Archive | September, 2011

Israel scrambles IAF warplanes toward Turkish ship

Turkish media reports claim Israeli F-15s approached Turkish research vessel near contested Cyprus drilling area.

Israel Defense Forces jet fighters were scrambled toward a Turkish seismic research ship in the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkish media reported on Friday, in what seemed to be a further escalation in the already fraying ties between the once longtime allies.

According to the report, cited by the Turkish daily Today’s Zaman and based on a report by the Turkish Vatan daily, two Israel Air Force F-15s took off to face the Turkish vessel on Thursday night, flying through the airspace of both Cyprus and Turkish Cyprus.

The report added that the warplanes approached the Turkish ship despite incessant warnings by forces in Turkish Cyprus, according to which the planes had breached the territory’s airspace.

Ultimately, the report indicated, Turkey launched two F-16 fighters to track the Israeli planes, at which point the IAF fighter jets returned to Israeli airspace.

In addition, the report claimed that an IAF helicopter hovered over the ship, Piri Reis, while the ship was in the Aphrodite gas field off Cyprus’ southern coast and near to the larger Leviathan natural gas field.

The reported incident took place as Israel-Turkey ties continued to deteriorate over Israel’s refusal to apologize for its 2010 raid of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla which resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish nationals.

A recent inflammation in tensions came amid controversy over drilling rights in what could be natural gas-rich areas in the Eastern Mediterranean.

On Tuesday, Turkey said it was exploring for gas in an offshore zone where Cyprus started drilling last week, a provocative step in a dispute over Mediterranean resources.

Last week, Turkey and Turkish Cyprus signed a pact outlining maritime boundaries in the eastern Mediterranean, paving the way for gas exploration. Turkey said it would protect any research vessel with warships, raising the prospect of an armed stand-off.

On September 23, Turkey dispatched its only research vessel, the Piri Reis, to the eastern Mediterranean.

“Piri Reis, escorted by warships, has started research in the same area where Greek Cypriots are exploring,” Omer Celik, Vice Chairman of the ruling AK Party who oversees foreign affairs, said on Twitter.

“We have shown clearly to everyone that we will not allow the eastern Mediterranean to become a Greek Cyprus-Israel goal,” he said in another message.

Report: Israel scrambles IAF warplanes toward Turkish ship

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Israel scrambles IAF warplanes toward Turkish ship

Eight-Year-Old Hit by Settler Car Dies in Hebron

On Tuesday morning, 8-year-old Farid Jaber died of injuries sustained last Friday when an Israeli settler struck him with his car on a settler bypass road 60 east of Hebron. During his funeral, Hebron governor Kamel Hamid demanded “actual international protection” for Palestinians in his province.

An official police statement obtained by Palestinian state-run news wire read, “The child martyr was gravely injured last Friday when a settler hit him as he crossed the bypass road in the Baqa’a area east of Hebron. An Israeli ambulance took him to the Hadassa Ein Karem hospital, where this morning he passed away from his injuries.”

On Friday, September 23, eyewitnesses told AFP that the incident happened at the entrance to the illegal settlement of Kiryat Arba, and that the driver fled the scene immediately. Israeli troops arrested two of the boy’s relatives for “attacking a police officer” afterwards.

Governor Hamid asked for “actual international protection” for Palestinians during Jaber’s funeral, which took place on Tuesday afternoon. He said he appreciated the work of current international peacekeepers, such as the Christian Peacemaker Teams who patrol the old city of Hebron, but he claimed that since settlers were “targeting and intimidating Palestinian children,” more work must done to document settler attacks on a daily basis.

A PNN reporter said hundreds of people attended the funeral, including dignitaries from the Ministry of Education and civil rights organizations.

Eight-Year-Old Hit by Settler Car Dies in Hebron, Governor Demands “Real Protection”

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Eight-Year-Old Hit by Settler Car Dies in Hebron

Israel must annex West Bank settlements, right-wing MKs tell Netanyahu

In letter to premier, leaders of several Knesset factions say Israel must retaliate against the Palestinians’ ‘unilateral’ statehood bid at the UN, or risk losing its deterrence.

Israel should legally annex West Bank settlements in response to the Palestinians’ recent bid for recognition in the United Nations, the leaders of several right-wing Knesset factions said in a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday.

The letter was signed by Likud chairman Ze’ev Elkin, Shas chairman Avraham Michaeli, Habayit Hayehudi chairman Uri Orbach, and the leader of the National Union faction Yaakov Katz.

In the missive, the right-wing MKs urged the prime minister to sanction the Palestinian Authority for what they called a “unilateral” move in the UN, saying that Israel had to make it clear that it would not agree serve as the Palestinians’ “punching bag.”

Among the steps mentioned in the letter to Netanyahu, the right-wing leaders mentioned the gradual annexation of all West Bank settlements; cutting Palestinian aid money; accelerated settlement building; cancellation of PA officials’ VIP ID cards; and prohibiting any Palestinian construction in areas controlled by Israeli security forces.

Citing the reasons behind such steps, the missive indicated that a Palestinian avoidance of unilateral moves was the only return Israel received for all of its concessions as part of the Oslo Peace Accords.

“The PA’s UN bid on unilateral recognition is a blunt breach of those agreements, which have, in the last 18 years, taken their severe toll on us,” the letter said, condemning states involved in those accords that are now deliberating whether or n or to support their undoing.

“We call upon you to make it clear to those nations that their conduct during this crisis rules them out was mediator in future negotiations,” the letter said, warning of the “serious damage that could befall Israel if it chooses to avoid reponse.”

In such an event, the letter indicated, Israel would “completely lose its deterrence, thus stimulating the Palestinians to continue their actions against it in the international arena.”

“In fact, the international damage that Israel could suffer in the wake of the UN vote is significantly smaller than that it would suffer if it doesn’t follow up on the principle you set a decade ago – ‘If they give, they’ll get; if they don’t give, they get nothing.'”

Israel must annex West Bank settlements, right-wing MKs tell Netanyahu

Posted in West BankComments Off on Israel must annex West Bank settlements, right-wing MKs tell Netanyahu

Syria’s UN envoy: Israel committing ‘state terrorism’ against Palestinians

Syrian ambassador’s address to UN Human Rights Council comes amid reports of Syrian tanks storming a town on the main highway to Turkey, killing at least four.

Israel’s human rights violations are proof that it is committing “state terrorism,” Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations told the UN’s Human Rights Council on Monday.

The comment by the Syrian official came amid a months-long crackdown by Bashar Assad’s regime against pro-democracy protesters. Earlier this month, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said that at least 2,700 people have been killed in Syria since anti-government protests broke out in March.

Speaking at the Human Rights Council on Monday, Syrian UN envoy Faisal al-Hamwi was quoted by Syria’s state news agency SANA as saying that Israeli human rights violations reported by Palestinians proved “the reality of state terrorism practiced by Israel” as well as what the SANA report calls an “aggressive tendency against the Arab people.”

The SANA report also cites al-Hamwi as accusing Israel of escalating violence along its borders with Syria and Lebanon, saying Israeli forces “committed the crime of killing Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese peaceful protesters who were stressing their legal right of returning to their lands.”

The Syrian envoy was referring to an incident in May of this year, in which four people were reportedly shot dead by Israel Defense Forces troops as they opened fire on large numbers of infiltrators trying to breach Syria’s southern border with Israel.

Another four people were said to have been killed on the Lebanese side of its shared frontier with Israel, as Palestinian protests for the annual Nakba Day, which mourns the creation of the State of Israel, took hold across the region.

Al-Hamwi’s talk before the UN Human Rights Council came as new reports claimed Syrian forces were engaged in a wide-spread attempt to stamp out anti-Assad protests.

On Tuesday, activists based in Beirut said that Syrian tanks stormed a town on the main highway to Turkey, killing at least four and injuring several others.

“The Syrian army stormed under heavy shelling the village of al-Rastan,” an activist said. They also took prisoners, he said.

“Helicopters were used to shell a major highway leading to Turkey to prevent army defectors and activists fleeing,” he added.

“Dozens of people were snatched from their homes in the early hours of the morning and taken in buses blindfolded to an unknown destination,” said the activist, who requested anonymity.

Al-Rastan, which has 40,000 residents, is located near the city of Homs, which has been under siege by the Syrian army for two days.

Foreign journalists are barred from Syria, where the regime has so far killed an estimated 2,700 people during its crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, according to opposition activists and rights groups.

Syria’s UN envoy: Israel committing ‘state terrorism’ against Palestinians

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Human RightsComments Off on Syria’s UN envoy: Israel committing ‘state terrorism’ against Palestinians

Survey: Jewish support for Obama on decline

American president’s approval rating on handling of US-Israel relations drops to 40% compared with 49% last year, but if elections were held today, majority of American Jews would still vote for Democratic president over Republican candidates

Disappointment with President Obama’s handling of US-Israel relations has caused a drop in Jewish support for the administration, an annual survey conducted by AJC, a Jewish advocacy organization, revealed.

Disapproval among Jewish voters exceeded approval of Obama’s presidency for the first time during the current administration. Jewish approval of Obama’s performance as president declined to 45%, with another 48% disapproving and 7% undecided.

According to the survey, which included 800 respondents, if the 2012 presidential elections were held today, Obama would still hold a considerable lead over potential Republican challengers among Jewish voters. But the margin differed significantly depending on which candidate the GOP fields.

When asked about Obama’s handling of US-Israel relations, 40% of respondents gave their approval, with another 53% disapproving and 7% undecided. A year ago, 49% of respondents approved and another 45% disapproved of the president’s policy vis-à-vis the Jewish State.

In contrast, approval of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of Israel-US relations dropped to 54%, compared with 62% approval last year.

In general, 63% of American Jews characterize US-Israel relations as positive, compared with 68% in 2010.

As part of the survey, respondents were also asked about their prospect for a lasting peace between Israel and the Arabs.

Less than 3% of respondents said they were “more optimistic” about the peace prospects now than they had been one year ago, compared with 8% feeling “more optimistic” in last year’s survey.

This year, 35% of respondents said their outlook has become “less optimistic”, compared to 18% in 2010.

Support for a Palestinian state among American Jews has also declined in the past year. According to the survey, in the current situation, 38% would favor and 55% would oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state, compared with 48% in favor and 45% opposed in 2010.

On a related question concerning Palestinian efforts to unilaterally seek recognition of statehood without an agreement with Israel, only 9% approved of this strategy, while 88% disapproved.

Unsurprisingly, support for requiring the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is strong, with 95% saying they should be required to do so in a final peace agreement.

When asked about US aid to the Palestinian Authority, 73% of respondents said they would support the US Congress withdrawing assistance if the PA and Hamas form a unity government, while 21% said they would oppose the move.

Regarding Iran, 43% approved Obama’s handling of the Iran nuclear issue, while 45% disapproved – a similar finding to the 2010 survey.

Obama support among U.S. Jews hits all-time low, survey shows
Despite 6% dip in approval ratings, new AJC poll still predicts incumbent U.S. President would win majority of Jewish votes in 2012 presidential elections.


The support given to U.S. President Barack Obama has hit a new low, a poll by the American Jewish Committee indicated on Sunday, with the incumbent president, however, still leading among Jewish voters ahead of the 2012 presidential elections.

According to the AJC’s press release, the Obama’s current approval vote among Jewish voters – 45% – is the lowest since the U.S. president came into office, with 48% saying they disapproved of Obama’s policies.

It should be noted that this most recent figure represented a 6% drop from a similar survey last year, when Obama held a 51% approval rating among Jewish voters.

The survey was taken between September 6 –21, and in fact does not gauge the responsive of U.S. Jews to Obama’s speech at the UN last week, which was considered by many to be overwhelmingly supportive of Israel.

However, despite the dip in Obama’s approval ratings, the majority of Jewish voters, according to the survey, would still vote the incumbent president back into office in 2012.

In a potential head-to-head vote against potential Republican candidate Mitt Romney, Obama would garner 50% of the votes, with Romney collecting 32%. The margins would increase in a possible face-off with another Republican standout, Rick Perry, with Obama garnering 55% of Jewish votes, relegating Perry to just 25%.

Survey: Jewish support for Obama on decline

Posted in USAComments Off on Survey: Jewish support for Obama on decline

Rotten sardines caught in Turkish facebook dragnet

Names of the small criminals who followed the criminal orders of the big criminals and committed piracy (actually, that is unfair to real pirates) and murder on the high seas, while taking over the Mavi Marmara.

Agai Yehezkel, Aharon Haliwa, Alex Shakliar, Amir Ulo, Amir Abste, Amir Shimon Ashel, Anna Strelski, Anton Siomin, Aram Zehavi, Ariel Brickman, Ariel Karo, Ariel Rifkin, Ariel Yochanan, Arnon Avital, Assaf Bryt, Avi Balut, Avi Bnayahu, Avi Mizrakhi, Avi Peled, Aviad Perri, Aviel Siman, Avihay Wizman, Avihu Ben Zahar, Avishay Levi, Avishay Shasha, Aviv Edri, Aviv Kochavi, Aviv Mendelowitz, Baruch (Barry) Berlinsky, Basam Alian, Ben-Zion (Benzi) Gruver, Bnaya Sarel, Boaz Dabush, Boaz Rubin, Boris Schuster, Dado Bar- Kalifa, Dan Dolberg, Dan Harel, Daniel Kotler, David Shapira, David Slovozkoi, David Zini, Eden Atias, Eden Atias, Efraim Aviad Tehila, Efraim Avni, Eitan Ben-Gad, Elad Chachkis, Elad Itzik, Elad Shoshan, Elad Yakobson, Eli Fadida, Eli Yafe, Eliezer Shkedi, Elik Sror, Eran Karisi, Erez Sa’adon, Eyal Eizenberg, Eyal Handelman, Eyal Zukowsky, Gil Shen, Gur Rozenblat, Gur Schreibmann, Guy Givoni, Guy Hazut, Haggai Amar, Hanan Schwart, Harel Naaman, Hila Yafe, Ido Nechushtan, Ilan Malka, Itay Virob, Liran Nachman, Michelle Ben-Baruch, Miki Ohayon, Moshe Tamir, Nadav Musa, Nathan Be’eri, Nezah Rubin, Nimrod Schefer, Nir Ben-David, Nir Dupet, Nir Ohayon, Niv Samban, Noam Keshwisky, Ofek Gal, Ofer Lahad, Ofer Levi, Ofer Winter, Ofer Zafrir, Ofir Edri, Ohad Girhish, Ohad Najme, Omer Dori, Omri Dover, Or Nelkenbaum, Oren Bersano, Oren Cohen, Oren Kupitz, Oren Zini, Pinkhas Buchris, Raz Sarig, Ron Asherov, Ron Levinger, Ron Shirto, Ronen Dan, Ronen Dogmi, Roi Elkabetz, Roi Oppenheimer, Roi Weinberger, Sahar Abargel, Shai Belaich, Shaked Galin, Sharon Itach, Shaul Badusa, Shay Unger, Shimon Siso, Shiran Mussa, Shlomit Tako, Tal Alkobi, Tal Bendel, Tal Kommemi, Tal Ruso, Tamir Oren, Tamir Yadai, Tom Cohen, Tomer Meltzmann, Geva Rapp, Tslil Birbir, Udi Sagie, Uri Ron, Yair Keinan, Yair Palay, Ya’akov(Yaki) Dolf, Yaniv Zolicha, Yaron,Finkelman, Yaron Simsulo, Yehosua (Shuki) Ribak, Yehu Ofer, Yehuda Fuchs, Yehuda Hacohen, Yigal Slovik, Yigal Sudri, Yizhar Yona, Yoav Galant, Yoav Gertner, Yoav Mordechai, Yochai Siemann, Yochanan Locker, Yom-Tov Samia, Yonathan Barenski, Yonathan Felman, Yoni Weitzner, Yossi Abuzaglo, Yossi Bahar, Yossi Beidaz, Yotam Dadon, Yishai Ankri, Yishai Green, Yuval Halamish, Zion Bramli, Zion Shankour, Ziv Danieli, Ziv Trabelsi, Zuf Salomon, Zvi Fogel, Zvi Yehuda Kelner.

The list of the big criminals is easier to compile, beginning with Obama, Netanyahu, and Ashkenazi. For some reasons, the Turkish government doesn’t list Obama, although no Israel crime is possible without his approval.

If the people on this list think twice before landing in any airport other than the one is ethnically cleansed Lydda, that’s already the beginning of accountability.

Now, this list, compiled by the Turkish government, mostly based on facebook, may or may not be accurate. Of course, Israel could provide the accurate list.

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Rotten sardines caught in Turkish facebook dragnet

Mearsheimer responds to Goldberg’s latest smear

Ever since John Mearsheimer and I began writing about the Israel lobby, some of our critics have leveled various personal charges against us. These attacks rarely addressed the substance of what we wrote — a tacit concession that both facts and logic were on our side — but instead accused us of being anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. They used these false charges to try to discredit and/or marginalize us, and to distract people from the important issues of U.S. Middle East policy that we had raised. The latest example of this tactic is a recent blog post from Jeffrey Goldberg, where he accused my co-author of endorsing a book by an alleged Holocaust denier and Nazi sympathizer.

Goldberg has well-established record of making things up about us, and this latest episode is consistent with his usual approach. I asked Professor Mearsheimer if he wanted to respond to Goldberg’s sally, and he sent the following reply. John Mearsheimer writes: In a certain sense, it is hard not to be impressed by the energy and imagination that Jeffrey Goldberg devotes to smearing Steve Walt and me. Although he clearly disagrees with our views about U.S.-Israel relations and the role of the Israel lobby, he does not bother to engage what we actually wrote in any meaningful way. Indeed, given what he writes about us, I am not even sure he has read our book or related articles.

Instead of challenging the arguments and evidence that we presented, his modus operandi is to misrepresent and distort our views, in a transparent attempt to portray us as rabid anti-Semites.His latest effort along these lines comes in a recent blog post, where he seizes on a dust jacket blurb I wrote for a new book by Gilad Atzmon titled The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. Here is what I said in my blurb:

Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world. He shows how assimilation and liberalism are making it increasingly difficult for Jews in the Diaspora to maintain a powerful sense of their ‘Jewishness.’ Panicked Jewish leaders, he argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim. As Atzmon’s own case demonstrates, this strategy is not working and is causing many Jews great anguish. The Wandering Who? should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.

The book, as my blurb makes clear, is an extended meditation on Jewish identity in the Diaspora and how it relates to the Holocaust, Israel, and Zionism. There is no question that the book is provocative, both in terms of its central argument and the overly hot language that Atzmon sometimes uses. But it is also filled with interesting insights that make the reader think long and hard about an important subject. Of course, I do not agree with everything that he says in the book — what blurber does? — but I found it thought provoking and likely to be of considerable interest to Jews and non-Jews, which is what I said in my brief comment.Goldberg maintains that Atzmon is a categorically reprehensible person, and accuses him of being a Holocaust denier and an apologist for Hitler.

These are two of the most devastating charges that can be leveled against anyone. According to Goldberg, the mere fact that I blurbed Atzmon’s book is decisive evidence that I share Atzmon’s supposedly odious views. This indictment of me is captured in the title of Goldberg’s piece: “John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist.”This charge is so ludicrous that it is hard to know where to start my response. But let me begin by noting that I have taught countless University of Chicago students over the years about the Holocaust and about Hitler’s role in it. Nobody who has been in my classes would ever accuse me of being sympathetic to Holocaust deniers or making excuses for what Hitler did to European Jews. Not surprisingly, those loathsome charges have never been leveled against me until Goldberg did so last week.Equally important, Gilad Atzmon is neither a Holocaust denier nor an apologist for Hitler. Consider the following excerpt from The Wandering Who?

As much as I was a sceptic youngster, I was also horrified by the Holocaust. In the 1970s Holocaust survivors were part of our social landscape. They were our neighbours, we met them in our family gatherings, in the classroom, in politics, in the corner shop. The dark numbers tattooed on their white arms never faded away. It always had a chilling effect. . . . It was actually the internalization of the meaning of the Holocaust that transformed me into a strong opponent of Israel and Jewish-ness. It is the Holocaust that eventually made me a devoted supporter of Palestinian rights, resistance and the Palestinian right of return” (pp. 185-186).

It seems unequivocally clear to me from those sentences that Atzmon firmly believes that the Holocaust occurred and was a horrific tragedy. I cannot find evidence in his book or in his other writings that indicate he “traffics in Holocaust denial.”The real issue for Atzmon — and this is reflected in the excerpt from his blog post that Goldberg quotes from — is how the Holocaust is interpreted and used by the Jewish establishment. Atzmon has three complaints. He believes that it is used to justify Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians and to fend off criticism of Israel. This is an argument made by many other writers, including former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg, historian Peter Novick, and political scientistNorman Finkelstein.

Atzmon also rejects the claim that the Holocaust is exceptional, which is a position that other respected scholars have held. There have been other genocides in world history, after all, and this whole issue was actively debated in the negotiations that led to the building of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. Whatever one thinks of Atzmon’s position on this subject, it is hardly beyond the pale.Finally, Atzmon is angry about the fact that it is difficult to raise certain questions about the causes and the conduct of the Holocaust without being personally attacked. These are all defensible if controversial positions to hold, which is not to say one has to agree with any of them. But in no way is he questioning that the Holocaust happened or denying its importance. In fact, his view is clear from one of Atzmon’s sentences that Goldberg quotes: “We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place.” Note that Atzmon is talking about “the holocaust” in a way that makes it clear he has no doubts about its occurrence, and the passage from The Wandering Who? cited above makes it clear that he has no doubts about its importance or its tragic dimensions; he merely believes it should be seen in a different way.

Again, one need not agree with Atzmon to recognize that Goldberg has badly misrepresented his position.There is also no evidence that I could find in The Wandering Who? to support Goldberg’s claim that Atzmon is an apologist for Hitler or that he believes “Jews persecuted Hitler” and in so doing helped trigger the Holocaust. There is actually little discussion of Hitler in Atzmon’s book, and the only discussion of interactions between Hitler and the Jews concerns the efforts of German Zionists to work out a modus vivendi with the Nazis. (pp. 162-165) This is why Goldberg is forced to go to one of Atzmon’s blog posts to make the case that he is an apologist for Hitler.Before I examine the substance of that charge, there is an important issue that needs to be addressed directly. Goldberg’s indictment of Atzmon does not rely on anything that he wrote in The Wandering Who? Indeed, Goldberg’s blog post is silent on whether he has actually read the book. If he did read it, he apparently could not find any evidence to support his indictment of Atzmon. Instead, he relied exclusively on evidence culled from Atzmon’s own blog postings.

That is why Goldberg’s assault on me steers clear of criticizing Atzmon’s book, which is what I blurbed. In short, he falsely accuses me of lending support to a Holocaust denier and defender of Hitler on the basis of writings that I did not read and did not comment upon.This tactic puts me in a difficult position. I was asked to review Atzmon’s book and see whether I would be willing to blurb it. This is something I do frequently, and in every case I focus on the book at hand and not on the personality of the author or their other writings. In other words, I did not read any of Atzmon’s blog postings before I wrote my blurb. And just for the record, I have not met him and did not communicate with him before I was asked to review The Wandering Who? I read only the book and wrote a blurb that deals with it alone.Goldberg, however, has shifted the focus onto what Atzmon has written on his blog.

I discuss a couple of examples below, but I will not defend his blog output in detail for two reasons. First, I do not know what Atzmon may have said in all of his past blog posts and other writings or in the various talks that he has given over the years. Second, what he says in those places is not relevant to what I did, which was simply to read and react to his book.Let me now turn to the specific claim that Atzmon is an “apologist for Hitler.” Again, I am somewhat reluctant to do this, because this charge forces me to defend what Atzmon said in one of his blog posts. But given the prominence of the charge in Goldberg’s indictment of Atzmon (and me), I cannot let it pass.Plus, I see that Walter Russell Mead, who is also fond of smearing Steve Walt and me, has put this charge up in bright lights on his own blog. Picking up on Goldberg’s original post, Mead describes Atzmon’s argument this way: “poor Adolf Hitler’s actions against German Jews only came after US Jews called a boycott on German goods following Hitler’s appointment as German Chancellor. Gosh — if it weren’t for those pushy, aggressive Jews and their annoying boycotts, the Holocaust might not have happened!”It is hard to imagine any sane person making such an argument, and Atzmon never does.

Goldberg refers to a blog post that Atzmon wrote on March 25, 2010, written in response to news at the time that AIPAC had “decided to mount pressure” on President Obama. After describing what was happening with Obama, Atzmon notes that this kind of behavior is hardly unprecedented. In his words, “Jewish lobbies certainly do not hold back when it comes to pressuring states, world leaders and even superpowers.” There is no question that this statement is accurate and not even all that controversial; Tom Friedman said as much in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago.In the second half of this post, Atzmon says that AIPAC’s behavior reminds him of the March 1933 Jewish boycott of German goods, which preceded Hitler’s decision on March 28, 1933 to boycott Jewish stores and goods. His basic point is that the Jewish boycott had negative consequences, which it did.

In Atzmon’s narrative — and this is a very important theme in his book — Jews are not simply passive victims of other people’s actions. On the contrary, he believes Jews have considerable agency and their actions are not always wise. One can agree or disagree with his views about the wisdom of the Jewish boycott — and I happen to think he’s wrong about it — but he is not arguing that the Jews were “persecuting Hitler” and that this alleged “persecution” led to the Holocaust. In fact, he says nothing about the Holocaust in his post and he certainly does not justify in any way the murder of six million Jews.Let me make one additional point about Goldberg’s mining of Atzmon’s blog posts.

Goldberg ends his attack on me with the following quotation from a Feb. 19 blog post by Atzmon: “I believe that from [a] certain ideological perspective, Israel is actually far worse than Nazi Germany.” That quotation certainly makes Atzmon look like he has lost his mind and that nothing he has written could be trusted. But Goldberg has misrepresented what Atzmon really said, which is one of his standard tactics. Specifically, he quotes only part of a sentence from Atzmon’s blog post; but when you look at the entire sentence, you see that Atzmon is making a different, and far more nuanced point. The entire sentence reads: “Indeed, I believe that from [a] certain ideological perspective, Israel is actually far worse than Nazi Germany, for unlike Nazi Germany, Israel is a democracy and that implies that Israeli citizens are complicit in Israeli atrocities.” This is not an argument I would make, but what Atzmon is saying is quite different from the way Goldberg portrays it.

Finally, let me address the charge that Atzmon himself is an anti-Semite and a self-hating Jew. The implication of this accusation, of course, is that I must be an anti-Semite too (I can’t be a self-hating Jew) because I agreed to blurb Atzmon’s book. I do not believe that Atzmon is an anti-Semite, although that charge is thrown around so carelessly these days that it has regrettably lost much of its meaning. If one believes that anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite, then Atzmon clearly fits in that category. But that definition is foolish — no country is perfect or above criticism-and not worth taking seriously.The more important and interesting issue is whether Atzmon is a self-hating Jew. Here the answer is unequivocally yes.

He openly describes himself in this way and he sees himself as part of a long dissident tradition that includes famous figures such as Marx and Spinoza. What is going on here?The key to understanding Atzmon is that he rejects the claim that Jews are the “Chosen People.” His main target, as he makes clear at the start of the book, is not with Judaism per se or with people who “happen to be of Jewish origin.” Rather, his problem is with “those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits.” Or to use other words of his: “I will present a harsh criticism of Jewish politics and identity … This book doesn’t deal with Jews as a people or ethnicity.” (pp. 15-16)In other words, Atzmon is a universalist who does not like the particularism that characterizes Zionism and which has a rich tradition among Jews and any number of other groups. He is the kind of person who intensely dislikes nationalism of any sort.

Princeton professor Richard Falk captures this point nicely in his own blurb for the book, where he writes: “Atzmon has written an absorbing and moving account of his journey from hard-core Israeli nationalist to a de-Zionized patriot of humanity.”Atzmon’s basic point is that Jews often talk in universalistic terms, but many of them think and act in particularistic terms. One might say they talk like liberals but act like nationalists. Atzmon will have none of this, which is why he labels himself a self-hating Jew. He fervently believes that Jews are not the “Chosen People” and that they should not privilege their “Jewish-ness” over their other human traits. Moreover, he believes that one must choose between Athens and Jerusalem, as they “can never be blended together into a lucid and coherent worldview.” (p. 86) One can argue that his perspective is dead wrong, or maintain that it is a lovely idea in principle but just not the way the real world works. But it is hardly an illegitimate or ignoble way of thinking about humanity.

To take this matter a step further, Atzmon’s book is really all about Jewish identity. He notes that “the disappearance of the ghetto and its maternal qualities” in the wake of the French Revolution caused “an identity crisis within the largely assimilated Jewish society.” (p. 104) He believes that this crisis, about which there is an extensive literature, is still at the center of Jewish life today. In effect, Atzmon is telling the story of how he wrestled with his own identity over time and what he thinks is wrong with how most Jews self-identify today. It is in this context that he discusses what he calls the “Holocaust religion,” Zionism, and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Again, to be perfectly clear, he has no animus toward Judaism as a religion or with individuals who are Jewish by birth. Rather, his target is the tribalism that he believes is common to most Jews, and I might add, to most other peoples as well.

Atzmon focuses on Jews for the obvious reason that he is Jewish and is trying to make sense of his own identity.In sum, Goldberg’s charge that Atzman is a Holocaust denier or an apologist for Hitler is baseless. Nor is Atzmon an anti-Semite. He has controversial views for sure and he sometimes employs overly provocative language. But there is no question in my mind that he has written a fascinating book that, as I said in my blurb, “should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.” Regarding Goldberg’s insinuation that I have any sympathy for Holocaust denial and am an anti-Semite, it is just another attempt in his longstanding effort to smear Steve Walt and me.

Posted By Stephen M. Walt

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Mearsheimer responds to Goldberg’s latest smear

Zionist reaction if UN approves Palestinian statehood


Zio-Nazi FM tells IsraHell Army Radio that if UN would pass the one-sided resolution it would have tough repercussions, says he welcomes the Quartet’s proposal to open negotiations.

Zio-Nazi Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Sunday there would be “tough repercussions” if the United Nations approved a Palestinian application for statehood.

Lieberman did not spell out what action Israel would take if the world body backed the application made on Friday by Zionist puppet’s  Mahmoud Ab-A$$ at the UN General Assembly.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, left, listens to speeches during the 66th session of the General Assembly at United Nations headquarters, Friday, Sept. 23, 2011.

In the past Lieberman has suggested severing ties with Ab-A$$ Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in the Zionisti-occupied West Bank, if it wins recognition without a peace deal with Israel.

IsraHell’s closest ally, the United States, has said it would block the resolution, which means a Palestinian state would fall short of achieving full UN membership.

But IsraHell is concerned that, even if Washington vetoes the motion in the Security Council, it could still win more limited approval in the General Assembly, where any vote can pass by a simple majority.

“If the Palestinians will indeed pass a one-sided resolution if not in the Security Council then the General Assembly, that would bring us to an altogether new situation and this would have repercussions, tough repercussions,” Lieberman said in an interview on Israel Radio.

“Any unilateral step will without a doubt bring an IsraHell reaction,” Lieberman added. IsraHell has insisted Palestinians would only be able to win statehood through negotiations, and has said both sides would need to agree on border and security arrangements.

Lebanon’s UN ambassador said the UN Security Council would meet on Monday to discuss Abbas’s application.

Peace talks stalled a year ago in a dispute over the building of IsraHell illegal settlements on land in the West Bank.

The Quartet of Middle East power brokers, made up of the United States, the European Union, Russia and UN, proposed a new plan on Friday, urging IsraHell and the Palestinians to meet within a month and set a new agenda for talks.

The Quartet proposal calls for deadline at the end of 2012 for achieving a peace deal that would result in Palestinian statehood alongside IsraHell, in territories Zionist captured in a 1967 war.

Prime Minister Benjamin Naziyahu has welcomed the Quartet’s call for direct talks.

Lieberman also welcomed the idea, telling Army Radio that “with all the reservations we have regarding the Quartet [proposal], we are ready to open immediate negotiations” with the Palestinians.

Zionist media said senior cabinet ministers would debate the plan at a session on Monday. Ab-A$$ has said he would discuss the ideas with Palestine Liberation Organization leaders and other senior Palestinian officials.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Zionist reaction if UN approves Palestinian statehood

Five Turkish police officers killed in Kurdish rebel attack


Kurdish guerillas armed with rocket launchers attack police station in town of Pervari in southeastern Turkey.


Kurdish guerrillas armed with rocket launchers attacked a police station in southeastern Turkey on Saturday, killing five police officers and wounding nine in a clash in which three rebels were also killed, security sources said.

They said the attack took place in the town of Pervari in the southeastern province of Siirt and fighting was still under way.

It was staged at a time of heightened tension between Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) rebels and the Turkish military, which has launched air strikes and artillery raids against
suspected PKK bases in northern Iraq in retaliation for a recent spate of militant attacks inside Turkey.

Turkey has threatened to carry out an incursion into northern Iraq to attack PKK bases there, despite opposition from Iraq’s regional Kurdish government.

Earlier this month, Turkish Interior Minister Idris Naim Sahin said Turkey was preparing a possible ground operation in northern Iraq, depending on the result of talks with Iraq.

After a clear victory in a June election, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan vowed to press ahead with legal reforms addressing the 12-million-strong Kurdish minority’s grievances.

But a wave of PKK attacks have raised the possibility of a return to a hardline government stance in the 27-year-old fight against the rebels, with Erdogan recently warning he had lost patience with the PKK.

The PKK, branded a terrorist group by Ankara, Washington and the European Union, took up arms against the Turkish state in 1984 to fight for Kurdish autonomy. More than 40,000 people have died in the separatist insurgency.

related–Israel to ‘punish’ Turkey by arming PKK rebels

Jerusalem fights back: Foreign Minister Lieberman formulates series of tough moves in response to Turkish steps; Israel to cooperate with Armenian lobby in US, may offer military aid to Kurdish rebels


Jerusalem to punish Erdogan: Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has decided to adopt a series of harsh measures in response to Turkey’s latest anti-Israeli moves, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials convened Thursday to prepare for a meeting to be held Saturday with Lieberman on the matter. Saturday’s session will be dedicated to discussing Israel’s response to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent threats and his decision to downgrade Ankara’s diplomatic ties with Jerusalem.

Following Thursday’s meeting, officials assessed that Turkey is not interested in an Israeli apology at this time and prefers to exploit the dispute with Jerusalem in order to promote Ankara’s status in the Muslim world. Lieberman therefore decided there was no point in seeking creative formulas for apologizing, instead choosing to focus Israel’s efforts on punishing Turkey.

The Foreign Ministry has now decided to proceed with the formulation of a diplomatic and security “toolbox” to be used against the Turks. The first move would be to issue a travel warning urging all Israeli military veterans to refrain from traveling to Turkey. The advisory will be especially harsh as it will also urge Israelis to refrain from boarding connections in Turkey.

Another planned Israeli move is the facilitation of cooperation with Turkey’s historic rivals, the Armenians. During Lieberman’s visit to the United States this month, the foreign minister is expected to meet with leaders of the Armenian lobby and propose anti-Turkish cooperation in Congress.

The implication of this move could be Israeli assistance in promoting international recognition of the Armenian holocaust, a measure that would gravely harm Turkey. Israel may also back Armenia in its dispute vis-à-vis Turkey over control of Mount Ararat.

‘Turkey better show respect’

Lieberman is also planning to set meetings with the heads of Kurdish rebel group PKK in Europe in order to “cooperate with them and boost them in every possible area.” In these meetings, the Kurds may ask Israel for military aid in the form of training and arms supplies, a move that would constitute a major anti-Turkish position should it materialize.

However, the violent clashes between Turkey and the Kurds only constitute one reason prompting accusations that Ankara is violating human rights. Hence, another means in Lieberman’s “toolbox” vis-à-vis Erdogan is a diplomatic campaign where Israeli missions worldwide will be instructed to join the fight and report illegal Turkish moves against minorities.

The tough response formulated by Lieberman stems, among other things, from the foreign minister’s desire to make it clear to Erdogan that his anti-Israeli moves are not a “one-way street.”

Officials in Jerusalem also noted that Turkey’s global status at this time is not promising as it is, adding that Ankara is embroiled in tensions vis-à-vis NATO and Greece, while Erdogan’s relations with Syria and Iran are also not favorable.

“We’ll exact a price from Erdogan that will prove to him that messing with Israel doesn’t pay off,” Lieberman said. “Turkey better treat us with respect and common decency.”

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Five Turkish police officers killed in Kurdish rebel attack

The Storming of the Zionist occupation embassy

No qualms about it. We hate Israel (while disliking Amr Moussa and Husni Mubarak). We hate it immensely. No shame in admitting to that. Political spite is not only justified; it fuels fundamental change. Would the apartheid regime in South Africa have collapsed had Blacks not abhorred it? Zionist propaganda not only wants to crush armed resistance, but it depicts our hatred of it as a kind of racism per se, because racism is reserved for the white man (and the Israeli – the latter strives to model himself after the white man, ignoring Israel’s non-European population). The storming of the embassy was a television and internet moment.

Every calamity that befalls the enemy is an opportunity for us to celebrate as we await the greatest celebration, when the usurping entity falls. Who didn’t rejoice at the sight of the lowering of the flag, and the competition among the Egyptian uprising’s youth to climb the building? Who didn’t notice that the enemy’s building insisted on opening in a residential building (without the residents’ knowledge or input, of course, but this was decided by the Sadat-Mubarak regime) in order to use the residents as human shields?

The enemy’s embassy used the building’s residents as human shields, to guarantee it would never experience an explosion or a fire. The Egyptian government should’ve required the Israeli embassy to move elsewhere, where it would be accessible to protesters. The enemy’s embassy wants to enjoy the government’s protection and that of civilians, who are forced to bear the burden of sharing space with the enemy’s outpost in Egypt. Jubilation and congratulations about the storming of the embassy spread on Facebook and Twitter. It might be a watershed moment in the Egyptian uprising’s history. We may say “after the storming of the embassy, not before.” This has destroyed the Zionists’ dreams of peaceful coexistence with the Egyptian uprising’s outcome.

Husni Mubarak’s era represented a depraved time on all fronts including cultural production. There is a brand of art, known in Egypt as “degraded” art, that flourishes only in a degraded era like that of Sadat and  Mubarak. Compare that to Abdul Naser’s era, who was soley accused tyranny by the House of Saud. That doesn’t mean the Mubarak-Sadat era was absolutely devoid of good art. But the art that gained international recognition (in the arts and literature) was decadent. Adel Imam was an opportunist, one of the final products of the Jamal Mubarak era that never began; Imam was a Nasserite during Nasserism, a Sadatite during Sadat’s government and a supporter of Mubarak during Mubarak’s era.

In his movie “Al-Safara fi Al-‘imara” (The Embassy in the Building) embodied Mubarak’s obsolete values (which still haven’t ended due to SCAF rule). The movie sought to trivialize most Arabs’ political principles (with the exception of the House of Saud’s lackeys who write in the publications of … the House of Saud). The movie tries to depict the generation of hostility towards Israel (as if that generation ended in the sixties) one that deserves ridicule. In the movie, the “protagonist’s” sexual instincts become more important than rejection of Israel. The position towards Israel’s aggression becomes a mere debatable viewpoint.

This week’s scenes of the Israeli occupation embassy’ storming inflamed the new online Arab generation. I followed it online and was relieved that the new Arab generation holds no less animosity towards Israel than its predecessors whenever the opportunity to express itself arose, and whenever the nightmare receded (this is Altantawi, the US and Israel’s dilemma in Egypt. The fear factor has disappeared, and nobody can succeed Omar Suleiman’s filthy acts, internally and externally despite the fact that the revolution has not yet ripened). Israel has secretly known the Arab world’s concealed opinions. It knew that its interests coincide only with tyrannical regimes like Sadat and Mubarak’s. The pictures from embassy were exhilarating. An Egyptian protester was sending me pictures from the site via her own phone (she holds a PhD from Oxford, and I say this only because western media has tried to depict the protesters as Mubarak’s hooligans. Politically and sexually sleazy website Elaph spread the idea that the protesters were paid by Jamal Mubarak’s cronies).

Egyptian indignation towards the enemy’s embassy has several meanings: it conveys not only traditional Arab anger towards the usurping entity but it also expresses a new Arab awareness. The Arab people have become aware that Israel is Arab tyrants’ natural ally in our area while it simultaneously boasts of its own democracy (it is democratic for Jews only, and there is racism amongst Jews themselves, in the same fashion as the apartheid regime in South Africa before it crumbled). The truth about Israel’s support for repressive regimes from Morocco to Saudi Arabia was concealed from most Arabs (including military, intelligence and sometimes economic support. Let’s not forget Mauritania’s drive to normalize with Israel). All this was exposed over the last few months when the deceptive Israeli government concealed its true sentiments towards Husni Mubarak. Israel will soon regret, if it hasn’t already regretted, making its affinity with Mubarak publicly before and after his downfall.

That is, it has implicitly included anti-Israeli feelings in the new definition of Egyptian citizenship. The Egyptian people have understood the trick, and they have realized that Israel and Saudi Arabia clung desperately to Mubarak’s regime to the very last minute and beyond. This explains the Egyptian masses’ approach of both the Israeli embassy and the Saudi embassy (though the Saudi embassy enjoys strong protection from SCAF, which receives Saudi money). All Arab media, and most western media, ignored the Egyptian masses’ march to the Saudi embassy because the simultaneous animosity to Israel and the House of Saud is embarrassing.

The embassy does not only represent Zionist penetration into the Arab world and an attempt to quell categorical rejection of Israel as per the no’s of Khartoum. The embassy’s large crew does (not) conceal its espionage and terrorist intentions as well as psychological warfare forcing the Arab people to accept the idea of peace with Israel; a concept supported by Husni Mubarak’s family and a a few Egyptian writers in Saudi newspapers. The Israeli embassy in Cairo is a point of penetration Arab societies as well as a nerve center for espionage operations in Egypt and other Arab countries. The Camp David regime crumbled before the Egyptian uprising completely expelled the Israeli presence from Egypt. Liberals still try to impose limitations on the discourse surrounding Camp David: it demands nothing more than amendment of Camp David’s stipulations in order to mobilize Egyptian troops in the Sinai, as Walid Junblat opined. That is, Egyptian liberals’ goal is to increase Israel’s security provided by the Egyptian army.

The details of the attack on the Israeli embassy reveal much about the essence of the ruling regime in Egypt and about Israel’s strategic status. It appears that six armed security personnel were trapped inside the embassy, or inside a bathroom, or on the rooftops, fearing the people’s wrath. Israeli press that Netanyahu and Barak called “field marshal” – what a funny title for officers who led armies to defeat; the title is better suited for south Lebanon’s youth in 2006, who deserve the title – Tantawi more than once but he refused to talk to them. When Netanyahu and his staff gave up on trying to reach Tantawi the enemy’s leaders contacted Obama and the US Secretary of Defense (and the head of Egyptian intelligence, who promptly responded to the enemy). The US Secretary of Defense tried for two hours to reach Tantawi, to no avail, he finally managed to deliver a direct threat to the Egyptian regime.

This conveys the enemy’s strategic crisis: this is the Zionist state that has enjoyed a tremendous amount of aid from the US, Germany and other countries as well as monstrous western arms without the humiliating conditions imposed on Gulf regimes, which are meant to boost western economies. Despite that, the Zionist state found itself in a weak, helpless position. When the people revolt the enemy’s arsenal disappears even nuclear weapons. This was a lesson the Shah, the apartheid regime in South Africa and Husni Mubarak’s regime learned. Israel, which used to send its terrorist planes around the world to rescue a single Israel individual, calls out for help from the American administration so it commands Field Marshal Tantawi to stop the spontaneous attack on the embassy. Israel could do nothing but wait and arrange for the escape of the terrorists within (they may have dressed as farmers, as some newspapers reported). The Israeli prime minister may have allowed the embassy’s security to fire on the Egyptian masses, and they did, but SCAF certainly censored this news (there may be an American propaganda movie soon “starring” the enemy’s terrorists and depicting the Egyptian protesters’ “savagery.”)

We can use this event to extrapolate the short term future. The enemy’s media was terrified. Israel’s international isolation has increased along with Arab people’s anger. Fighter jets that had defeated Arab regimes’ armies in the past have become useless. There is confusion in the enemy’s ranks towards the embassy crisis. The enemy’s media worked to cover up the embarrassment and the people’s rage. Israel was in no position to face that kind of reaction, a few months after the overthrow of its dear Mubarak (even American liberal writer Richard Cohen, who writes for the Washington Post, wrote a letter reminiscing about Husni Mubarak after the embassy attack). Israel’s leaders discovered that the era of Camp David supports Zionism but it’s suffers severe weakness (it is incorrect to assume Camp David is a bilateral agreement, especially since it involves several military and secret intelligence provisions that the US inserted – just ask Nabil Al-Arabi).

This weakness lies in the States’ ability to secure a pro-American, tyrannical regime. Consecutive American administrations since 1979 performed their duties and flooded the Sadat-Mubarak regime with military and intelligence support. But the people’s anger is greater, as we saw. To advance its own hegemony in the area and protect Israel’s interests, the US made Mubarak’s family a Pharoah dynasty. Jamal Mubarak was prepared for his position via coordination between his father’s government and the Bush administration. American media used to race to meet Jamal Mubarak as if he were the wise man of the Nile. Obama clung on to Mubarak until the last minute. And when it became clear that Mubarak could no longer continue in power Obama tried to appease Israel with Omar Soleiman, but this also failed. Omar Soleiman’s role was the Obama’s administration last choice to extend Mubarak’s era.

Arab treatment of the scenes of the embassy attack sufficed to bring the House of Saud’s lackeys out of the woodworks to come to Israel’s rescue. Ali Salim, who calls for normalizing with Israel (who sees no contradiction in normalizing and expressing hostility to Jews as Jews in Arabic media. But aren’t all Israel’s friends in the Arab world anti-Jewish?) played the same old Saudi media broken record: the tune of warning against chaos and wars after the fall of Mubarak. Since Mubarak’s overthrow Prince Salman’s newspaper, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, has been rife with articles and pictures warning again chaos if Mubarak were to fall and they published sleazy articles about Iranian and Hamas conspiracies to overthrow him. The editor of this newspaper, who is one of the loudest Likudnik voices among the ranks of the House of Saud’s writers, equated the burning of the embassy with the burning of Egypt.

Even Walid Junblat (who returned from Libya praising the new regime just like he used to praise Qadhafi – but this time he took with him an oil expert) expressed his opinion about Camp David as harming the “civility” of the Egyptian revolt. Speaking about civility and killing with axes, is anyone more informed about that than Walid Junblat? The House of Saud’s press chose, for reasons ordinary human intelligence cannot fathom, to play the role of a guardian to democratic uprisings in the Arab world. The House of Saud’s lackeys may be confused: perhaps beheading in Riyadh’s public squares are the ideal democratic model.

The advancement, not regression, of the Egyptian uprising to the level of revolution will result in an immediate distinction between fundamental, revolutionary change and liberal change. Of course, Islamists have their own calculations according to the Qatari or Saudi governments, or both these days. Islamists (Ikhwan and Salafists) stayed away from the storming of the embassy. They actually condemned it. Jihad is resisting Abdulnaser because the Ikhwan were in a regional-global alliance that includes the Israeli enemy. But the Cold War is in the past now, albeit it is clearer why Abdulnaser opposed the Ikhwan. The liberal wing in Egypt rushed to strongly denounce the storming of the embassy. Since when were revolutions liberal? Is there a revolution in history that was created by liberals? Liberals do not sully their hands with revolutions: they just try to reap their rewards during their appealing phases, but they flee once it turns into a revolution.

The website “We are all Khaled Said,” on Google’s behalf, which secretly assured the Israeli government it would block search results of Israel’s maps in a way that only Mossad directors and Google know about – the website quickly commented on the embassy storming and described it as “amateur.” Wael Ghonem, the Egyptian uprising’s accepted face for the white man because he works in an accepted company and because he says nothing against Mubarak’s American sponsor. He also has no position against Israel) commented on Twitter denouncing the storming of the embassy. Yediot Ahronot promptly quoted Wael Ghonem as the sole representative of the uprising of millions of Egyptians.

While it is true that Ghonem returned to demand the Egyptian government to take a “strong” stance after the killing of the sixth Egyptian soldier on the hands of the enemy, but a strong stance is defined by liberals as kissing the enemy’s cheeks no more than three times during formal meetings. Arab liberalism shares some features (we shouldn’t confuse Egypt’s independent liberals with those liberals who write for the princes of Saud). All forms of Arab liberalism suffer the white man complex: they try to appease him in every way possible, especially with regard to his stance towards Israel. Popular anti-Israeli sentiment embarrasses Arab liberals because they embrace the white man (who is a Zionist) and they constantly try to prove their civility. For this reason liberals’ comment on the storming of the embassy was to stress the importance of the revolution’s peacefulness and civility.

Revolutions were never “civil.” There was no civility in any global revolts that are considered beacons for humanity, such as the French revolution. Robespierre gave no attention to the charges leveled against him accusing him of terrorism (if Robespierre were alive today the US would’ve thrown him in Guantanamo in a heartbeat). Robespierre would tell them: if I were a terrorist, you would be at my feet. How could violence towards a concrete wall (built b the enemy on Egyptian soil, with permission from Tantawi’s council) be considered violence? We’ve been told for years that the definition of terrorism according to Zionism is any violence committed against any Israel even if he were a heavily armed terrorist soldier, which would then result in a United Nations resolution. But how is the demolition of a wall considered terrorism?

Also, why does the storming of the enemy’s embassy cause more noise than the Israeli terrorist soldiers’ killing of Egyptian soldiers and Egyptian civilians? Liberalism may latch on to revolutions but they do not create them. The distinction between liberals and revolutionaries is inevitable and it may have been set in motion. As Amin Rihani described this phase [in his poem “Revolution”] in “The Valleys’ Chant”: Haven’t we told them the stories of Paris / when the Bastille was smashed, and the prisoners serenaded / when the king was beheaded / and the necks of top French people were cut.””

By: As’ad Abu Khalil

Posted in EgyptComments Off on The Storming of the Zionist occupation embassy

Shoah’s pages