Archive | May 23rd, 2013

GP who used ‘spy watch’ to film himself abusing patients is jailed for 12 years


Dr Davinder Jeet Bains assaulted more than two dozen women and covertly filmed more than 100 on watch with built-in camera.

Dr Davinderjit Bains

Dr Davinder Jeet Bains, who used a secret camera inside his James Bond-style wristwatch to record himself abusing female patients. Photograph: Wiltshire police/PA

A family doctor who used a secret camera inside his James Bond-style wristwatch to record himself abusing female patients has been jailed for 12 years after admitting a string of sex charges.

Dr Davinder Jeet Bains, 46, used his position as a GP at a medical practice in Royal Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, to assault more than two dozen women, Swindon crown court heard.

The watch has a built-in camera on the face – with simple on and off buttons to record – and can be bought online for less than £60. Detectives branded Bains a sexual predator and said he had covertly filmed more than 100 women.

Bains admitted a total of 39 charges: 13 of assault by penetration, 13 of voyeurism, 11 of sexual assault and two of sexual activity with a child.

He also asked for a further 65 offences – 10 of sexual assault by penetration, eight of sexual assault and 47 of voyeurism – to be taken into account when Judge Douglas Field passed sentence.

He pleaded not guilty to three charges of sexual assault and a single count of administering a noxious drug with intent to commit a sexual offence. The charges will lie on file.

Bains, of Nyland Road, Swindon, committed offences against 27 women – aged from 14 to 51 – between July 2010 and May 2012.

The police investigation began in June last year when a 19-year-old woman told officers she thought Bains had filmed her as she showered and said she had been sexually assaulted by him in Swindon.

When detectives arrested Bains at the Tinkers Lane Surgery in Royal Wootton Bassett, they discovered his hi-tech wristwatch with spy camera. They later recovered 361 high-quality video clips from Bains’s watch and home computer.

Passing sentence, Field told Bains he had breached the trust patients put in their doctor.

“When you committed these offences you breached this duty of trust in the most grievous way,” he said. “You are a disgrace to the medical profession.”

Detective Inspector Mark Garrett, head of Swindon CID, said he welcomed the sentencing of Bains. “A large number of female patients, including teenage girls, put their trust in this man to treat them with the professionalism, care and discretion that we all expect of our family doctor,” he said.

“He utterly betrayed that trust for his own sexual gratification and I hope that today’s sentence goes some way to helping his victims get some closure on what has happened.

“This is without doubt the most serious offending I have seen by a GP in my 30 years’ service and it is an exceptional case.

“This was a gross abuse of a position of trust and I would very much like to repeat what the judge said. He is a disgrace to the medical community.”

Garrett paid tribute to the courage of a teenage girl who came forward with her concerns about Bains’s behaviour.

“Without her coming forward we would have known nothing of Dr Bains’s shameful activities in the privacy of his consulting room at the Tinkers Lane Surgery,” he said.

“I would also like to acknowledge the bravery of that young woman and the patients who were also his victims.

“They provided accounts of what took place and told us they were prepared to give evidence, had this case gone to trial. Happily they were spared that additional ordeal.”

Garrett declined to comment on whether the surgery should have reported the complaints it received to the authorities but added: “That was a frustration in the investigation.”

Posted in UKComments Off on GP who used ‘spy watch’ to film himself abusing patients is jailed for 12 years

Attacks on Muslims spike after Woolwich killing


Police deploy extra patrols to Islamic sites as people report verbal, physical and online abuse, including threats to kill.

Fatal incident Woolwich

Link to video: Imam condemns Woolwich killing as ‘barbaric murder’Fears of a prolonged backlash against Muslims have intensified after dozens of Islamaphobic incidents were reported in the wake of the murder of the British soldier Lee Rigby in south London.

The Tell Mama hotline for recording Islamaphobic crimes and incidents recorded 38 incidents overnight on Wednesday, including attacks on three mosques, with more reported on Thursday.

The Metropolitan police put 1,200 more officers on the street on Thursday, with extra patrols deployed to mosques and religious sites as far-right groups reacted to the tragedy.

The Tell Mama co-ordinator Fiyaz Mughal, from Faith Matters, said three or four incidents were usually recorded a day but that the spike after Wednesday afternoon’s killing reflected simmering resentment against Muslims and was unlikely to fizzle out.

“What we are seeing is concerted action from individuals across the country,” he said. “We are really concerned. When you see a wider picture of resentment and retribution, this is telling us it’s an increasing problem. Something is moving in a very disturbing direction.”

A 43-year-old man was being questioned on Thursday on suspicion of attempted arson and possession of an offensive weapon at a mosque in Braintree, Essex. The local MP, Brooks Newmark, tweeted that the man was carrying “knives and an incendiary device”.

Another man was held on suspicion of racially aggravated criminal damage after Kent police were called to an incident at a mosque in Canterbury Street, Gillingham. Graffiti attacks were reported on mosquesin Bolton, where cars parked outside the building were also vandalisedon Wednesday night, and in Cambridge on Thursday.

The incidents compiled by Tell Mama, which monitors news feeds and social media as well as taking calls from the public, included seven incidents of Muslims being abused – including being spat at, or threatened in the streets – another five mosques being threatened, and dozens of other online threats. On the “True British Patriots” Facebook page, people called for mosques in Watford, Hertfordshire and Morden, south London, to be burnt down.

The incidents came despite prompt and unequivocal condemnation of the murder by leaders of Muslim groups, including the Muslim Council of Britain, the Ramadhan Foundation and the Islamic Society of Britain, as well as individual Muslims, a number of whom took to social networks to express their disgust.

“We can’t allow the voices of [the British National party leader] Nick Griffin and the far right to become louder than ours in the coming days,” Julie Siddiqi, of the Islamic Society of Britain, told Radio 4’s Today programme. “All of the Muslim organisations have come out with the strongest possible terms to say there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever, no justification for anything like this.”

But Mughal warned: “I think the damage has been done.” He said his own address had been posted on Twitter, with users invited to shoot him. In response to the heightened tension, he has contacted mosques and police ahead of Friday prayers amid fears far-right groups may try to confront worshippers.

Hours after the murder, the English Defence League held a demonstration in Woolwich, during which supporters, some wearing balaclavas printed with “EDL”, engaged in running battles with police for less than an hour. They have since announced another gathering, to be held outside Downing Street on Monday, ostensibly to show support for British troops.

The league’s Twitter account went into overdrive and thousands of people “liked” its Facebook page after the killing, although some people posting on it were challenging its ideology and ridiculing its beliefs. The BNP announced its own demonstration in Woolwich on 1 June.

The Met assistant commander Mark Rowley revealed officers were monitoring social media for signs of people trying to exploit the attack to foment trouble. “Anybody seeing this as an opportunity to protest, cause mischief, or create tension, is unhelpful and unwelcome, and we’d rather it did not happen,” he said.

David Cameron and the London mayor, Boris Johnson, said the beliefs of the two men who killed the soldier were alien to Islam.

“This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life; it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country,” the prime minister said. “There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.” Johnson said it was “completely wrong to blame this killing on the religion of Islam”.

Dr Matthew Feldman, co-director of the soon to be launched Centre for Fascist, Anti-fascist and Post-fascist studies at Teeside University, said extremist Muslims and groups such as the EDL “need each other”. He said he feared they could engage in tit-for-tat attacks, with each side justifying its existence in terms of the other.

“We need to call out people who use this violence to advance what are clearly prejudicial agendas,” he said.

Posted in UKComments Off on Attacks on Muslims spike after Woolwich killing

Racist hatred backfires on British society

The scene in Woolwich, south London, where a man was killed and two others were taken to hospital with gunshot wounds.

By Finian Cunningham

How else do racist mobs in Britain get their bloodlust and blind hatred, when they see British governments sending troops, drones and helicopter gun-ships into Muslim countries to murder en masse and with impunity?”

“The people who did this are trying to divide us. They should know that something like this will only bring us together and make us stronger.”

These were the words of Britain’s delusional Prime Minister David Cameron speaking hours after the apparent random slaying of an off-duty soldier on the streets of London this week. 

Belying Cameron’s intonations of “all together patriotism”, his cabinet called two emergency meetings in Downing Street with top national security advisers. The Cabinet Office Room Briefing Room A (Cobra) meetings are the equivalent of the White House Situation Room – reflecting an anxiety of national crisis. 

But one feels that the concern among Britain’s rulers is not so much that they believe, on the basis of one brutal incident, that a “terror threat” is imminent. Would senior politicians and police officers really meet with members of the ministry of defense, MI5 and MI6 over a random stabbing in London? 

What the emergency response of Britain’s national security apparatus suggests is a singular nervousness about the explosive racial tensions that are boiling in British society. Ironically, these tensions have been instigated and are reaching fever-pitch owing to the British government’s own policies of militarism, imperialist war-making and the stoking of Islamophobia over several years with “war on terror” propaganda. 

The latest victim was hacked to death by two knife-wielding male assailants in front of shocked bystanders in broad daylight. One of the attackers, covered in blood and holding a knife and a meat cleaver, spoke purposely to a mobile phone camera as the young soldier lay bleeding to death nearby. 

“This is an eye for an eye,” the man said, with a British accent. He has since been identified by British police as a London-born 28-year-old male of Nigerian descent. 

His few words tell much. “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We must fight them. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same.” 

Clearly, the attacker was motivated by revenge for Britain’s never-ending criminal foreign wars and the routine killing of Muslim civilians by British troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. This is a truth that cannot be dismissed by glib politicians and media.

Within hours of the murder, British rightwing thugs were on the streets of London and other cities baying for blood. Near the scene of the soldier’s killing, in Woolwich, southeast London, hundreds of riot police were clashing with crowds from the English Defence League who chanted: “No surrender to the Muslim scum.” 

Urging followers to take the law into their own hands, an EDL spokesman said: “Enough is enough. We have weak leaders. Our police, our leaders tip-toe around this.” 

Elsewhere in Britain, two mosques were attacked in Essex and Kent, apparently in revenge for the killing of the soldier in London. In one of those incidents, a man was reportedly armed with a knife and an incendiary device. 

While the slaying of the British soldier in London made international headlines, by contrast the countless attacks, and often-fatal assaults, against British Muslims, Asians and Africans that occur in Britain on a daily basis are scarcely reported. 

The Institute of Race Relations has compiled hundreds of such attacks on innocent people by white British racist gangs. Often the motive is driven by rabid hatred of “Muslims”. The IRR reports of Asian and African teenagers being attacked in the streets with knives and screwdrivers, elderly people beaten savagely to death, homes and mosques being targeted and terrorized. 

This is the incendiary political climate that has descended on Britain today, where fascist paramilitary gangs and rabid individuals carry out wanton attacks on defenseless citizens simply on the basis that the victim is perceived as Muslim or non-white. 

Tragically, following the deadly assault on the British soldier in London we can expect a hundred-fold increase in the routine racist reign of terror that Asians and Africans have to endure on a daily basis in British towns and cities. 

British Conservative premier David Cameron may appear to be talking with an English stiff-upper lip of how “this will only bring us together and make us stronger”. But he is delusional. British society, fuelled by economic collapse, is a tinderbox of racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson said following the soldier’s murder: “It is completely wrong to blame this killing on the religion of Islam. But it also equally wrong to try to draw any link between this murder and British foreign policy or the actions of British forces [overseas].” 

The London Mayor is as equally deluded as his Conservative Party leader. Of course, it is reprehensible to blame this week’s street killing of a British soldier with Islam. However, try telling that to the mobs of English racists who are now baying for Muslim blood to add to their already daily attacks on Muslims and others. And on his second point, the London Mayor is also in absurd denial of reality. 

How else do racist mobs in Britain get their bloodlust and blind hatred, when they see British governments sending troops, drones and helicopter gun-ships into Muslim countries to murder en masse and with impunity? 

British society is reaping the racist hatred that its rulers have been sowing for years. No wonder Cameron is chairing emergency meetings with his security agents. 

Posted in UKComments Off on Racist hatred backfires on British society

The White Nationalist Backlash Against Islam is a Sucker’s Game




by Michael A. Hoffman II

I am getting “backlash” mail from “White Nationalists” in the US and Europe who have bought into the racist neo-con propaganda about Islam.

The non-reproducing (i.e. self-exterminating) whites of Europe and America live for luxury and have either been neutral toward the Israeli holocaust in Palestine or have supported the Judaic dictatorship not only in Palestine but in Europe, Britain and America.

They have impotently acquiesced with hardly a peep of protest to the jailing in Austria and Germany of revisionist scientist Germar Rudolf, historian David Irving and writer Ernst Zündel.

Can one imagine the reaction if these three had been Islamic writers jailed for their publications in Austria and Germany? The Muslims would have rocked the walls of those jails like Joshua at Jericho.

In Great Britain the head of the anti-immigrant British National Party, Nick Griffin, called Islam an evil religion and was exonerated by a jury. Griffin should have never been prosecuted in the first place and neither should the British government have prosecuted Abu Hamza Masri, the Muslim preacher and anti-communist combat veteran who was sentenced to prison this week for the content of his speech.

Let Nick describe Judaism as an evil religion and see how he fares. It is interesting that he does not make such public proclamations about Judaism.

What is it about the Koran or Muhammad that makes Islam evil? Islam still has an Old Testament resonance. The Biblical prophets still resonate with the Muslims, the sense of justice, the unwillingness to make the consumer game and sports games the supreme de facto religion, as they are in Europe.

The white nationalist movements are today being used by the Establishment as shock troops against Islam. In the 1990s in the US, the Federal government used white nationalist assets in the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, laying the pre-9/11 groundwork for a police state.

Contemporary white nationalists don’t even have the spark to reproduce themselves. Their masonic governments in Europe have been the enemy of indigenous whites as much as they have been the enemy of the Muslims. But this is forgotten.

Nationalist Jean-Marie Le Pen has praised mass murderer Ariel Sharon. But this too is forgotten.

Like the U.S., Europe has become a sinkhole, and God will scourge these white nations for their corruption, usury and support for Judaism and Zionism. I love my own people, but I love the truth more.

English journalist Robert Fisk, in a column for CounterPunch, writes: “For Muslims, the Prophet is the man who received divine words directly from God. We see our prophets as faintly historical figures, at odds with our high-tech human rights, almost cariacatures of themselves. The fact is that Muslims live their religion. We do not. They have kept their faith through innumerable historical vicissitudes. We have lost our faith…That’s why we talk about ‘the West versus Islam’ rather than ‘Christians versus Islam’–because there aren’t an awful lot of Christians left in Europe. There is no way we can get round this by setting up all the other world religions and asking why we are not allowed to make fun of Muhammed.”

So what it is about white nationalism in Europe that is supposed to be appealing? That they will fight for the right to have a Muslim-free consumer paradise where banks and the Money Power predominate? Where the flesh of their women is bought and sold like meat at a butcher shop, as the Talmud likes to say about females?

Europe was dying long before the first Muslim immigrant set foot on its hallowed soil. The whites of Europe can no longer find sufficient love in their hearts to have families of five or ten children and they mock Muslims for following God’s law in this regard. The late John Tyndale of the British Nationalist Party could not fathom how or why Muslims had such large families. It shocked him. I remember him reviling a Pakistani family in Britain for having so many children. Tyndale mocked it as a “regiment of a family.”

Louis-Ferdinand Céline said that Europe will either be an example or it will be nothing. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that had Europe refused to offer special protection from criticism for Judaism, and refused to jail Rudolf, Irving and Zündel, that Muslims might have learned something from the western philosophy of “freedom of the press” and been better for it.

But unlike most modern whites, they boil with a righteous rage at hypocrisy and the double-standard that gives the European press the freedom to insult Islam while protecting Judaism.

Recently, Prof. Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University appeared on the Bill O’Reilly television program to urge that engineering Prof. Arthur Butz of Northwestern University be fired for writing–outside his classroom– critical studies of the Auschwitz gas chambers. Instead of rebuking Lipstadt for her tyrannical desire to silence academics who do not subscribe to her opinions about World War II, O’Reilly replied that he would take her request to fire Prof. Butz, to the President of Northwestern!

Had the shoe been on the other foot, and O’Reilly had urged that Emory University fire Lipstadt, there would have been a national uproar. Instead, Lipstadt can advocate a Judaic dictatorship over college campuses and the termination of a highly competent professor of engineering who has educated generations of youth, and there is nary a peep from the great white race in America. Thanks be to God the Muslims still kindle in their hearts a righteous anger against injustice like this.

White nationalists are mostly non-Christians or nominal Christians, so Christ’s Gospel will have little influence or impact on them, but for those who are Gospel-literate, let us recall that Jesus constantly took to task the Israelites for their empty racial pride.

In the U.S., the white race is the bulwark of support for Bush’s mass murder overseas. Polls show that 70% of black Americans have the intelligence to oppose the war in Iraq with the words, “Rebuild America first.” The supposedly “superior” white majority that support Bush are too dense to see this truth.

Yes, I love my own people, but I love the truth more. America and the European countries were once great nations where art, literature, freedom and sometimes even justice, flourished. Today these nations are under the bloody thumb of Freemasonry and Judaism. George W. Bush received the Catholic and Protestant fundamentalist vote in the last election in spite of the fact that he is a member of the wicked secret society known as Skull and Bones. During the 2004 campaign, when queried about it on national television by Tim Russert, he responded by saying that he could not divulge the secrets of Skull and Bones. Do we think that Muslims would be so retarded or corrupt as to vote for a man like Bush, a man beholden to a satanic masonic secret society, and do so in the name of Jesus Christ?

Why are whites being suckered into fighting the Muslims? On behalf of the right of the Federal government to murder Vicky and Sam Weaver in Naples, Idaho and holocaust a church full of children in Waco, Texas? The right of homosexuals to marry and spread their affliction and sorrow to others? Do white nationalists think that they any longer have a British civilization to export when Elton John, the “most famous homosexual in the world” is knighted by the Queen of England and permitted to legally marry his boyfriend in front of an audience of millions?

If King Alfred the Great or Edward I could see Britain today they would join the Muslims in their protests and demonstrations rather than support so foul and degenerate a system; a system that still manages to hypnotize British whites into believing that England remains dear “Old Blighty.”

One could relate similar accounts of betrayal and degeneracy in Holland, Spain, France, Sweden, Switzerland and much of the rest of Europe.

The Europeans want to be left alone to gamble, screw and consume themselves into oblivion while Germany supplies nuclear-powered submarines to the Israelis and Tony Blair sends British troops to bolster the US rape of Iraq.

Muslims came to Britain and Europe at the invitation of the white governments there. Now that they have arrived, do not expect them to abandon their faith, their God, and their honor as Europeans have done. Do not expect them to bow low to the European golden calf. If you have a problem with Islam in Europe take it up with Prince Charles and King Juan Carlos, Laurent Fabius, Lionel Jospin, Helmut Schmidt, Harold Wilson and the rest of the masonic and Zionist traitors and fools who invited them into your nation for purposes of cheap labor.

The Muslims of Iran in their defiance of the rabbis and their defense of the prophets have more of the old American pioneer spirit, more of the British bulldog breed, than the sports-worshipping denizens of Shylock’s cheap labor colonies, formerly known as England and the United States of America.

I love my own people, but I love the truth more.

Posted in USAComments Off on The White Nationalist Backlash Against Islam is a Sucker’s Game

Iranian soldiers fighting for Assad in Syria, says State Department official


 Iran has sent soldiers to Syria to fight alongside forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and those of the Lebanon-based Hezbollah militia, a senior State Department official said Tuesday.

An unknown number of Iranians are fighting in Syria, the official said, citing accounts from members of the opposition Free Syrian Army, which is backed by the United States. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to preview a strategy session that Secretary of State John F. Kerry is to hold Wednesday with key supporters of the Syrian opposition.

Rebel forces have alleged for weeks that Iran is sending trained fighters to Syria, and the Iran-backed Hezbollah has said baldly that it will not let Assad fall.
But with the British, French and American governments considering providing arms to the Syrian opposition on a scale not yet seen in the civil war, the U.S. official’s allegation was a tacit acknowledgment that the two-year-old Syrian conflict has become a regional war and a de facto U.S. proxy fight with Iran.

“This is an important thing to note: the direct implication of foreigners fighting on Syrian soil now for the regime,” the official said.

Kerry is in the Middle East this week to foster political talks between Assad’s resurgent regime and the embattled rebels and to inaugurate a new round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

The State Department official said the Syrian opposition, which is badly split, has not finalized its representative to the talks in Amman, Jordan, on Wednesday. The Amman session is intended to align strategies ahead of a larger conference in Switzerland that would bring together the Russian- and Iranian-backed Assad regime and the Western-backed rebels.

Russia appears to be hedging its bets, as the U.S. official acknowledged Tuesday. Assad’s forces are being resupplied from somewhere, the official said, and not all of the armaments can be explained away as part of a continuation of weapons contracts that predate the conflict.

Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed two weeks ago to jointly lobby the opposition and Assad’s government to sit down for negotiations. The goal would be a transitional government with members chosen by mutual consent. The United States says that would mean Assad’s eventual exit; Russia says not necessarily.

Kerry stopped in Oman on Tuesday to solidify a partnership with a rare Sunni Arab nation that has friendly relations with both Iran and the United States. He was readying plans with Sultan Qaboos bin Said for Oman’s purchase of an estimated $2.1 billion air-defense system. The Raytheon-built system is part of a coordinated, U.S.-led detection and defense network intended to counter Iran’s sophisticated missile systems.

The State Department official would not say whether Iran was welcome at the Syria conference in Geneva, tentatively set for June.

In Washington on Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed legislation authorizing President Obama to send weapons to vetted Syrian opposition groups. Although the administration has not decided whether to provide lethal aid and does not need congressional approval to do so, the measure would strengthen Obama’s case against those lawmakers who disapprove of stepped-up U.S. involvement in Syria.

The bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the committee chairman, and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the ranking minority member, also creates a $250 million annual transition fund — from reprogrammed, not newly appropriated, money — to help the civilian opposition preserve government institutions and strengthens sanctions against anyone providing arms or selling oil to Assad.

Menendez acknowledged concerns that U.S. weapons could fall into the hands of Islamist extremists fighting on the side of the opposition. But, he said, “if we stand aside and do nothing,” such worries “will become self-fulfilling prophecy.”

The bill, which passed the committee on a bipartisan 15 to 3 vote, still requires approval by the entire Senate and by the House, which has no companion version pending.

Posted in IranComments Off on Iranian soldiers fighting for Assad in Syria, says State Department official

Bin Laden burial pictures will stay secret


Photos of American military personnel burying Osama bin Laden at sea will remain classified, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with the government in finding that the release of postmortem images of the al-Qaeda leader could cause “exceptionally grave harm” to Americans.

Judicial Watch, a conservative-leaning group, had been pressing the Defense Department and the CIA to release at least a subset of 59 photos of bin Laden after he was killed in a May 2011 raid on his compound in Pakistan.

In a 14-page opinion, the three-judge panel wrote that it was persuaded by testimony submitted by national security officials who had reviewed the photos and said that images displaying the bullet wound that killed bin Laden were “quite graphic” and “gruesome.”

Attorneys for Judicial Watch had argued that other seemingly innocuous images that depict a dignified burial at sea were unlikely to cause any damage to U.S. national security. But the court said these weren’t just any photos but “an extraordinary set of images” of U.S. military personnel burying the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“It is undisputed that the government is withholding the images not to shield wrongdoing or avoid embarrassment, but rather to prevent the killing of Americans and violence against American interests,” according to the opinion from Judges Merrick B. Garland, Judith W. Rogers and Harry T. Edwards.

The court made specific reference to other instances in which national security officials said similar disclosures had incited anti-American violence. The officials pointed to uproars over an erroneous magazine report that U.S. troops had desecrated the Koran and the publication of a Danish cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, government agencies are exempt from disclosing records in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. Judicial Watch argued that such exemptions are too vague, but courts have generally deferred to the executive branch when it comes to classified information.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the group’s attorneys are considering an appeal.

“The courts need to stop rubber-stamping this administration’s improper secrecy,” Fitton said in a statement. “There is no provision of the Freedom of Information Act that allows documents to be kept secret because their release might offend our terrorist enemies.”

The group had also challenged the process the government used to mark the photos as classified. Although the court acknowledged that it did not have enough information from the CIA to determine whether the agency had followed its own guidelines, the judges deferred to testimony from the head of the agency’s National Clandestine Service, who said he had personally reviewed the images and approved the top-secret label.

Posted in USAComments Off on Bin Laden burial pictures will stay secret

Likud MK Feiglin: It’s immoral for IsraHell to take US aid


Moshe Feiglin (photo credit: Kobi Gideon/Flash90)

In curious interview with little-known US magazine, hardline legislator also suggests America might not survive its current financial woes

Times of Israel

Israel should not accept US foreign aid because it is immoral and allows Washington to exert political pressure on Jerusalem, a lawmaker from the Knesset’s ruling party said in an interview with an American magazine published Monday.

Deputy Knesset Speaker Moshe Feiglin (Likud) also seemed to suggest that the US was doomed to fall due to its economic woes, but that Israel’s survival was guaranteed because the country “carries moral weight.”

“I’m totally against this [US foreign] aid [to Israel],” Feiglin told The New American, a relatively unknown publication affiliated with far-right American politics. “It cannot be when, first of all, the Americans are standing in line like two or three miles in the snow to get a job. To get any kind of aid from America when, economically, we are in a much, much better position doesn’t look moral to me.”

Furthermore, American aid “is not in our favor, not economically, not militarily, not in any way,” the MK told the magazine’s Alex Newman. (He gave the interview last month in the Knesset, but it only appeared on Monday.) “This aid serves psychological purposes, not anything else. We are talking about 1.5 percent of our income, of what Israel is producing — we can definitely deal without it.”

Since World War II, Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid, having received a total of $118 billion, most of it in the form of military assistance. Currently, Washington supports Israel with about $3 billion per year.

Newman asked Feiglin about former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s argument that the US administration is using the aid “to obtain leverage over the Israeli government when Israel should be thinking about its own interests rather than what Washington thinks.”

Feiglin responded, “I 100 percent agree.”

A freshman lawmaker from the far-right flank of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, Feiglin is known in Israel for his controversial views, which range from denying that the Palestinians are a people to advocating on behalf of medical marijuana. In recent weeks, he made headlines for his efforts to allow Jews to pray on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s Old City.

Last month, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein approved a decision to prevent Feiglin from visiting the volatile holy site for fear his presence there could spark violence and endanger Israel’s security. Protesting the move, Feiglin suspended himself from coalition discipline, vowing to cease all parliamentary work until he’s allowed to visit the Temple Mount.

‘History shows that big empires fall, and it doesn’t look like America today is on the rise’
In the lengthy interview with The New American, Feiglin also espoused the curious view that the US might not be able to survive its current financial crisis, while he is more optimistic about Israel’s future.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen with America — I’m more worried about America than about Israel,” he told the magazine. “I know it sounds maybe a little bit crazy. However, we are a nation of 3,300 years. We have our little ups and downs over our history, but it seems like physically we are stronger than ever.

“History shows that big empires fall, and it doesn’t look like America today is on the rise,” he continued. “So there’s more — from my historical understanding — there’s more to worry about now for America than about Israel. I think — and again, excuse me for saying so — I think America needs Israel not any less than Israel needs America.”

Feiglin said he is aware that his comments sound “a bit funny” — though not because the world’s last remaining superpower is also the world’s strongest economy, but because the US has so many more inhabitants than Israel. “But even though I’m aware of the numbers, I’m still saying what I’m saying because I think that Israel carries moral weight, and also technological and strategic and territorial weight, that is much bigger than its size.”

Based in Wisconsin, The New American is a biweekly magazine affiliated with the American far right. The publication admits to not trying to report objectively and instead having “an editorial point of view,” which regarding foreign policy is based on “avoiding foreign entanglements and going to war only when necessary to defend our country and citizens.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Likud MK Feiglin: It’s immoral for IsraHell to take US aid

What ‘Jews a Race’ Debate Means for Israel

These articles are about the are-Jews-a-race-or-religion debate.

The whole thing has never made much sense to me because I think they’re a mixture of both (I think Gilad puts it quite well when he says that Jewish identity is ‘racially-driven)

In fact I know it’s not very PC to say it, but I think Hitler had it about right when he called Jews “a race of the mind”

Zionism Is Independent of 2,000-Year-Old Genetic Link

rita rubin

by Jarrod Tanny

The persistent debate over the “racial” origins of the Jewish people makes a mockery of scholarship, trivializes history and perpetuates conceptions of identity that have been misused to justify everything from violent repression to affirmative action.

It is hardly surprising that Johns Hopkins’s Eran Elhaik “stirred up a hornet’s nest of controversy,” as the Forward recently put it, with his genetic study alleging the Khazar origins of the Jewish people — for, as readers undoubtedly know, deracinating Jewish DNA from ancient Israel undermines the legitimacy of the modern Jewish state.

If nationalism is based on the premise of “We were here first” and “we Jews” were not here first, then the land is not “ours,” and Zionism is little more than an instance of European colonialism.

But of no less significance is the second layer to this controversy, which involves the debate over whether the Jewish people constitute a race or a religion. Many people, particularly in the West, recoil at the suggestion that the Jews constitute a race or even an ethnicity.

After all, the racialization of the Jews fueled Hitler’s campaign for Aryan purification and paved the way to the Holocaust. It was the Holocaust that rendered the concept of a Jewish race repellent in respectable circles, and in the United States, where race and ethnicity continue to be accepted instruments of classification, the Jews are accorded the status of neither; they are white — according to the census and according to affirmative action practices.

But our current understanding of race, ethnicity, nationality and religion and the way we use these ideas did not emerge until the 18th-century Enlightenment. The ideas were politically mobilized during the American and French revolutions, and later refined through European colonialism and the global wars of the 20th century.

It is not that these concepts were invented, but scientists, philosophers, and politicians have deployed them as rigid categories to define people, to bestow upon them certain rights and to reconstruct history through an anachronistic conceptual lens.

Researchers Feud Over Jewish Genes

Are Jews genetically homogenous? Though it’s certainly been a loaded question historically, the quandary has been the domain of scientists for a number of years now, all of whom have pretty much come up with the same answer: yes. But that was before Eran Elhaik entered the picture. An Israeli molecular geneticist, Elhaik is interested, it seems, not just in doing science, but in reveling in his role as a spoiler.

As a Forward story recently described it, he has written a report that claims Ashkenazi Jews are descendent from Khazars, a Turkic people from the Caucasus who converted to Judaism in the eighth century. This flies in the face of that established genetic research, which did prove a continuous genetic link between Ashkenazi Jews and the Middle East, positing that they descended from Jews who fled Palestine after the Muslim conquest in the seventh century. As Elhaik put it in the article, he sees this fairly well accepted theory as “nonsense.”

Perhaps to be expected, the comments section of this article became a microcosm for all the heated emotion that this issue inspires. Elhaik himself even jumped into the fray.

The person who kicked off the fierce debate was Jon Entine, who wrote a book, “Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity and the DNA of the Chosen People”, which presents the more established reading of Jewish genetic history. He also runs the Genetic Literacy Project at George Mason University. Entine insisted that the evidence is “incontrovertible”: “Ashkenazi Jewry is a coherent population, much like blacks descended from western Africa, the Amish or Icelanders.” Pointing out the Caucasian/Asiatic markers on his own chromosome – which he says typically makes up 20% of Ashkenazi genes – Entine says this might be because of the Khazar conversion, which took place among the elites of Khazaria and not the general population, as Elhaik contends. “When Khazaria collapsed, a fraction of the elite integrated themselves into the then tiny Eastern European Jewish communities,” Entine notes. “Today’s percentage of Khazarian like markers is congruent with the extrapolation of that core group to the founding of Ashkenazi Jewry in the 12-14 centuries, when Jews in Eastern Europe numbered only 15,000-20,000.” In other words, he writes, “Elhaik is just wrong.”

And Entine has a bigger point. He thinks that what really troubles Elhaik is the notion of Judaism as being tribally or ethnically founded in any way:

For those of you pulling out your hair over suggestions that modern Judaism has “racial roots,” get a grip. Christianity and Islam are faith-based religions…anyone can join at a proverbial drop of a hat. Judaism has never been just a faith based religion. It’s a triple helix: belief in god (yet many Jews are atheists/agnostics); belief in the state of Israel as a founding principle of our religion; and recognition of our “blood” connection to fellow Jews. Judaism is one of only two surviving tribal religions (Zoroastrianism, which shares many tribal attributes with Judaism is the other). All or any of those qualities can define one as a Jew. But one can’t just junk the “blood” part in an attempt to be “modern”–that’s an abandonment of a central tenet of what makes us Jewish.

This is when Elhaik chimes in. For him, Entine has revealed his own prejudice in his comments: “I would like to thank Jon Entine for disclosing his scientific guidelines for studying Judaism as believe in God (though it is ok not to), patriotism (though living afar is also okay), and the purity of the blood line…Not surprisingly, the last two scientific principles of Entine share a common ground with the Nazi ideology. While this may makes sense to some people and may fit with their belief, for those of us who actually practice science this is mere nonsense.”

The only thing that matters to Elhaik, the only point of his research, he says, is to discover the cure for genetic disorders in Jews and non-Jews. Identifying the correct genetic provenance of Jews will help find cures for diseases. “Today, we still don’t understand genetic diseases nor do we have a cure (for a large number of them),” Elhaik writes. “Non-Jews who have ‘Jews-only diseases’ are misdiagnosed because they are not Jews. There are serious problems requiring serious solution. The only method that works is the scientific method.”

The frustrating aspect of scientific debates (for us, outside observers, that is) is that both sides assume objective fact is on their side, and so they never really engage with each other’s arguments. As Entine has the last word, this tussle in the comments section is no different. They both seem to be talking past each other:

Elhaik is young enough and immature enough to be a young son of mine. All his rants aside, Judaism is a modernized version of a tribal religion, a fact thatshows up in the genes of Jews, across a range of disease and other traits. Elhaik, in either his overheated “academic” article or his posts just does not come across as a serious intellect. I have not found a mainstream geneticist who thinks much of his analytical ability let alone his care in assembling and analyzing genetic data. Sorry…just stating the facts.

Posted by 

Posted in Education, PoliticsComments Off on What ‘Jews a Race’ Debate Means for Israel

Joseph Massad and Ali Abunimah’s Electronic Intifada


This is Joseph Massad. Ali Abunimah’s Electronic Intifada says all the Jews/Zionists (choose whichever you like – they’re all pretty much the same) are going mad because of the threat this man poses to them.

Relax guys. You’ve nothing to worry about. Massad spouts the Jewish (anti-Zio division), line perfectly.

It is Israel’s claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti-Semitic claims of all.

By Joseph Massad
Jewish opponents of Zionism understood the movement since its early age as one that shared the precepts of anti-Semitism in its diagnosis of what gentile Europeans called the “Jewish Question”. What galled anti-Zionist Jews the most, however, was that Zionism also shared the “solution” to the Jewish Question that anti-Semites had always advocated, namely the expulsion of Jews from Europe.
It was the Protestant Reformation with its revival of the Hebrew Bible that would link the modern Jews of Europe to the ancient Hebrews of Palestine, a link that the philologists of the 18th century would solidify through their discovery of the family of “Semitic” languages, including Hebrew and Arabic. Whereas Millenarian Protestants insisted that contemporary Jews, as descendants of the ancient Hebrews, must leave Europe to Palestine to expedite the second coming of Christ, philological discoveries led to the labelling of contemporary Jews as “Semites”. The leap that the biological sciences of race and heredity would make in the 19th century of considering contemporary European Jews racial descendants of the ancient Hebrews would, as a result, not be a giant one.
Basing themselves on the connections made by anti-Jewish Protestant Millenarians, secular European figures saw the political potential of “restoring” Jews to Palestine abounded in the 19th century. Less interested in expediting the second coming of Christ as were the Millenarians, these secular politicians, from Napoleon Bonaparte to British foreign secretary Lord Palmerston (1785-1865) to Ernest Laharanne, the private secretary of Napoleon III in the 1860s, sought to expel the Jews of Europe to Palestine in order to set them up as agents of European imperialism in Asia.
Their call would be espoused by many “anti-Semites”, a new label chosen by European anti-Jewish racists after its invention in 1879 by a minor Viennese journalist by the name of Wilhelm Marr, who issued a political programme titled The Victory of Judaism over Germanism. Marr was careful to decouple anti-Semitism from the history of Christian hatred of Jews on the basis of religion, emphasising, in line with Semitic philology and racial theories of the 19th century, that the distinction to be made between Jews and Aryans was strictly racial.
Assimilating Jews into European culture
Scientific anti-Semitism insisted that the Jews were different from Christian Europeans. Indeed that the Jews were not European at all and that their very presence in Europe is what causes anti-Semitism. The reason why Jews caused so many problems for European Christians had to do with their alleged rootlessness, that they lacked a country, and hence country-based loyalty. In the Romantic age of European nationalisms, anti-Semites argued that Jews did not fit in the new national configurations, and disrupted national and racial purity essential to most European nationalisms. This is why if the Jews remained in Europe, the anti-Semites argued, they could only cause hostility among Christian Europeans. The only solution was for the Jews to exit from Europe and have their own country. Needless to say, religious and secular Jews opposed this horrific anti-Semitic line of thinking. Orthodox and Reform Jews, Socialist and Communist Jews, cosmopolitan and Yiddishkeit cultural Jews, all agreed that this was a dangerous ideology of hostility that sought the expulsion of Jews from their European homelands.
 The Jewish Haskalah, or Enlightenment, which emerged also in the 19th century, sought to assimilate Jews into European secular gentile culture and have them shed their Jewish culture. It was the Haskalah that sought to break the hegemony of Orthodox Jewish rabbis on the “Ostjuden” of the East European shtetl and to shed what it perceived as a “medieval” Jewish culture in favour of the modern secular culture of European Christians. Reform Judaism, as a Christian- and Protestant-like variant of Judaism, would emerge from the bosom of the Haskalah. This assimilationist programme, however, sought to integrate Jews in European modernity, not to expel them outside Europe’s geography.
When Zionism started a decade and a half after Marr’s anti-Semitic programme was published, it would espouse all these anti-Jewish ideas, including scientific anti-Semitism as valid. For Zionism, Jews were “Semites”, who were descendants of the ancient Hebrews. In his foundational pamphlet Der Judenstaat, Herzl explained that it was Jews, not their Christian enemies, who “cause” anti-Semitism and that “where it does not exist, [anti-Semitism] is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations”, indeed that “the unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America”; that Jews were a “nation” that should leave Europe to restore their “nationhood” in Palestine or Argentina; that Jews must emulate European Christians culturally and abandon their living languages and traditions in favour of modern European languages or a restored ancient national language. Herzl preferred that all Jews adopt German, while the East European Zionists wanted Hebrew. Zionists after Herzl even agreed and affirmed that Jews were separate racially from Aryans. As for Yiddish, the living language of most European Jews, all Zionists agreed that it should be abandoned.
The majority of Jews continued to resist Zionism and understood its precepts as those of anti-Semitism and as a continuation of the Haskalah quest to shed Jewish culture and assimilate Jews into European secular gentile culture, except that Zionism sought the latter not inside Europe but at a geographical remove following the expulsion of Jews from Europe. The Bund, or the General Jewish Labor Union in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia, which was founded in Vilna in early October 1897, a few weeks after the convening of the first Zionist Congress in Basel in late August 1897, would become Zionism’s fiercest enemy.
The Bund joined the existing anti-Zionist Jewish coalition of Orthodox and Reform rabbis who had combined forces a few months earlier to prevent Herzl from convening the first Zionist Congress in Munich, which forced him to move it to Basel. Jewish anti-Zionism across Europe and in the United States had the support of the majority of Jews who continued to view Zionism as an anti-Jewish movement well into the 1940s.
Anti-Semitic chain of pro-Zionist enthusiasts

Realising that its plan for the future of European Jews was in line with those of anti-Semites, Herzl strategised early on an alliance with the latter. He declared in Der Judenstaat that

“The Governments of all countries scourged by anti-Semitism will be keenly interested in assisting us to obtain [the] sovereignty we want.”

He added that “not only poor Jews” would contribute to an immigration fund for European Jews, “but also Christians who wanted to get rid of them”. Herzl unapologetically confided in his Diaries that

“The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”

Thus when Herzl began to meet in 1903 with infamous anti-Semites like the Russian minister of the interiorVyacheslav von Plehve, who oversaw anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia, it was an alliance that he sought by design. That it would be the anti-Semitic Lord Balfour, who as Prime Minister of Britain in 1905 oversaw his government’s Aliens Act, which prevented East European Jews fleeing Russian pogroms from entering Britain in order, as he put it, to save the country from the “undoubted evils” of “an immigration which was largely Jewish”, was hardy coincidental. Balfour’s infamous Declaration of 1917 to create in Palestine a “national home” for the “Jewish people”, was designed, among other things, to curb Jewish support for the Russian Revolution and to stem the tide of further unwanted Jewish immigrants into Britain.

The Nazis would not be an exception in this anti-Semitic chain of pro-Zionist enthusiasts. Indeed, the Zionists would strike a deal with the Nazis very early in their history. It was in 1933 that the infamous Transfer (Ha’avara) Agreement was signed between the Zionists and the Nazi government to facilitate the transfer of German Jews and their property to Palestine and which broke the international Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany started by American Jews. It was in this spirit that Zionist envoys were dispatched to Palestine to report on the successes of Jewish colonization of the country. Adolf Eichmann returned from his 1937 trip to Palestine full of fantastic stories about the achievements of the racially-separatist Ashkenazi Kibbutz, one of which he visited on Mount Carmel as a guest of the Zionists.
Despite the overwhelming opposition of most German Jews, it was the Zionist Federation of Germany that was the only Jewish group that supported the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, as they agreed with the Nazis that Jews and Aryans were separate and separable races. This was not a tactical support but one based on ideological similitude. The Nazis’ Final Solution initially meant the expulsion of Germany’s Jews to Madagascar. It is this shared goal of expelling Jews from Europe as a separate unassimilable race that created the affinity between Nazis and Zionists all along.
While the majority of Jews continued to resist the anti-Semitic basis of Zionism and its alliances with anti-Semites, the Nazi genocide not only killed 90 percent of European Jews, but in the process also killed the majority of Jewish enemies of Zionism who died precisely because they refused to heed the Zionist call of abandoning their countries and homes.
After the War, the horror at the Jewish holocaust did not stop European countries from supporting the anti-Semitic programme of Zionism. On the contrary, these countries shared with the Nazis a predilection for Zionism. They only opposed Nazism’s genocidal programme. European countries, along with the United States, refused to take in hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors of the holocaust. In fact, these countries voted against a UN resolution introduced by the Arab states in 1947 calling on them to take in the Jewish survivors, yet these same countries would be the ones who would support the United Nations Partition Plan of November 1947 to create a Jewish State in Palestine to which these unwanted Jewish refugees could be expelled.
The pro-Zionist policies of the Nazis
The United States and European countries, including Germany, would continue the pro-Zionist policies of the Nazis. Post-War West German governments that presented themselves as opening a new page in their relationship with Jews in reality did no such thing. Since the establishment of the country after WWII, every West German government (and every German government since unification in1990) has continued the pro-Zionist Nazi policies unabated. There was never a break with Nazi pro-Zionism. The only break was with the genocidal and racial hatred of Jews that Nazism consecrated, but not with the desire to see Jews set up in a country in Asia, away from Europe. Indeed, the Germans would explain that much of the money they were sending to Israel was to help offset the costs of resettling European Jewish refugees in the country.
After World War II, a new consensus emerged in the United States and Europe that Jews had to be integrated posthumously into white Europeanness, and that the horror of the Jewish holocaust was essentially a horror at the murder of white Europeans. Since the 1960s, Hollywood films about the holocaust began to depict Jewish victims of Nazism as white Christian-looking, middle class, educated and talented people not unlike contemporary European and American Christians who should and would identify with them. Presumably if the films were to depict the poor religious Jews of Eastern Europe (and most East European Jews who were killed by the Nazis were poor and many were religious), contemporary white Christians would not find commonality with them.
Hence, the post-holocaust European Christian horror at the genocide of European Jews was not based on the horror of slaughtering people in the millions who were different from European Christians, but rather a horror at the murder of millions of people who were the same as European Christians. This explains why in a country like the United States, which had nothing to do with the slaughter of European Jews, there exists upwards of 40 holocaust memorials and a major museum for the murdered Jews of Europe, but not one for the holocaust of Native Americans or African Americans for which the US is responsible.
Aimé Césaire understood this process very well. In his famous speech on colonialism, he affirmed that the retrospective view of European Christians about Nazism is that
it is barbarism, but the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; that it is Nazism, yes, but that before [Europeans] were its victims, they were its accomplices; and they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimised it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole of Western, Christian civilisation in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack.
That for Césaire the Nazi wars and holocaust were European colonialism turned inwards is true enough. But since the rehabilitation of Nazism’s victims as white people, Europe and its American accomplice would continue their Nazi policy of visiting horrors on non-white people around the world, on Korea, on Vietnam and Indochina, on Algeria, on Indonesia, on Central and South America, on Central and Southern Africa, on Palestine, on Iran, and on Iraq and Afghanistan.
The rehabilitation of European Jews after WWII was a crucial part of US Cold War propaganda. As American social scientists and ideologues developed the theory of “totalitarianism”, which posited Soviet Communism and Nazism as essentially the same type of regime, European Jews, as victims of one totalitarian regime, became part of the atrocity exhibition that American and West European propaganda claimed was like the atrocities that the Soviet regime was allegedly committing in the pre- and post-War periods. That Israel would jump on the bandwagon by accusing the Soviets of anti-Semitism for their refusal to allow Soviet Jewish citizens to self-expel and leave to Israel was part of the propaganda.

Commitment to white supremacy

It was thus that the European and US commitment to white supremacy was preserved, except that it now included Jews as part of “white” people, and what came to be called “Judeo-Christian” civilisation. European and American policies after World War II, which continued to be inspired and dictated by racism against Native Americans, Africans, Asians, Arabs and Muslims, and continued to support Zionism’s anti-Semitic programme of assimilating Jews into whiteness in a colonial settler state away from Europe, were a direct continuation of anti-Semitic policies prevalent before the War. It was just that much of the anti-Semitic racialist venom would now be directed at Arabs and Muslims (both, those who are immigrants and citizens in Europe and the United States and those who live in Asia and Africa) while the erstwhile anti-Semitic support for Zionism would continue unhindered.

West Germany’s alliance with Zionism and Israel after WWII, of supplying Israel with huge economic aid in the 1950s and of economic and military aid since the early 1960s, including tanks, which it used to kill Palestinians and other Arabs, is a continuation of the alliance that the Nazi government concluded with the Zionists in the 1930s. In the 1960s, West Germany even provided military training to Israeli soldiers and since the 1970s has provided Israel with nuclear-ready German-made submarines with which Israel hopes to kill more Arabs and Muslims.
Israel has in recent years armed the most recent German-supplied submarines with nuclear tipped cruise missiles, a fact that is well known to the current German government. Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak told Der SPIEGELin 2012 that Germans should be “proud” that they have secured the existence of the state of Israel “for many years”. Berlin financed one-third of the cost of the submarines, around 135 million euros ($168 million) per submarine, and has allowed Israel to defer its payment until 2015. That this makes Germany an accomplice in the dispossession of the Palestinians is of no more concern to current German governments than it was in the 1960s to West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer who affirmed that “the Federal Republic has neither the right nor the responsibility to take a position on the Palestinian refugees”.
This is to be added to the massive billions that Germany has paid to the Israeli government as compensation for the holocaust, as if Israel and Zionism were the victims of Nazism, when in reality it was anti-Zionist Jews who were killed by the Nazis. The current German government does not care about the fact that even those German Jews who fled the Nazis and ended up in Palestine hated Zionism and its project and were hated in turn by Zionist colonists in Palestine. As German refugees in 1930s and 1940s Palestine refused to learn Hebrew and published half a dozen German newspapers in the country, they were attacked by the Hebrew press, including byHaartez, which called for the closure of their newspapers in 1939 and again in 1941.
Zionist colonists attacked a German-owned café in Tel Aviv because its Jewish owners refused to speak Hebrew, and the Tel Aviv municipality threatened in June 1944 some of its German Jewish residents for holding in their home on 21 Allenby street “parties and balls entirely in the German language, including programmes that are foreign to the spirit of our city” and that this would “not be tolerated in Tel Aviv”. German Jews, or Yekkes as they were known in the Yishuv, would even organise a celebration of the Kaiser’s birthday in 1941 (for these and more details about German Jewish refugees in Palestine, read Tom Segev’s book The Seventh Million).
Add to that Germany’s support for Israeli policies against Palestinians at the United Nations, and the picture becomes complete. Even the new holocaust memorial built in Berlin that opened in 2005 maintains Nazi racial apartheid, as this “Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe” is only for Jewish victims of the Nazis who must still today be set apart, as Hitler mandated, from the other millions of non-Jews who also fell victim to Nazism. That a subsidiary of the German company Degussa, which collaborated with the Nazis and which produced the Zyklon B gas that was used to kill people in the gas chambers, was contracted to build the memorial was anything but surprising, as it simply confirms that those who killed Jews in Germany in the late 1930s and in the 1940s now regret what they had done because they now understand Jews to be white Europeans who must be commemorated and who should not have been killed in the first place on account of their whiteness. The German policy of abetting the killing of Arabs by Israel, however, is hardly unrelated to this commitment to anti-Semitism, which continues through the predominant contemporary anti-Muslim German racism that targets Muslim immigrants.
Euro-American anti-Jewish tradition
The Jewish holocaust killed off the majority of Jews who fought and struggled against European anti-Semitism, including Zionism. With their death, the only remaining “Semites” who are fighting against Zionism and its anti-Semitism today are the Palestinian people. Whereas Israel insists that European Jews do not belong in Europe and must come to Palestine, the Palestinians have always insisted that the homelands of European Jews were their European countries and not Palestine, and that Zionist colonialism springs from its very anti-Semitism.
Whereas Zionism insists that Jews are a race separate from European Christians, the Palestinians insist that European Jews are nothing if not European and have nothing to do with Palestine, its people, or its culture. What Israel and its American and European allies have sought to do in the last six and a half decades is to convince Palestinians that they too must become anti-Semites and believe as the Nazis, Israel, and its Western anti-Semitic allies do, that Jews are a race that is different from European races, that Palestine is their country, and that Israel speaks for all Jews. That the two largest American pro-Israel voting blocks today are Millenarian Protestants and secular imperialists continues the very same Euro-American anti-Jewish tradition that extends back to the Protestant Reformation and 19th century imperialism. But the Palestinians have remained unconvinced and steadfast in their resistance to anti-Semitism.
Israel and its anti-Semitic allies affirm that Israel is “the Jewish people”, that its policies are “Jewish” policies, that its achievements are “Jewish” achievements, that its crimes are “Jewish” crimes, and that therefore anyone who dares to criticise Israel is criticising Jews and must be an anti-Semite. The Palestinian people have mounted a major struggle against this anti-Semitic incitement. They continue to affirm instead that the Israeli government does not speak for all Jews, that it does not represent all Jews, and that its colonial crimes against the Palestinian people are its own crimes and not the crimes of “the Jewish people”, and that therefore it must be criticised, condemned and prosecuted for its ongoing war crimes against the Palestinian people. This is not a new Palestinian position, but one that was adopted since the turn of the 20th century and continued throughout the pre-WWII Palestinian struggle against Zionism. Yasser Arafat’s speech at the United Nations in 1974 stressed all these points vehemently:


Just as colonialism heedlessly used the wretched, the poor, the exploited as mere inert matter with which to build and to carry out settler colonialism, so too were destitute, oppressed European Jews employed on behalf of world imperialism and of the Zionist leadership. European Jews were transformed into the instruments of aggression; they became the elements of settler colonialism intimately allied to racial discrimination…Zionist theology was utilised against our Palestinian people: the purpose was not only the establishment of Western-style settler colonialism but also the severing of Jews from their various homelands and subsequently their estrangement from their nations. Zionism… is united with anti-Semitism in its retrograde tenets and is, when all is said and done, another side of the same base coin. For when what is proposed is that adherents of the Jewish faith, regardless of their national residence, should neither owe allegiance to their national residence nor live on equal footing with its other, non-Jewish citizens -when that is proposed we hear anti-Semitism being proposed. When it is proposed that the only solution for the Jewish problem is that Jews must alienate themselves from communities or nations of which they have been a historical part, when it is proposed that Jews solve the Jewish problem by immigrating to and forcibly settling the land of another people – when this occurs, exactly the same position is being advocated as the one urged by anti-Semites against Jews.


Israel’s claim that its critics must be anti-Semites presupposes that its critics believe its claims that it represents “the Jewish people”. But it is Israel’s claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti-Semitic claims of all.
Today, Israel and the Western powers want to elevate anti-Semitism to an international principle around which they seek to establish full consensus. They insist that for there to be peace in the Middle East, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must become, like the West, anti-Semites by espousing Zionism and recognising Israel’s anti-Semitic claims. Except for dictatorial Arab regimes and the Palestinian Authority and its cronies, on this 65th anniversary of the anti-Semitic conquest of Palestine by the Zionists, known to Palestinians as the Nakba, the Palestinian people and the few surviving anti-Zionist Jews continue to refuse to heed this international call and incitement to anti-Semitism. They affirm that they are, as the last of the Semites, the heirs of the pre-WWII Jewish and Palestinian struggles against anti-Semitism and its Zionist colonial manifestation. It is their resistance that stands in the way of a complete victory for European anti-Semitism in the Middle East and the world at large.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Joseph Massad and Ali Abunimah’s Electronic Intifada

Hasta Siempre Comandante – Jahmila

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Hasta Siempre Comandante – Jahmila

Shoah’s pages