Church of the Nativity and above the doors of many Bethlehem houses.

He’s also patron saint of Portugal and of certain cities in Spain, and of Moscow and many other places – a really popular guy. The Israelis ought to have had more respect.

It seems fitting to remember these things as we approach St George’s Day, 23 April.

So I salute that unnamed Alitalia pilot. Welcome, travellers, to Lydda and Palestine!

And may St George protect you.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Flying into Tel Aviv? Then it’s “Welcome to Palestine!”

Barack Obama prostrates himself before America’s IsraHell lobby


By Jamal Kanj

Jamal Kanj argues that Binyamin Netanyahu’s and Ariel Sharon’s ominous assertions that Israel controls the US were demonstrated once again this week by Barack Obama’s humiliating pledges of loyalty to Israel in a speech to America’s leading pro-Israel lobby and in a magazine interview.

During a meeting with settlers in the Jewish colony of Ofra in 2001, Binyamin Netanyahu was caught on camera explaining how he sabotaged the Oslo peace accords and bragging that “… America is something that can be moved easily”. In 2003, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was quoted as telling the Israeli president: “We [Jews] control America.”

Sharon’s and Netanyahu’s ominous declarations were demonstrated yet again this week at a meeting of the USA’s leading pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). On 5 March, unlike with President Obama’s speech, Netanyahu’s address was attended by “more than two thirds of the [US members of] Congress.” The AIPAC convention is the most coveted “donor” gathering for aspiring US politicians.

“At the AIPAC convention, Obama cited Israel more than 70 times. Yet, zilch for the US economy while pandering to members of a US foreign lobby.”

Netanyahu’s ability to move America was validated once more in a recent interview given by Obama to the Atlantic Magazine and by his unctuous speech at the AIPAC annual convention on 4 March.

In the Atlantic Magazine interview, the president seemed more concerned with assuring members of the pro-Israel lobby that he was the best Israeli friend in the White House, saying: “Every single commitment I have made to… Israel… I have kept.”

He elaborated on the supplementary US military assistance to Israel, including the anti-missile Iron Dome, and on “ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge”, as well as on shielding Israel at various international forums, such as the UN Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly and following the Goldstone report, for violating human rights.

The president even made a final pathetic plea to Christian and Jewish Zionists, asking: “Why is it despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?”

At the AIPAC convention, Obama cited Israel more than 70 times. Yet, zilch for the US economy while pandering to members of a US foreign lobby. Other than blaming Palestinians for the failing peace process, the only significant addition to his magazine interview was an obsequious praise for the Polish native and current Israeli president, Shimon Peres, who will be awarded the US presidential Medal of Freedom later this spring.

To his credit, Obama did not succumb to demands by the Israeli prime minister to set a war ultimatum, or “red line”, to the Iranians. While Israel appears determined to instigate war against Iran as the preferred option, the US military and political leadership seems equally determined to leave war as the last resort option.

“For the first time in the history of the United States, an American president has implicitly delegated to a foreign entity the power to start a war in which the US is highly likely to become involved.”

But what is disturbing in both Obama’s AIPAC speech and his magazine interview is the fact that the president of the United States — the country arming Israel with the best technology and subsidizing its it to the tune of 5 billion dollars annually in economic and military aid – treated Israel as an equal to the US in making war decisions. This is especially disturbing given that such decisions could lead to a global economic meltdown and devastate the US economy even further.

For the first time in the history of the United States, an American president has implicitly delegated to a foreign entity the power to start a war, one in which the US is highly likely to become involved.

This, combined with the Jewish lobby’s influence over the US political process and foreign-policy-making, will undoubtedly encourage the Israeli prime minister to press further with his declared intention to undermine the peace process with the Palestinians.

Obama ended his AIPAC address by trying to pre-empt the speeches of Republican contenders for the presidency. He reminded Israel-firsters that “there is no shortage on speeches on the friendship between the United States and Israel…“ and pleaded with them to judge him by “where my hearts lies” and by “what I have done-to stand up for Israel”.

Would Obama’s superb servitude credentials satisfy the insatiable appetite of AIPAC? Or would Republican presidential candidates prove to be more servile to the most powerful foreign lobby in the US?


Posted in USAComments Off on Barack Obama prostrates himself before America’s IsraHell lobby

Shoah’s pages