Archive | November 26th, 2012

The Israeli and the Palestinian: ‘We have discovered this joint pain’


An Israeli mother who lost her son and a Palestinian whose father was shot dead – together they now seek peace in the Middle East.


The Guardian

Mazen Faraj, and Robi Damelin … each as faced hostility from their own community.Mazen Faraj and Robi Damelin … each has faced hostility from their own community. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the GuardianIt was only later, after the intense shock had subsided and a heavy pain was starting to bed in, that Robi Damelin was told what her first words were on hearing that her son had been killed: “You may not kill anybody in the name of my child.” She says now: “I suppose that was some kind of prediction of what I would do in the future. But I don’t know what revenge means. How many people should I kill? Would that bring David back? I was very motivated to find something that would prevent other families experiencing this pain.”

In 2002, David, a university student who had been doing his reserve duty in the Israeli Defence Force, was killed by a Palestinian sniper while he was guarding a checkpoint. Damelin, who was running a PR agency in Tel Aviv, could no longer work – it felt meaningless. A group called the Parents Circle Families Forum asked if she would like to join them: set up in 1995 byYitzhak Frankenthal, whose 19-year-old son was killed byHamas fighters, it now comprises more than 600 bereaved Israeli and Palestinian families working together to campaign for reconciliation.

“It was quite extraordinary to meet Palestinian mothers and discover this joint pain, and how powerful we could be as a force together to make a difference,” she says. “And so I got swept along, and it became more and more my life. And now, apart from my grandchildren, there is nothing else – I have become a very one-dimensional character, absolutely geared to this idea. This latest Gaza mess is just so indicative of the cycle of violence. It’s not working for either side. Neither of us can win this battle. All that will happen is there will be more and more broken hearts.”

We meet a few hours before the ceasefire ended eight days of violence in Gaza. The issue, says Damelin, is how long it will be until the violence flares up again and another short-term ceasefire has to be negotiated. “Sometimes I can’t believe the stupidity of the repetition,” she says. It doesn’t threaten the unity of the group “because we don’t allow this situation to affect who we are.

Link to this video“We continue to work. The Palestinians from our group continue to come to schools and talk. I’m not sure if I watched the news on Al Jazeera every day I would continue to come and talk about reconciliation, so we think that’s a really good indication of the trust within this organisation.”

“Sometimes you get very disappointed,” says Mazen Faraj, who has been sitting quietly listening to Damelin: “All the work you are doing – and then you find yourself in a new cycle of violence.” He was born in a refugee camp in the West Bank, where he still lives with his young family. As a teenager, Faraj and his brothers were imprisoned in Israeli jails several times. In 2002, his father was shot dead by an Israeli soldier.

“Since I was a kid, I have been dealing with the conflict,” he says. “It is so hard to live in a country without security, justice, rights. After the loss of my father, I spent a lot of time not knowing what to do. It was a huge feeling. There are options – you can choose revenge and become a suicide bomber, or you can stay at home and die slowly with your memories, or maybe you can really do something useful. To become an extremist is the easy way, but to reach a solution in this conflict through dialogue, and to find understanding, would be more helpful for me.”

Joining the group, he says, felt like a rare choice he could make in his life. “When you are living under Israeli occupation, you can’t decide anything. The work with the Parents Circle, I have chosen it and I decide to do it, and I believe it’s the continuation of the struggle.” This doesn’t mean group meetings are always easy, or that everybody always agrees, but they want the same outcome. A lot of their work is in education: Faraj and other Palestinian members go with their Israeli colleagues to speak in schools, reaching 25,000 students every year.

“When I was young, all I knew of Israelis was the soldier or the settler, but something happened to change that picture. I met Rami Elhanan [another prominent Parents Circle member], an Israeli from Jerusalem who lost his daughter in a suicide bomb attack. He talked about his suffering and pain, and I found a new picture of the Israeli side, which is the human side. It doesn’t mean I’m falling in love with the Israelis or I forget what has happened in my life, but I have a new picture now.”

Each has faced some hostility from their own communities for the work they do and there are many times when their own commitment to reconciliation is tested. Damelin remembers hearing reports – mistaken, it later turned out – that the man who killed her son was one of the hundreds of Palestinian prisoners who would be released in exchange for the safe return of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Even though she has supported prisoner releases to ease negotiations, “that was really a test. It’s easy to talk about reconciliation and peace and it all trips off your tongue, but do you mean it? Sometimes it’s very hard. You become very defensive about your own people. I love Israel. It’s not that I have become a Palestinian. I just think that the occupation is killing the moral fibre of my country and for that I will fight.”

Damelin and Faraj both travel a lot, giving talks, meeting politicians and other groups. I ask what kind of picture she gets of how the conflict is viewed from outside and Damelin sighs: “This whole idea of being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine – what comes out of that is that you are not helping either nation and you are importing our conflict into your country. That is very clear in Britain. If you are pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, and your leaders are encouraging this – some of your politicians, it is very clear whose side they are on – the Jews and Muslims here are beginning to hate each other. It’s very easy for both the Muslim and Jewish communities in the diaspora not to compromise; they’re not exactly put to the test every day. If you can’t be part of the solution, I would really ask you to leave us alone. I really mean that.”

Damelin grew up in South Africa. Her recent return to the country was made into a film, One Day After Peace, in which she talked to people about South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and what could be learned from it. “The most amazing thing is that it’s such an affirmation of the work we’re doing now,” she says.

In South Africa she was an anti-apartheid campaigner but left in 1967, not quite believing apartheid would end: “I believe that a miracle happened in South Africa and I think a miracle could happen for us too. I have hope. We can’t afford to give up hope.”

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on The Israeli and the Palestinian: ‘We have discovered this joint pain’

Vote against Palestine at UN will signal that only armed struggle works



Four days before the United Nations vote on the recognition of Palestine as a non-member state, representatives of seven more European countries have indicated they will vote in favor, PLO sources said.

By Amira Hass

Haaretz Monday

November 26, 2012

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters Thursday, Sept. 27, 2012. Photo by AP

Four days before the United Nations vote on recognition of Palestine as a non-member state, the Palestine Liberation Organization says it is expecting a “pleasant surprise” in the UN General Assembly in New York. According to PLO sources, representatives of seven more European countries have indicated they will vote to admit Palestine as a non-member state. Five other European countries had already announced they would support the bid and France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, has broadly hinted that France will vote in favor.

“Until about two weeks ago we were quaking because only three countries had said they were voting in favor,” a PLO official told Haaretz. Sources in the PLO said Britain had given up on its efforts to get the Palestinians to postpone their bid. “The United States, which was busy with the elections, contracted Britain to apply pressure, which failed,” the sources said. The PLO said it was also pleased that Germany, though it will probably oppose the motion, at least was not using its power to dissuade other countries from casting a vote in favor.

“Anyone who doesn’t vote in favor is a coward or immoral, that was our message,” said another member of the Palestinian diplomatic team which in the past two months has been waging what he called “a diplomatic and political street struggle” in European capitals, trying to convince them that a vote for non-member status for Palestine was a vote for a two-state solution within the 1967 borders.

After the cease-fire in Operation Pillar of Defense, which the Palestinians see as a Hamas victory, the Palestinian diplomatic team said “a vote against will be a clear signal to the Palestinian people that only armed struggle will bring achievements, and the diplomatic political struggle is doomed to failure from the outset.”

The Palestinian team consists of young diplomats from the Palestinian Foreign Ministry in Ramallah, the Fateh Commission for International Relations, headed by Nabil Shaath, and officials of the PLO’s negotiations department. By voting day, this Thursday, the Palestinians hope to persuade as many European countries as possible at least to abstain.

The resolution is certain to pass, but of particular importance to the Palestinians are the votes of countries not among the 136 that have already recognized Palestine as a state since 1988, especially the European countries. The Palestinian Christian community has also taken part in the diplomatic efforts, publishing a statement noting the historic responsibility of Europe to ensure the Palestinians’ rights.

The PLO has indications that the Palestinian public supports the move, although it is not enthusiastic and is not following the diplomatic efforts. However, according to that same assessment, if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had bowed to pressure by the United States, Britain and Israel and postponed the application, it would be received very badly.

Palestinian sources said Arab and Muslim countries are working toward a favorable vote. According to the sources, at a meeting of the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, it was made clear to Cameroon and Bosnia (which has observer status ) that if they do not vote in favor, their status in the organization would be suspended. The sources said Saudi Arabia told a European country that intends to abstain that it should “think about its interests in the Arab world.” South Africa, India, and Brazil have all been active on their continents to persuade other countries to vote in favor, sources in the PLO said. “They took it as a personal matter of theirs,” a source said.

The UN vote, sources in Ramallah said, will be just the first step. Immediately thereafter work will begin on forging a national unity government with Hamas. And as Abbas has already stated, it will be possible to begin negotiations again with Israel. However, a source in Fatah involved in the diplomatic campaign said the Palestinians have learned from past mistakes: “We will not agree to continue negotiating as long as laws are being broken,” the source said, referring to construction in the settlements, “and we will set a strict timetable for the talks.”

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Vote against Palestine at UN will signal that only armed struggle works

Satanist Pedophiles Rule Great Britain


savile blair.jpg

 (l. Jimmy Savil & a younger Tony Blair)
Cabalist (Masonic) bankers have empowered a class of perverts they  control through blackmail. Cabalism is Satanism. Mankind has fallen under satanic domination and is unable to discern the difference. 
by David Richards

(David Richards, 24, a Brit who teaches English in Mongolia, is a regular contributor.) 

Pedophilia is common practice in the British establishment.
This is difficult for the British public to believe. At our level, pedophilia is a crime heavily punished by the law and condemned by the mainstream media.

However, Illuminati members are above the law and partake in pedophile rings without fear of prosecution.
The Illuminati operate pedophile rings for three main reasons:
1. Most members of the cult have a psychopathic and sadomasochistic psychological make-up, and therefore have perverted sexual desires.
2. Pedophile rings operate as a system of blackmail, enforcing conformity to the NWO. All members of the establishment are vetted by security services. Hidden cameras are placed at child sex parties to gather incriminating material.

3. Perversion is the way Satanists worship.  Just as a Christian might perform works of charity, the Satanist will prey on children. 


The following cases prove the existence of establishment pedophile rings in Britain. 


1) Gordon Brown – English journalist Mike James claimformer Prime Minister Brown is a well-known pedophile. James worked in the mainstream media and was first told of Brown’s perversions by Norman Lamont (Chancellor of the Exchequer 1990-93) at a private party in 1986.

 He later did his own research into the man, and wrote in 2010:  “Gordon Brown, the current British prime minister, is a practicing pedophile whose activities are known not only to the British, American and Israeli intelligence services, but also by Rupert Murdoch and his senior editor at the Sunday Times.”

The fact that intelligence services have dirt on Brown means he is controlled. He can be blackmailed at a moment’s notice. Brown became Prime Minister because of his perversions, not in spite of them.
Mike James places Brown as a member of a ring of senior British pedophiles, including Lord Robertson and Lord Peter Mandelson. All of them are major members of Masonic lodges.


2) Thatcher Pedo Ring – It has been revealed that a pedophile ring operated within the Thatcher government (1979-90).
In the 80s a teenage rent boy went to the police claiming he and other boys were sexually abused by top people.
The parties were held by millionaires and attended by British politicians, judges, senior civil servants and members of the European elite. Some of the VIPs were said to have flown in via RAF (Royal Air Force) Northolt on the outskirts of London.
This case has been revealed by the disgruntled former policeman who interviewed the rent boy. He says when he began to investigate the claims, his superior demanded the case was closed.
“It was a case of ‘get rid of everything, never say a word to anyone’. It was made very clear to me that to continue asking questions would ­jeopardise my career.”


3) Sir Jimmy Savile (1926-2011) – for over 40 years Savile presented TV shows aimed at young people.

In recent months he has been exposed as a violent pedophile who abused children over a period of four decades.

 With each passing day more people come forward to testify against the dead presenter. Police are currently processing the testimonies of hundreds of victims.
The details are astounding: he abused children who appeared on his television programs, organized pedophile parties with other entertainment stars, and molested sick children in hospitals. A former BBC radio DJ claims he was also a necrophiliac.
However, the most damning reports – and least commented on in the mainstream- are those which reveal Savile took part in establishment pedophile rings.
 In 2011, the News of the World newspaper reported that ‘Savile is known for supplying a number of high profile MP’s with children for them to sexually abuse.’


The article revealed Savile was a regularly visitor to the notorious Haut de la Gaurenne care home in Jersey in the 70s, and was witnessed taking young boys onboard the yacht of former British Prime Minister Ted Heath.
 Ex-Jersey deputy police Chief Lenny Harper explains how children were abused on the island:

“We know from court cases and statements made to my team [during a 2008 inquiry] that children in Jersey care homes were ‘loaned out’ to members of the yachting fraternity and other prominent citizens on the pretence of recreational trips but during which they were savagely abused and often raped. When these children complained, they were beaten and locked in cellars [at Haut de la Garenne].”

Allegations circled around Savile for decades, but due to his establishment connections he was protected. In 1990, the Queen honoured Savile with a knighthood (Member of the Order of the British Empire).

 The revelations have only emerged now because Savile died last year and can no longer be protected by libel laws.


4. Ted Heath – the British prime Minister (1970-74) was a well-known sexual degenerate and pedophile.

On Heath’s pedophilia, T Stokes writes:

“He would regularly take boys from certain care homes away on his boat for weekends. His sheets had to be perfectly white, clean ironed and perfumed, Heaths obsession with this made the boats name ‘morning cloud’ the subject of many in house jokes, nevertheless he was seriously warned 4 times by the police for hanging around public toilets, special branch had to appoint a man especially to protect him.

The name ‘Mr. Eddy’ was well known on Hampstead Heath and the boys home nearby in the seventies.”

It seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, that British PM’s are pedos!


(left. Blair & Pope Benedict exchange Masonic handshake.) 

5. Tony Blair -Prime Minister Blair ordered a D-Notice, the draconian British law that prohibits the press from talking about certain ‘national security cases’, to protect pedophiles working in his administration.

In 1999, an international investigation of child pornographers and pedophiles run by Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Service, code named Operation Ore, resulting in thousands of names of suspected pedophiles.

The problem? The names of powerful people in government kept cropping up. Former NSA analyst Wayne Madsen reported:

“In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair’s government.

Police also discovered links between British Labour government pedophile suspects and the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from Belgium and Portugal (including young boys from the Casa Pia orphanage in Portugal).”
To hide the scandal, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation. This allowed his buddies to be discharged without public outcry.


6. Ben Fellows’ Testimony – The British entertainment industry is crawling with pedophiles, says Ben Fellows, a former child actor who worked in theatre productions and TV.
“I ran a gauntlet of pedophiles – both at the BBC and at other television production companies, and also in theatres, as well as on commercial photo shoots.”
 During productions, staff would warn him to stay away from certain actors who were known to be pedophiles. He was in danger when he ran into them backstage.
 He gives an example: “I was chased around the dressing room by a naked actor who had invited me into their dressing room at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane – and this actor was extremely famous. I was advised by the director of the musical that I was not to complain, or tell anyone of this incident. I was thirteen years old… so I didn’t.”
His testimony is full of shocking detail. On one occasion he was seduced by a female BBC producer who regularly had sex with teenage boys. On another he was molested by cabinet minister Ken Clarke MP, who gave him alcohol and groped his penis through his trousers.
Fellows says he knows child actors who committed suicide because of the abuse they suffered. However, abuse by homosexuals somehow doesn’t come under “bullying.”


We Brits were told to be very nationalistic during the recent London Olympics. People waved union jacks and held street parties. 
Call me anti-social, but I don’t want to celebrate a country run by pedophiles.
The case is closed. The only question that remains: are Brits ready to face the truth and do something about it?

Posted in UKComments Off on Satanist Pedophiles Rule Great Britain

Kristol’s Thanksgiving Meditation Makes Central Role Of IsraHell In Neo-Conservatism Clear


For those, particularly in the timid or intimidated U.S. foreign-policy elite, who still pretend or somehow make themselves believe that Israel is not absolutely central to the neo-conservative worldview, I commend this week’s Thanksgiving editorial by Bill Kristol, scion of one of the movement’s two founding families, in The Weekly Standard, entitled “The West Fights Back”. While it deserves to be read — and deconstructed — in full, here’s the meat:

For what the West stands against is terror—whether the terror of modern secular totalitarianism or the terror of an older, and now revitalized, religious fanaticism. From the Great Terrors of Stalin and Hitler to the attacks on New York and Tel Aviv, and on Madrid, Bali, and Mumbai, terrorists of all stripes know who their enemies are. They attack across the world and kill Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike—but they grasp that the centers of resistance, the nations that stand most squarely in their path, are the United States and Israel.

And so these two very different nations—Christian and Jewish, large and small, new world and old (though the new world nation is older than its newly reborn old world counterpart)—find themselves allied. More than allied: They find themselves joined at the hip in a brotherhood that is more than a diplomatic or political or military alliance. Everyone senses that the ties are deeper than those of mere allies. Israelis know that if the United States fails, so shall Israel. Americans sense, in the words of Eric Hoffer, “as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us.”

This argument has been around for some time, but it’s not something that neo-cons and their allies like to talk about too openly lest they be accused, in a very literal sense, of dual loyalty — that is, both to the U.S. and to Israel.  Of course, Kristol co-founded the thoroughly obnoxious Emergency Committee for Israel two years ago. And it was his Project for a New American Century (which morphed in 1009 into the Foreign Policy Initiative, subsequently becoming Romney’s neo-con brain trust) that pushed precisely the same line back in its post-9/11 heyday: even as U.S. troops were pouring into Iraq for what would be a disastrous adventure, Kristol and his fellow-neo-cons were advising Bush that “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight.” As Bill Bennett, a gentile neo-con for whom Kristol used to work, put it shortly after 9/11: “America’s fate and Israel’s fate are one and the same”.

The point here is “Kristol” clear: On foreign policy issues relevant to both countries, the U.S. and Israel should be “joined at the hip”, even in ways that other historic U.S. allies, like Britain or Canada or France are not or never can be.  This is Kristol’s vision; this is his goal. If Bibi Netanyahu wants to expand settlements, invade Gaza, attack Iran, the U.S. should remain, in his words, “loyal and steadfast.”

Again, I will leave it to others (hopefully our own Daniel Luban) to deconstruct Kristol’s latest meditation on Western civilization, modern liberalism, Leo Strauss, Israeli democracy, the restoration by the “Almighty” of the Jewish homeland, and the relationship of Thanksgiving to Hebraicism. But to the degree that the Kristol family, now headed by Bill, has played a leading role in the neo-conservative movement over the last more than 40 years, I think it’s way past time for the centrality of Israel to the movement’s foreign-policy worldview to be openly recognized, acknowledged, and discussed by the foreign-policy elite, as well as a public that is sick and tired of Middle Eastern wars.

Just a couple of other observations about Kristol’s little essay that I found particularly irritating. He asserts that the “West was saved, primarily by Britain and the United States” from destruction in World War II. Of course, to admit that the Soviet Union under Stalin may also have played a key role in destroying the Nazi regime may detract from the standard neo-con argument that “western civilization” has had to endure a series of deadly totalitarian/terrorist/Islamofascist challenges, one after the other.

But, really, to omit any mention of the Soviet role offers yet another example of the neo-con tendency to invent or ignore historical facts when they find it convenient to do so. And then to go on, as Kristol does, to suggest that the “[West’s] revival after the war was somehow exemplified by the founding of the state of Israel” is particularly ironic, given Moscow’s critical role — Czechoslovakia was the main supplier of weapons to the embryonic state during and immediately after the independence war — in Israel’s creation. True to the neo-cons’ Trotskyite origins, historical facts can always be air-brushed out of the picture.

Second, Kristol quotes Strauss in 1956 as celebrating Israel’s status as “an outpost of the West in the East,” a quote taken from a letter to the National Review which, at the time, was anti-Zionist.  A few months after the letter was published, Israel proved just how valuable it was to the “West” when it joined Britain and France in attacking Egypt — an act of rather blatant aggression strongly opposed and indeed eventually undone as a result of excruciating pressure exerted by Kristol’s other savior of western civilization, the United States.  So, for which “West” was Israel an outpost?

Of course, Strauss’s “outpost” observation — one wonders whether he and Kristol saw apartheid South Africa in a similar light —  was made when Israel was dominated by the Ashkenazi-led Labour Party which took quite seriously western liberal concepts even if it failed to consistently apply them vis-a-vis its own Arab population. But, as Kristol presumably knows, that Israel is long gone. What with the ’67 war, the ascendancy of the Likud and the settlement movement, and the huge immigration from the former Soviet Union (which brought us, among others, the charming Avigdor Lieberman) — not to mention the existence of an occupation that has lasted more than 45 years —

Israel is a very different polity than it was in 1956 (or in 1968, when Hoffer wrote of his “premonition”). Indeed, in an interview earlier this year, one of Israel’s leading civil libertarians, attorney Michael Sfard, spoke openly about the “fascization” of his country, a process that threatens the very western liberal values that Kristol claims — and I emphasize claims, because I frankly don’t believe him — should make the U.S. and Israel the foreign-policy equivalent of Siamese twins.

What makes this trend worthy of being described as fascism are the extreme nationalism that sees the People and the Nation as something metaphysical, organic, alive; and the rejection of liberal values that are seen as being detrimental to this nationalist zeitgeist. Israel has always been a very nationalist country – Zionism is, after all, a nationalist movement.But at least until today there was the aspiration and the pretence – pretence is important, even if it’s only pretence – that this can walk hand in hand with liberal values, especially where Jews are concerned. So we had this quaint mix – very strong nationalism hand in hand with freedom of speech, which was one of our strongest values, and as a lawyer who deals with this issue quite a lot, I can tell you that many Western countries could be proud of the way freedom of speech has been enshrined here in Israel. And these values are currently being taken apart.

Posted in USAComments Off on Kristol’s Thanksgiving Meditation Makes Central Role Of IsraHell In Neo-Conservatism Clear

Congo Crisis: Demand Stronger UN Action Now


The Crisis in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has recently escalated to the point where a major city of an estimated one million inhabitants has been taken  by the Rwandan-backed M23 proxy militia. Hundreds of thousands of Congolese in the North Kivu province have been rendered homeless and displaced. OXFAM reports that “Congolese are suffering violent abuse on a massive scale – including rape, kidnap and murder.”

The response from the international community has not been commensurate with the dire conditions faced by the Congolese people. In spite of severalUnited Nations (UN) studies that document the source of the instability and the role that Congo’s neighbor, Rwanda has played in arming, training and financing the destructive M23 proxy militia inside the Congo, the response from the international community has been tepid at best and equivocal at worst.

Immediate and robust diplomatic action is required at the international level particularly at the United Nations and specifically by the United States, arguably the strongest supporter of Rwanda in the global community. The recently published UN Group of Experts report documents clearly the role that Rwanda and Uganda are playing in directing the M23 proxy militia. British Foreign Secretary William Hague and International Development Secretary Justine Greening said “We judge the overall body of evidence of Rwandan involvement with M23 in the DRC to be credible and compelling.”

In light of the UN report, the UN Security Council’s own resolution calls for decisive action. Section 8 of Resolution 2076 says “Expresses its intention to consider additional targeted sanctions, in accordance with the criteria set out in resolution 1857 (2008), against the leadership of the M23 and [those providing external support to the M23] and those acting in violation of the sanctions regime and the arms embargo, and calls on all Member States to submit, as a matter of urgency, listing proposals to the 1533 Committee;”

Take Action Now!

Send a tweet to Ambassador Rice at @ambassadorrice or call the US Mission to the United Nations at 212-415-4404 and demand that the US take decisive action against Rwanda at the UN.

1. Rwanda should be explicitly named in resolutions calling for an end to the aggression against the Congolese people by the Rwanda-backed militia.
2. Sanctions should be imposed on high-level officials in the Rwandan government who are backing the M23 such as Minister of Defense James Kabarebe and Chief of Staff, Charles Kayonga.

3. Rwanda should be sanctioned for violation of UN embargo on supplying weapons to armed militias in the DRC.

Demand for US/UN Action Grows

Washington Post Editorial
War looms once again in Congo

The Guardian
End the impunity of Congo’s war criminals
By Navi Pillay,  United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

The Economist
Congo’s eastern crisis: Fraying round the edges

The Telegraph
Britain’s aid to Rwanda is funding a ‘repressive regime’ says former Kagame official

Posted in AfricaComments Off on Congo Crisis: Demand Stronger UN Action Now

Ab-A$$: Collaborating with the Enemy


Global Research

Previous articles explained Abbas’ longtime collaboration with Israel. He sold out long ago for whatever benefits he derives.

He’s Israel’s enforcer. He ill serves and insults Palestinians. His presidency is illegitimate. Israel rigged his 2005 election. In January 2009, his term expired.

He’s still in office. At least for now, Washington and Israel want him there. He’s more stooge than statesman. He’s a duplicitous puppet.

He replicates fascist Quisling Norway, Vichy France, and other Nazi-controlled collaborationist regimes. Instead of serving his people, he betrayed them.

He subverts Palestine’s liberating struggle. Collaborating with the enemy is treason. Abbas and likeminded Fatah officials are guilty on multiple counts.

What did he know and when about Pillar of Cloud?

He knew about Cast Lead in advance. On November 30, 2010, Reuters headlined “Israel says Abbas, Egypt warned on Gaza war – leaks,” saying:

Ahead of Cast Lead, Israel “conferred with the Western-backed Palestinian leadership and with Egypt….”

Leaked US diplomatic cables quoted a senior Israeli official confirming it. Haaretz reported the same thing. Mubarak and Abbas were briefed in advance.

Haaretz said “Israel tried to coordinate the Gaza war with the Palestinian authority.” WikiLeaks released US diplomatic cables confirming it.

In June 2009, months before Cast Lead, Israeli Defense Minister Barak met with US congressional members.

He also “consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas.”

He “received negative answers from both.” Previous leaked information reported the same thing. WikiLeaks provided “the first documented proof.”

Abbas denied getting advance word. He lied. Mubarak said nothing either way.

Reuters said Abbas “urged Israel to crush Hamas during the war.”

Avigdor Lieberman held ministerial positions under Sharon and Ehud Olmert. In April 2009, he became Netanyahu’s Foreign Minister.

He explained Abbas’ involvement, saying:

“Over the past year, I witnessed (Abbas) at his best. In Operation Cast Lead, (he) called us personally, applied pressure, and demanded that we topple Hamas and remove it from power.”

Though out of government during Cast Lead, a senior Olmert official called his comments “essentially accurate.”

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said this information “reaffirms the fact that Mahmoud Abbas is no longer fit to represent our people, who conspired against his people during a war.”

Abbas was never fit to serve. That’s why Israel and Washington chose him.

WikiLeaks also disclosed that Hamas spokesman Salah Al-Bardaweel said:

“We have not ruled out that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority could have contributed in one way or another in the war against Gaza for political reasons such as bringing down the Hamas movement and regaining control.”

More from WikiLeaks suggested it. Washington’s Tel Aviv embassy said Fatah officials asked Israel to attack Hamas.

According to a June 2007 dispatch, Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin said “demoralized” Fatah officials wanted help to destroy Hamas.

“They are approaching a zero-sum situation,” said Diskin, “and yet they ask us to attack Hamas. They are desperate. This is a new development. We have never seen this before.”

He added that “Fatah is in a very bad shape in Gaza. We have received requests to train their forces in Egypt and Yemen. We would like them to get the training they need, and to be more powerful, but they do not have anyone to lead them.”

He also praised Shin Bet’s “very good working relationship” with Abbas at the time. His internal security service collaborates with Israel. He understands that “Israel’s security is central to (his) survival in the struggle with Hamas….”

At the time, Fatah collaborated with Washington to oust Hamas. An abortive coup failed. More information surfaced.

WikiLeaks published a June 12, 2007 cable. It said Israeli military intelligence head Amos Yadlin told US embassy officials that Hamas retaining power in Gaza was advantageous.

“Although not necessarily representing a GOI (government of Israel) consensus view,” said Yadlin, “Israel would be ‘happy’ if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Hamas as a hostile state.”

Israel’s imperial agenda needs manufactured enemies. Having them facilitates violence and instability. They also help justify small and larger-scale wars.

Like Pillar of Cloud, Cast Lead was planned months in advance. Its aim was to advance Israel’s imperium.

It involves controlling all valued parts of Judea and Samaria, depopulating much of Palestine, and confining remaining population elements to canonized worthless scrubland.

Both conflicts are more about weakening Hamas than destroying it. They also involve waging war on civilian men, women, children, infants and the elderly.

Doing so is official Israeli policy in all conflicts. Israel considers all Palestinians combatants or potential future ones.

Perhaps Abbas and other Fatah officials knew about Pillar of Cloud in advance. Maybe they approved or urged it.

During eight terror bombing days, Abbas’ comments were delayed, weak, meaningless and insulting.

He did nothing to help beleaguered Gazans. Nor during Cast Lead. Both times he went along with Israeli slaughter and mass destruction.

Issam Younis serves as Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights general director. On November 20, Maan Newspublished his “Letter to Abbas: Visit us in Gaza.” In part it said:

“This is a historic moment, that must be taken up. We’ve waited for you in Gaza for six days. We’re still waiting; your people who are being attacked and slaughtered in Gaza.”

“It is not acceptable anymore – no matter what those surrounding you make it look like to you – that you do not come. I do not invite you to show solidarity with Gaza, but to be in Gaza and with Gaza.”

“The advocates of divide can stay back in Ramallah. This scandalous schism must end now and here; the schism that made your people bleed.”

“We are waiting to know that you have ordered PLO diplomats in Geneva, New York, Vienna, and Paris, and in all UN offices, to immediately act to convene the UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, UNESCO and others to condemn the crimes perpetrated against our people in Gaza, and do all they can to secure that these crimes be investigated and punished.”

“It is regrettable we have not so far seen any meaningful diplomatic effort that matches the size of blood and suffering in Gaza.”

“We are waiting for the orders to our veteran diplomats to be set on fire and approach the European Union and other powers to mobilize the much-needed pressure on the occupying state.”

On November 4, Younis also challenged Hamas. Maan Newspublished his open letter, saying:

He remains “an advocate of the right of Hamas to govern, and I absolutely reject the double standards employed by the international community towards the movement.”

“The financial and political sanctions on Gaza are simply unjust and scandalous. Hamas won a free and fair election in 2006. The world was well aware that Hamas would win in the elections.”

“At the same time, he challenged Hamas to act more like a government than a ‘movement.’ ”

“The issue here is not about calling into question the intentions or desires of the people in power. It is more about the actual process of governance in such a unique situation like Gaza.”

“What is needed is for the government to interact openly with society, with all of its social and political structures. Society also has a duty to reciprocate and to be open to interacting with the government.”

On November 23, Haaretz contributor Amira Hass headlined “War highlights Abbas’ mutual alienation with Gaza.”

She discussed both Younis letters. Abbas was abroad when Israeli terror bombing began. He returned. He had to. Yet he waited two days before speaking publicly.

His comments were weak, unacceptable and duplicitous. He showed which side he’s on.

He also convened Palestinian PLO leaders. “(H)e didn’t even invite the Hamas representative in the West Bank.” He failed to show solidarity with Gaza.

“It is not clear whether the Hamas government would (let him come) as part of an overall conciliation agreement” or for any purpose.

During Cast Lead, his security forces prevented Palestinian protests. This time he didn’t “dare (stop) people from marching toward Israeli Defense Forces checkpoints in the West Bank (to) demonstrate against the attacks on Gaza.”

Doing so fell far short of what’s needed. Palestinians need leaders serving them, not Israel. Abbas is a collaborative traitor. He’s also a pathetic spent force.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Ab-A$$: Collaborating with the Enemy

PCHR Condemns Arrests of Political Leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the West Bank


Islamic Jihad Movement


The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly condemns the arrests by Israeli Occupation Forces of elected members of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) from the “Change and Reform” bloc, affiliated with Hamas movement, and a number of political leaders of the Islamic Jihad movement in the occupied West Bank. PCHR believes that these mass arrests constitute a form of reprisal and collective punitive measures against the Palestinian civilian population, which is prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Relevant to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

These arrests come following the truce deal between Israel and Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip, which entered into force at 21:00 on Wednesday, 21 November 2012. PCHR calls upon the international community, particularly the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, to compel Israel, as the occupying power, to comply with its obligations under the Convention, including the prohibition on reprisals against protected persons and their property, and to apply Article 1 of the Convention related to ensuring respect for the Convention in all circumstances.

According to investigations conducted by PCHR, on Friday morning, 23 November 2012, Israeli forces carried out a series of incursions and raids in several cities in the West Bank. They surrounded houses belonging to a number of elected PLC members from the “Change and Reform” bloc, affiliated with Hamas, and arrested six of them, along with a number of political leaders of the movement.

Dr Mahmoud Ahmed Abdul-Rahman al-Ramahy, 49, Secretary of the PLC, was arrested from his home in al-Bireh. Basem Ahmed al-Za’areer, 55, PLC Member, was arrested from his home in al-Sammou’ village, south of Hebron. Both al-Ramahy and al-Za’areer were placed under administrative detention for a period of six months each.Jamal Musa Abul-Jadayel, 49, the former mayor of al-Sammou’ village, who is thought to be affiliated with Hamas, was also arrested.

On the same day, ‘Imad Mahmoud Rajeh Nofal, 42, PLC Member, was arrested from his house in Qalqilya, Ryad Mahmoud Sai’d Radad, 53, PLC Member, was arrested from his house in Saida village, northeast of Tulkarm, andFathi Mohammad Ali Kar’awi, 54, PLC Member, was arrested from his house in Nour a-Shams Refugee Camp, east of Tulkarm. On Saturday, 24 November 2012, Israeli forces arrested Yasser Daoud Mansour, 46, PLC Member, from his house in Refidya neighbourhood in the west of Nablus.

On the previous day, Thursday, 22 November 2012, Israeli forces arrested 3 political leaders of Islamic Jihad from their homes in ‘Arraba village, south of Jenin: Ja’far Ibrahim Mohammad Izz-Eddin, 40; Mohammad Abdul-Latif Mohammad Shibany, 39; and Tariq Hussain ‘Awad Dar Hussain (Qa’dan), 44. The latter is a brother of Muna Qa’dan, who was arrested by Israeli forces on 13 November 2012 after having been released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap deal. Israeli forces also arrested Tamer Abdul-Ghani Fayeq Saba’na, 35, a writer and researcher on prisoners, who was arrested from his home in Qabatya village, southeast of Jenin.

On the same day, Wa’el Abdul-Katim Hashash, 43, and ‘Imad Abdul-Rahman al-Jarf, 46, were arrested from their homes in Balata Refugee Camp, east of the city; they are thought to be affiliated with Hamas. In addition, Israeli forces arrested Dr Mustafa Ali Ahmed Ali Ahmed al-Shannar, 50, a lecturer in the Faculty of Arts at an-Najah National University, from his home in al-Ma’ajin neighbourhood in the northwest of Nablus. It should be noted that Israeli forces released Dr al-Shannar this morning.

PCHR condemns these arrests and:

1- Notes that these arrests took place in the days immediately following the truce agreed between Israel and Palestinian armed groups;

2- Finds that the arrests constitute a form of reprisal and collective punitive measures committed by Israel against the Palestinian civilian population and, in particular, against leaders of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in the West Bank; and

3- Renews its call for the international community to intervene to protect Palestinian civilians in accordance with the principles of the international humanitarian and human rights law, and to prevent the deterioration of the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on PCHR Condemns Arrests of Political Leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the West Bank

Elie Wiesel and Survivor Guilt


This article is courtesy of Jett Rucker and Smith’s Report, where it appears in the current issue.

Since Elie Wiesel is “the world’s most famous Holocaust survivor,” I asked Mr. Rucker if I could post his article here.  It does an effective job of putting the term “holocaust survivor” into a more realistic context – one that includes all “survivors.”  I have added the sub-headings and pictures, and done very slight editing (removing some phrases in parentheses) for ease of reading.

Of course, my position remains that it is doubtful Elie Wiesel was in the camps at all. Thus, his “survivor guilt” might be even greater than if he were, and survived. Can that explain his lifelong campaign on behalf of keeping “Memory” alive of what occurred, both fictitious and real? Some might think so, but perhaps a better explanation is plain old opportunism. The many favors and privileges Wiesel has obtained throughout his lifetime are based on his “survivorship;” keep that in mind as you read the following.~cy [Image: Ye olde survivor Elie Wiesel has lived the good life, as his contented face reveals.]


Survivor Guilt

by Jett Rucker

“Survivor guilt” has come into popular usage as an irrational complex on the part of people who are among a very small number of people who, by sheer happenstance, have emerged alive from a disaster that took the lives of many others who seem to have deserved no more (or less) to have survived than they (the survivors) did. Occasionally, for example, a plane crash occurs from which one, or perhaps two, victims emerge relatively unscathed, while all their fellows perished in the catastrophe. The complex plagues them for years after the event, in some cases.

Now and then, though, some sort of more-genuine guilt may seem to attach to the fact of survivorship, as in the case of the (surviving) members of a Uruguayan rugby team who committed (and admitted to) cannibalism in the process of surviving two months on a remote peak in the Andes where their plane had crashed in 1972. The surviving cannibals were absolved of their “sin” by the Pope, whom both the perpetrators and, presumably, the victims acknowledged as their spiritual shepherd.

A stronger presumption of actual guilt on the part of survivors might attach, say, to adult male survivors of the Titanic sinking in 1912, as they might be suspected of having violated or otherwise evaded the famous stricture supposedly invoked at the time, “Women and children first.” Some male passengers apparently did that, while others are thought to have boarded life boats that were about to depart the sinking vessel with empty seats in them.

The dead have not been heard from …

And then, there are those long-term situations imposed by a hostile group of others, in which a potential for treachery, betrayal, collaboration, or even fouler play might enter the picture. In the annals of human conflict, undoubtedly war provides the greatest number of these situations, especially if they are rated by numbers of either: (a) dead victims, who cannot testify as to what occurred; or (b) survivors, who perforce provide the only narratives available as to what occurred. Be it noted: neither group, not individually nor collectively, is in a position to even understand all of what did happen, quite aside from what might have happened had anyone acted differently from the way they did.

War veterans are no doubt the most-numerous of the groups that fit the description above, including both those who survived and those who, not surviving, never gained the exalted status of veterans. I often wonder how the glories of past victories (and defeats) might be perhaps somewhat dimmed if the voices of the dead might be heard on the occasions when the glories are celebrated among the survivors and their putative beneficiaries.

War Industry Workers: “survivors” or veterans?

A very special, if demographically dwindling, group remains in our midst who command, and lately often claim, reverence that is not accorded even to veterans of this (or other) nation’s wars. These are those who claim to have been forced by the National Socialist regime that governed Germany from 1933 to 1945 to leave their homes and properties in Germany for resettlement or labor camps to the east of Germany because they were Jews, as well as those Jews resident in countries east of Germany who were dragooned into service in Germany’s war-industry plants such as those in Birkenau, Dora-Mittelbau, and over a thousand other locations: “Holocaust survivors,” as they style themselves.

Such persons (the genuine ones among the many claiming such status with no basis whatsoever in truth) are survivors, if at all, only in the sense that anyone residing in Germany or Austria by the time World War II reached its catastrophic end was a survivor. What they survived was not forced labor (to which many were indeed subjected), but the blanket devastation wreaked by Allied bombers upon the domiciles of the entire populace of their “targets.” Insofar as their survival involved their conscription into forced labor in war-industry factories, such fortunates may as well be designated “veterans” as their less-fortunate predecessors  were conscripted to go to the front, there to confront the irresistible onslaught of Soviet manpower and American productivity.

Be all this as it may, all an elderly Jew in America with any sort of claim to European origins need do to command instant respect and credulity among those around him or her, is to invoke the sacred appellation, “Holocaust Survivor.” Once this is done, silence reigns all around, and rapt attention is reflexively granted by all those in attendance, they all having long since been conditioned to render such obeisances upon hearing the Pavlovian Bell.

Jewess Anna Breslaw questions the innocence of “Holocaust survivors”

An intrepid, if possibly naïve, American Jewess of unwonted analytic disposition,Anna Breslaw, writing for the Tablet, ventured the irrefutable speculation that some of the few genuine “Holocaust survivors” among those many claiming the vaunted status might, indeed, have survived the parlous times they undoubtedly went through, by way of guile, or even treachery, in a few cases.* She did not trouble her argument with particulars as to how her co-religionists might have collaborated, contrived, betrayed, or otherwise arranged for themselves the favored treatment that enabled them to “survive,” but the force of her argument was sufficient to rouse into action none other than that Centurion of the Sanctity of the Holocaust Mythology, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic Magazine. He styled Breslaw’s impeccable logic as “ghastly.”

Goldberg advanced the view of what he hopes might still be the dominant view of Jewish and Jewish-conditioned readers of his widely circulated platform. Maybe it is, and maybe the Tablet has got the ear (mind, heart) of thoughtful readers of both (or all) publications. Goldberg’s time-worn imprecations bear inspection, as do Breslaw’s rather more-nuanced comments, made, be it noted, in a context rather remote from the ones implied in Goldberg’s tirade.

Can real “Holocaust survivors” really be innocent?

Breslaw’s well-considered cautions arrive on the American scene at a critical time when real “Holocaust Survivors” have faded from the scene that they never had the temerity to dominate in the first place, but self-qualified “survivors” have taken their place to affect shock and affront at such “disparagements” as Breslaw offers. Real “Holocaust survivors,” keenly aware from genuine experience what moral ambiguity attends the status to which they could lay claim, have always remained reticent in proclaiming the particulars of their experiences, and acts. Those many who lack this experience, but claim it by implication, let on as though they were blameless both in terms of their incarceration in the first place, but further—and this is the stretch—as to their deportment while actually incarcerated.

The act can be pulled off only by those quite innocent of the genuine experience. Those who affect utter innocence in the fates they claim may be dismissed as being innocent not only of guilt, but also of the experiences they claim to have.

As for Goldberg, and his magazine, we may consign them to a category reserved for those liars who propose to benefit from the success that may be enjoyed by still other liars.

*Of particular interest to us is this passage by Breslaw:

… in grade school I received the de rigueur exposure to the horror—visiting geriatric men and women with numbers tattooed on their arms, completing assigned reading like The Diary of Anne Frank and Night. But the more information I received, the less sympathy the survivors elicited from me. Each time we clapped for the old Hungarian lady who spoke about Dachau, each time Elie Wiesel threw another anonymous anecdote of betrayal onto a page, I eyed it askance, thinking What did you do that you’re not talking about? I had the gut instinct that these were villains masquerading as victims who, solely by virtue of surviving (very likely by any means necessary), felt that they had earned the right to be heroes, their basic, animal self-interest dressed up with glorified phrases like “triumph of the human spirit.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Elie Wiesel and Survivor Guilt

America’s Failed Palestinian Policy

By Yousef Munayyer
MORE than 160 Palestinians and 5 Israelis are dead, and as the smoke clears over Gaza, the Israelis will not be more secure and Palestinians’ hopes for self-determination remain dashed. It is time for a significant re-evaluation of the American policies that have contributed to this morass.
The failure of America’s approach toward the Israelis and the Palestinians, much like its flawed policies toward the region in general, is founded on the assumption that American hard power, through support for Israel and other Middle Eastern governments, can keep the legitimate grievances of the people under wraps.
But events in Gaza, like those in Egypt and elsewhere, have proved once again that the use of force is incapable of providing security for Israel, when the underlying causes of a people’s discontent go unaddressed.
The United States government must ask: what message do America’s policies send to Israelis and Palestinians?
Washington’s policies have sent counterproductive messages to the Palestinians that have only increased the incentives for using violence.
American policy initially signaled to Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah, a Palestinian party committed to the idea of negotiations, that talks would yield a Palestinian state on 22 percent of the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. At the same time the United States, which has monopolized the role of mediator for itself, failed to do anything to change Israel’s policies of settlement expansion in the West Bank.
Palestinians’ patience grew thin as the number of Israeli settlers tripled between the beginning of the “peace process” in 1991 and today. Palestinians learned that the message they initially got about a peace process’ leading to statehood was either made in bad faith or an outright lie.
The message they ultimately understood from observing America’s reflexively pro-Israel policy was that the peace process was merely a cover for endless Israeli colonialism.
America’s policy toward Hamas also sent the wrong message; rather than promoting peace, it only created incentives for the use of arms. Sanctions imposed after Hamas’s 2006 electoral victory told the party that Israel and the United States would marginalize it unless it accepted the same principles put forth by the so-called quartet of Middle East peacemakers that Fatah accepted — namely, recognizing Israel’s right to exist and renouncing violence. Having seen what that path yielded for Fatah — nothing but continued Israeli colonization — Hamas was not persuaded and chose instead to reject those principles. In return, the Gaza Strip was put under a brutal siege.
Hamas has used armed struggle to achieve certain objectives, albeit at significant cost. Its leaders saw the removal of Israeli settlers from Gaza in 2005 as a victory for their methods, as well as the return of thousands of prisoners last year, in exchange for a single captured Israeli soldier. The returns may be limited and the costs significant, but when the other options are either subjugation or the path their compatriots in Fatah face, Hamas is likely to make the same calculation — and choose violence every time.
The cease-fire announced Wednesday will only perpetuate the same incentive structure. Through the use of force, Hamas gained favorable terms. The Israelisagreed to ease collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza and end extrajudicial assassinations. While both of these are against international law to begin with and long-term Israeli adherence to these terms is not guaranteed, these are nonetheless commitments that Hamas believes could only have been extracted through armed struggle.
Further, the fighting brought attention to the open wound of Gaza, which the world had forgotten. Foreign ministers and dignitaries visited the strip and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to the region for the cease-fire announcement. The real danger is if the underlying causes of discontent in Gaza — the denial of human rights and dignity for Palestinians — continue to go ignored once rockets stop targeting Israel. This has been the case each time in the past.
What message is sent to Palestinians when the only time we pay attention to their plight, and the only time they make gains, is through the use of arms?
Likewise, our policy toward Israel has also sent counterproductive messages. As the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority came into the West Bank, many of the costs of being responsible for occupied Palestinians were transferred from Israel to the authority while the entrenchment of occupation continued unabated. This not only reduced the costs of occupation for Israel; it continues to be rewarding as Israel has been able to reap political and economic benefits from exploiting Palestinian land and natural resources.
Moreover, Washington has economically, diplomatically and militarily supported Israel as it continues with its settlement project and thus it is no wonder that some in Israel continue to believe that perpetual occupation, or de facto apartheid, is a viable policy option.
By constantly condemning Palestinian armed resistance, and failing to condemn Israeli settlement expansion and repression of nonviolent Palestinian dissent, the message the United States is sending the Palestinian people is this: All resistance to occupation is illegitimate.
No nation on earth would accept that, nor is it realistic to expect it to.
The disastrous results of the incentive structure we’ve created have been on full display in recent days. Moving forward, Washington must fundamentally re-evaluate the messages it sends to all parties because we’ve currently set them on the path to even greater — and potentially unmanageable — escalations in the future.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USAComments Off on America’s Failed Palestinian Policy

Time To Do vom 11.05.2012, Ist der Iran ein Aggressor ?


Thema der Sendung: Gespräch mit dem Iranischen Botschafter in der Schweiz „Ali Reza Salari”.

Posted in IranComments Off on Time To Do vom 11.05.2012, Ist der Iran ein Aggressor ?

Shoah’s pages


November 2012
« Oct   Dec »