I am withdrawing from the battlefield of the war for the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, and the following is an explanation of why.
I am withdrawing from the battlefield of the war for the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, and the following is an explanation of why.
The news of the death of Britain’s Iron Lady, Baroness Thatcher, prompted me to recall my favourite story about her. In 1980, in the first of her three terms as prime minister, she said in a speech to her Conservative Party’s Conference: “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” Because I was personally engaged with her at the time, I know that she performed her first U turn in her first 48 hours of being prime minister.
My answer is “No” but I think the question needs to be asked. It was provoked in my mind by a recent Ynet op-ed article by Ziv Lenchner, described as a left-leaning, Jewish Israeli artist. The headline over his piece was Israelis to Obama – we don’t care, don’t bother us.
We now know that President Obama believes there is little or no prospect for peace in the Middle East unless enough Israeli Jews, in particular the young to whom he appealed directly, understand that the only way for Israel to survive as a Jewish and democratic state is “through the realization of a viable and independent Palestine” and then insist that their government commits itself in negotiations to ending the occupation of the West Bank (now well into in its 45th year).
By implication Obama has acknowledged that he does not have the will to confront the Zionist lobby in Washington D.C. and an Israeli government committed to ever expanding settlement, even when doing so is necessary to best protect America’s own interests.
The headline over a recent op-ed article in the New York Times by Rashid Khalidi was Is Any Hope Left for Mideast Peace? The answer to that question might or might not be clear beyond dispute when the curtain comes down on President Obama’s performance in Israel-Palestine. (He’ll be on stage there on Wednesday for two days, mainly, it seems, to tell Israeli Jews what they want to hear, not what they need to hear).
I find myself wondering how many of our present day leaders, President Obama in particular, are aware of what happened in Palestine that became Israel on 10 March 65 years ago today.
On that day in 1948, two months before Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence in defiance of the will of the organized international community as it then was at the UN, Zionism’s in-Palestine political and military leaders met in Tel Aviv to formally adopt PLAN DALET, the blueprint with operational military orders for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Dear Secretary of State,
I have a question for you.
Before you arrived in Turkey, its prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told a United Nations forum in Vienna that the international community should consider Islamophobia as a crime against humanity “like Zionism or anti-Semitism or fascism.”
There is one absolute pre-condition for ending the Israel-Palestine conflict by diplomacy and negotiations on the basis, as it would have to be, of justice for the Palestinians and peace with security for all. It is that the Jews acknowledge (1) that a terrible wrong was done to the Palestinians by Zionism in the name of all Jews everywhere – the terrible wrong being the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, a process that continues to this day slowly and by stealth on the occupied West Bank; and (2) that this wrong must be addressed. THE question arising is this: Why are most Jews unable and/or unwilling to acknowledge the wrong done to the Palestinians?
Short answer – both are grovellers (definition in a moment). The president of the United States of America grovels to the Zionist lobby and its neo-con and Christian fundamentalist allies. The Palestinian “president” grovels to Obama as well as Israel’s leaders more often than not. Obama and Abbas are, one could say, grovelling twins, but if there was the equivalent of a Nobel Prize for grovelling, it would have to be awarded to Obama. (If when he leaves office Israel is still able to impose its will on the occupied and oppressed Palestinians, I think he should hand back the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded).
Those who want to see and hear how the traitors in the U.S. Congress read from the Zionist lobby’s script should go to http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33906.htm The performer in action, addressing the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs subcommittee of which she is chairwoman, is Cuban-born, Republican congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. She has represented Florida’s 27th congressional district since 1989 and is the most senior Republican woman in the House.
Before I go further I’ll ask myself a question. Is it really fair to label those members of Congress who do the Zionist lobby’s bidding as traitors?
In this shortish response to those in the comment space of my own web site and others including Veterans Today who criticised, ridiculed and condemned me for what I wrote in my last two posts (WANTED – A psychiatric diagnosis of Nazi holocaust denial, which was a follow-up to Understanding the real significance TODAY of the Nazi holocaust), I quote from a very long and in-depth interview with Samuel Crowell, the author of what some regard as the definitive books which make the case for Nazi holocaust revisionism.
While I was reading some of the responses on various web sites to my last post (Understanding the real significance TODAY of the Nazi holocaust), the following question occurred to me. Does it really matter HOW Jews were exterminated in Nazi concentration camps? Even if you chose to believe that gas chambers were not part and parcel of the Nazi extermination programme, there is irrefutable evidence that Jews were shot, hanged, burned, injected and starved to death and, also, that many died from diseases that were only terminal because of the conditions of their incarceration.
I am writing this piece fully aware that it will result in me being reviled and condemned by some who read my articles on web sites other than my own (www.alanhart.net) and are fixated with Nazi holocaust denial and/or what is called “holocaust revisionism”, which is usually something less than complete denial.
QUOTE An anti-Semite used to be a person who disliked Jews. Now it is a person who Jews dislike UNQUOTE
Those are the words of my dear Jewish friend, Nazi (Auschwitz) holocaust survivor Dr. Hajo Myer. They are taken from page 179 of his magnificent book An Ethical Tradition Betrayed – The End of Judaism (published in 2007).
Some of us do not believe what our politicians say especially when the subject is Israel’s behaviour – its ongoing colonization of the occupied West Bank for the purpose of making peace impossible except, perhaps, on terms which require the Palestinians to surrender to Zionism’s will. The responses of some Jewish supporters of Israel right or wrong to one British MP who did dare to tell the truth illustrate why most politicians throughout the Western world won’t. That’s yesterday’s story but I am driven to comment by the hypocrisy on display, hypocrisy which takes chutzpah to wild extremes.
The following is the text of an address I delivered yesterday to a conference in London organized by the Palestine Return Centre on the subject of Britain’s Legacy in Palestine, which included a session on how to reverse the catastrophic consequences of the legacy. I was aware that what I was going to say would be uncomfortable listening for some in the audience, but almost all thanked me for saying what has to be said.
I would like the headline to be a statement but it has to be a question.
As I write it looks as though the Zionist lobby realises that it overplayed its hand in smearing Chuck Hagel in the hope of causing President Obama to back off nominating him for the post defense secretary. The implication is not that the lobby’s stooges in the Senate will refrain from giving Hagel a hard time at his confirmation hearing, but that they will not risk, at least for a while, further public exposure as Israel Firsters by causing the nomination to be rejected.
Moshe Feiglin, one of the most deluded and racist of those who make up the extreme right of Israeli politics and who is guaranteed his first seat in the Knesset after the upcoming election, has proposed what I imagine he regards as a nice way to complete Zionism’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
One of the best articles I read in the whole of 2012 was published at the tail end of the year, on 30 December, by Ha’aretz. (As my regular readers know, I think Ha’aretz is the most honest newspaper in the world on account of its reporting and analysis of what’s really happening in the Zionist state). The article was written by Barak Ravid. The headline over it was Think tank: Israel’s poor international image not the fault of failed hasbara (the Hebrew word for explaining and advocacy, for which read propaganda). The subject of the article was the first report of a new Israeli think-tank, Molad, The Center for the Renewal of Democracy. Outside Israel there are probably very, very few people who have heard of Molad, so let’s start with what it is.
By Alan Hart
Q: Mr. President, I’d like to begin this conversation with a quote from a recent article by Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times. He wrote: “The only thing standing between Israel and national suicide any more is America and its willingness to tell Israel the truth.” If you were free to speak your mind to Israel, I mean Israel’s Jews, what would be your message?
A: I would tell them that no president, including this one, can save them from the policies and actions of their own leaders.
By all accounts President Obama wants to nominate Chuck Hagel, the former two-term Republican senator from Nebraska to replace Leon Panetta at the Pentagon as Secretary of Defense, but a coalition led by the Zionist lobby is mounting a smear campaign against Hagel. Why? It hopes to persuade Obama that he would be foolish to nominate Hagel because he is unlikely to be confirmed by a Senate in which many members are content to do Zionism’s bidding in order to protect their own backs.
The longer version of the headline question is this: Given the corruption of the American political system which puts what passes for democracy up for sale to the highest lobby bidders, will any U.S. President (not only a second-term Obama) ever be able to shape and implement policies which best serve the longer term interests of all Americans rather than the short-term interests of the most powerful lobbies?
Hey readers, I’ve got a scoop. It’s the text of a letter – don’t ask me how I got it – from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to Hamas leader Meshal.
It was hand delivered in Gaza by one of Israel’s many Palestinian collaborators who lives there.
Some and perhaps many will regard my headline question as offensive but I make no apology for asking it; and I take comfort from the fact that my decision to pose it is fully supported by one of my very dear Jewish friends – Nazi holocaust survivor Dr. Hajo Meyer.
Before I ran my proposed headline past him, I was well aware that he believes, and has said in public, that the Nazis sought to dehumanize him in the Auschwitz concentration camp and the Zionists are seeking to dehumanize the Palestinians in their own land.
When I asked him if he thought my proposed headline question should be asked, he said “Yes, absolutely.” He added: “Zionism is to modern enlightened Judaism what Nazism was to Germany’s traditional ethical values.” (One of Hajo’s most important books is titled An Ethical Tradition Betrayed, The End of Judaism).
In the song Mack the Knife there’s a line about a body on the sidewalk “oozing” life. Last night there was a body, a living one, oozing self-righteousness. It was not on the sidewalk. It was at the speaker’s podium in the General Assembly. It was that of His Excellency Mr. Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, presenting lies as truth before the vote which overwhelmingly recognized Palestine as a non-member observer state.
In the final countdown to the UN General Assembly vote on recognition of Palestine as a non-member state, the PLO has indicated that it’s expecting “a pleasant surprise”, it being the number of European countries which will not do Zionism’s bidding on this occasion and will vote for the resolution. Victory for the Palestinians in this forum can be taken for granted, and it will help to further isolate the Israel of Netanyahu as a pariah state, but… It won’t be, can’t be, a substitute for a viable strategy to secure justice for the Palestinians.
It’s too soon to know whether the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas will be more than a sticking plaster to be ripped off by more violence whether provoked by Israel or not, but while we wait for events to give us the answer, there is a good case for saying that under Netanyahu’s leadership the Zionist (not Jewish) state has suffered a significant defeat.
When Israel rained death and destruction on the Gaza Strip four years ago, Chris Hedges wrote the following. “Israel uses sophisticated attack jets and Naval vessels to bomb densely crowded refugee camps, schools, apartment blocks mosques and slums, to attack a population that has no air force, no air defense, no navy, no heavy weapons, no artillery units, no mechanized armour, no command and control, no army and calls it a war. It is not a war. It is Murder. Images of dead Palestinian children lined up as if asleep on the floor of the main hospital in Gaza are a metaphor for the future. Israel will from now on speak to the Palestinians in the language of death.”
There was a fascinating moment on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme this morning when Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, answered a question honestly because he thought he was off the air. That was enough to cause a craven BBC (dictionary definition of craven – “cowardly”) to apologize for the fact that one its presenters had caught him off-guard. So what did he say?
I imagine I am not the only one who feels the need to vomit (dictionary definition – “to throw up the contents of the stomach through the mouth”) when Israel’s Goebbels justifies the Zionist state’s ferocious and monstrously disproportionate attacks by air and sea on the Israeli-blockaded Gaza Strip, the prison camp which is home to 1.5 million besieged and mainly impoverished Palestinians. The Israeli to whom I am referring is, of course, Australian-born Mark Regev, the prime minister’s spokesman, for which read spin doctor. The more I see and hear him in action, the more it seems to me that he makes Nazi Germany’s propaganda chief look like an amateur.
When President Obama tried to get a real Middle East peace process going by calling on Israel to halt its illegal settlement activity and his “Yes, we can” became “No, we can’t”, I dared to invest some hope in the idea that in a second term he would use the leverage all presidents have to oblige Israel to end its defiance of international law and be serious about peace on terms the Palestinians could accept. And that investment was not the consequence of mere wishful thinking on my part.
More than 24 years after the event, and to prevent a battle with the newspaper in the courts, Israeli military censors cleared for publication by Yediot Ahronot a truth – that it was Israeli commandoes who, on 16 April 1988, went all the way to Tunis to murder Abu Jihad, the co-founder with Arafat of Fatah and, at the time of his death, Arafat’s number two and most likely successor in the event of his assassination.
The third and final debate between President Obama and challenger Romney was so lacking in real and relevant substance about foreign affairs that I had to struggle, several times, to resist the temptation to turn it off and go back to bed.
In an article for Tom Dispatch, Peter Van Buren (a U.S. Foreign Service Officer for many years) posed what he described as Six Critical Foreign Policy Questions That Won’t Be Raised in Presidential Debates. Question three was under the headline – What do we want from the Middle East?
Less than ten minutes into the first presidential debate I put my gut feelings into words on my notepad. “Romney is going to win this debate.” It seemed obvious to me that Romney was (as the BBC’s Mark Mardell subsequently commented) far better than Obama in terms of “look and feel” and also more sure-footed and confident than the president. When it was over there were two questions in my mind.
I have often said and written that in some important respects America is the least democratic country in the world because what passes for democracy there is for sale to the highest bidders (the Zionist lobby being one of them). It’s now apparent that former President Jimmy Carter agrees.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon told the General Assembly at the start of this week that “the door may be closing for good on a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.” He added: “The continued growth of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory seriously undermines efforts toward peace. We must break this dangerous impasse.”
The truth of history, which most if not all world leaders know but dare not state, is that the door Ban Ki-Moon sees closing, was actually slammed shut 45 years ago. The precise date of the closure was 22 November 1967. What happened on that day?
As the New York Times put it, “President Obama used his last major address on a global stage before the November election to deliver a strong defense of America’s belief in freedom of speech, challenging fledgling Arab and North African democracies to ensure that right even in the face of violence.”
Yom Kippur, the Day Atonement, (25/26 September this year), is the holiest day in the Jewish year. On BBC Radio 4′s Thought for Today, Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, explained the significance of the day for Jews. He said, among other things, “We apologize for all the wrongs we’ve done and we seek forgiveness.”
Even before his latest reported gaffe the polls were indicating that Romney will fail in his Zionist-backed bid to deny President Obama a second term in the White House.
After the Republican presidential candidate tried and failed to make political capital out of the killing of the American ambassador and three of his colleagues in Libya, Obama said (on CBS’s 60 Minutes) “Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.” Staying with the shooting metaphor, it seems to me that with his latest gaffe Romney has shot himself in both feet and possibly elsewhere in his anatomy.
In her first response to the killing of the American ambassador and three others in Libya, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she had asked herself the question that many Americans were asking – how it could have happened?
A long version of the headline question would be something like this: Given that in the 46th year of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank Jewish settlers are continuing to consolidate their hold on the territory’s land and water resources by stealing more and more of both, thus demonstrating not only Zionism’s contempt for international law but, also, that the only peace Israel’s leaders are interested in is one that requires a complete Palestinian surrender to Zionism’s will, is there any real prospect, in any foreseeable future, of justice for the Palestinians?
I am sure that U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is right when he says that Israel has not yet made up its mind about whether or not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. The question is – What will most likely be the determining factor in the mind of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu?
The first question the headline begs is this: What is, or rather what could be, Israel’s worst?
In my opinion the short answer is this. In an effort to defuse the demographic time-bomb of occupation and close the Palestine file for ever, Israel resorts to a final round of ethnic cleansing, to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan and other neighbouring Arab states. (What about the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip prison camp? They are left to rot and will suffer the same fate as their West Bank brothers and sisters if they chose to stay and dare to threaten Israel’s security).
According to reports in Israeli newspapers, the U.S. and Israel are going to hold their largest ever joint military exercise in October, shortly before American voters decide whether to give Obama a second term in the White House or replace him with Mitt Romney. The exercise, involving thousands of soldiers and the most advanced anti-missile defense systems, will simulate simultaneous attacks from Iran and Syria.
On Thursday 8 June 1967, Israeli air and naval forces attacked America’s most advanced spy ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, killing 34 of its crew and wounding 174. The lesson of this cold-blooded, murderous attack was that there is nothing the Zionist state might not do, to its friends as well as its enemies, in order to get its own way.
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations).
As Ilan Pappe has said, most Israeli Jews have no idea of what they did to the Palestinians in 1948. (He also said that those who do know don’t think that what was done was wrong). But that’s only the tip of an iceberg of ignorance.
The mounting public criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by past and present members of the Zionist state’s defense and intelligence establishments triggered the recall of a comment made to me by one of its former Directors of Military Intelligence. The comment was: “If we had a government consisting of only former DMI’s, we’d have had peace with the Palestinians long ago.”
Let’s start with a glance at what they do not have in common. The man now on trial for killing 77 people in bomb and gun attacks in Norway last July has admitted, even boasted about, what he did. Netanyahu denies Zionism’s crimes.
By asserting that Iran is a threat to Israel’s existence (a ludicrous assertion) and beating the drums for war with it, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has succeeded in getting Palestine off the political and mainstream media agenda and winning more time for Zionism to consolidate its occupation of the West Bank. (As Barak Ravid noted in an article for Ha’aretz, “The Presidential election season in the United States is obviously an especially good time to enlarge settlements in the West Bank and strike new roots in the Jewish neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem.”)
If more proof was needed (some of us think it isn’t) that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu lives in a fantasy world that exists only in his own deluded mind, his latest verbal assault on the UN Human Rights Council for its decision to appoint and despatch an independent international fact-finding mission “to investigate the implications of the (illegal) Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” is it.
The headline over an article in Ha-aretz by Bradley Burston on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s poker game with President Obama was If Obama wins in November, is Netanyahu in trouble? That’s a question I’ve had in my own mind for quite some time and it begs another. What, really, worries Netanyahu most – the prospect (not real) of Iran posing an existential threat to Israel or the prospect (real) of a second-term Obama?
The Gentile me believes this question needs to be addressed because there is a very real danger that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism, which is being provoked by Israel’s terrifying arrogance of power and sickening self-righteousness, will be transformed into anti-Semitism unless two things happen.
The notion that anti-Israelism could be transformed into anti-Semitism is not new. In his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, published in 1986, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence, gave this warning:
“Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”
Arising out the will of Alfred Nobel, the Swedish chemist who invented dynamite, the Nobel Prize is universally recognized as the most prestigious award in the fields of peace-making, economics, chemistry, physics, medicine and literature. How about an international award – without the gold medal, the diploma and the money – for hypocrisy?
Such an award could be called the Lebon Prize (reversing Nobel).
There was a moment in a report from Tunisia by the BBC’s Wyre Davies when I could not stop myself laughing. I was listening to it on the Corporation’s generally excellent World Service radio. (In my view this particular BBC service is generally excellent because unlike all other BBC news and current affairs outlets, radio and tv, it often reflects some of the truth about what is happening in and over Palestine that became Israel).
One very well informed and courageous Israeli who thinks the answer is “Yes” is Merav Michaeli, a radio and television presenter who also writes for Ha’aretz. She is completely without fear when it comes to telling it like it is. On 2 January this year, for example, she wrote: “The Israeli government doesn’t want peace. There’s nothing new in that. It has been the proven way since the establishment of the state.”
One man who apparently thinks the answer is “Yes” is Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times. (By the time this article of mine is posted will he be the former owner and publisher?)
In his weekly newspaper Adler listed three options for Israel “to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons”. (Never mind that, unlike Israel, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons and that the latest assessment of Israel’s intelligence community – an usually honest assessment – is that Iran has not yet taken a decision to go nuclear for weapons).
The longer and complete form of the first question in the headline is – When is a terrorist not a terrorist in the eyes of the Obama administration (not to mention all of its predecessors) and the governments of the Western world?
Answer: When he or she is an Israeli Mossad agent or asset.
The first headline I thought of for this article was The Zionization of American democracy and how it could be terminated, but then I said to myself: “Don’t be silly, Alan, there’s no democracy in the ‘Land of the Free.’”
A longer headline would have added the words because of President Obama’s grovelling for Jewish campaign funding and votes.
I often say that critics of Israel and America’s unconditional support for it are wrong to call the monster that has Congress by the testicles the “Israel lobby”. That description of it implies that it speaks for all Israelis. It does not and in Ha’aretz recently there was a remarkably good analysis of what’s happening in Israel which illustrates, proves, my point. Its author is Ari Shavit, a senior correspondent and member of the newspaper’s editorial board. The headline over his piece is the one above.
It’s now clear that the Republican frontrunner in the race for the White House is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Officially the two Republican frontrunners are Newt “the Palestinians are an invented people” Gingrich and Mitt “Obama has pushed Israel under a bus” Romney.
The idiot of the headline is me in the sense that I am not an economist and have never had any formal association with study of the theory and practise of economics, but… I began to understand why what is today called Western capitalism was bound to crash way back in the early 1970′s when I was researching and producing an epic documentary on the everyday reality of global poverty and its implications for all.
If American election campaign funders who support Israel right or wrong formed a circle and demanded that President Obama stand naked in the middle of it while they sang Hava Nagila (“Let us rejoice”), I am sure he would agree to do so. That thought came into my mind when I read the Reuters’ report, published in Ha’aretz, of what Obama said to a group of fundraisers in the Manhattan home of Jack Rosen, chairman of the American Jewish Congress.
Israeli democracy fades to black (the black of the blank screen at the end of a film). That was the headline over a recent article by Lawrence Davidson, an American professor of Middle East history. He argued that the suppression of the democratic rights of non-Jews in Israel is coming full circle with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likudniks and settlers now targeting the rights of Jews as well. Events in Cairo provoked this question: Are we witnessing the fading to black of the prospects for freedom and democracy in Egypt, or, is resurgent people power going to make it impossible for the military to maintain its controlling grip? (Presumably there would be limits to how many Egyptian civilians Egyptian soldiers were prepared to kill even if the generals, desperate to protect their wealth and privileges, ordered the suppression by all means of protests and demands for real democracy).
In advance of the formal burial of the Palestinian Authority’s bid for state recognition at the UN, BBC Radio 4′s flagship Today programme was on the right track. In his introduction to a quite revealing report, presenter John Humphrys said reporter Kevin Connolly had gone to Israel to find out “what hopes there are, if any, for the establishment of a Palestinian state.”
Good examples of the extent to which many (most?) Israeli Jews have been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda and are as a consequence beyond reason and only capable of seeing themselves as the victims instead of what they actually are, the oppressors, were on display in all their naked glory in BBC Radio’s documentary of the week first broadcast last Saturday with the title The State of Israel (meaning, as the programme made clear, the state of things in Israel).
Some 18 months after the end of his posting as the BBC’s Middle East correspondent, Tim Franks returned to Israel to discover how much things had changed there. As he noted on the flight in, “There was the same right-leaning government, the same absence of peace talks with the Palestinians. But all around, the region had transformed, as the winds of the Arab Spring had blown.” On the subject of this summer’s social protests in Israel, he said this (my emphasis added): “They appeared to share, with many western countries, the rage at capitalism’s inequalities. And yet Israel’s economy is growing apace – 5% a year – thanks to its world-beating hi-tech sector. And the protestors took a vow of silence on the most contentious issue of all – the conflict with the Palestinians.”
After UNESCO voted to give the Palestinians full membership, the words of State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland contained a hint that the Obama administration at the highest levels is quite seriously concerned about the possible consequences for America of cutting off funds to the UN agency as required by Zionist lobby driven law enacted by Congress. (The U.S. funds about 22 percent of UNESCO’s budget or roughly $80 million annually; and $60 million was scheduled to be sent this month).
Most of Nuland’s shortish statement would have been sweet music to the Zionist lobby’s ears.
Last Saturday in his radio address to his own people and over the internet to those around the world who still think he is worth listening to, President Obama said, “This week we had two powerful reminders of how we’ve renewed American leadership in the world.” That made me wonder which of the two d’s should be applied to him – duplicitous or deluded. (I won’t argue with any readers who might say that he is both because being duplicitous eventually makes you delusional. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is best proof of that).
Russia and China’s veto of the UN Security Council resolution which condemned Syria over its brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters and contained a weak reference to the possibility of sanctions against Damascus proved (again) one thing – that despite torrents of soaring rhetoric to the contrary by our leaders, international politics is not about doing what is right and in the best interests of all nations and peoples, it’s only about the short-term, short-sighted, political self-interest of leaders and their governments. And the statement by U.S. ambassador Susan Rice, described by the New York Times as “one of her most bellicose speeches in the Council chamber”, was pure, unadultered hypocrisy at its most naked.
At the start of the Jewish New Year I have some questions for Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks. They are for him in particular because of what he said in a recorded message of preparation for the New Year, but they are also questions that could and should be asked of rabbis everywhere.
Barack Obama is still occupying the Oval Office but on policy for Israel-Palestine he is no longer the president. He is presidential candidate Obama, devoted to saying and doing whatever is necessary to secure American Jewish campaign funding and Zionist lobby organized Jewish votes which, in a close election race, could make the difference between him getting or not getting a second term in the White House.
The main difference between Netanyahu and Abbas was that the Israeli leader could not say “Yes” to President Obama and the Palestinian could not say “No”.
But the drama about to unfold at the UN in New York indicates that Abbas, better late than never, has discovered his testicles – both of them if he goes all the way with his insistence that the Palestinian request for UN recognition as a member state must be presented to the Security Council, but only one of them if he settles for a vote in the General Assembly and spares Obama the embarrassment of having to cast another veto which would fully expose the president’s sick-making hypocrisy (the consequence of his fear of confronting the Zionist lobby) and his administration’s double standards.
The following is the text of a speech I delivered on 11 September to a conference in Freiburg, Germany, “Palestine, Israel and Germany – the Boundaries of Open Discussion”. The full title of my address was The mainstream media’s complicity in Zionism’s suppression of the truth of history.
I describe the conflict in and over Palestine that became the Zionist – not Jewish! – state of Israel as the cancer at the heart of international affairs; and I believe that without a cure this cancer will consume us all. I also believe that almost nothing is more important than crossing and actually eliminating the boundaries that have prevented, and to a very large extent do still prevent, informed and honest discussion about who must do what and why for justice for the Palestinians and peace for all. And that’s why I was pleased to accept an invitation to address this conference.
Dear Abe Foxman,
In your lengthy article Decade of Deceit: Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 10 Years Later, you label a number of named writers and commentators including me who say that Israel’s Mossad was or even might have been involved in the 9/11 terror attack as anti-Semitic, and you assert that they are demonizing “the Jews”. You also say: “Anticipating criticism, a number of these anti-Semitic conspiracists now try to immunize themselves against charges of anti-Semitism by making disclaimers up front about not being anti-Semitic. Their own works and record, however, blatantly contradict their innocuous self-characterizations.”
I have to assume that I am one of the “number” in the above quotation because when you introduce at the end of your piece a few sentences of what I have said on the subject of 9/11, you do so with these words: “After pre-emptively trying to dismiss charges of anti-Semitism, Hart asserts…”
That was the headline over a recent post by David Hearst for The Guardian’s Comment Is Free space.
It began: “There is an Arabic word you come across a lot when Palestinians talk about their future. Sumud means steadfastness, and it has turned into a strategy: when the imbalance of power is so pronounced, the most important thing to do is to stay put. Staying put against overwhelming odds is regarded as a victory.”
Hearst didn’t offer any substantial explanation of why Palestinian steadfastness is a victory, so I will.
How much was the mind of Anders Behring Breivik conditioned and warped by Zionist propaganda as peddled with the assistance of Christian fundamentalism by much of the Western mainstream media and many web sites?
Because Israel’s leaders prefer land to peace and there’s nothing any American president can do about that so long as the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress call the shots on U.S. policy for Israel/Palestine, it’s obvious that the Palestinians have nothing to gain, only more to lose, from politics and diplomacy. So what, really, can they do themselves to press their claim for an acceptable minimum amount of justice? (By definition an acceptable minimum amount of justice requires a complete end to Israel’s 1967 occupation with provision for Jerusalem to be an open, undivided city and the capital of two states).
When I was reflecting on Netanyahu’s domination and control of the Congress of the United States of America, the first headline that came into my mind for this article was Goodbye to peace. I’ll now explain why I think the headline above is more appropriate.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, a master of Zionist double-speak and deception, is about to undertake the most important assignment of his life. Because of its continuing occupation and oppression of the Palestinians (not to mention on-going property and land grabs), Israel is becoming a pariah state so far as a growing number of the citizens of nations are concerned. The main purpose of Netanyahu’s forthcoming trip to America is to .launch a public relations campaign to rebrand Israel in the hope of stopping the rot of its growing isolation.
As I explained on a lecture tour of South Africa (Goldstone Land) from which I have just returned, the answer is in what happened behind closed doors at the Security Council in New York in the weeks and months following the 1967 war. But complete understanding requires knowledge of the fact that it was a war of Israeli aggression and not, as Zionism’s spin doctors continue to assert, self-defense.
In the early days of the demonstrations of people power on Arab streets it could have been said (some did say) that they were a huge setback for all the various forces of violent Islamic extremism. This because the demonstrations, in Egypt especially, seemed to be sending a clear signal – that change could be brought about by peaceful means on a non-sectarian basis. But…
Definition: Pariah – a social outcast (Chambers Dictionary)
One eminent Israeli who apparently thinks the answer could be yes is Ilan Baruch, a veteran diplomat who resigned ahead of his retirement because, he said, he could no longer represent his government’s “wrong” policy. He also ridiculed Zionism’s assertion that global anti-Israeli sentiments generated by occupation are a manifestation of anti-Semitism.
Never before has an American President’s fear of offending the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress been so exposed as it was by Obama’s decision to veto the Security Council resolution condemning continued, illegal Israeli settlement activities on the occupied West Bank and demanding that Israel “immediately and completely cease” all such activities. In a different America – an informed America – some might think, I do, that Obama should be impeached. The charge? TREASON.
For decades, and despite much rhetoric to the contrary, American-led Western policy has been to prefer Arab dictatorship (authoritarianism in various forms) to Arab democracy. This preference was determined by two main assessments.
For many years I believed that Israel’s leaders have no equals in the business of saying one thing and doing another. But Mubarak has proved me wrong. He went on television to tell Egyptians that he would be staying on for some months because only he could restore stability and set the stage for it to continue after he stepped down. Hours later his thugs were leading a violent attack on the peaceful, pro-democracy protesters in Cairo’s Tahir square.
If more and more Arabs breach the wall of fear that has prevented them for decades from demanding their rights, expressing their rage at the corruption and repression of their governments and at regime impotence in the face of Israel’s arrogance of power, there’s one question above all others America’s policy makers will have to ask themselves. Who do we need most if America’s own real interests are to be best protected – the Arabs or Israel? And that, of course, begs the mother and father of all questions for them: Is Israel our most valuable ally in the region or our biggest liability?
The most sickening (I mean truly vomit inducing) thing about the Al Jazeera revelations, the so-called Palestine Papers, is not what they confirm about the quisling status of the impotent and corrupt Palestine Authority. Nor is it what they confirm about the Israeli leadership’s complete lack of interest in peace on terms other than those which require the Palestinians to surrender – to abandon their struggle for even an acceptable minimum amount of justice. What then is the most sickening thing?
Despite strong U.S. opposition, a proposed resolution condemning Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank did make it to the UN Security Council. It was not put to a vote and no vote is expected for some time, if ever, because of the probability as things stand of an American veto. But given growing global support for the resolution, there is a case for wondering if President Obama can remain Zionist-like in his own implicit defiance of international law on Israel’s behalf.
It’s not impossible that Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah was right when he described the tribunal investigating the assassination of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 as “an American and Israeli tool”. Though I myself see Israel’s military and political leaders as those with most to gain – I mean thinking they have most to gain – from a successful attempt to pin the blame on Hezbollah.
Short answer: Great effort is made to hunt down and prosecute suspected Nazi war criminals, no effort is made to bring Zionist war criminals to justice.
The headline is not meant to imply that I think he will. As things are he can’t because of the stranglehold on American policy for Israel/Palestine of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress, the mainstream media and many institutions of state including the Pentagon and intelligence agencies. My purpose is only to offer an answer to this question: What could happen if President Obama was able to put America’s own real interests first?
Question: Why is it that in this Christian season of “Peace on Earth and good will to all men (and women)” the name of Israel’s Soviet-born foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, described by some as Israel’s “Hitler in-the-making”, should enter my mind? … continue reading
After his appointment as Chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, California’s representative Howard Berman told The Forward, “Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist.” This is the man, one of the Zionist lobby’s most influential stooges in Congress, who introduced House Resolution 1734 which gives President Obama his new orders.
… continue reading
President Obama ought to have trouble sleeping at night knowing that by allowing Israel to continue its illegal settlement activity on the occupied West Bank he has made himself, and his country, openly complicit in the Zionist state’s defiance of international law. In a different America that ought to be enough to have any president removed from office.
Those of us who are associated with the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, and who call for justice for the Palestinians, now have reason to say “Thank you” to … continue reading
Some commentators, bloggers and other writers, were quick to jump to the conclusion that the avalanche of documents being released by WikiLeaks is part and parcel of an Israeli/Mossad deception strategy. One implication being that WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange is, knowingly or not, manipulated by Zionism.
… continue reading
The Wikileaks revelation that some Persian Gulf Arab leaders wanted (and still want?) America to attack Iran is confirmation of what some of us thought we knew – that Arab leaders are not merely impotent but as dangerously deluded as their Israeli counterparts.
… continue reading
That was the headline over a story – wonderful news, I say, if it’s true – in Israel’s English language newspaper, the Jerusalem Post, on 25 November. On behalf of Zionism’s colonial project in Palestine, the writer, Isi Leibler, was verbally crucifying one of Britain’s most influential Jewish leaders for daring to go public with his criticism of Netanyahu and saying, among other things, that Israel’s policies and actions were harming the best interests of British Jews, and by implication non-Israeli Jews everywhere.
Sarah Palin (or her publisher) chose a title for her latest book with three “F” words -America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and the Flag. But surely there’s something missing. Another “F” word. One with four letters. What could it be? (My answer in a moment).
When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America recently, he was relaxed, charming and at his deluded best. For Jewish audiences which don’t want to know the truth of history, there’s nobody who can deliver Zionism’s propaganda lines and lies more effectively than him. (Though he didn’t say so, he was obviously delighted that President Obama had taken a hammering in the mid-term elections).
On the face of it the package of “incentives” Secretary of State Clinton offered Prime Minister Netanyahu to persuade him to buy and sell to his coalition government a one-time-only freeze of 90 days on settlement construction in the occupied West Bank could be summed up with one “c” word – criminal.
The following is the text of an in-depth interview Koroush Ziabari conducted with me.
In your recent article “Zionism and Peace are Incompatible” you reach a point where you state “if it is the case that American presidents are frightened of provoking Israel, the conclusion would have to be that the Zionist state is a monster beyond control and that all efforts for peace are doomed to failure.” Is it really the case that Israel possesses an uncontrollable, disproportionate power which enables it to violate the international law and enjoy immunity from being held accountable before the international community? What’s the source of this unwarrantable power and influence?
There is a debate in Israel about whether the Zionist state is on the slippery slope to fascism or is already fascist. As far as I am aware the mainstream Western media has not drawn any attention to this.
It was Albert Einstein, the father of modern physics, who, along with 27 other most influential Jews, first warned of the danger of the rise of fascism in Israel. In a letter to the Editor of The New York Times published on 4 December 1948, when Menachem Begin was soliciting support in America, they said this:
In Mumbai President Obama was asked by an Indian student for his “take or opinion on jihad”. He began his answer with the observation that “the phrase jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.” In its report of the discussion, The New York Times noted that Obama “carefully avoided saying that he was opposed to jihad”. (I ask – How could he be opposed if he is aware of its two real and true meanings in Islam? The Greater jihad is the inner struggle for self-improvement to become a good Muslim. The Lesser jihad is struggle against oppression – oppression as in Israel’s occupation and treatment of the Palestinians, for example).
In a recent speech at an ADL (Anti-Defamation League) dinner, Rupert Murdoch, arguably the most influential mainstream media chief on Planet Earth, made some extraordinary statements which must be challenged. But first it’s necessary for us all to be clear about what ADL’s role is.
Its proclaimed objective is to “fight anti-Semitism”. In reality its main purpose under the leadership of Abe Foxman is to smear, harass, silence and preferably destroy those of all faiths and none who are critical of Zionism in action – critical of Israel’s policies in general and its contempt for international law in particular; and critical of the awesome power of the Zionist lobby, in America especially.
The conversation begins at around 2 minutes into the recording.
The Ugly Truth
At last somebody has said it in the most explicit way possible. The somebody also said: “The problem is Zionism and the solution is dismantling the Zionist framework and instituting a secular democracy that does not discriminate between Israelis and Palestinians.”
… continue reading
Better late than never, a very senior Palestinian official in Ramallah, Yasser Abed Rabbo, found the right way to challenge Israel and the U.S. As reported by AFP on 13 October, he said, “We officially demand that the US administration and the Israeli government provide a map of the borders of the state of Israel which they want us to recognise.”
On 25 September I wrote a piece headlined Obama speaks at the UN… Goodbye to peace. Since then I’ve seen no need for me to contribute to the debate about the farce that President Obama’s push for peace is and was always going to be. But the Arab League’s decision to give Obama a one-month deadline to rescue the direct talks between Abbas and his quisling administration and Netanyahu and his deluded coalition government demands a comment or two.
On marks out of ten for his speech to the UN on the subject of ending the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, I’d give President Obama minus five.
Earlier this month (on 4 September) I wrote a piece with the headline Obama has signalled his coming complete surrender to Zionism and its lobby. That surrender, it seems to me, is now effectively a fait accompli.
The real history of the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel invites the conclusion that the Arab regimes – more by default than design in my view – betrayed the Palestinians. The question this article addresses is: Will future historians conclude that the Palestinian diaspora betrayed its occupied and oppressed brothers and sisters?
The suggestion that he should was made by Thomas L. Friedman in his column for the New York Times on 7 September. My first response was to say to myself, “That proves Friedman doesn’t understand the complexities of the conflict and is at least a little bit bonkers.”
He did it with seven words. “Ultimately the U.S. cannot impose a solution.”
He was speaking at the White House the day before the start of the new round of direct talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, after he had met with them and Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah II. (In my last post I anticipated Obama saying at the point of his complete surrender that “America can’t want peace more than the parties.” He also said that – ahead of schedule!)
I never thought a day could come when I would agree with anything stated by Moshe Arens (three times an Israeli minister of defense, a one-time foreign minister, a former ambassador to the U.S. and, in my opinion, Zionism’s in-Israel equivalent of Richard “Prince of Darkness” Perle in America). But the day came.
Short answer. Iran’s President Ahmadinejad did NOT call for Israeli Jews to be annihilated. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of Israel’s Shas party, HAS called, more than once, for the Palestinians (and, in fact, all Arabs) to be exterminated.
I have written and often say that very many if not most Jews do not want to know the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel. (An essential element of the truth being that Israel was created, mainly, by Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing).
Defenders of Israel right or wrong continue to assert that the absence of peace is all the fault of the Palestinians.
In one sense they are right. When the Palestine file was closed by Israel’s victory (ethnic cleansing and all) on the battlefield in 1948, the Palestinians were supposed to accept their lot as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency. That was according to the script written by Zionism and effectively endorsed by all the major powers and, behind closed doors, the regimes of a divided and impotent Arab order. … continue reading
Ronen Bergman, a senior military and political analyst for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, recently wrote what I consider to be one of the most important articles for decades on the subject of the mindset of the Zionist state’s military and political leaders. It was reproduced in the Wall Street Journal under the headline Siege Fatigue and the Flotilla Mistake.
Getting to the main thrust of his analysis, Bergman wrote this (my emphasis added):
… continue reading
The following is my keynote address to the annual re-union dinner of the Liberty Veterans’ Association – Long Island, 12 June 2010.
I want to begin by saying that though I covered wars wherever they were taking place on Planet Earth in my television reporting days – it was in Vietnam as a very young correspondent that I first started to ask myself questions about why things are as they are in the world – I am an Englishman and one who didn’t serve in his country’s armed forces. (Not because I was a draft dodger. Conscription had ended). So it is both an honour and a privilege for me to be with you this evening. And please believe me, I really mean it. I’m not a politician just saying it.
… continue reading
President-elect Obama stayed silent when, back in December of 2008 and January of 2009, Israel declared war on the Palestinian people of the Gaza Strip prison camp. (In my view that was a demonstration of naked Israeli state terrorism). As I write from America, with the drama and implications of Israel’s murderous attack on the Gaza Flotilla still being played out, I find myself wondering if President Obama will have the balls to say to Israel, “Enough is enough”.
He would not dare to say that in those words, but he could break with precedence by refusing to veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israel.
Will he do so?
We shall see.
If he does authorize a veto, it will be time for even those of us who invested some good faith in him to conclude that he is the prisoner of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress and, more to the point, a prisoner with no hope of escape.
The following is the text of my address to the Annual Nakba Commemoration Dinner, Dearborn, on 15 May 2010. (Video will be posted as soon as possible.)
Click play to hear Ray Hanania’s interview with me:
This article is my contribution to a series on the same theme by a number of writers.
For readers who may not be intimately familiar with English terminology, an oxymoron is a figure of speech by which contradictory terms are combined to form an expressive phrase or epithet such as cruel kindness and falsely true. (It’s derived from the Greek word oxymoros meaning pointedly foolish).
Am I alone in thinking that on a daily basis President Obama is beginning to sound more and more like George “Dubya” Bush when he was talking tough about protecting Americans at home by fighting wars abroad?
That thought first came into my mind as I watched and listened to Obama addressing American troops at Bagram Air Force base on his recent surprise visit to Afghanistan. His purpose was to re-affirm America’s commitment to destroying al-Qaida and its Taliban and other allies.
President Obama’s apparent desire to move forcefully against Iran with new sanctions within weeks, not months, makes me wonder if he is calculating that he will be in a better position to put some real pressure on Israel, and possibly bring about regime change there, if he can successfully bully Iran into playing the game his way. If that is what Obama is thinking, he could be setting himself up (or is being set up?) for another humiliation.
In an editorial on 26 March The New York Times declared that it is “even more sceptical now” of Netanyahu’s professed commitment to peacemaking and a two-state solution. A sign that Zionism’s freedom to muzzle the mainstream American media is no longer without limit? Perhaps.
But refreshing though this NYT editorial stance was – broadly pro Obama and anti Netanyahu – it missed, by default or design, a major point; but we’ll come to that in a moment.
That U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the courage to tell AIPAC’s conference that Israel’s continued construction of Jewish housing on occupied territory is undermining both the prospect for peace and America’s credibility and own best interests was good news. The bad news is that this and other Obama administration expressions of concern are 42 years too late.
At the opening of AIPAC’s annual foreign policy conference its new president, Lee Rosenberg, was not a happy man. As he put it, “In recent days we have witnessed something (the Obama administration’s initial public anger with Netanyahu and his government) very unfortunate.”
(This is an article I contributed to a series titled Zionism Unmasked.)
There are two definitions of anti-Semitism in its Jewish context. One was born in real history and represents a truth. The other is part and parcel of Zionist mythology and was invented for the purpose of blackmailing non-Jewish Europeans and North Americans into refraining from criticising Israel or, to be more precise, staying silent when its leaders resort to state terrorism and demonstrate in many ways their absolute contempt for international law.
Amazing! While in Israel, an American vice president explicitly condemns an Israeli decision to build yet more homes, 1,600 apartments, in occupied Arab East Jerusalem. “I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem,” Joe Biden said. “It’s the kind of step that undermines the trust we need”. Yes, but…
They were only words. And they call to mind a comment made by Uri Avnery, the grandfather of the Israeli peace movement, in a piece he wrote for Tikkun on 23 September 2009, after President Obama’s call for a complete freeze had been rejected by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Gideon Levy writes for Ha’aretz, the newspaper than enables some Israelis, sadly a minority, to cling on to their sanity. I have described him in the past as the conscience of Israeli journalism. But he is far more than that. He is the conscience of all Israeli Jews. Today, 7 March 2010, he writes about the Israeli peace camp, which in terms of the headline over his article “Never was and never will be.“
There could not be a more graphic illustration of the double-standard that drives Western foreign policy and has prevented a resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict than Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s explanation to the Chilcot Inquiry on why he, when he was Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer and wrote the cheques for it, backed the war on Iraq.
The developing debate about Israel’s future offers two scenarios but there is a third which, apparently, should not be discussed in the open, in public. So let’s do just that.
Among the most recent contributors to what I’ll call the two-scenario debate was no less a figure than Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister. In a speech to the annual national security conference in Herzliya, and then again in the U.S., he warned that if Israel did not make peace with the Palestinians, it would become an “apartheid” state.
If you were a gambling man down to your last million dollars, you could safely bet the lot on the fact that Israel will not be punished for the Mossad’s murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai.
Over the past few months I have saluted your courage in seeking to open the eyes of New York Times’ readers to some of the differences between Zionist propaganda and what the facts on the ground in Israel/Palestine are telling us.
Your latest column, Hard Mideast Truths, published on 12 February and which I tweeted, was, I think, your most explicit to date. (I imagine you got a bucket load of organised hate mail for it).
This article was written as one in a series with other authors under the title ZIONISM UNMASKED. I will be tweeting the contributions of others in due course.
Most Jews of the world (and probably many Gentiles) believe that Zionism is the return of Jews to the land promised to them by God. At the risk of offending some readers of all faiths for saying so, I must confess, and do so cheerfully, that I don’t buy this concept because the Gentile me does not believe in the God of organized, institutional religions. So, I say to myself, no God, no promise to Jews (or anybody else). In my perception of the scheme of things, God is the potential for good inside each and every one of us. God so defined is a prisoner within each of us and our prime task is to liberate this prisoner. But let’s put that to one side.
At a town hall meeting in Tampa, Florida on 28 January, President Obama explained what in his view had to happen if there is to be a two-state solution which would see Israel and the Palestinians living side by side in peace and security. He said, “Both sides are going to have to make concessions“.
My own view is that Israel’s still on-going colonization of the occupied West Bank has destroyed the prospect of a two-state solution on any basis the Palestinians could accept. But for the sake of discussion I’ll pretend that is not necessarily so.
With thanks to ITN and the BBC’s Gavin Esler, I simply can’t resist giving this little story wider circulation. It came to me in ITN’s 1955 Club Newsletter. (I receive it monthly as a member of the club).
The story as told by Gavin Esler and reported by the newsletter:
Putting Tony Blair on trial would be much too cruel. The man is ill, delusional, quite possibly to the point of madness. What he needs most of all is psychiatric help. Any doubts I might have had about that diagnosis were removed by his six-hour presentation to the Chilcot Inquiry of his reasons for joining the neo-conned “Dubya” Bush in the war on Iraq.
There is no doubt it. More and more people all over the world, and probably many of their governments behind closed doors, are beginning to see the Zionist state of Israel for what it really is – not only the obstacle to peace but a monster apparently beyond control; and they, more and more so-called ordinary folk everywhere, are beginning to turn against it.
In their refusal to ask the question of why, really, Muslims are being radicalized, President Obama and Prime Minister Brown are no different from their immediate predecessors.
With the dawn of a New Year is there any reason to hope that it will see real progress on ending the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel and stopping the countdown to catastrophe for all?
I can see only one reason. It’s in the fact that the Zionist state has become its own worst enemy. (Some will say thank goodness for that because with the Arab regimes as enemies, Israel doesn’t need friends!)
On the first anniversary of the beginning of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip – in my view it was a demonstration of Israeli state terrorism at its most naked – it’s not enough to say that the governments of the Western powers (and others) are complicit in Israel’s on-going collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians, 53% of whom are children.
The short answer is a failure of leadership – by presidents and prime ministers and their governments, those of the major powers most of all.
In The Independent on 21 December, Johann Hari offered this observation:
I had to struggle with myself to decide which of two headlines was most appropriate for this article – the one above or “The hard core of lunatics are pulling up the drawbridge”.
A Jewish friend in Canada drew my attention to an article in the Jewish Ledger, an independent weekly newspaper in Westport, Connecticut. The headline over it is “Saving Israel” Expert says American Jews key to Israel’s survival. I have rarely read such dangerous nonsense. It’s the voice of Zionism, deluded as ever, but with more than a hint of panic.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal (which has a preference for Israeli propaganda), Michael B. Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., said that advancing a peace process now depends not on Netanyahu and his government or President Obama but the Palestinians.
I have been writing about what must happen in America if there is to be more than a snowball’s chance in hell of peace on the basis of an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians. (The main point I’ve been making is that unless and until enough Americans are made aware of the truth of history, no American president will have the space to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress). In this article, with thanks to an analysis by Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell, I’m looking at what must happen in Israel if the countdown to catastrophe is to be stopped.
“Mr. President, will you take a call from Prime Minister Netanyahu in five minutes? He says it’s urgent, very urgent.”
“Rahm, I can tell from the tone of your voice that you’re not asking me a question. You’re giving me an order.”
Rahm Emanuel smiled.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu described his offer to temporarily restrict construction of all-new Jewish settlements on the West Bank excluding Arab East Jerusalem as a “far-reaching and painful step”, which was part of a policy he hoped would give a new impetus to peace talks.
Netanyahu is not stupid. He knows that some of us know he is not remotely interested in peace on terms the Palestinians could accept. So what then is his real game plan of the moment? Simple. He is seeking to make peace with the Obama administration. And its response suggests that with the help of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress he’s got that matter firmly under control.
It’s not often that stories about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict make me laugh but one by Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East editor, did. Because he is the corporation’s correspondent supporters of Israel right or wrong most love to hate – from time to time they pressure the BBC to fire him – I imagine he enjoyed writing it.
I’m quite strongly inclined to the view that the answer is “No”, but the question is still worth asking. It was triggered in my mind by a phrase in the introduction to the lead story of the BBC’s World Service (Radio) news bulletins late on 17 November and early the following morning. The story was the Obama’s administration’s “dismay” at Israel’s decision to approve 900 new homes in occupied Arab East Jerusalem “in defiance of world opinion“. The words emphasized were those of a BBC scriptwriter, not a spokesman for the Obama administration.
There is a case for saying that those leaders of the discredited PNA (Palestine National Authority) who are proposing to unilaterally declare an independent state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip and seek to get UN Security Council backing for it are being clever.
What they would be doing in effect is asking the Security Council not only to re-affirm its commitment to Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 but, far more important, to confront that resolution’s fatal flaw on the matter of land for peace.
When I wrote and posted Part 1 of this article, I was, of course, aware that there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of President Obama speaking truth to the power of Jewish America as it was represented at the General Assembly of The Jewish Federations of North America. The words I put into his mouth could only have been spoken by him if he was going to be true to his statement to Netanyahu and Abbas – “We must all take risks for peace”.
I am one of the many who is quietly outraged by the Western media’s so-called balancing act in its reporting of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip (state terrorism in my view) and the Goldstone Report. So I was delighted by a letter in today’s Guardian from one Terry Greenberg in North Vancouver. The following is the text of it.
As expected, the U.S. House of Representatives voted, on Tuesday 3 November, by 344 votes to 36, to urge the Obama administration to oppose endorsement of the Goldstone Report. But for those who are interested in truth and justice, not to mention democracy, the highlight of what passed for debate was the two-minute contribution of Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic Party’s representative for Ohio’s 10th district (and a starter candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2004 an 2008).
Informed and honest analysis suggests that no American president will ever be able to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress on matters to do with Israel/Palestine unless and until a majority of Jewish Americans, in order to protect their own best interests and those of all their fellow Americans, indicate that they wish him to do so, or that they will not object if he tries.
On Monday 12 October, Prime Minister Netanyahu opened the Knesset’s winter session by blasting the Goldstone Report that accuses Israel of committing war crimes and vowing that he would never allow Israelis be tried for them. But that was not his main message. It was an appeal, delivered I thought with a measure of desperation, to the “Palestinian leadership”, presumably the leadership of “President” Abbas and his Fatah cronies, leaders who are regarded by very many if not most Palestinians as American-and-Israeli stooges at best and traitors at worst.
I don’t go all the way with the cynicism of the American (economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo) who expressed surprise that President Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize “after killing only so few people”; and I really do hope that the current occupant of the White House will be allowed to deliver on the rhetorical commitments that won him the prize. My fear is that events will invite the conclusion that the Nobel Committee had a premature ejaculation and that there never was a real prospect of the egg of hope being fertilized for justice and peace in the Middle East.
And that grim thought provokes an idea.
President Obama declared, “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow.” That’s not a true statement. It’s missing five words. The truth required him to say all nations “with the exception of Israel.”
For his part, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown took the anti-Iran rhetoric in the direction of hysteria. Following the announcement, by Iran, of the existence of a previously undeclared nuclear facility on a military base outside the holy city of Qom, Brown declared, “The level of deception by the government of Iran will shock and anger the whole international community and will harden our resolve.”
The following are the global details of PressTV’s first full transmission of the heated debate I recorded in London on 12 June.
Dates and Times
- 20/09/2009 19:02
- 21/09/2009 02.02
- 21/09/2009 14.02
Dear President Carter,
Back in 1987 my wife and I had the pleasure and privilege of being invited to sit and talk with you and Rosalynn at The Carter Center. Since then, and with increasing concern, even alarm, you’ve been doing what American Presidents can’t do in office – telling the truth (well, quite a lot of it) about why a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has remained and, I fear, seems set to remain, beyond the reach of politics and diplomacy.
I say set to remain because while I believe that President Obama is a good man who means well, I think he will not be allowed to deliver. On matters to do with Israel, the Zionist lobby’s grip on your pork-barrel Congress is too strong for him to break. (You might not wish to say so in public, but I imagine you would … continue reading
The headline above and text below is by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA coutner-terrosim chief with 27 years service. This, his latest article, is on the blog Wake Up Americans! Your Government is Hijacked by Zionism. Its stated purpose is “to chart the influence of the powerful Israeli Lobby in American domestic and foreign policy, public life and the election process, and American military interventions overseas since the end of World War II.”
Zionism’s in-Israel political and military hawks, and their neo-con associates in America, have no equals in the business of making outrageous and self-righteous statements. But few come close to matching the recent utterance of Israel’s education minister, Gideon Sa’ar. “The creation of the State of Israel cannot be referred to as a tragedy.”
A ridiculous notion some and perhaps many will say. How dare I ask such a question? It was provoked in my mind by an interview with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in The Times (of London) and remarks attributed to him in a BBC World Service news report (broadcast only once so far as I am aware).
In early June 2009, I wrote a piece with the headline The Gentile Alan Hart and Jews (very many of them), THE PROBLEM – IS IT ME OR THEM?.
It started out as a sort of memorandum to myself. Subsequently I e-mailed the text to a number of allies in common cause, people of all faiths and none. This article – my call for Jews in big numbers not small ones to end their silence on the matter of Zionism’s crimes – is now being quite widely circulated by activist networks. One new Jewish ally and friend who e-mailed me from America said, “It seems that you’ve struck a chord.”
So I’ve decided to upload my original article together with the text of Dorothy’s Zeller’s answer on 23 August to the question posed by Mondoweiss’s Phil Weiss – Why is it essential for Jews to speak out, as Jews, on Israel?
Dear Readers, Followers and Supporters,
Two and half weeks from now, the cover of Volume 3 of the American edition of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews must be finalized for cataloging and publication next Spring.
I am excited about that, but I am wondering if there is a more suitable cover image than this one:
So, to see if the online community of those who are interested in the truth of history can suggest anything better, I’ve decided to hold a little competition.
In the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s bloody confrontation with the al-Qaeda inspired Jund Ansar Allah (Soldiers of the Companions of God), imagine a headline something like this: Israeli PM Netanyahu thanks Hamas for taking on Islamic fanatics.
Of course that is pure fantasy.
William Bell Jr posted me the following message and I thought it was worth quoting in full:
Acclaimed reporter and former Vietnam correspondent, Alan Hart, is the author of “Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews, The False Messiah, Volume One. In the prologue titled “Waiting for the Apocalypse, p. 26, he cites staff writer Jane Lampman’s report in (Monitorworld, March 6-12, 2004).
Her report headlined: THE END OF THE WORLD: THE DEBATE HEATS UP. She wrote that “the interest in end-times prophecy has spread beyond their circles and is not only shaping people’s lives, but even influencing United States foreign policy. She referred to the minority of fundamentalist American Christians.
ANTI-SEMITISM RISING – WHY? was recorded by PressTV for transmission as two programmes, each having two parts. (When recording there’s a studio break for live news between each part).
Due to what was described as “human error” at PressTV HQ in Tehran (they’ve got a lot on their minds!), only the first half of the first of the two programmes was initially transmitted (what you see below is that part, which somehow found its way to YouTube.). The complete package is being rescheduled and when I am notified of transmission dates and times, I will let you know through a new post and through my Twitter feed etc.
The first part gives a hint of why I’ve come to the conclusion that informed and honest debate with Zionism is impossible.
How does an eminent Israeli campaigner for peace with justice for the Palestinians respond to an old friend and ally who renounces Zionism?
Here is the response of Uri Avnery, Israel’s most celebrated dove. … continue reading
This article was written and first posted more than a year ago, before Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip (an act of state terrorism by another name). With Fatah about to meet and the discredited PNA still in being, this article is, I suggest, worth a second reading (or a first for new visitors to this site). In my view, the fact that President Obama has become positively engaged does not change the essence of the analysis below.
On 1 July the BBC’s Newsnight programme lent itself to a Zionist attempt to smear and discredit PressTV. From Zionism’s point of view this had to be done because, as its growing worldwide audience knows, PressTV is the only television channel in the world on which it is possible to challenge, seriously and in documented depth and detail, Zionism’s version of history. As I have demonstrated in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, and in programmes I have made for PressTV, Zionism’s version of history is more than mythology. It’s a pack of propaganda lies.
The following is the text of a presentation I made at the London Muslim Centre last night:
The contestants in the fight of the headline I gave to the title of this talk can best be described as President “Yes, We Can” and Prime Minister “No, We Won’t.”
I want to start with a positive observation about Obama.
A question… Who said the following?
“We must kill all terrorist leaders, starting with Mahmoud Abbas, and all others.” … continue reading
I received with others the following very amusing short story from lawyer Ed Corrigan, a Canadian campaigner for justice and peace in the Middle East. He received it from Pat, a friend of his. I imagine it will appeal rather more to the ladies than the men (most men) … continue reading
On the third anniversary of Yasser Arafat’s death (was he the first victim of Israeli biological warfare?) I recalled my favourite story about him.
Shortly after the publication in 1984 of the first edition of my book Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker?, I was informed by one of his PLO leadership colleagues that something I had written had made him very, very angry. (Nobody liked being on the receiving end of Arafat’s terrible temper. It was the equivalent of a verbal nuclear strike, a weapon he unleashed to intimidate colleagues when he could not persuade them to see things his way by reasoned argument).
I asked the colleague to tell me what it was I had written that had made Arafat angry. He said, “I think you should hear it from the chairman himself … continue reading
A friend of mine has just received the following short report from the Atfulna School for Deaf Children in Gaza.
In this “Enemy Entity” where we live under restrictions of a ridiculous embargo, I would not be surprised that the coming months will find us fighting over a pen or a sheet of paper … continue reading
A most powerful and moving video (running time under nine minutes) has come to my attention. The gentleman who drew it to my attention wrote, “Watch this video – if you can bear it.” It made me cry tears of rage.
It can be found on
At about 3.30pm Tel Aviv time on Sunday 4 June 1967, a young British television reporter handed the Israeli military censor the text of a story he had written and, if it was cleared, was going to record for broadcasting by ITN in its main evening news bulletin.
ITN’s Sunday evening bulletins were less than eight minutes in total length so the story had to be very short. In Londonforeign editor Hans Verhoven had agreed that the reporter could have 40 seconds. At three words per second that was a total of 120 words including the sign-off.
The reporter’s intro was the following: “For some reasons I can report, for others I cannot, I think the war is going to start tomorrow morning.” And he signed off: “Alan Hart, ITN, Tel Aviv, on the eve of war.”
I didn’t think the military censor would allow me to say “Israel is going to war tomorrow morning,” so I didn’t put it quite like that; but since I was in Israel that was obviously my meaning.
I was going out on a long limb with my (actually well informed) speculation because … continue reading
On Tuesday evening 1 May, a BBC correspondent noted in passing that the Bush administration believes that “Iran is meddling in Iraq”. (My emphasis added).
I wonder what single word best describes what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq…..?
For those who believe or profess to believe that a genuine two-state solution to the Palestine problem is still an option, the following summary report from the Alternative Information Center ought to be required reading … continue reading
As a former ITN and BBC Panorama correspondent, I am often asked how I explain the Western mainstream media’s preference for Zionist mythology as opposed to the truth of history (as it relates to the making and sustaining of what used to be called the Arab-Israeli conflict). I address this question, quite explicitly … continue reading
The following press release was recently sent to me:
With formation of the Palestinian National unity government, the 19thArab summit have agreed that the Arab Peace Initiative is the key towards a dialogue with Israel in order to reach a comprehensive Peace agreement and to establish the independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. … continue reading
The following op-ed article by Amanda Gelender was recently sent to me:
The Stanford Daily – 2 Apr 2007
I attribute my deep sense of social justice to my Jewish upbringing. Active in my congregation as a child, I have fond memories of attending Jewish summer camp, Shabbat services and Purim carnivals … continue reading
I am posting this after clicking on to publish the hate mail I received over the last few days after I dared to speculate about who might have been, repeat might have been, responsible for Alan Johnston’s “disappearance” and, if he is dead, who killed him.
Many (which means not all) of the comments were abusive and vile, indicating (this is not news) that some defenders of the Zionist state of Israel right or wronghave very sick minds … continue reading