The Israeli 'settler' serving in Italy's parliament

Last update - 20:05 18/04/2008
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976069.html

By Meron Rapoport
Tags: italy

Almost 50,000 people live in Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood, one of the largest in Israel. Up until now, it had no representative in parliament. As of this week, it does. Fiamma Nirenstein, a neighborhood resident for 10 years, was just elected to the Italian parliament. If we stick to the definitions of the UN, which views Gilo, on the capital's southern edge, as a settlement, one could say that Nirenstein is the first settler to be a member of a non-Israeli parliament.

This week, in a series of phone calls to Rome, between the first reports of a close victory for the right-wing coalition, to which Nirenstein belongs, and the final reports of Silvio Berlusconi's sweeping victory, Nirenstein explained several times that she has not requested Israeli citizenship but that this bureaucratic fact does not affect her identity. "I feel as though I made aliyah," says Nirenstein in a conversation that fluctuates between Hebrew and Italian.

In the elections, Nirenstein did not hide her Israeliness. Her campaign was centered on the view that Israel is Western democracy's vanguard in the struggle against world terror. "I ran for a place in parliament as a representative of the Liguria district. I held rallies in Genoa and other cities in the region," she recounts. "But I didn't talk with the people about local problems. I told them that the most important thing for their Italian identity is to stand by Israel's side." Nirenstein called her most recent book "Israele Siamo Noi" ("Israel Is Us"). By "us," she was referring, of course, to Italians.

Even though Italy hasn't experienced much in the way of terror attacks and the number of Muslim immigrants there is small compared with other countries in Europe, the talk about the importance of the fight against Islamic terror, or simply of how to deal with Islam in general, is very much present in contemporary Italian discourse. Oriana Fallaci devoted the last years of her life to writing books in which she forthrightly pegged Islam as the source of all the world's evil. Berlusconi himself, the unquestioned leader of the Italian right for more than a decade, explained at one of his appearances a few days ago: "We must be conscious of the superiority of our culture, which gave prosperity to people in countries that adopted it and ensures respect for human rights and religion. This respect certainly does not exist in the Islamic countries."

Perhaps this is the reason why Berlusconi and Gianfranco Fini, Berlusconi's partner and the former head of the neo-fascist party, proposed that Nirenstein join their joint list, Il Partito della Liberta ("The Party of Liberty").

Nirenstein's father arrived in Italy during World War II, as a soldier in the Jewish Brigade. In Florence, he met her mother, who fought as a partisan against the fascist government and later against the Nazi regime. "I was born as a communist," she says. In her youth she was part of the 1968 generation, founded the first feminist journal in Italy and worked at leftist newspapers.

After the 1967 Six-Day War, a rift began to develop between her and her "communist comrades," who saw Israel as an occupying country. "I was confused for a long time," she says. "In 1982, I signed a petition against the First Lebanon War. Today I wouldn't sign it. What did Israel gain from the withdrawal from Lebanon?"

To the right of Netanyahu

Her first visit to Israel was as a reporter, and it was only after this initial visit that she returned in 1992 for the long term. For two years, she ran the Istituto Italiano di Cultura in Tel Aviv, and after the Rabin assassination, she decided she had to stay in Israel. "I had the feeling that this was the most interesting place in the world, and I also felt that the reporting on Israel was biased." She did not obtain Israeli citizenship because she thought an Israeli passport would hinder her in her work, but aside from that, she also thinks that "every Jew in the world is an Israeli even if he's not aware of it. Anyone who doesn't know it is making a big mistake."

In terms of the reality of Israel's current political system, Nirenstein is located to the right of Kadima and Labor, and maybe even of Likud Chair Benjamin Netanyahu. She says she believes in the idea of two states for two peoples, but thinks the principle of "territories for peace" has been a failure. There's no point in discussing it, she explains, until the entire Arab world is capable of recognizing Israel. Negotiations with Hamas are absolutely out of the question.

But there are polls which indicate that a majority of Israelis are prepared to negotiate with Hamas.

Nirenstein: "The public supports a compromise with Hamas, so that it will stop firing on Sderot. But morally speaking, there mustn't be negotiations with Hamas, which thinks that Jews are the sons of monkeys and pigs. You can't negotiate with cannibals, who eat human beings."

It's hard to argue with Nirenstein. Not just because of the poor quality of the phone connection to Rome, but also because she thinks that Israel is a beacon that should serve as inspiration for the entire West. "Israel is the vanguard of all the democracies in the world, and the time has come for Europe to recognize that," she says.

But in the election campaign you met with Italians who barely know where Israel is. How did you persuade them that Israel is important to their lives?

"I said that Italy can learn a lot from Israel. It can learn what a true democracy is, how a democracy can survive in conditions of conflict, without forsaking its fundamental principles. Israel is a culture of life, a culture of people who are always seeking peace. Our problem in Italy is that sometimes we don't know who we are. You can know who you are if you know your enemy and your friend. Israel is Italy's friend."

In other words, Islam is the enemy?

"I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, or that all Muslims are criminals. But Hamas has announced that it wants to conquer Rome, to make it the outpost from which it will conquer all of Europe."

And you think that Hamas really intends to conquer Rome?

"Rome is a very symbolic place in the eyes of radical Islam. Italy, with its Catholic culture, is an enemy in the eyes of Islam."

Obviously, this all touches on one of the central issues in Italy's recent election campaign: the immigrant issue. Fini, who is slated to be appointed parliament speaker in Berlusconi's new administration, frequently talks about the need to ban illegal immigration. Even the moderate Social-Democractic party, led by the former mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni, devoted a good amount of attention to the subject.

"People feel that immigration is threatening their cities, their culture," Nirenstein explains. "Maybe it's exaggerated, but the residents of Florence, for example, think of their city as a temple for the works of art that were created there. When they see the steps of the Duomo filled with immigrants, they're in shock."

I lived in Florence. I remember Italy as a tolerant country.

"It's changed a lot. There are entire quarters that you can't enter at night. There's rape, there are assaults, there's drug dealing. There are schools for immigrants where they don't hang the crucifix. The immigrants have contempt for our culture. We gave them work and they scorn our values. There's a deep contradiction between the more radical Islam and Italy's values.

"The problem is that there is hardly any moderate Islam in Italy. Just the opposite. In Rome they built an enormous mosque. There are a lot of mosques in Italy, and very anti-Western madrasas operate in them. There's polygamy, there's wife-battering - it's very common. There's a father who killed his daughter for 'family honor.' It's logical that Italians would notice and that there would be reactions."

The straight- armed salute

In Nirenstein's books, you don't find the aggressive anti-Muslim sentiment that screams from every page of Fallaci's books. But while she isn't part of the wave of opposition to immigrants and Muslims that is sweeping Italy, she does belong to the new right that scored an impressive election victory this week. It seems that there is no such thing as a right way to be "right" in all of Europe: Berlusconi, the avowed capitalist and most avid pro-American in Europe, on the one hand, the Lega Nord (Northern League) with its wild incitement on the other, and then Fini and his former neo-facist party. Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy almost seem like communists in comparison to this bunch.

Nirenstein does not "completely" accept this definition. To her, Berlusconi is a centrist who also received votes from the left, because he's "for the downtrodden" and wants to lessen their tax burden. Nirenstein sees herself as "a friend of the Northern League," which just wants to turn Italy into a federal state. She feels this is a legitimate ambition, even if some of the League's pronouncements are "unpleasant."

Her closeness to the former neo-fascist party caused Nirenstein some discomfort during the election campaign, particularly after one of Berlusconi's candidates for the Senate, Giuseppe Ciarrapico, proudly announced that he was and remains a fascist. According to Nirenstein, his candidacy "does not fit" with her candidacy as an avowed anti-fascist, a Jew and the daughter of a partisan, but she remained on the list nevertheless. "There's no such thing as a perfect list," she says.

Did you encounter people like Ciarrapico during the election campaign?

"At one of the election rallies I attended, in Genoa, someone gave the straight-armed salute. I went to the Allianza Nationale [the new name of the former neo- fascist party] people and asked who it was. I said that I protested, that I was stunned to see such a thing and that I did not want to see it again."

But Fini himself used to do the straight-armed salute at rallies in the 1960s, when everyone knew where fascism had led to.

"I don't know if Fini did that salute, maybe he did it in his youth. But I don't know what more he could have done than to kneel at Yad Vashem. Is he supposed to kill himself?"

He may not have been able to do more. But how did you, as a Jew, the daughter of a partisan, feel alongside a man who supported fascism as an adult?

"He was a fascist like I was a communist, when I was indifferent to what Pol Pot did, when I admired Che Guevara. I see him as someone who has since developed."

Post-election Italy, says Nirenstein, is a better place, a more stable place, a place without a radical left and a radical right. She doesn't know yet what she'll do in the new parliament. Nirenstein would like to deal with foreign affairs, but she knows she'll have to pay a price: For now she'll remain in Rome and bid good-bye to her good friends in Israel. She's not giving up the house in Gilo, though. It will wait for the return of the parliament member from Rome

Att skapa bekväma verkligheter

The Palestine Chronicle
Den 9 februari 2008
http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=20
Översättning: Kristoffer Larsson

I dagens konkurrensbetonade värld är snabb och bekvämt selektiv rapportering av största vikt. Google News påstår sig till exempel avsöka 4 500 nyhetskällor, varav endast ett fåtal lyfts fram som väsentligt nyhetsstoff. Det finns tusentals liknande tjänster och de tävlar alla i att så snabbt som möjligt producera en nyhet. Mer ingående – och följaktligen långsammare – rapportering nedprioriteras och viktig information kommer ofta fram för lite och för sent.

Irakfrågan, som har upptagit en stor del av nyhetsrubrikerna i flera år nu, tjänar som ett gott exempel på detta.

Den första februari sprängde två kvinnor ihjäl sig själva med bara några minuters mellanrum på två fullpackade djurmarknader i den irakiska huvudstaden. Myndigheterna säger att 98 människor uppges ha dött och 200 skadades. Ögonvittnen berättade om en gräslig scen där delar från människor och djur fyllde gatorna långtifrån från explosionsplatserna.

Vilken grundlig undersökning av storyn som helst skulle ha krävt att man undersökte flera anknytande faktorer. För det första skulle man ha behöva ställa den höga dödssiffran vid sidan om den amerikanska och den irakiska regeringens påståenden om ”lugn” i Bagdadområdet. Påståendet om en ”återgång till normala förhållanden” i den irakiska huvudstaden har basunerats ut i månader som bevis på att president Bushs militära ”offensiv” skördar framgång. Även om vi skulle köpa den tvivelaktiga statistiken som försöker göra reklam för att offensiven kommer att ha en positiv utgång – tvivelaktig eftersom den endast förs fram av amerikanska och irakiska källor med intresse av att tona ned allvaret i ”upproret” – så verkar våldet ha flyttat från huvudstaden till norra områden, framför allt Mosul.

I stället för att erkänna att man misslyckats med att stoppa det våld som har plågat Irak sedan den amerikanska ockupationen inleddes 2003, har amerikanska och irakiska myndigheter tagit sin tillflykt till ett fortsatt och aggressivt språkbruk för att förvirra och avleda från de verkliga frågorna.

Så här inledde Alissa J. Rubin sin artikel i New York Times (den 31 januari): ”Den oroliga situationen i norra Irak höll på onsdagen i sig då irakiska trupper i stor skala gick in i Mosul för att bekämpa sunni-arabiska extremister.” Det här är ett lysande sätt att avleda uppmärksamheten från offensivens misslyckande för att manipulera andra betydelser och bunta ihop dessa betydelser för att skapa en helt igenom falsk koppling: ”sunni-arabiska extremister”.

Vidare citerar Rubin en talesman för det irakiska försvarsministeriet som säger att målet med den militära operationen är att ”köra ut irakiska al-Qaida från staden och förhindra att dess kämpar återvänder”.

De inledande påståendena innehåller en farlig och felaktig koppling mellan araber (en i ökande grad förtryck minoritet i den irakiska staden), sunniter (beskrivna som ”återstoden av Saddamregimen” i medias tanklösa pladder) och extremister inom den tidigare gruppen och al-Qaida. Storyn i New York Times – som ofta anger normen för rapporteringen i andra stora amerikanska tidningar – kommer att ha lagt den perfekta grunden för att rättfärdiga framtida etniska rensningar av sunnitiska araber från staden, om den ”militära operationen” lyckas med att ”driva ut” al-Qaidaaktivister (deras antal överdrivs så fort det är nödvändigt).

För att återgå till bombningarna av marknaderna i Bagdad så var svaret på denna tragedi förutsägbart missledande. Den irakiska regeringen utfärdade det gamla vanliga (om än något bisarra) uttalandet och amerikanska regeringstjänstemän, däribland utrikesminister Condoleezza Rice, uttryckte starka fördömanden. Tillräckligt med material samlades in inom den första timmen för att översvämma oss med hundratals ”färska” nyheter som till största del var ett uppkok av uttalanden från Bagdads Gröna zon eller från Washington.

CNN:s hemsida inledde en artikel som gjordes tillgänglig kort efter marknadsbomberna med orden: ”Två mentalt handikappade kvinnor fästes med sprängämnen på fredagen och skickades in i de livliga marknaderna i Bagdad där de sprängdes i luften med fjärrkontroll.”

Anklagelsen i pressmeddelandet tillskrevs senare en irakisk regeringstjänsteman.

Den irakiske tjänstemannen sa att ”folk beskrev kvinnan med bomben vid al-Ghazlmarknaden i centrala Bagdad som en ’galen kvinna’ och att bombattentatsmannen på andra marknad var född med ett ospecificerat handikapp”.

Vilka är dessa ”folk”? Undersökte CNN-reportern legitimiteten i påståendet genom att intervjua någon av dem?

Kvinnors inblandning i våld av sådant här slag är ofta ett viktigt tillägg till storyn, framför allt för västerländska läsare. Läsare tenderar att stanna upp något längre när de hör talas om en självmordsbombare som också var en moder. Kanske känner de en strävan efter att få veta mer om en sådan kvinnas liv. Hade hon varit fånge i Abu Ghraib? Hade hon blivit torterad? Våldtagen? Hade han hon fått en familjemedlem mördad av USA, eller kanske av de irakiska dödspatrullerna?

Vad säger bombningarna oss om säkerhetsläget i Bagdad, framgången eller misslyckandet för ”offensiven” eller kriget som driver folk till de mest brutala manifestationer av självmord?

Tydligen säger det oss ingenting.

Men överstelöjtnant Steve Stover, talesman för Multi-National Division-Baghdad, har en förklaring som, åtminstone från CNN:s perspektiv, verkar mer relevant än de till synes viktiga frågorna ovan. ”Genom att attackera oskyldiga irakier har de (dvs. de som skickade i väg de ”mentalt handikappade” kvinnliga självmordsbombarna) visat sin sanna, demoniska natur.” Följaktligen löd CNN:s rubrik: ”’Demoniska’ kämpar skickade kvinnor för att spränga marknader i Irak”. I västerländsk media är arabiska kvinnor ständigt förtryckta offer och de måste behålla denna roll för att storyn ska stämma. Kvinnliga bombattentatsmän kan följaktligen inte själva ses som extremister utan måste vara offer i händerna på extremister.

Inom några timmar var orden för dagen på nyhetssidor ”mentalt handikappade” och ”demoniska”.

Men vad menas egentligen med ”demonisk”? Vilka egentliga aspekter belyser termen? Och varför skulle ett så oväsentligt utbrott få definiera den dödligaste bombningen i Bagdad på flera månader?

Att fokusera på så ovidkommande associationer – själlösa, galna, djävulska kvinnor, besatta och agerandes på order från skäggiga och sluga ”arabisk-sunnitiska extremister” inom al-Qaida – gör mycket mer än att helt enkelt avleda från de många militära och politiska misslyckandena i Irak. Det bidrar till att skapa ett universum parallellt med verkligheten och som således erbjuder en ersättningsbild som formar och omformar uppfattningar och föreställningar hos avlägsna nyhetskonsumenter.

Den “riktiga världen” – vare sig den i Irak, Palestina, Burma, Kenya eller någon annanstans – är en världen som även om den kan förefalla kaotisk i högsta grad är rationell. Den bygger på principen om orsak och verkan. Vad som kan tyckas vara ”demoniskt” och ”galet” för en person utanför media borde inte uppfattas på samma sätt av en journalist. Den sistnämndes ansvar är att berätta, sätta saker i sitt rätta sammanhang och dekonstruera med ett oberoende och kritiskt öga, inte bara blint upprepa vad ”officiella källor” har sagt.

De stora mediekonglomeratens skildring av utvecklingen i Gaza under de senaste månaderna kan sammanfattas med en övergripande rubrik: Horder av palestinier överträder Gazas gräns mot Egypten, Israel oroas över sin säkerhet.

Inspärrningen av 1,5 miljoner palestinier i Gaza – där fattigdomen ligger på 79 %, arbetslösheten däromkring och där majoriteten av befolkningen lider av ”osäker tillgång till mat” enligt FN-organ – borde i första hand ha framställts som en humanitär katastrof framtvingad av en israelisk belägring. Datumen i anknytning till de successiva stadierna av belägringen följer en israelisk politisk logik, inte en ”säkerhetslogik”. En rationell tidslinje över händelserna på senare tid kan lätt verifiera detta (bildandet av Hamasregeringen i mars 2006, bortträngningen av den proisraeliska palestinska säkerhetsapparaten i juni 2007 och så vidare, följs av dramatiska israeliska drag för att strama åt belägringen av Gaza, Hamas’ högborg).

Men lite av detta tycktes vara relevant för hur Gazaskeendena verkligen rapporterades. Liksom i fallet Irak, där de två källor man huvudsakligen förlitar sig på är ockupationsmakten och dess marionettregim, måste varje story av betydelse om Israel och Palestina bekräftas av officiella israeliska källor samt i mindre men växande utsträckning av deras allierade bland palestinier. Resten är ”extremister”, radikala och fast beslutna att förgöra ”den judiska staten”. Lägg märket till hur Israels judiskhet ofta betonas när ordet ”tillintetgörelse” och liknande ord tillämpas.

Det här är vad Bridget Johnson skrev i Seattle PI (den 29 januari) för att tukta FN:s råd för mänskliga rättigheter för deras fördömande av Israels belägring av Gaza: ”Hamas fortsatta raketattacker mot Israel nämndes över huvud taget inte – vilka föregick det strypandet av leveranser som har orsakat en sådan kalabalik – eller Hamas vägran att avstå från våld och försök att tillintetgöra den judiska staten.”

Påståendena var löjliga – framför allt det om en liten grupps ”försök att tillintetgöra” ett land beväpnat med kärnvapen. Orden ”tillintetgöra” och ”judisk stat” fälls helt enkelt som en oskyldig ”kommentar”, läst av tusentals amerikaner. Likaså är det mycket som utelämnas. Hamas har gång på gång begärt en ömsesidig vapenvila, vilket Israel också gång på gång förkastade eller helt enkelt ignorerade (med ursäkten att man ”inte förhandlar med terrorister”). Belägringen följde Hamas demokratiska valseger, inte raketattackerna vars intensitet följer antalet palestinier som mördats i Gaza. Bekvämt nog missar man också att palestinska raketattacker under flera års tid bara har dödat dryga tiotalet israeler. Alla civila offer är tragiska, men dessa fakta sätts sällan i sitt sammanhang av media. Antalet palestinier som dödats i Gaza under den israeliska arméns attacker sedan ”fredkonferensen” i Annapolis för två månader sedan uppskattas till 149. Flera fårahjordar dödades i Gaza efter att belägringen inleddes i början av 2006. Fler än 60 har dött sedan juni 2007 på grund av antingen brist på mediciner eller Israels vägran att låta dem besöka bättre utrustade sjukhus på Västbanken. Det här är bara toppen av isberget eftersom mänskligt lidande inte bara kan mätas i antalet döda utan även i de som fortsätter att leva i ständig nöd. För Johnson är detta oviktigt då det inte rör sig om vad som är rätt och fel utan om ett ordkrig. För att vinna måste man behärska språket – och hur det manipuleras – och ha tillgång till plattformar som når de högsta antalen läsare. Ett enkelt recept för seger är en avsiktlig blandning av ord som islamisk extremism, al-Qaida, Hamas, judisk stat, säkerhet, tillintetgörande, rätt att existera; om man fogar detta samman med bilder på arga palestinska ungdomar brännandes israeliska och amerikanska flaggor så finner man den amerikanska allmänheten och regeringen i evig solidaritet med Israel.

Medan de flesta amerikanska politiker är själviska, makthungriga och skulle göra vad som helst för att väljas så är den typiske amerikanen, till skillnad från hur det kan tyckas vara, inte född ”proisraelisk” och ”antipalestinsk”. De flesta amerikaner stöder den fabricerade men missledande bilden av Israel som tar sig in i deras teveapparater, ligger och väntar i brevlådan på morgonen och strålar dem i ansiktet från datorskärmen. Israel har det språkliga övertaget i västerländsk media, som, återigen, har bidragit till att skapa ett parallellt universum som inte har mycket gemensamt med verkligheten. Detta alternativa universum existerar bara på New York Times’ sidor, CNN:s bilder och i munnen på ”experter” på Fox News. Enligt denna framställning är palestinier, liksom kvinnliga irakiska självmordsbombare, ”demoniska”, ”galna”, ”extremister”, ”irrationella”, självhatande, och allt det där andra.

För att lära känna verkligheten som den är måste man undersöka språkbruket. En kritisk läsare är visserligen av väsentlighet, men uppgiften börjar i händerna på en journalist som inte får förstå sitt ämne i termer av ”fakta” och uppfattningar. Enkla fakta leder till enkla slutsatser: sunnitiska extremister, galna mullor, besvärliga palestinier, ett belägrat Israel. Varje story kan berättas på tre olika sätt: genom de två parternas synsätt och av journalisten själv. Journalisten får inte kompromissa med sitt oberoende, får inte köpa andras jargonger och mantran och själv bli som en officiell talesman. För att förmedla en story så nära verkligheten som möjligt måste en medieperson själv förstå sammanhanget, analysera motiven och följa en logisk linje: orsak och verkan, och sedan förmedla sina nya insikter – fri från självcensur, tvång eller skrämsel. Annars kommer den sanna berättelsen alltid att ställas åt sidan till förmån för redigerade officiella uttalanden och färdiga pressmeddelanden från regeringar och militär, falskeligen presenterade som ”riktiga”, ”oberoende” och ”opartiska”. Att tanklöst upprepa dessa officiella anföranden må vara enklare och lönsammare, men det kommer inte att ge något bidrag av värde till journalistiken eller till ökad sanning och rättvisa.

Ramzy Baroud är en erfaren journalist och har tidigare bland annat varit medarbetare på tevekanalen Al Jazira. Han är redaktör för The Palestine Chronicle och hans egen hemsida är www.RamzyBaroud.net. Barouds senaste bok heter The Second Palestinian Intifada (Pluto Press, 2006) och har mötts av strålande kritik.

What matters is the Israel Lobby, not the candidate

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/01/obamas-israel-shuffle.html

Obama's Israel Shuffle

Commentary: The 'pro-Israel' crowd saw Obama as a potential threat. He's done his best two-step to prove them wrong.

By Justin Elliott

February 1, 2008

Last week, when Barack Obama became the first major candidate to break the silence on the situation in Gaza, he didn't criticize Israel, whose blockade of a civilian population has been roundly condemned by human rights organizations, nor did he call for restraint from the United States' top ally in the Mideast. Instead, he fired off a letter to U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad with a resounding message—one that could have been mistaken for words straight from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) website. "The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel.… If it cannot...I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all," Obama wrote, adding he understood why Israel was "forced" to shut down Gaza's border crossings.

The letter was notable not only because Obama had distinguished himself from the rest of the field (John McCain later sent a similar letter to Condoleezza Rice), but also because it was a far cry from the Obama of last March, who let slip a rare expression of compassion for Palestinians by an American politician: "Nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people" he famously said at a small gathering in Iowa. What ensued in the 10 months between then and now is an object lesson in the intense pressure under which presidential candidates stake out ground on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the extraordinary effectiveness of the self-styled "pro-Israel" movement. This high-pressured atmosphere goes a long way to explaining why the candidate with the most liberal foreign policy views went out of his way to take a hard line on Gaza.

Obama's shuffle with the pro-Israel lobby follows in a long tradition of Democratic candidates facing a litmus test on the issue. Hillary Clinton, for her part, has enjoyed wide support among pro-Israel advocates, having made her peace with them back in 1999 after a controversy involving the lobby hurt her Senate campaign. And as Super Tuesday approaches—the day when many Jewish Democrats vote, in states like New York and California (where respectively 17 and 6 percent of primary voters identified themselves as Jewish in 2004)—Obama has aggressively moved to shore up his pro-Israel credentials, dispatching Jewish supporters to drum up support and hosting a lengthy conference call with Jewish reporters Monday. In part, the call was to counter chain e-mails, which have intensified in recent weeks, painting Obama as a "secret Muslim," but he also used a chunk of the time to make it known that he was a friend of Israel: "I want to make sure that we continue to strengthen the enduring ties between our people and pledge to give real meaning to the words 'never again,'" he said.

From the beginning, Obama has received more scrutiny on the issue of Israel than any other presidential candidate—something of a paradox given that he shares a uniformly pro-Israel record and policy platform with the major contenders from both parties. The suspicion of pro-Israel advocates for Obama was most recently captured in a January 23 Jerusalem Post op-ed in which Danny Ayalon, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., called the senator's candidacy cause for "some degree of concern." A memo by a top official at the American Jewish Committee, recently leaked to the Jewish Daily Forward, neatly outlined the roots of this concern: In the late 1990s Obama reportedly called for an even-handed approach to the conflict; his pastor had praised Louis Farrakhan; he has called for diplomacy with Iran; and, of course, he was once photographed breaking bread with the late Palestinian-American academic Edward Said.

There are plenty of other theories for why Obama has been so closely scrutinized on the issue Israel. "One, he is black, and in general it would be expected that black people are more sympathetic to the Palestinian people," Ziad Asali, president of the American Task Force on Palestine, a group that advocates for the creation of a Palestinian state, told me in trying to explain the scrutiny on Obama. M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, a dovish advocacy group, echoes Asali: "The more right-wing segments of the Jewish community are the least likely to be comfortable with an African-American president." Two, Asali said, Obama is young and perhaps open to new interpretations of the conflict, and, "thirdly, his middle name is Hussein, so he's more suspect than a John Smith."

And no media outlet has done more to pressure Obama on the issue than the New York Sun, the de facto house organ of the pro-Israel lobby. Since its creation in 2002, the newspaper has been practicing a unique brand of gotcha journalism concerning Israel and Palestine. And Obama has consistently responded, no matter how trivial the issue. In March, after George Soros wrote an article calling for negotiations with Hamas, a Sun reporter took it upon himself to seek comments from several Democrats, including Obama. A spokeswoman issued a dissent from Soros and reiterated that the senator shared AIPAC's position on the issue. A few months later, in response to a Sun query, the campaign distanced Obama from some members of his national church who had passed resolutions critical of Israel. Then, last September a Sun reporter noticed a small barackobama.com ad on the Amazon page of The Israel Lobby, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's book that critiques the lobby's role in U.S. policymaking. Within hours of being contacted by the Sun, the campaign issued a statement slamming the book and had the ad—although it had been completely unintentional—pulled from Amazon's site.

"[Pro-Israel advocates] have him in a position where he has to keep demonstrating his pro-Israel bona fides," says Rosenberg. "This is done every four years, pretty much in every election. Whoever is deemed to be the most liberal candidate is put on the defensive on Israel."

No one knows this better than the candidate deemed most liberal in 2004—Howard Dean. Like Obama, Dean was relatively new on the national scene and possessed liberal-leaning foreign policy views—parallels that help explain why in 2003 Dean faced an Israel problem all too similar to Obama's today. But Dean went further on Israel, at least rhetorically, than any of the candidates have this cycle, saying the U.S. should be "even-handed," that "it's not our place to take sides," and that "enormous" numbers of Israeli settlements would have to be dismantled. That talk prompted a barrage of negative press coverage and earned him a pair of scolding letters, one from Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and another from 34 congressional Democrats. And, yet, strangely, Dean's actual position on Israel was expressly in line with President Bush and his Democratic rivals. His campaign was co-chaired by former AIPAC president Steve Grossman. Nevertheless, as Grossman later acknowledged, Dean lost support over those comments. Sound familiar?

Obama experienced a mini-version of the Dean treatment after his statement about Palestinian suffering in March. When David Adelman, a prominent Iowa Democrat and AIPAC member, shot off a letter to Obama calling the comment "deeply troubling," a spokesman scrambled to run damage control, telling the AP that Obama believes "in the end, the Palestinian people are suffering from the Hamas-led government's refusal to renounce terrorism." Aides met personally with Adelman, who told the Des Moines Register he was "satisfied with their response."

The campaign let the quote stand for six weeks. Then, in the first debate, before a televised audience of around two million, Brian Williams asked the senator if he stood by his comment. Obama bailed. "Well, keep in mind what the remark actually, if you had the whole thing, said.… [N]obody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel..." For the candidate who is selling hope, it was a fairly cynical move.

John Edwards, who has always hewed to the AIPAC consensus on Israel, received little sustained scrutiny on the issue. Hillary Clinton, for her part, settled her debts with the Israel lobby years ago. On a Mideast trip in 1999, the First Lady hugged and kissed her Palestinian counterpart, Suha Arafat, at an event where Arafat had accused Israel of using poison gas on civilians. The incident was pumped into a media firestorm and memorialized in a commercial taken out by the Republican Jewish Coalition. Hillary went on to win her Senate seat in 2000 with an unusually slim majority of New York's Jewish vote. "The whole purpose of manufacturing that controversy when there was none was to put Hillary in a place where she would have to be hawkish on Israel," Rosenberg says." And Hillary has gone for it completely. She's been compensating for it ever since." Clinton now effectively outflanks Obama on the right with her call in September for "an undivided Jerusalem as [Israel's] capital."

It's unsurprising, then, that Hillary is clearly the favored Democrat of the pro-Israel establishment. Since 2004 when Obama first ran for Senate, he has received $93,700 of pro-Israel PAC money, while Hillary has gotten $349,073 during the same period. In the 2008 cycle, while the numbers are still quite low, Hillary has attracted five times more pro-Israel money than Obama.

All the same, the Obama campaign's loud protestations of support for Israel have been enough to placate the New York Sun's editors, who penned an editorial in early January noting "he has chosen to put himself on the record in terms that Israel's friends in America…can warmly welcome." That piece, Politico reported, was "promptly and widely" circulated by Obama's people.

Even if Obama has allowed himself to be painted into a corner on Israel, some hold out hope that his natural inclinations on the conflict are more moderate than his pronouncements. "Based on my conversations with Obama, I have a very strong belief that he shares the Tikkun perspective, which is pro-Israel and pro-Palestine both," says Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the progressive Jewish journal Tikkun. "I'm cautious in saying I'm 100 percent sure because there was a time when Hillary Clinton said, 'Michael I'm totally with you and Tikkun on Israel/Palestine.' That was when I was supposedly her guru in 1993. Now, she went a very far distance from that later on."

Lerner's likely right to approach the issue with a degree of skepticism. This Thursday Marty Peretz, the pro-Israel New Republic editor, devoted an article to vouching for Obama, declaring he could be trusted by "friends of Israel." And if the conduct of his campaign has shown anything, it's that what Obama might believe "in his heart" and how a President Obama would approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are two very different matters. "Will he have the courage to stand up to the Israel lobby and push Israel toward peace?" Lerner asks. "I sincerely doubt it. I see no reason to believe that he will take on that struggle."

Justin Elliott is an editorial fellow at Mother Jones.

Bringing Darkness to Babylon...

http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/12/ariella-atzmon-miracle-of-chanukah-and.html

Sunday, December 9, 2007

The Miracle of Chanukah and how to bring the Global Energy Crisis to an end
By Ariella Atzmon

What is Chanukah?
When the royal Hasmonean family overpowered and was victorious over the Greeks, they searched and found only a single cruse of pure oil… enough to light the menorah for a single day.
A miracle occurred, and they lit the menorah with this oil for eight days.
(Based on the teaching of the Lubavitcher Rebbe)

An alternative prayer
O mighty stronghold of my salvation
to praise You is a delight
Here I am to beseech
Reveal your almighty immense power
Perform the Chanukah oil miracle
Once again
For the sake of all humanity
and bring the global energy crisis
to an end

December: long, dark, chilly nights are cheerfully brightened by the many flashes of lights that shine through the curtained windows. Walking the streets of London at this time of the year, we come across glowing Christmas trees beside the flickering Chanukah candle lights. What do these lights stand for? How do these two kinds of lights affect our emotions? Which associations, reflections, and thoughts are triggered by these lights?

To get closer to an answer we just have to add a soundtrack to the sight of these lights. While listening to Christmas carols, we are enveloped by a pastoral atmosphere and the sweetness of spiritual tranquility meaning 'Love', 'Care' and 'Beauty'. However, when listening to Chanukah songs, suddenly we are captured by shrill cries of triumphalism. It is the vociferous praise to God for creating miracles to rescue his 'treasured ones' from 'wicked nations'. We can trace the violent terminology in hymnal phrases: eg. 'slaughter', 'obliterating the names of those who blaspheme the Israelites', and calls for God to 'avenge' ….

Hence, Chanukah is about God's miracle (the cruse of pure oil), and the triumph of Judaism over Hellenism. The celebration of Chanukah is a tale of war and the victory of the sons of light over the forces of darkness[1].

The Chanukah rite starts with the kindling of lights and blessing the Menorah (Chanukah lamp) with words of praise:

"Blessed are You, Lord our God, king of the universe,
Who performed miracles for our forefathers, in those days,
At this time"

Just after kindling the lights it is customary to sing two hymns. The first repeats the above prayer to 'commemorate God's saving acts, miracles and wonders', and the second hymn is Maoz Tzur (see below), which each Jew, secular or orthodox, atheist or a believer, knows by heart. Yet most of them never pay attention to the message carried by these Aramaic (ancient Hebrew) words. The essence of Chanukah as the representation of Jewish history is contained in these few lines:

And there we will bring a thanksgiving offering
When You will have prepared the slaughter
For the blaspheming foe
Then I shall complete with a song of hymn
The dedication of the Altar

Since Chanukah is mainly about God's miracles, it might be worthwhile to reflect upon the nuances which the term ‘miracle’ includes, and what they imply about the breach between Hellenism and Hebraism.[2]

The Greek mind was engaged in intellectual apprehension of the harmony of the cosmos, and in the laws and order of nature, where every separate entity is a part of a whole. The Greeks saw the divine power as manifested in the cosmic law whose existence should and could be grasped by reason. In the Hellenic tradition, the gods did not create the cosmos. On the contrary, they just represented the highest order produced by the cosmos. Crucially the Gods cannot violate natural Law: they themselves are bound to observe and to supervise the Law, and to act in harmony with the cosmos.

If Hellenism stands for philosophical thought, science and art, Judaism presents us with unquestioned righteousness and unconditional observance.

In Jewish thought, the world belongs to God; and He upholds it by His power. God sustains human life and man owes him obedience. In the Hebrew monotheist religion, the transcendent, almighty jealous God never tolerated other gods than Himself. And so Hellenistic polytheism confronted the Jews with their worst enemy.

According to the Old Testament, the world should be viewed as being beyond man's control. Even history is not the study of the past as a means of discovering laws that govern past events. According to Bultmann[3] regarding the conflict between Hellenism and Hebraism, in the Hebraic tradition, history is narrated to serve as an account for God's favor and punishment. Thus, in the Old Testament politics is not the center of interest, it is rather God's purpose and His inscribed moral demands that are.

Since the Jewish God is a tribal God who creates miracles for his people, Judaism views the world as a sphere where God rules by history, and the best of God can be revealed in the history of His people. Genesis should be seen as the first chapter of history and this historical saga develops through Noah, his three sons, up to the Israelites' development as a nation.

History for the Israelites was, and still is, the revelation of God's will in controlling the world on their behalf. Natural disasters for the sake of God's care for His chosen people never evoked ethical questioning in the course of Jewish thought. According to Jewish tradition, Individual human beings do not think of themselves as particular instances of the universal. They were never encouraged to think of themselves in the wider context of the harmonious unity of the whole cosmos. There is no possibility of wrestling with problems of suffering and misery, personal or national; all these questions should come under God's omnipotence and His unfathomable wisdom.

According to the Old Testament, man who was created in the image of God, should not be interpreted in the light of the world, but the world should be interpreted in the light of man. Since the world is created for man's sake, he should not attempt to assimilate and harmonize himself into it. Despite this anthropocentric Jewish attitude, God's rule is 'observantly' established. Being completely subservient to God's everlasting dominance makes people cautious about their conduct themselves towards God's authority. This awareness is rewarded "Keep in mind that the reward of the righteous for preserving the Torah is reserved for the hereafter" We can find parallels to this style of 'bookkeeping accountancy' in all other offshoots of Jewish monotheism.

Hebrew monotheism did not originate in theoretical reflection. According to the story of Genesis, God created the world out of 'chaos'. In the beginning was the word, and, by speaking, God differentiated between light and darkness. The same almighty God who created the universe can also destroy it, and perform miracles. God's revelation of Himself is not seen in the natural course of 'natural' history, but in unusual and terrifying occurrences, such as floods, storms, earthquakes, stopping the sun from moving, and drowning Pharaoh's troops in the Nile. Any attempt to reason with God is doomed to failure. Human beings are totally dependent on God's will. It is observance and faith, and not ethics, resulting in limitless gratitude to God that may be awarded.

The same line of reasoning is revealed also in the Jewish understanding of the word 'miracle'. God's miracles are meant to shake the universe, to upset the Laws of nature, and to undermine the harmony of the cosmos.

'Miracle' might be defined as 'an event which can not be attributed to human or natural agency, but to supernatural agency'. A miracle should be seen as an act which demonstrates control over nature, and which aims to serve as evidence for omnipotent divine intervention. God creates miracles to save the Israelites from His and their polytheist enemies. In fact, almost all Jewish festivities are historical reminders of miracles and victories involving God's aid.

Here we come back to the festivity of Chanukah, which epitomizes the breach between Judaic monotheism vs. polytheist Hellenism in the understanding of God's role in history. The main theme of Chanukah is the miracle that happened after the Hasmonean victory over the Greeks. Hence, after the liberation of Israel from Hellenic dominance, and the reclaiming of the holy temple as the lighthouse of God, they searched and found only a single cruse of pure oil which was enough to light the Menorah for a single day. And then by breaking and violating the most basic law of nature regarding the conservation of energy, a miracle occurred; they lit the Menorah with this oil which lasted for eight days (what a miraculous solution this could be for solving our present-day global energy crisis….)

The most famous liturgical poem (Piyyut) of Chanukah, the Maoz Tzur, recalls events of divine intervention in chronological order.

It starts with the 'Passover' miracle where

"Pharaoh's army and all his offspring
Went down like a stone into the deep”

It goes on with Purim where God

"To sever the towering cypress
Sought the Aggagite, son of Hammedatha
But it became a stumbling block to him
And his arrogance was stilled
The head of the Benjaminite You lifted
And the enemy, his name you obliterated
His numerous progeny –his possessions-
On the gallows You hanged”

And ends with the miracle of cruse oil,

Greeks gathered against me
then in Hasmonean days.
They Breached the walls of my towers
and they defiled all the oils;
And from the one remnant of the flasks
A miracle was wrought for the roses
Men of insight – eight days
Established for song and Jubilation

Chanukah is established as eight days of festivity praise and thanksgiving to God. Hellenism, which was viewed by the Jews as a "noxious blend of hedonism and philosophy" was overcome by the Maccabees who were empowered by God's spirit. In other words, Chanukah is giving thanks to God for rekindling the torch of Israel as a light unto the nations.

We can see that the idea of the miracle in Judaism is an essential part of the Judaic tradition regarding the special role of the 'chosen people' as the 'holy nation'. With the loyalty to God that illuminates the way for the "supra-rational" "supra-egotistical essence of the Jewish soul, they confronted the whole Hellenistic tradition of rational thinking.

Jewish history is not interwoven with stories of political narration and achievement; it is rather the product of a covenant of mutual obligations. It is marked by disasters and by gifts which are the sign of God's will. The faith in their magic power supplies the Jewish people with a belief in a kind of supra-natural power. An interesting and very compelling point is that even those who rashly define themselves as 'Jewish atheists' or 'secular Jews', by the substitution of Judaic observance with Jewish rites (such as chanting Chanukah hymns) they safeguard the eternity of the Jewish race.[4] In the off chance that God will show-up by performing one more miracle for his people, it is always worthwhile to stay around!

Since time immemorial, Jews have had confidence in a divine agency that will overturn the order of nature (SEDER OLAM) resulting in their being rescued from the wicked nations. This trust in the tribal/national God is common both to believers and to secular Jews. Otherwise why do secular and atheist Jews keep insisting on proclaiming their Jewishness?

This trust in the mystic, eternal, mutual covenant between God and his people results in a pattern of arrogance, so to speak, that helps to maintain the stereotype attached to Jewish people. The fact that 'miracles and wonders' and 'saving acts', are likely to be manifested in concrete terms, if not by God, then by his holy people should be seen as a major threat to the whole world. It is the old warning of the 'writing on the wall' that might make a comeback from Babylon (Iraq) and on to Persia (Iran).

Maoz Tzur (A Chanukah Hymn-written in the 13th century)

O mighty stronghold of my salvation,
To praise You is a delight
Restore my house of Prayer
And there we will bring a thanksgiving offering
When You will have prepared the slaughter
For the blaspheming foe
Then I shall complete with a song of hymn
the dedication of the Altar

my soul had been sated with troubles,
my strength has been consumed with grief.
They had embittered my life with hardship,
With the calf-like kingdom's bondage
But with his great power
He brought forth the treasures ones
Pharaoh's army and all his offspring
Went down like a stone into the deep

To sever the towering cypress
Sought the Aggagite, son of Hammedatha
But it became a stumbling block to him
And his arrogance was stilled
The head of the Benjaminite You lifted
And the enemy, his name you obliterated
His numerous progeny – his possessions
On the gallows You hanged

Greeks gathered against me
then in Hasmonean days.
They Breached the walls of my towers
and they defiled all the oils;
And from the one remnant of the flasks
A miracle was wrought for the roses
Men of insight – eight days
Established for song and Jubilation

Bare Your holy arm
And hasten the End for salvation –
Avenge the vengeance of your servant's blood
From the wicked nation.
For the triumph is too long delayed for us,
And there is no end to days of evil,
Repel the Red One in the nethermost shadow
And establish for us the seven shepherds

[1] In this case the Hasmonean family against Edom, Asshur, Mohave, the whole pagan world including the Greeks as the sons of darkness.
2 http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/08/ariella-atzmon-athens-or-jerusalem.html
[3] (1956) Bultmann Rudolf., Primitive Christianity, The Fontana Library, pp. 40-51
[4] http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/11/gilad-atzmon-politics-of-anti-semitism.html

Vernichtung in Gaza

"Maybe the Europeans and the Americans won't believe it, but the truth is that the Jews are effecting a real holocaust against our people."

From Khalid Amayreh in Israel-occupied East Jerusalem

21 January, 2008

Palestinians and human rights organizations operating in the Occupied Palestinian territories have accused Israel of effecting a real holocaust against Gaza Strip's estimated 1.5 million inhabitants following a decision by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak to completely sever fuel and electricity supplies to the coastal territory.

Israel, which in 2005 withdrew its occupation troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip, retained tight control of all Gaza's border-crossings, reducing the small crowded territory to a huge detention camp.

Israel drastically stepped up its collective punishment of Gazans following Hamas's takeover of the Strip in June 2006. The Israeli army, which exerts overwhelming influence on the Israeli political establishment, has also been carrying out nearly daily incursions and attacks inside Gaza resulting in the death and maiming of hundreds of Palestinians in recent weeks. It is widely believed that the vast bulk of the casualties are innocent civilians.

On Sunday, 20 January, more than 90% of Gazans spent the night in total darkness as Israel decided to halt vital fuel supplies, ostensibly to coerce the masses to rise up against Hamas which refuses to lend legitimacy to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

The nearly total shutdown of power plants is already causing catastrophic effects and paralyzing vital services all over the Gaza Strip.

Hospital sources reported many deaths caused by the stoppage of electricity supplies.

"Electricity-powered medical machines such as incubators, dialysis and artificial breathing machines as well as many other vital life-saving medical equipment are no longer functioning. This means certain death for patients," said Omar al-Shawwa, a paramedic at the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.

Al-Shifa hospital is the largest hospital in Gaza and it has been operating on an emergency footing for two years as the delivery of vital medical supplies continued to be restricted by the Israel.

"It is true the Jews are not sending our children to the ovens, but they are killing us using other means," said a visibly depressed al Shawwa.

"Maybe the Europeans and the Americans won't believe it, but the truth is that the Jews are effecting a real holocaust against our people."

TV cameras showed hair-raising scenes of dying Palestinian children whose survival depends on certain electricity-powered medical machines.

In northern Gaza, a paralyzed child was fluctuating between life and death as members of his family alternately sought to keep him breathing using a manually-operated rubber pump.

Meanwhile, Palestinian and UN officials in Gaza have warned of an impending disaster affecting all walks of life in Gaza.

Hasan Abu Ramadan, a Palestinian economist, said the present humanitarian disaster in the Gaza Strip would be deepened by the ongoing Israeli blockade on fuel and food supplies. He warned that the Gaza Strip could go from a situation of deep poverty to all out famine, disease and malnutrition.

Abu Ramadan noted that more than 80% of Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants were surviving with the help of food aid from international organizations such as URWA.

Another urgent warning was issued by John King, Director of UNRWA operations in Gaza.

Speaking during an impromptu press conference in Gaza Sunday night, King urged the international community to intervene immediately to prevent an imminent humanitarian disaster from occurring.

King pointed out that innocent civilians were paying a heavy price as a result of the current conflict, saying that bakeries were stopping making bread and that hospitals were cold as electricity generators stopped due to fuel shortages.

"Medicine is not available, paper is not available, cement to build graves is not available, even coffins for the dead are not available. There is also a serious food shortage, and the prices of available food are very high."

King said that everyone in Gaza now had a problem that was exacerbating as time passed. He argued that it was shameful that some circles, an obvious allusion to Israel and its allies, were making arguments about the situation in Gaza.

"I can't describe in words what is happening in Gaza."

Meanwhile, extreme right-wing circles in Israel have called on the Israeli government to annihilate Gazans.

In Jewish settlements in and around the West Bank town of Hebron, Jewish settlers were seen dancing in an apparent expression of joy over the tragedy in Gaza, with some of them of them shouting in Hebrew "death to the Arabs" and "Arabs to the Gas chambers."

Earlier, settlers wielding automatic rifles attacked Palestinians and vandalized their property in Hebron in full view of Israeli occupation soldiers who looked on passively. At least 11 Palestinians were reported injured, with most of them suffering cuts and bruises and other minor injuries.

Since the beginning of 2008, the Israeli occupation army murdered as many as 40 Palestinians and injured hundreds, with many suffering permanent disabilities.

The often pornographic bloodshed prompted UN Human Rights Council's Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, John Dugard, to castigate Israel's indiscriminate killing of Palestinians.

Dugard said Israel ought to have foreseen the loss of life and injury to many civilians when it targeted the Ministry of Interior building in Gaza earlier a few days ago.

The wanton killings, said Dugard, "raises very serious questions about Israel's respect for international law and its commitments to the peace process."

He added that Israeli atrocities violated the strict prohibitions on collective punishment contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention.

"In Holocaust Deniers we trust..."

http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2008/01/gilad-atzmon-public-lapidation-round.html

Friday, January 18, 2008

Gilad Atzmon - "Public Lapidation" round one

Once again, rabid Zionists have united with the so-called 'Jewish anti-Zionists protagonists'. This time, they insist upon believing that I am a Holocaust Denier.

It all started when a site that specialises in texts known as “Holocaust Denial” linked to an Iranian paper that reported that the German Lawyer Sylvia Stolz, who acted as attorney for Ernst Zundel and has been sentenced to serve three and a half years in prison for doing so, quoted me in her defence.

According to the Iranian paper "Stolz has reportedly read a newspaper article to the court about the appearance of world renowned Israeli artist, Gilad Atzmon in Bochum." http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=38848&sectionid=351020604

In order to set things straight, I have to mention that the newspaper item read by Mrs Stolz was highly misleading. It was not at all representative of what I had said. At the time, this was immediately pointed out by the Festival organiser who invited me and moderated the meeting. Indeed, the organiser felt that the paper misrepresented almost everything possible.

This is the text of the letter he had written to the newspaper.

“Dear editorial staff of Ruhr Nachrichten,
I usually do not write letters to the editors and as an organizer I can live with bad critics. However, as the subject is rather delicate, I felt I had to comment the article containing big mistakes as regards content and strongly falsifying Gilad Atzmon’s political tendency.

Firstly, concerning the big mistakes:

“According to him the true enemy was not Hitler but Stalin”. You have left out an important piece of information, notably whose enemy Stalin had been. Atzmon argued that America’s true enemy had not been Hitler but Stalin. As long as Hitler had communism under control, America did not believe it to be necessary to get involved in the war. Atzmon uses the same argument for all wars led by the USA until the present time. Atzmon also refers to Hitler as a criminal. Atzmon neither denies nor plays down the Holocaust.

The following statement is wrong, too: “[…] the Germans [should] stop feeling guilty and responsible”. In fact, Atzmon encourages the present generation of Germans not to feel guilty any longer but he does not deny the Germans’ responsibility in general. On the contrary, he believes the Germans to be extremely vigilant today concerning any kind of potential racist or fascist tendencies.

Regarding the discussion about the number of murdered Jews during the Holocaust, it is very difficult to resume the contents of this debate with only a few sentences. Atzmon criticises that publicly doubting the number of 6 million is being penalized, while even the Holocaust museum Yad Vashem itself mentions various studies that state numbers of 5.1 million or even 5.29 or 5.5 million. Atzmon emphasises that this abstract number has become a kind of fetish, as if the Holocaust were more harmless if there had been only half of the number of murdered Jews. Atzmon does not accuse Bush, Blair and Sharon of being criminals of war in order to minimise Hitler’s own crimes of war.

Surely, the language barrier posed a problem during the discussion last Sunday. Suddenly, an audience that mainly expected to attend a concert preceded by a reading, was confronted by a political discussion. Had we known this beforehand, we would have organised a professional bilingual interpreter’s service for the evening.

We were aware of the fact that Gilad Atzmon’s novels are provoking and up to a certain extent such a provocation was intended. He criticised harshly Israel’s politics and shows that due to this historical victimhood, the United Nations mostly tolerate Israel’s racist and nationalist action towards the Palestinians and that criticism is nipped in the bud with the allegation of anti-Semitism.

It is true, that the ambiance after the discussion was not very favourable to the concert. We ourselves had several discussions in the lobby of the concert hall with members of the public who wanted to leave the event. Two of the women who had left returned however later and continued to speak with Gilad after the concert in a small group. This discussion was far less controversial than the momentarily heated one before the concert. They all said goodbye heartily and shook hands.

Maybe it would have made sense if Thorsten Hoops had seized the occasion to verify the ideas he got during the discussion. Such delicate subjects demand greater care from journalists than writing about a concert, which one can certainly resume in a competent way even if one does not stay until the very end.”

In the Bochum event I shared with my audience my usual critique of the common WW2 narrative as well as my different reading of the Holocaust as a meaningful event rather than a mere legal account.

My detailed take on the issues can be found in the following links:

Rearranging the 20th Century: Allegro Non Troppo

Rearranging the 20th Century: Deceptive Cadence

Interview: It Ain’t Necessarily So

What I find very interesting is to discover how this news made the rounds. It seems that on a few leftist lists and on a rabid settler’s site, this news item based on falsity, bad translation and distortion of facts is the “hot” topic of the day. It seems that a few anti-Zionist Jews and some radicals who steal land from Palestinians are sharing their tactic today. They are circulating the news from a site that specialises in what they call Holocaust Denial. It’s a site I don’t read, and won’t even link to, but they obviously do and have. Yes, the rabid Zionists such as Arutzsheva, Seven Plaut and the Jewish anti-Zionists Tony Greenstein and Shraga Elam count on a denial site when it comes to me. I wonder if they suddenly trust Neo Nazis and Holocaust deniers as serious, trustworthy truth-tellers and legitimate sources of information. I wonder how they feel just having demonstrated what kind of navigation they engage in. Since they take the report in the Holocaust Denial site as correct, truthful and precise, how do they know that this site’s account on other things is categorically false? Where do they draw the line, if they draw one? It is probably just too much to expect Zionists (whether they know themselves to be or not) to be consistent. Once again we happen to learn that intellectual integrity is not a common trait amongst Jewish ethnic activists whether they are settlers or leftist cyber stalkers.

Prophet Muhammad defamed

http://www.counterpunch.com/larsson10182007.html

October 18, 2007

The Dog with the Head of the Prophet

Something is Rotten in Sweden

By KRISTOFFER LARSSON

Ever heard of a roundabout-dog? They are artificial dogs which started appearing in roundabouts in Sweden last year. Most likely meant as a joke, a Swedish cartoonist figured this phenomenon could be used in a funny way to provoke Muslims anger. The Swedish artist Lars Vilks made three silly drawings portraying a dog standing in a roundabout, with Prophet Muhammad's head. The political implications aside, the quality of his work is-to say the least-far below even mediocre. Three art galleries decided not to exhibit these drawings, which is perfectly understandable. Nor do they have any obligation to do so, especially when the art is of poor quality and only meant to insult. Vilks has openly admitted this:

"Of course it was a provocation and an insult to the Muslims. But it was an empty provocation. I am not promoting any idea such as kicking all the Muslims out of Sweden." Getting attention was also a part of it: "All artists gun for attention, and there is jealousy among those in the business of attracting much attention," he asserted.

It could have ended there. An obnoxious, obscure artist making silly drawings of Prophet Muhammad--who cares? But this was just the beginning. A Swedish newspaper, Nerikes Allehanda, published Vilks's drawings this August, describing the art galleries' decision not to exhibit the drawings as "unacceptable self-censorship," saying it must be permissible to ridicule the symbols of another religion. A staff writer at the paper compared it to Monty Python's film Life of Brian:

In Norway, Life of Brian was banned, in reference to the law against blasphemy. In the United States voices were raised to have it banned. John Cleese pointed out that God could certainly take care of himself. I am myself an active Christian and I think Life of Brian is an extremely funny movie.

Fine. But what he fails to see is that Life of Brian was made by people of Christian origin, while this is an attack by a Christian on Islam. Also, while Life of Brian was a comedy, these drawings had no other purpose than to insult and provoke. Not exactly comparable.

And it didn't take long before Muslims raised voices to protest the publication. Not only in Sweden; 200 people went to the streets in Pakistan, burning a doll representing the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and the Swedish flag (which is yellow and blue, not yellow and green as the demonstrations thought). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the "Zionists," who (unlike Jews) "only pretend to believe in religion," were behind the publication. Protestors also hit Swedish streets, though peacefully.

Instead of discussing the issues as to why many Muslims became upset-always seeing Islam slandered, exposed to threats, and having their Mosques vandalised-the affair was made into a matter of freedom of speech. Journalists, commentators, politicians and others all defended the publication in the name of freedom of speech. Truth is, it was never under threat; only a very low number among the opponents of publishing the drawings said this should be criminalised.

One of them, the Egyptian Ambassador Samah Mohamed Sotouhi, declared that "We must try to bring about a change in the law. The Muslims need legal protection against the defamation of the Prophet Muhammad, similar to [the protection] that Jews and homosexuals enjoy." But except for some efforts made by Muslim countries, no politician or journalist spoke out in favour of the state outlawing such a practise, including the vast majority of those objecting to the publication. (It is interesting to notice that the very same people, who care so much for freedom of speech when defamation of Muslims is the case, had nothing to say when a Swedish computer teacher, Jan Bernhoff, was sacked from his job for attending the holocaust conference in Iran. Bernhoff, not Vilks, was the one who needed their support.)

The publication brought the affair to a whole new level. Two Swedish-Muslim organisations made an effort to cool things down by trying to engage in a dialogue with Vilks (after all, they are the ones who will suffer in the end). One of the two organisations even wanted to exhibit the drawings in order to be able to have a real debate on the issue. But the project came to an end when Vilks, having so far been criticised only for defaming Muslim symbols, posted another silly drawing on his blog, this time a pathetic portrait of a so-called Jew-sow. Faced with Vilks's newest creation, representatives of the two Muslim organisations, Mohamed Omar and Hooman Anvari, decided a dialogue with Lars Vilks was simply no longer possible. They wrote:

[With] Vilks now publishing an explicitly and undoubtedly anti-Semitic scurrilous portrait (signed as a "Jew-sow" by the artist himself), the discussion has now entered a different phase. From a purely ethical one to one of jurisprudence.

In other words, they cut it short not because of his anti-Muslim work but because of his anti-Semitic drawing. It may seem odd, but reflects the current sentiment in the Western world: insulting Muslims is a matter of freedom of speech, while defamation of Jewish symbols is never tolerated.

As the days went by and everything was petering out, a death-threat was pronounced against Lars Vilks which quickly made things more tense. Things like these happen all the time, many artists receive threats. The difference was the sender; a supposed al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, generously promised $100,000 to whoever kills Lars Vilks ($150,000 if he is "butchered as a lamb"). The editor of the newspaper wasn't worth as much--only $50,000. However, all we know for sure about al-Baghdadi is that there are different perceptions of who he is. Some sources claim he was a leading al-Qaeda fighter killed in May this year-three months before the publication!-while others say it's just a name used by a rebel group in Iraq. Hence, should anyone kill Vilks or the editor, it might be hard to claim the reward. But the death-threat again Vilks was taken seriously and he was given police-protection.

A few days after the pronounced death-threats, a list of over 100 Swedish companies was published which Islamists say should be punished just for being of the same nationality as Vilks. "Take revenge," these fanatics urged. However, when journalists rang some of these companies for a comment, they were surprised. "We have received no indications of any threat," a spokesperson of one of the companies said. In fact, it turns out, these companies haven't received any direct threats. The list of companies, as well as the death-threats against Vilks and the editor, all originate from one source: The Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Institute. Founded in 2002 by Rita Katz and Josh Devon, SITE is a Zionist propaganda institute which, among other things, offers its "Monitoring Service, which provides numerous daily translations of terrorist propaganda and multimedia from primary source terrorist websites." Katz and Devon claims for instance that

Yahoo! has become one of al-Qaeda's most significant ideological bases of operation. Utilizing several facets of Yahoo!'s service, including chat functions, e-mail, and most importantly, Yahoo! Groups, al-Qaeda and its supporters have inserted themselves like a cancer into a company that screams, "American pop culture," and made it as much their own as a training camp in Khost [in Afghanistan].

When Osama Bin Laden and his gang are not using Yahoo!'s chat service, however, they spend their time surfing more protected sites. SITE brags on its first-page as being described in the following way by an author:

"By monitoring terrorist and extremist websites and penetrating password-protected al-Qaeda linked sites, SITE provides a state-of-the-art intelligence service to both practitioners and analysts to understand the adversary."

It makes you wonder how the SITE Institute, with a small staff of only two people (at least no other is mentioned) can find its way into "password-protected al-Qaeda linked sites" which, apparently, the FBI and the CIA, with all its resources, seem to be incapable of finding and infiltrating. What is even more noteworthy is that SITE, in its own words,

works regularly with and provides important and often unique information to journalists, law firms pursuing civil litigation, major corporations, law enforcement, U.S. Congress, and numerous federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Treasury Department, Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), the FBI, Customs, and the Department of Justice.

As can be expected of an institute of this kind, there is a Zionist connection. And that is co-founder Rita Katz, who was born to a wealth Jewish family in 1963 in Basra, Iraq. When she was 6-years-old her father was hanged on the charge of spying for Israel. Two years later the family emigrated to Israel, where she stayed until the mid-90s, when she left for the US with her husband. In an interview with The Jewish Journal it is revealed Katz also worked on the case against the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), which is on trial accused of channelling money to Hamas.

Katz answered an ad and was hired by a Middle Eastern research institute. (Because of her lawsuit, she doesn't want to reveal the institute's name.)

On her first day on the job - much of her work entailed "administrative stuff and copying," her new boss had told her - she started reading documents in English and Arabic about the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).
"I saw differences in the translations," Katz recalled. "The Arabic list was longer, and I recognized that some organizations mentioned in Arabic and not in English were Hamas front organizations."

That realization propelled her to start doing research on that group, collecting Arabic documents and eventually going undercover.

Her work, through her SITE Institute, which is funded by various federal agencies and private groups needing to know about radical Muslim groups operating in the United States, has led to closures of organizations, deportations and ongoing investigations. She also has provided the media with information.

This is very interesting, considering the evidence used against the HLF is highly questioned. In an article published in the LA Times on the 25th of February, reproduced by Information Clearing House, staff writer Greg Krikorian points to discrepancies in the proof put forward against the HLF. Krikorian wrote:

Additional anti-Semitic comments the FBI summary attributed to Baker or Ghassan Elashi, Holy Land's former board chairman, included:

* "Their [Jews'] only purpose here in the U.S. is to purchase as many politicians as possible and to warp the way the American Christians feel and think not just about the Christian religion but mainly about the Palestinian people and to rob as much money as possible from American taxpayers for the illegitimate excuse of protecting and preserving the chosen people of God."

* "Even Jesus Christ had called the Jews and their high priests the sons of snakes and scorpions."

* "I am confident that in the end justice, and not the Jews, will prevail. I believe that there is still justice in America."

None of those quotes was contained in a 13-page transcript of the conversation, defense lawyers said in their motion to expand access to classified evidence. (...)

Because the court records are heavily redacted, it could not be determined who provided the summaries of the FBI wiretaps.

Other alleged discrepancies also have dogged the case. Holy Land lawyers challenged the accuracy of an FBI memo, for example, that quoted a foundation office manager as telling Israeli authorities that charitable funds were "channeled to Hamas."

But defense lawyers told the court the translation from Arabic to Hebrew to English distorted the official's original statement, and that he should have been quoted as saying, "We have no connection to Hamas."

A former U.S. consul-general in Jerusalem, Edward Abingdon, when asked if he found the information Israel provided reliable, answered with a straightforward "No." He added, "I feel the Israelis have an agenda ... they provide selective information to try to influence US thinking."

Indeed, the trial against the HLF is just one example of how Israelis are the ones persecuting Muslim organisations in America. As made clear in the above-quoted sentence, the translation was made "from Arabic to Hebrew to English." The Zionists have the upper hand, and going to the bottom with cases like this is close to impossible. They provide the evidence, and not much can be done to prove them wrong. The veracity in the accusations made by propaganda institutes of SITE's ilk should be strongly questioned. As for the threats against the Swedish cartoonist, editor and the 100 Swedish companies, all we can know for sure is that no attack has yet taken place.

Two months after the publication, the matter has gotten cold. But it is clear that for the first time, through a Zionist institution in America, supposed death-threats by al-Qaeda found their way to a country once known for its peaceful attitude and solidarity with the oppressed, creating fear of Muslim fundamentalism which is now said to live in our midst. Clear also is that sending soldiers to Afghanistan and being silent as neoconservatives and Zionists are creating havoc in the Middle East is not the road to saving our good reputation.

Kristoffer Larsson is a Swedish theology student occasionally commenting on political issues. He works with the Bethlehem-based International Middle East Media Center and is a Director of Deir Yassin Remembered. He appreciates constructive feedback: kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu

American Military Technology Transfer To Israel By The Dow Chemical Company

Background

In the past, while holding several relevant positions within the Israeli market, I was approached by the Dow Chemical Company and asked to help them market one of their special products. The request was unusual because it was aimed for RAFAEL, the weapons developing authority of the State of Israel and because it referred to classified technology used until then exclusively by the American army.

The Technical Problem

Many types of missiles are propelled by solid fuel. Regardless their method of guiding their way to the target, all these missiles suffer of a similar problem. Microscopic cracks develop on the solid fuel as a result of the immense pressures acting on it during the flight time. The cracks lead to an uneven burning of the fuel which is impossible to calculate by the computer controlling the flight. The final result is small deviations from the specified route; if the problem is not accounted for, the missile often misses.

The Solution

The Dow Chemical Company is the unique provider of the solution to the above mentioned problem to the American Army. A special film which will be described in the following paragraphs is used to cover the solid fuel rod and to give it the necessary structural strength.

Ethylene Oxide

The Dow Chemical Company production chain starts from three oxide special products extracted from Texan oil wells. One of them is ethylene oxide, which is produced in excess. In order to get rid of the surplus quantities of this toxic product, the excess is added to cotton cellulose, and ethyl-cellulose is created. The commercial name of this product is Ethocel and it is mainly used in the pharmaceutical and food industries, but not only there.

Ethocel

Ethyl-cellulose forms brittle films and complex three-dimensional structures which are used in a wide variety of specialty products. If a plasticizer is added, then the film is made malleable. The relative amount of ethylene oxide used creates various products differing in their viscosity. The Dow Chemical Company products are labeled according to the ethylene oxide degree of substitution of the original carboxyl terminals of the cellulose molecules; in simpler words the number following the product name indicates the viscosity of its solutions. One of these products is Ethocel 45 Mil, meaning it is a military grade product.

The Film

If Ethocel 45 Mil is mixed with a plasticizer produced by Philips 66, and then extruded – a regular process in many industries – a strong film is created. The film exhibits the perfect characteristics to be used as a protective layer for solid-fuel rods.

The Offer

In 1997 I was invited to the European Headquarters of the Dow Chemical Company in Horgen, nearby Zurich. There, a German technical worker about to retire asked me to create contact between them and RAFAEL and to help pass the technology; during the talk it was clear the American military was not involved in the event. I was asked to keep it secret.

The Result

The exact development of the events is described in a book to be shortly published; the final result was that I became the target of the Israeli and American security services due to my being a direct witness - and the only one not bound to any party - of the event. Following an assassination attempt, I had been recognized as a political refugee by the Republic of Bolivia.

Aggravating Issues

The mentioned persecution was aggravated by two issues:

1. I was an officer of the Israeli army at the 98 ^th division. This is a strategic unit aimed to perform a vertical bypass into the Arab armies' backlines, effectively opening a second front for them and thus splitting the armies. I have an accurate knowledge of the landing sites in Western Iraq (on an area widely known as H2) and Eastern Egypt (on the 1967 Egyptian radars' site) as well as of the forces and equipments involved.
2. I am a Christian Israeli. My attempt to publish a critique on the State of Israel created additional reasons for my persecution.

Interview

I am ready to give detailed interviews on each of the topics mentioned in this letter. Please contact me for further details.

An Israeli citizen
golepoliti@gmail.com