Archive | December 15th, 2010



Nixon blasts Jews as ‘obnoxious’ in tapes

Italian PM Warns Israel May Nuke Iran

Iranian Protestors warn they’ll ‘destroy Esther’s Tomb if Al-Aqsa mosque assaulted in any way

Jordan’s king wants improved ties with Iran

PM denies reports of compensation to Turkey

Iran’s president fires foreign minister

Rights group: Police making illegal arrests of Palestinian children

Israel applauds Egyptian regime’s suppression of Muslim opposition in rigged parliamentary elections

Jewish Austrian banker suspected of being Madoff’s ‘criminal soul mate’

Deputy FM: Iran-Venezuela ties threaten U.S., entire world

IDF probe: Soldier wounded on Gaza border was hit by friendly fire

Intelligence chiefs fear nuclear war between Israel and Tehran

Jewish Public invited to inform on those renting to Arabs


Posted in UKComments Off on NOVANEWS**NOVANEWS




I don’t want to suggest that this is so shocking. But here’s Hillel, scaring up anti-Semitism again. A newdirective from Hillel’s Schusterman International Center contains guidelines so that local Hillels know which organizations and groups are considered “valid” partners in promoting “civil and informed” discourse on Israel. According to the new guidelines, “Hillel will not partner with, house or host organizations, groups or speakers that as a matter of policy or practice:

(1) Deny the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state with secure and recognized border

(2) Delegitimize, demonize or apply a double standard to Israel

(3) Support boycott of, divestment from, or sanctions against the State of Israel

(4) Exhibit a pattern of disruptive behavior toward campus events or guest speakers or foster an atmosphere of incivility.

In other words, all and any chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine will be groups non gratae for Hillels, at least, if they choose to listen to the Schusterman Center. Which they don’t have to do. I can only say thank you. This makes our work easier. Since no one with a bit of sense anymore defends the “right of Israel to exist yea yea yea” Hillel will attract only the most extreme slavering jingoistic nitwits. (It’s worth noting here that according to a recent study, “86 percent of Israel’s Jewish citizens believe that decisions of major importance for the state must enjoy the support of a Jewish majority, while 62 percent of Israel’s Jewish citizens believe that as long as Israel is engaged in a conflict with the Palestinians, Arab citizens’ opinions on matters of security and foreign policy should not be taken into account.” Right-wing Haaretz columnist Moshe Arens asks, does this “indicate that a majority of Israel’s Jewish citizens have not really absorbed the basic precepts of democratic government?”)To which the only appropriate response is that time-honored internet standby, LOL.

This is good because (1) they discredit themselves and (2) that will mean that Hillel is dumbing down, hence it will be even harder to defend the indefensible and (3) Hillel is drawing the lines, not us. Even liberal Zionists supporting something mild like a cut-off of military aid to Israel won’t be at home in Hillel. Where will they go? Jewish Voice for Peace, to start. Then, later, Students for Justice in Palestine. It makes organizing much easier when your opponents insist on the principled right to be bigots, when even by their own definitions a “Jewish and democratic” state doesn’t mean a “democratic” state.

The author of the op-ed insists that “I am confident that Hillel can play a critical role in helping this generation of students not only develop a strong sense of Jewish identity, but also a personal connection and commitment to the State of Israel.” To which I can only say: yearight. What you will help is cement a ghetto mentality amongst a subsection of American Jewry more receptive to propaganda—and that will be Israel’s next generations of defenders, if it lasts another generation in its current form. The rest will drop Israel. Jeremiah Haber, who drew my attention to this post, suggests that this new policy from Hillel’s leadership is a problem. I think it’s a solution.

When the enemy identifies itself as the enemy in such tribal, backward terms, it makes people choose sides or forces them to take a stand with respect to their institution’s theretofore hidden racism. I think that’s a good thing.

Technorati Tags: 

Related posts:

  1. the Lobby is powerful, but not all powerful Perhaps the most bizarre thing about attempts to really analyze…
  2. Joint Statement from SJPs on Anti-Defamation Leagues “Top 10” List This is the future. Yalla byebye Zionism, marhab justice. The…
  3. Speaking event in Western Mass For those of you living in Western Mass­a­chu­setts, I’m speaking…
  4. Another silent walk-out in protest of Israel’s PR campaign Guest post, Christo­pher Clark On December 2nd, an event entitled “Over­com­ing…
  5. IJAN Statement: No Loyalty to Apartheid This is the question to be put, not to the…


Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Posted in Politics1 Comment




Tags: CameronDecember 2010Jody McIntyreLib DemsLondonMargaret Thatcher,Peaceful protestersPoliceRiotStudent feesToriesTory Britain | Categories: Uncategorized | URL:

In the 21st century we are increasingly jaded. We think we seen it all, every weird video, every crime, every shooting, nearly every atrocity and certainly all of the stupidly thuggish actions that the police can take.

Yet they have surpassed themselves.

Four big and extremely fit policeman tackled a wheelchair user.

Yes, that’s correct, FOUR policeman.

Precisely what crime the wheelchair user committed is unclear, and the aggressive interviewer on BBC news shows no sympathy for the plight of the wheelchair user.

Had the wheelchair user had an axe, or a machine gun you might have understood a sense of urgency, but all he had was his hands on the wheels, and as far as I can see was not in any way a threat to the police.

However, it is fairly clear that the Cameron government have let the police off their leash, so be you able-bodied, a wheelchair user, or blind I will bet that you will find nothing but a size 10 boot coming your way, if you decide to oppose the policies of the Tory government.




UK chief rabbi: Universities failing in anti-Semitism fight

“Kooshi” is Hebrew for “Nigger”

Suicide attack kills dozens in Iran

Holbrooke’s Legacy–A gangster regime in Kosovo

Mullen Demands Pakistan Attack North Waziristan

Freedom Flotilla 2 To Sail To Gaza Next Spring


Bedouin community wells demolished by Israeli forces

Civil rights for Palestinian refugees

Church leaders from Palestine tell the Irish “No such thing as justice in the Holy Land”

WikiLeaks Reveals US Twisted Ethiopia’s Arm to Invade Somalia

Afghanistan: School building destroyed in NATO airstrike

Israel approves more settlement units

White House Downplays Holbrooke’s Last Words as Joking Exchange


Israel rebuffs call to join NPT


Holbrooke’s Dying Words: ‘You’ve Got to Stop This War in Afghanistan’

Stuxnet virus set back Iran’s nuclear program by 2 years’

FBI Almost Entirely Arbitrary in Redactions on FOIA Requests


Please check out the brand new book detailing Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS LIBERTY here

Posted in UKComments Off on NOVANEWS**NOVANEWS



Dec 15, 2010

Glenn Greenwald: 

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. 

Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months — and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait — under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.  Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning’s detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems.  He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a “Maximum Custody Detainee,” the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement.  For 23 out of 24 hours every day — for seven straight months and counting — he sits completely alone in his cell.  Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he’s barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. 

For reasons that appear completely punitive, he’s being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch).  For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs.  Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not “like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole,” but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.

In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America’s Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado:  all without so much as having been convicted of anything.  And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig’s medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture. 

In his widely praised March, 2009 New Yorker article — entitled “Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?” — the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, “all human beings experience isolation as torture.”  By itself, prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a person’s mind and drives them into insanity.  A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that “solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture.”

For that reason, many Western nations — and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses — refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence.  “It’s an awful thing, solitary,” John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit.”  As Gawande documented: “A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered.”  Gawande explained that America’s application of this form of torture to its own citizens is what spawned the torture regime which President Obama vowed to end:

This past year, both the Republican and the Democratic Presidential candidates came out firmly for banning torture and closing the facility in Guantánamo Bay, where hundreds of prisoners have been held in years-long isolation. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain, however, addressed the question of whether prolonged solitary confinement is torture. . . .

This is the dark side of American exceptionalism. . . . Our willingness to discard these standards for American prisoners made it easy to discard the Geneva Conventions prohibiting similar treatment of foreign prisoners of war, to the detriment of America’s moral stature in the world.  In much the same way that a previous generation of Americans countenanced legalized segregation, ours has countenanced legalized torture. And there is no clearer manifestation of this than our routine use of solitary confinement . . . .

It’s one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning experiences.  But it’s another thing entirely to impose such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated an iota of physical threat or disorder.

In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America’s Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement.  Its Report documented that conditions whereby “prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions.” 

The Report documented numerous psychiatric studies of individuals held in prolonged isolation which demonstrate “a constellation of symptoms that includes overwhelming anxiety, confusion and hallucination, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts.”  The above-referenced article from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law states:  “Psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis.”

When one exacerbates the harms of prolonged isolation with the other deprivations to which Manning is being subjected, long-term psychiatric and even physical impairment is likely.  Gawande documents that “EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement.”  Medical tests conducted in 1992 on Yugoslavian prisoners subjected to an average of six months of isolation — roughly the amount to which Manning has now been subjected — “revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. 

Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury.”  Gawande’s article is filled with horrifying stories of individuals subjected to isolation similar to or even less enduring than Manning’s who have succumbed to extreme long-term psychological breakdown.

Manning is barred from communicating with any reporters, even indirectly, so nothing he has said can be quoted here.  But David House, a 23-year-old MIT researcher who befriended Manning after his detention (and then had his laptops, camera and cellphone seized by Homeland Security when entering the U.S.) is one of the few people to have visited Manning several times at Quantico.  He describes palpable changes in Manning’s physical appearance and behavior just over the course of the several months that he’s been visiting him.  Like most individuals held in severe isolation, Manning sleeps much of the day, is particularly frustrated by the petty, vindictive denial of a pillow or sheets, and suffers from less and less outdoor time as part of his one-hour daily removal from his cage.

This is why the conditions under which Manning is being detained were once recognized in the U.S. — and are still recognized in many Western nations — as not only cruel and inhumane, but torture.  More than a century ago, U.S. courts understood that solitary confinement was a barbaric punishment that severely harmed the mental and physical health of those subjected to it. 

The Supreme Court’s 1890 decision in In re Medley noted that as a result of solitary confinement as practiced in the early days of the United States, many “prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition . . . and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better . . . [often] did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community.”  And in its 1940 decision in Chambers v. Florida, the Court characterized prolonged solitary confinement as “torture” and compared it to “[t]he rack, the thumbscrew, [and] the wheel.”

The inhumane treatment of Manning may have international implications as well.  There are multiple proceedings now pending in the European Union Human Rights Court, brought by “War on Terror” detainees contesting their extradition to the U.S. on the ground that the conditions under which they likely will be held — particularly prolonged solitary confinement — violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which (along with the Convention Against Torture) bars EU states from extraditing anyone to any nation where there is a real risk of inhumane and degrading treatment.  The European Court of Human Rights has in the past found detention conditions violative of those rights (in Bulgaria) where “the [detainee] spent 23 hours a day alone in his cell; had limited interaction with other prisoners; and was only allowed two visits per month.”  From the Journal article referenced above:

International treaty bodies and human rights experts, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, have concluded that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  They have specifically criticized supermax confinement in the United States because of the mental suffering it inflicts.

Subjecting a detainee like Manning to this level of prolonged cruel and inhumane detention can thus jeopardize the ability of the U.S. to secure extradition for other prisoners, as these conditions are viewed in much of the civilized world as barbaric.  Moreover, because Manning holds dual American and U.K. citizenship (his mother is British), it is possible for British agencies and human rights organizations to assert his consular rights against these oppressive conditions. 

At least some preliminary efforts are underway in Britain to explore that mechanism as a means of securing more humane treatment for Manning.  Whatever else is true, all of this illustrates what a profound departure from international norms is the treatment to which the U.S. Government is subjecting him.

* * * * *

The plight of Manning has largely been overshadowed by the intense media fixation on WikiLeaks, so it’s worth underscoring what it is that he’s accused of doing and what he said in his own reputed words about these acts.  If one believes the authenticity of the highly edited chat logs of Manning’s online conversations with Adrian Lamo that have been released by Wired (that magazine inexcusably continues to conceal large portions of those logs), Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that.  If, for instance, he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video — a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what American wars actually entail — as well as the war and diplomatic cables revealing substantial government deceit, brutality, illegality and corruption, then he’s quite similar to Daniel Ellsberg.  Indeed, Ellsberg himself said the very same thing about Manning in June on Democracy Now in explaining why he considers the Army Private to be a “hero”:

The fact is that what Lamo reports Manning is saying has a very familiar and persuasive ring to me.  He reports Manning as having said that what he had read and what he was passing on were horrible — evidence of horrible machinations by the US backdoor dealings throughout the Middle East and, in many cases, as he put it, almost crimes. And let me guess that — he’s not a lawyer, but I’ll guess that what looked to him like crimes are crimes, that he was putting out. We know that he put out, or at least it’s very plausible that he put out, the videos that he claimed to Lamo.  And that’s enough to go on to get them interested in pursuing both him and the other.

And so, what it comes down, to me, is — and I say throwing caution to the winds here — is that what I’ve heard so far of Assange and Manning — and I haven’t met either of them — is that they are two new heroes of mine.

To see why that’s so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:

Lamo: what’s your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] – and god knows what happens now – hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms – if not, than [sic] we’re doomed – as a species – i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens – the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN’s iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded – people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . – i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

if i knew then, what i knew now – kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former – it cant be the latter – because if it is… were fucking screwed (as a society) – and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed.

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi “insurgents” who had been detained for distributing so-called “insurgent” literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than “a scholarly critique against PM Maliki”:

i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled “Where did the money go?” and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…

i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…

And Manning explained why he never considered the thought of selling this classified information to a foreign nation for substantial profit or even just secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he easily could have done:

Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?

Lamo: why didn’t you?

Manning: because it’s public data

Lamo: i mean, the cables

Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free – it belongs in the public domain – because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge – if its out in the open… it should be a public good.

That’s a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form:  discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.”  Given how much Manning has been demonized — at the same time that he’s been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with any media — it’s worthwhile to keep all of that in mind.

But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning’s alleged acts is irrelevant to the issue here.  The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him.  That’s true for every prisoner, at all times.  But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing. 

These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama’s repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation — exacerbated by these other deprivations — is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.

What all of this achieves is clear.  Having it known that the U.S. could and would disappear people at will to “black sites,” assassinate them with unseen drones, imprison them for years without a shred of due process even while knowing they were innocent, torture them mercilessly, and in general acts as a lawless and rogue imperial power created a climate of severe intimidation and fear.  Who would want to challenge the U.S. Government in any way — even in legitimate ways — knowing that it could and would engage in such lawless, violent conduct without any restraints or repercussions?

That is plainly what is going on here.  Anyone remotely affiliated with WikiLeaks, including American citizens (and plenty of other government critics), has their property seized and communications stored at the border without so much as a warrant.  Julian Assange — despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime — has now spent more than a week in solitary confinement with severe restrictions under what his lawyer calls “Dickensian conditions.”  But Bradley Manning has suffered much worse, and not for a week, but for seven months, with no end in sight. 

If you became aware of secret information revealing serious wrongdoing, deceit and/or criminality on the part of the U.S. Government, would you — knowing that you could and likely would be imprisoned under these kinds of repressive, torturous conditions for months on end without so much as a trial:  just locked away by yourself 23 hours a day without recourse — be willing to expose it?  That’s the climate of fear and intimidation which these inhumane detention conditions are intended to create.

* * * * *

Those wishing to contribute to Bradley Manning’s defense fund can do so here.  All of those means are reputable, but everyone should carefully read the various options presented in order to decide which one seems best.




Dec 15, 2010

December 15, 2010




In Memoriam of the victims of that infamous example of Zio=Nazi ritual murder, Operation Cast Lead that resulted in the death or maiming of thousands of innocent Palestinian men, women and children during Christas season of 2008-2009. 

We are joined by author/essayist Perry Lombardi and his most recent article The Dividing Line Made from Cast Lead.


Listen HERE

Posted in Middle East3 Comments




Last week, 38 Degrees members in a few locations around the country organised get-togethers to talk about the NHS.

In Oldham, Bristol, Truro, north London, Staffordshire, York, Kent, Leeds, Norwich, Reading and Nottingham, 38 Degrees memberssat down together to discuss the government’s worrying plans for our health service and how to sound the alarm in their local area.

James, one of the organisers of the York meeting, said this:
“Our get-together brought local health professionals, patients and the public together to discuss NHS reforms and to find common ground on how to take action…the hardest bit about arranging the meeting was sticking up posters directing people to the room!”

This is just the beginning. Today the government made clear it wants to push through its changes to the NHS. [1] We need to get ready to stop them. In January, we need to organise hundreds of Save our NHS get-togethers up and down the country. Could you help organise one?

Please click here to put your name down to be involved with a Save our NHS get-together in your area:

Early in the New Year, the government will start pushing changes to the NHS through parliament. Nurses, doctors and patients groups are all warning that they could do terrible damage – bad for patients, fuelling privatisation, and wasting a huge amount of money. [2]

Thousands of us took part in a poll a few weeks ago to decide how to respond. One of the most popular ideas was to sit down together in our own local areas – in front rooms, community centres, local cafes or pubs – to make plans to protect the NHS. We realised that we need to start working together in our local areas. That way we can really sound the alarm and stop the government’s plans before it’s too late.

Please click here to put your name down to join other 38 Degrees members in your area at a get-together in January:

These events aren’t hard work to organise. It’s just about getting people together for an hour or two, including some who work in the NHS, to talk about the issues and decide what you want to do next. There’ll be plenty of support to make sure no one ends up biting off more than they can chew.

38 Degrees member David organised last week’s get-together in Reading, and said afterwards, “Organising the NHS meeting was a pleasure. It was made simple by the 38 Degrees office and I was very encouraged by the responses (even from those we couldn’t attend). The internet makes people power fast and responsive – this method can be an effective platform to have our voices heard”.

People usually expect 38 Degrees action to happen on the internet. But we know that we need to use a range of tactics to keep MPs on their toes. Let’s start getting ready to take the campaign into our local neighbourhoods. If MPs see events happening on their doorstep, it will help make them think twice about backing the government’s plans.

There be anything to do until January. But please click here now to put your name down and say you want to get involved:

Thanks for getting involved,

David, Hannah, Johnny, Eilidh and the 38 Degrees Team

PS: We hit our fundraising target to get adverts about tax dodging in the national papers on the same day that VAT goes up. Thank you to everyone who donated! To see a copy of the ad, please click here:





Posted in UKComments Off on SAVE OUR NHS



December 14, 2010

by Debbie Menon 

We Think it’s Important to Stand by Helen Thomas

We also think this is an opportunity to reach Americans whose curiosity is now piqued by all the controversy

If Americans Knew – what every American needs to know about Israel

Veteran Journalist — Helen Thomas

Veteran journalist Helen Thomas is under attack again. The ADL took away her job; now it wants to take away her honorary degrees. Let’s turn the tables on them!

ADL Director Abe Foxman recently called the 90-year old former senior White House correspondent a “vulgar anti-Semite,” referred to her comments as “crude,” and called on schools and professional organizations that have honored Thomas over the years to rescind those honors.

Shortly afterward Thomas’s alma mater, Wayne State University, announced that it will no longer give out the “Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity in the Media Award.” Others are expected to follow suit.

The attacks on Thomas began in June when a rabbi posted a Youtube video of Thomas taken without her knowledge, followed by sensationalized and inaccurate media reports pushed by former Bush White House PR director Ari Fleischer, an Israel partisan unhappy with Thomas’s tough questions.

The media assault was eagerly taken up by journalists happy to kick a reporter whose integrity and competence surpassed their own once she was down and easy prey. Many, perhaps most, were Israel partisans.

We think it’s important to stand by Helen Thomas. We also think this is an opportunity to reach Americans whose curiosity is now piqued by all the controversy.


Therefore, we have created a hand-out for people (see below) to distribute on campuses and in communities around the country. This brochure explains the validity of Thomas’s videotaped remarks and gives the powerful context about Palestine omitted by mainstream media accounts – the transformative facts that the ADL does not want Americans to know.

Several years ago If Americans Knew received a death threat. Instead of intimidating us, this caused us to work even harder and become ever more effective.

We can now all do the same with Helen Thomas. We can show the ADL that rather than destroying her and intimidating others, their attacks have provided a platform whereby even more Americans are learning the facts!

Because a generous, committed donor is subsidizing this project, we are making these available at a cost anyone can afford – just a nickel apiece! We are providing them in batches of 10, and hope that most people will order 50 or above!

The idea is to give these out as widely as possible – on campuses, at events, in libraries and cafes. Give them to colleagues and neighbors, at book discussion groups and World Affairs Councils.

Together, we can stand by Helen Thomas and give Americans the truth.

The If Americans Knew Team

 Order Now

Or email your order to
Tell us your mailing address and how many you want.
You can then mail a check, money order or donate online.

If Americans Knew
3020 El Cerrito Plaza #157
El Cerrito, CA 94530
(202) 631-4060

While The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) claims that its purpose is to defend Jewish Americans from bigotry, in reality its activities frequently consist of attacking those who provide facts it dislikes, particularly information about Israel. We oppose bigotry of all sorts and support the ADL’s alleged goal. We sincerely wish that it would be true to this worthy mission.

The Real News Interviews — Helen Thomas on Her Resignation and Middle East

The Real News Interviews –Helen Thomas on Her One Question for Obama




Justice Department Prepares for Ominous Expansion of “Anti-Terrorism” Law Targeting Activists


December 13, 2010

by Michael Leon

It is ironic – and the height of hypocrisy – that this same man [President Obama] who speaks with such reverence for Mr. Mandela and recalls his own support for the struggle against apartheid now allows the Justice Department under his command to criminalize similar First Amendment advocacy against Israeli apartheid and repressive foreign governments.

By Michael Deutsch at Truthout

In late September, the FBI carried out a series of raids of homes and antiwar offices of public activists in Minneapolis and Chicago. Following the raids, the Obama Justice Department subpoenaed 14 activists to a grand jury in Chicago and also subpoenaed the files of several antiwar and community organizations. In carrying out these repressive actions, the Justice Department was taking its lead from the Supreme Court’s 6-3 opinion last June inHolder v. the Humanitarian Law Project, which decided that nonviolent First Amendment speech and advocacy “coordinated with” or “under the direction of” a foreign group listed by the Secretary of State as “terrorist” was a crime.

The search warrants and grand jury subpoenas make it clear that the federal prosecutors are intent on accusing public nonviolent political organizers, many of whom are affiliated with Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), of providing “material support” through their public advocacy for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The Secretary of State has determined that both the PLFP and the FARC “threaten US national security, foreign policy or economic interests,” a finding not reviewable by the courts, and listed both groups as foreign terrorist organizations (FTO).

In 1996, Congress made it a crime – then punishable by 10 years, which was later increased to 15 years – to anyone in the US who provides “material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization or attempts or conspires to do so.” The present statute defines “material support or resources” as:

… any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel and transportation except medicine or religious materials.

In the Humanitarian Law Project case, human rights workers wanted to teach members of the Kurdistan PKK, which seeks an independent Kurdish state, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which sought an independent state in Sri Lanka, how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes and obtain relief from the United Nations and other international bodies for human rights abuses by the governments of Turkey and Sri Lanka. Both organizations were designated as FTOs by the Secretary of State in a closed hearing, in which the evidence is heard secretly.

Despite the nonviolent, peacemaking goal of the Humanitarian Law Project’s speech and training, the majority of the Supreme Court nonetheless interpreted the law to make such conduct a crime. Finding a whole new exception to the First Amendment, the Court decided that any support, even if it involves nonviolent efforts towards peace, is illegal under the law since it “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” and also helps lend “legitimacy” to foreign terrorist groups.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts, despite the lack of any evidence, further opined that the FTO could use the human rights law to “intimidate, harass or destruct” its adversaries, and that even peace talks themselves could be used as a cover to re-arm for further attacks. Thus, the Court’s opinion criminalizes efforts by independent groups to work for peace if they in any way cooperate or coordinate with designated FTOs.

The Court distinguishes what it refers to as “independent advocacy,” which it finds is not prohibited by the statute, from “advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization,” which is, for the first time, found to be a crime under the statute. The exact line demarcating where independent advocacy becomes impermissible coordination is left open and vague.

Seizing on this overbroad definition of “material support,” the US government is now moving in on political groups and activists who are clearly exercising fundamental First Amendment rights by vocally opposing the government’s branding of foreign liberation movements as terrorist and supporting their struggles against US-backed repressive regimes and illegal occupations.

Under the new definition of “material support,” the efforts of President Jimmy Carter to monitor the elections in Lebanon and coordinate with the political parties there, including the designated FTO Hezbollah, could well be prosecuted as a crime. Similarly, the publication of op-ed articles by FTO spokesmen from Hamas or other designated groups by The New York Times or The Washington Post, or the filing of amicus briefs by human rights attorneys arguing against a group’s terrorist designation or the statute itself could also now be prosecuted.

Of course, the first targets of this draconian expansion of the material support law will not be a former president or the establishment media, but members of a Marxist organization who are vocal opponents of the governments of Israel and Colombia and the US policies supporting these repressive governments.

In his foreword to Nelson Mandela’s recent autobiography “Conversations with Myself,” President Obama wrote that “Mandela’s sacrifice was so great that it called upon people everywhere to do what they could on behalf of human progress. … The first time I became politically active was during my college years, when I joined a campaign on behalf of divestment, and the effort to end apartheid in South Africa.” At the time of Mr. Obama’s First Amendment advocacy, Mr. Mandela and his organization the African National Congress (ANC) were denounced as terrorist by the US government.

If the “material support” law had been in effect back then, Mr. Obama would have been subject to potential criminal prosecution. It is ironic – and the height of hypocrisy – that this same man who speaks with such reverence for Mr. Mandela and recalls his own support for the struggle against apartheid now allows the Justice Department under his command to criminalize similar First Amendment advocacy against Israeli apartheid and repressive foreign governments.




December 13, 2010

by Gordon Duff  



“This is sad,  any journalists carrying these fabrications that aren’t getting a fat paycheck or “backhander”, the honest “independents” being duped, are “toast.”

The current Wikileak “dump” has had a number of talkingpoint “dumps” in order to properly exploit pro-Israel press assets in the blogger world.  These talkingpoints expose “seeded” intelligence meant to support an attack on Iran, the primary purpose of the current Assange/Murdoch/Israel output.  Not only do members of the mainstream press receive these talking points but dozens of “alternative” or internet media sources as well.  It has become increasingly obvious that many internet news sources that describe themselves as “alternative” or even anti-Zionist are totally controlled.


This branding, this call for war is entirely based on fabricated cables “released” Monday by the Sidney Morning Herald.  Wikileaks has issued a virtual declaration of war against Iran, part of the Mossad’s “war by deception” of which Wikileaks is a proven component.  Blog after blog followed suit, spreading the same “poison,” Wikileaks again “leaks” false information citing Iran for having a nuclear weapons program long proven not to exist. 

Every Wikileaks revelation conceals the same “poison,” a message that intended to discredit anyone preventing an immediate attack, nuclear attack, on Iran.  A curiosity in itself, the cables Wikileaks most often quotes are not only favorable to Israel but written by diplomats who have visited Israel on “fact finding” missions, often privately financed. 

John Kaminiski puts it thus:

Our enemy is someone who profits from poisons, who has taken the bribe and supports the lies of the predator class that is now strangling the planet with its robberies, its very bad medicine, and its false flag terror.

Our enemy is someone who knows exactly who is doing this to us, but won’t say or do anything about it for fear of losing his or her livelihood, bank account, and reputation. This includes all people who use pen names.

Our enemy is someone who pretends to be on our side, but you don’t find out that they aren’t until the worst possible time. A lot of internet personalities fit into this category, and sad to say, most of you haven’t figured out who they are.”

Who are these people?  They are, in fact, “moles.”  They have acted as “place holders,” presenting themselves as anti-globalist, anti-war and anti-Zionist while, when needed, jumping sides on demand.

With all the credible sources now expressing somewhere between “strong doubts” and outright “Israeli control,” perhaps the only useful purpose Wikileaks can serve is exposing the masked face of the real enemy among us.  Were Wikileaks less “ham handed,” more clever, more carefully crafted as a “game theory” psy-op, it would be different.  Wikileaks is childishly transparent.

The initial Israeli “talking points” began with cables theoretically showing support for an attack on Iran by the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.  Tony Lawson deals with this issue quite effectively in the video below:

The next talkingpoint led selected members of the media to stories showing Israel’s problems with organized crime.  Jeff Gates contends that the government of Israel is organized crime, calling Israel a “Criminal State.”  His website, was hacked when this Wikileak was “dumped.”


The current talking point involved cables, beginning with those from the intelligence services in Australia.  Presented by “cooperative” bloggers defending Assange against the deluge of accusation that he is an agent of Israel, these cables that seem to defend Iran’s right to build nuclear weapons for “deterrence” are anything but.



The cables, themselves, are carefully chosen misrepresentations that support the false premise, long proven, that Iraq’s nuclear program is military in nature.  The methodology here is much the same as with a “trojan” virus.  Something ugly and insidious is packaged inside something innocent, even “liberal.”  Wikileaks exploits the inherent decency of liberals, recruiting the decent as agents of hate.

In this attempt, this “game,” those critical of Israel and the insidious public relations war meant to destroy the people of Iran much as has been done to the people of Gaza, have been turned to “the darkside.”  In defending Iran’s right to have a nuclear deterrent, something Iran is not seeking, they are also actively supporting this non-existent capability is a reality.  They are supporting a dangerous lie meant to bring about a war.

Such ignorance, a generation of the chronically attention deficit, is a playground for the Masters of the Universe, and their gamesters, the Mossad.

The “game theory’ warfare aspect, of course, is to cash in on bloggers who have long presented themselves as defenders of the Palestinians and critics of Zionism, selling their credibility, or what is left of it, in an eleventh hour attempt to build a case for an Iranian nuclear program and support an immediate US air attack.

The terms “clumsy” and “ham handed” are generous.

“This is sad,  any journalists carrying these fabrications that aren’t getting a fat paycheck or “backhander”, the honest “independents” being duped, are “toast.”


The world watched as Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the United Nations tasked with selling lies that would, not only destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but lies that would forever stain his name and


destroy the honor we know he valued above all else.

Hundreds of senior military officers took the “shilling” from Israel long ago, became “pundits” for neocon blogs or fright mongers for networks.  Despite the desire by some, always with an agenda, to place military service on a pedestal, it doesn’t take a genius to see how few military leaders have retained any remote semblance of honor.  Most have “gone along” or “played along,” getting their “tickets punched” for that fat retirement and that “revolving door” payoff, the insulation.


You need insulation in your golden years when you have set your house on fire and left your children to burn.


The moment the internet became profitable, it became criminal.  There is no more dangerous environment for the unsuspecting than the internet.  For those of discernment, the mainstream news has always come with a package warning:

The internet is far more insidious.  Sources, organization, “personalities” who seem altruistic and self-sacrificing are, in truth, too often broken individuals willing to buy their way into favor with the Masters of the Universe through demonstrating their ability to garner an audience among the most desperate of all, those seeking meaning.  Nothing defines a rube more than someone on a quest.  In an internet world where endless millions feel betrayed, lost, disenfranchised, its “open season” for scamsters.

A pure absurdity, some actually pay subscription fees or make donations to websites, many owned by mainstream media, others managed by Washington lobbyist firms and public relations agencies with client lists that read like a horror story.

Wikileaks is exposing the most insidious of all, those who have presented themselves as the last vestiges of hope and freedom for a world beset by a very real conspiracy.  With “them” naming it for us, the real conspiracy has never been so safe, so free to operate unencumbered.


Shoah’s pages