The human catastrophe gripping Haiti since a 7.0-magnitude earthquake devastated that nation on January 12 rightfully dominated nearly every newscast for a week. With devastation of such unimaginable proportions, there are the riveting stories of despair and courage, along with a relatively new and hideous phenomenon: politicization of the disaster and its aftermath.
Media opportunists have reached new depths of hypocrisy and ineptitude in covering the tragedy. Mainstream television networks and newspapers touted the overwhelming US military response, as well as other countries that were among the first to reach the victims in Haiti, including Israel.
Conspicuously absent from the kudos list were two of the first responders, Cuba and Venezuela.
On January 13, one day after the quake, a C-130 transport plane was dispatched to Port-au Prince loaded with supplies, food and doctors. To date, six massive shipments from Venezuela have reached Haiti, totaling 5,000 metric tons of foodstuffs, as well as humanitarian aid teams and heavy machinery for reconstruction. Additionally, President Hugo Chavez pledged that his country will provide Haiti with free gasoline and diesel.
Cuba has maintained approximately 400 doctors who provide free medical services throughout Haitian communities for the last several years. Therefore, Cuban medical teams were first on the scene to set up two emergency hospitals. A group of 38 Haitians currently completing medical internships in Cuba returned to their homeland to assist in the relief efforts, along with an additional three Cuban surgical teams. The Associated Press reported on January 20 that Ena Zizi, a 69 year-old pulled from the rubble after a week, was taken to the Cuban hospital for treatment. Reportedly, Cuban teams are working 18-hour shifts in order to save as many of the injured as possible.
Meanwhile, in the most poignant outpouring of compassion for the Haitian people, Palestinians—themselves no strangers to widespread death and destruction—lined up at the Red Cross headquarters in Gaza to donate toiletries, toys, sweets and blankets. Unfortunately, none of the goods will be shipped to Haiti due to the Israeli siege. Some Gazans were able to donate money, apparently the only commodity allowed to leave the Strip.
While ignoring the contributions of political and ideological rivals, American media gave Israel special recognition at every turn. The field hospital set up by the Israeli army warranted an entire segment of NBC’s nightly newscast on January 19. One senior Israeli officer stated “If we save one life, it’s as if we save the whole world.”
So let us get this straight: it is imperative to give Israelis singular credit in saving Haitian children, while ignoring the fact that last year’s assault on Gaza killed hundreds of children and maimed thousands more, not to mention the 360 Lebanese children slaughtered during Israel’s 2006 offensive.
With the American media locked in fierce competition as to who could lavish the most praise on the Israeli military for saving Haiti, another disaster was brewing in Gaza. Israeli officials opened the Al-Wadi dam east of Gaza in the wake of torrential rainfall in the region, flooding the refugee camp of Al-Nusseirat, Johr al-Deek village and al-Mughraqa, a suburb of Gaza City. Villagers provided eyewitness accounts that Israeli forces stationed in the area opened the dam without warning and without coordination with Palestinian civil agencies. Media outlets from Brunei to China to Iran reported the disaster.
According to China’s Xinhua news agency, Israel had constructed the dam to hoard rain water, depriving Gazan farms and villages of this precious resource for years. As the dam was opened, houses that had been built along the dried-up ditch were inundated with flood waters, displacing approximately 100 Gazan families and drowning cattle and poultry. Palestinian Civil Defense Chief Yousef al-Zahar stated “…what happened was a deliberate act by Israel.”
Israeli officials were quick to deny opening any dams, or that a dam even existed in the area. Israel’s Eshkol regional council bordering Gaza dismissed the claims as “silly,” maintaining they knew nothing of such a dam.
Pro-Israeli bloggers took up the cries of “water libel,” adding that there were no coordinates on any map indicating the presence of a dam and that Palestinians had made up the whole story. Of course, the Israelis would do well not to acknowledge the presence of such a dam, else admit to years of denying water to Gazan farmers.
However, pictures show that the deluge in Gaza could not have resulted merely from flash flooding. According to the Israeli Meteorological Service, up to five inches of rain fell in the area. The Gaza valley where the floods occurred runs nearly five miles from its eastern border with the Jewish state, descending to the Mediterranean Sea. The downgrade would allow for more severe flooding, but not to the levels seen in Gaza. Therefore, some other factor had to contribute to such massive amounts of water rushing into the area, i.e. Israel’s opening of the Al-Wadi dam.
Another instance of Israel’s disregard for environmental consequences—even more sinister given what happened in Haiti—took place in August 2009. Israel National News reported that tremors were created in the southern Negev in a joint project with the University of Hawaii and funded by the US Department of Defense. In the experiment, Israelis detonated 80 tons of explosive material to simulate the intensity of a magnitude 3.0 earthquake. Supposedly, this will help scientists improve seismological and acoustic readings to predict future earthquakes. It was not explained why the US Department of Defense was involved.
The tragedies of Haiti and Gaza are compounded by mainstream media’s exploitation of millions of innocent people in order to promote the US and Israel’s masquerade as benevolent societies. Good works done by governments at odds with the US-Israeli agenda are ignored, maintaining contempt for the very people who should be praised. And once again, while the world’s attention is elsewhere, Israel takes the opportunity to attack Palestinian lives and livelihoods, making a bleak existence even more unbearable.
2010/01/26
2010/01/11
Letter from an Ultra-Zionist: My Exchange with Congressman John Boehner (OH-8)
I received the following letter from Congressman John Boehner (Ohio-8th District):
Dear Tammy,
Thank you for contacting me regarding our Israel. (Yes, he did use the word “our.”) It is good to hear from you.
H.Res 867 was introduced by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on October 23, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. H. Res.867 would urge the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the “Report on the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” in multilateral fora. The resolution would further consider the “Report on the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” or the Goldstone Report, to be biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy. The resolution further supports the Administration’s efforts to combat anti-Israel bias at the United Nations and reaffirms support for Israel and for Israel’s right to defend its citizens from violent militant groups and their state sponsors. This resolution passed through the House on November 3, 2009 by a vote of 344 to 36, with 22 Representatives voting present. I voted for this resolution.
I am a strong supporter of Israel and always have been. This besieged nation is the oldest democracy in the Middle East and its stability and ability to defend itself are essential to a lasting peace in the region. Israel is surrounded by many countries which have never recognized its right to exist (with the exception of Egypt and Jordan). These neighbors have gone to war with Israel five times with the sole purpose of annihilating the Jewish state and have pledged time and time again to maintain this adversarial position.
My support for Israel does not mean that I ignore the tragic loss of life on both sides. I can assure you I am closely monitoring this situation. This is a matter Congress is paying a great deal of attention to, and we will continue to suppport President Obama’s efforts to encourage and facilitate peace.
Please rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on legislation addressing this issue. Thank you again for contacting me with your thoughts. Pelase don’t hesitate to inform me of your concerns in the future. To sign up for email updates, I invite you to visit my website at http://johnboehner.house.gov/Forms/Form/?ID=89.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner
I replied with the following:
Congressman Boehner:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Palestine.
Your support of HR 867, effectively dismissing the Goldstone Report as “biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy” is appalling. Judge Richard Goldstone serves as a trustee of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is a self-proclaimed Zionist. His report concluded both Israel and Hamas committed grave breaches of international law. Therefore, claims of bias are baseless, showing how far the House of Representatives will go to whitewash Israeli war crimes.
If you define democracy as a state with an elected government, then Israel may qualify. In the broader sense--the one where democratic ideals include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people, regardless of race or religion--then Israel falls painfully short.
Israel is currently holding over 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in its jails, including women and minors. Ha’aretz, a leading Israeli newspaper, published the report of a European fact-finding mission to the prisons. It was discovered that 88 percent of the inmates were being held without formal charges, trial or hearing. Is this your idea of a democracy?
In a true democracy, freedom of religion is extended to all citizens. Israel has often denied Christian and Muslim pilgrims alike from worshipping in their respective holy sites. Muslim boys and men aged 15-40 have at times been barred from Friday prayers by Israeli authorities arbitrarily.
Moreover, it is historical fallacy to cite Arab countries as the aggressors in Israel’s wars. Prior to 1948, the Irgun and Stern gangs waged a terror campaign against British forces in Palestine, as well as targeting Palestinian civilians. The King David Hotel bombing killed 91 British personnel, injuring 45. These same gangs, led by Menachem Begin (who would later serve as Israel’s Prime Minister) massacred over 100 Palestinian men, women and children in the village of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. Small wonder that when Israel was established the following month, Arab neighbors attempted to thwart the total depopulation and subsequent obliteration of some 500 Palestinian villages, courtesy of the new Israeli army.
In October 1956, Moshe Dayan launched combined air and land assaults into Egypt’s Sinai peninsula.
In 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. It was during the six-day course of this war that Israel also attacked the USS Liberty, an American ship. Thirty-four American sailors died and an additional 172 were wounded. Israel claimed the Liberty was mistaken for the Egyptian El Quseir, a ludicrous excuse as El Quseir was 180 feet shorter and very differently configured. The Liberty had her name clearly written in English, while the Egyptian ship would have displayed Arabic script. Surviving sailors testified that it was a deliberate attack, unless you wish to doubt the words of the American servicemen you claim to so vehemently support. As an intelligence gathering vessel, Liberty was likely to intercept real time evidence of the massacres committed by Israel in the Golan Heights, enough motive to destroy the American ship.
The Yom Kippur War in 1973 stemmed from Egypt’s desire to regain the Sinai Peninsula lost in the 1967 conflict, as Syria tried to recapture the Golan Heights.
Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
It is apparent the only thing you are monitoring is the flow of money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) into your coffer. Your position itself is not surprising; however, I was shocked by your audacity to spend 42 taxpayer cents on mailing me pro-Israel propaganda. Let me make it clear that I am not buying.
Sincerely,
Tammy
Dear Tammy,
Thank you for contacting me regarding our Israel. (Yes, he did use the word “our.”) It is good to hear from you.
H.Res 867 was introduced by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on October 23, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. H. Res.867 would urge the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the “Report on the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” in multilateral fora. The resolution would further consider the “Report on the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” or the Goldstone Report, to be biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy. The resolution further supports the Administration’s efforts to combat anti-Israel bias at the United Nations and reaffirms support for Israel and for Israel’s right to defend its citizens from violent militant groups and their state sponsors. This resolution passed through the House on November 3, 2009 by a vote of 344 to 36, with 22 Representatives voting present. I voted for this resolution.
I am a strong supporter of Israel and always have been. This besieged nation is the oldest democracy in the Middle East and its stability and ability to defend itself are essential to a lasting peace in the region. Israel is surrounded by many countries which have never recognized its right to exist (with the exception of Egypt and Jordan). These neighbors have gone to war with Israel five times with the sole purpose of annihilating the Jewish state and have pledged time and time again to maintain this adversarial position.
My support for Israel does not mean that I ignore the tragic loss of life on both sides. I can assure you I am closely monitoring this situation. This is a matter Congress is paying a great deal of attention to, and we will continue to suppport President Obama’s efforts to encourage and facilitate peace.
Please rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on legislation addressing this issue. Thank you again for contacting me with your thoughts. Pelase don’t hesitate to inform me of your concerns in the future. To sign up for email updates, I invite you to visit my website at http://johnboehner.house.gov/Forms/Form/?ID=89.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner
I replied with the following:
Congressman Boehner:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Palestine.
Your support of HR 867, effectively dismissing the Goldstone Report as “biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy” is appalling. Judge Richard Goldstone serves as a trustee of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is a self-proclaimed Zionist. His report concluded both Israel and Hamas committed grave breaches of international law. Therefore, claims of bias are baseless, showing how far the House of Representatives will go to whitewash Israeli war crimes.
If you define democracy as a state with an elected government, then Israel may qualify. In the broader sense--the one where democratic ideals include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people, regardless of race or religion--then Israel falls painfully short.
Israel is currently holding over 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in its jails, including women and minors. Ha’aretz, a leading Israeli newspaper, published the report of a European fact-finding mission to the prisons. It was discovered that 88 percent of the inmates were being held without formal charges, trial or hearing. Is this your idea of a democracy?
In a true democracy, freedom of religion is extended to all citizens. Israel has often denied Christian and Muslim pilgrims alike from worshipping in their respective holy sites. Muslim boys and men aged 15-40 have at times been barred from Friday prayers by Israeli authorities arbitrarily.
Moreover, it is historical fallacy to cite Arab countries as the aggressors in Israel’s wars. Prior to 1948, the Irgun and Stern gangs waged a terror campaign against British forces in Palestine, as well as targeting Palestinian civilians. The King David Hotel bombing killed 91 British personnel, injuring 45. These same gangs, led by Menachem Begin (who would later serve as Israel’s Prime Minister) massacred over 100 Palestinian men, women and children in the village of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. Small wonder that when Israel was established the following month, Arab neighbors attempted to thwart the total depopulation and subsequent obliteration of some 500 Palestinian villages, courtesy of the new Israeli army.
In October 1956, Moshe Dayan launched combined air and land assaults into Egypt’s Sinai peninsula.
In 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. It was during the six-day course of this war that Israel also attacked the USS Liberty, an American ship. Thirty-four American sailors died and an additional 172 were wounded. Israel claimed the Liberty was mistaken for the Egyptian El Quseir, a ludicrous excuse as El Quseir was 180 feet shorter and very differently configured. The Liberty had her name clearly written in English, while the Egyptian ship would have displayed Arabic script. Surviving sailors testified that it was a deliberate attack, unless you wish to doubt the words of the American servicemen you claim to so vehemently support. As an intelligence gathering vessel, Liberty was likely to intercept real time evidence of the massacres committed by Israel in the Golan Heights, enough motive to destroy the American ship.
The Yom Kippur War in 1973 stemmed from Egypt’s desire to regain the Sinai Peninsula lost in the 1967 conflict, as Syria tried to recapture the Golan Heights.
Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
It is apparent the only thing you are monitoring is the flow of money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) into your coffer. Your position itself is not surprising; however, I was shocked by your audacity to spend 42 taxpayer cents on mailing me pro-Israel propaganda. Let me make it clear that I am not buying.
Sincerely,
Tammy
2009/12/15
The Myth of Anti-Semitism
There is no label that strikes more fear into the hearts of political figures, journalists and the general public than “Anti-Semitism.” To be labeled an “anti-Semite” can mean the end of a career, the failure of a business or being shunned by friends and colleagues.
“Anti-Semitism” is a term that was coined in Europe during the latter half of the nineteenth century. Prominent Jewish scholars used it to characterize the emerging theories that “Semitic” races were inferior to “Aryan” races. Despite the fact that Arabs are Semitic, the term is now exclusively understood to mean “prejudiced against or hostile toward Jews,” according to all major dictionaries.
A similar phenomenon occurred with the word “holocaust,” referring to the period of Nazi rule in Germany from 1933 to 1945 during which Russians, gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, political opponents of the regime and prisoners of war were systematically executed. Today, visitors to Auschwitz, one of the many concentration camps built throughout Nazi-occupied Europe, find little tribute to any group other than Jews; Israeli flags litter the grounds and signs are written in Hebrew. “Holocaust” is now exclusively understood as Jewish suffering.
The prolific Jewish writer and convert to Christianity Israel Shamir, explains the use of the Holocaust and the Anti-Semitic label in his 2001 essay “The Third Dove:”
“The Holocaust Industry is but a branch of the Anti-Semitism Manufacture, a two-pronged weapon: it pumps money from Gentiles and forces Jews into obedience to the leaders of the community.”
Shamir describes how Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) not only profit monetarily from incidents of “anti-Semitism,” but how these establishments use it to bully the rest of America into silence regarding Israeli war crimes. The anti-Semitic misnomer is used to label anyone critical of the Israeli government or expressing the least bit of sympathy for the Palestinian people.
Shamir concludes his essay, “…scoundrels still use anti-Semitism as a weapon, but now most of these scoundrels are Jewish.”
So where does anti-Semitism in America occur at present?
Certainly not in our government. While Jews comprise roughly two percent of the American population, 14 Senators and 31 House members are Jewish; almost 8 ½% of Congress. Jews have served in prominent cabinet-level and advisory positions under both Republican and Democratic presidents, often with disastrous foreign policy consequences.
Bush’s influential advisers Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and Richard Perle, strong supporters of Israel, long argued that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a critical prerequisite for Middle East peace. President Obama’s chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel, helped maintenance Israeli Army jeeps during the 1991 Gulf War. Before him, Emanuel’s father smuggled weapons to the Irgun militia, the same group responsible for the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel as well as numerous attacks on Palestinian civilians.
“Anti-Semitism” is non-existent in churches where an estimated 15-18 million Evangelicals espouse the doctrine of Christian Zionism, the guiding principal of which states all Jews must migrate to Palestine in order for Jesus Christ to return to earth. John Hagee, the founder and pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas boasts more than 19,000 active members and he is broadcast in over 200 countries. Hagee established Christians United for Israel (CUFI) which currently has 146,000 members and holds an annual “Night to Honor Israel,” coinciding with the Jewish feast of Sukkot, celebrated by his church.
It certainly doesn’t exist in our schools where material pertaining to the Holocaust is introduced to children as young as 7 and students learn Hannukah songs while traditional Christmas carols such as Silent Night are shunned as a violation of separation between church and state.
“Anti-Semitism” cannot be found at political demonstrations where police from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles allow pro-Israeli demonstrators free reign to heckle pro-Palestinian activists. Yet let a Palestinian protester confront the Israeli camp and law enforcement officials will shove, use nightsticks and threaten arrest. At a recent fundraiser for Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, an Israeli and his three year-old son approached pro-Palestinian activists; the child shouted “I hate you.” Ironically, it is the Palestinians who are maligned by Western media as teaching their children to hate.
The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is in the process of ensuring “Anti-Semitism” doesn’t exist on the Internet. Or any material critical of Israel, for that matter. The JIDF is attempting to shut down Palestinian advocacy groups on social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter. They are also flagging individual Youtube accounts for various offenses such as “uploading hateful videos” or targeting users who have “hateful videos” listed as their favorites. “Hateful videos” are those which depict last year’s assault on Gaza. The JIDF inundates the administrators of these websites with abuse reports and terms of service violations so that the accounts are shut down and videos removed. However, little to nothing is done when people post such incendiary comments such as “Nuke Mecca with pork grease” on popular message boards.
Another Internet tactic is the manipulation of search engines which list the ten most popular searches of the day. On December 11, 2009 Yahoo listed “Hannukah” as number one while “Adolph Hitler” came in at number seven. Oh my! There is so much anti-Semitism that Hitler is still the seventh most popular keyword search in Yahoo. Or so they want us to think.
Finally, anti-Semitism doesn’t exist in Bahrain, despite the fact that the nation does not recognize Israel. The Bahraini Ambassador to the United States, Houda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo, is a Jewish woman. Since her family emigrated from Iraq more than a century ago, several members of her family have had successful political careers in Bahrain, including a cousin who was appointed to parliament.
Refusal to recognize or support Israel has nothing to do with being “prejudiced against or hostile toward Jews” and everything to do with rejecting occupation, oppression and the myriad war crimes carried out by the Zionist state.
"The Third Dove" by Israel Shamir can be read in its entirety at: http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Third_Dove.htm
“Anti-Semitism” is a term that was coined in Europe during the latter half of the nineteenth century. Prominent Jewish scholars used it to characterize the emerging theories that “Semitic” races were inferior to “Aryan” races. Despite the fact that Arabs are Semitic, the term is now exclusively understood to mean “prejudiced against or hostile toward Jews,” according to all major dictionaries.
A similar phenomenon occurred with the word “holocaust,” referring to the period of Nazi rule in Germany from 1933 to 1945 during which Russians, gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, political opponents of the regime and prisoners of war were systematically executed. Today, visitors to Auschwitz, one of the many concentration camps built throughout Nazi-occupied Europe, find little tribute to any group other than Jews; Israeli flags litter the grounds and signs are written in Hebrew. “Holocaust” is now exclusively understood as Jewish suffering.
The prolific Jewish writer and convert to Christianity Israel Shamir, explains the use of the Holocaust and the Anti-Semitic label in his 2001 essay “The Third Dove:”
“The Holocaust Industry is but a branch of the Anti-Semitism Manufacture, a two-pronged weapon: it pumps money from Gentiles and forces Jews into obedience to the leaders of the community.”
Shamir describes how Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) not only profit monetarily from incidents of “anti-Semitism,” but how these establishments use it to bully the rest of America into silence regarding Israeli war crimes. The anti-Semitic misnomer is used to label anyone critical of the Israeli government or expressing the least bit of sympathy for the Palestinian people.
Shamir concludes his essay, “…scoundrels still use anti-Semitism as a weapon, but now most of these scoundrels are Jewish.”
So where does anti-Semitism in America occur at present?
Certainly not in our government. While Jews comprise roughly two percent of the American population, 14 Senators and 31 House members are Jewish; almost 8 ½% of Congress. Jews have served in prominent cabinet-level and advisory positions under both Republican and Democratic presidents, often with disastrous foreign policy consequences.
Bush’s influential advisers Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and Richard Perle, strong supporters of Israel, long argued that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a critical prerequisite for Middle East peace. President Obama’s chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel, helped maintenance Israeli Army jeeps during the 1991 Gulf War. Before him, Emanuel’s father smuggled weapons to the Irgun militia, the same group responsible for the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel as well as numerous attacks on Palestinian civilians.
“Anti-Semitism” is non-existent in churches where an estimated 15-18 million Evangelicals espouse the doctrine of Christian Zionism, the guiding principal of which states all Jews must migrate to Palestine in order for Jesus Christ to return to earth. John Hagee, the founder and pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas boasts more than 19,000 active members and he is broadcast in over 200 countries. Hagee established Christians United for Israel (CUFI) which currently has 146,000 members and holds an annual “Night to Honor Israel,” coinciding with the Jewish feast of Sukkot, celebrated by his church.
It certainly doesn’t exist in our schools where material pertaining to the Holocaust is introduced to children as young as 7 and students learn Hannukah songs while traditional Christmas carols such as Silent Night are shunned as a violation of separation between church and state.
“Anti-Semitism” cannot be found at political demonstrations where police from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles allow pro-Israeli demonstrators free reign to heckle pro-Palestinian activists. Yet let a Palestinian protester confront the Israeli camp and law enforcement officials will shove, use nightsticks and threaten arrest. At a recent fundraiser for Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, an Israeli and his three year-old son approached pro-Palestinian activists; the child shouted “I hate you.” Ironically, it is the Palestinians who are maligned by Western media as teaching their children to hate.
The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is in the process of ensuring “Anti-Semitism” doesn’t exist on the Internet. Or any material critical of Israel, for that matter. The JIDF is attempting to shut down Palestinian advocacy groups on social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter. They are also flagging individual Youtube accounts for various offenses such as “uploading hateful videos” or targeting users who have “hateful videos” listed as their favorites. “Hateful videos” are those which depict last year’s assault on Gaza. The JIDF inundates the administrators of these websites with abuse reports and terms of service violations so that the accounts are shut down and videos removed. However, little to nothing is done when people post such incendiary comments such as “Nuke Mecca with pork grease” on popular message boards.
Another Internet tactic is the manipulation of search engines which list the ten most popular searches of the day. On December 11, 2009 Yahoo listed “Hannukah” as number one while “Adolph Hitler” came in at number seven. Oh my! There is so much anti-Semitism that Hitler is still the seventh most popular keyword search in Yahoo. Or so they want us to think.
Finally, anti-Semitism doesn’t exist in Bahrain, despite the fact that the nation does not recognize Israel. The Bahraini Ambassador to the United States, Houda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo, is a Jewish woman. Since her family emigrated from Iraq more than a century ago, several members of her family have had successful political careers in Bahrain, including a cousin who was appointed to parliament.
Refusal to recognize or support Israel has nothing to do with being “prejudiced against or hostile toward Jews” and everything to do with rejecting occupation, oppression and the myriad war crimes carried out by the Zionist state.
"The Third Dove" by Israel Shamir can be read in its entirety at: http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Third_Dove.htm
2009/11/11
The Myth of the Muslim Terrorist
According to the majority of Americans, the “War on Terror” began September 11, 2001 when 19 Muslims hijacked four planes, crashing them into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. While this official version of the story, fueled by policymakers and mainstream media, ignores concrete evidence of other—distinctly non-Muslim—fingerprints on the tragedy, let us assume for the time being that these men were Islamic radicals aiming to destroy prominent American symbols and inflict mass casualties.
One of those killed in the World Trade Center was a young man named James Gadiel whose hometown of Kent, Connecticut wanted to commemorate a plaque in his honor. Since Gadiel’s father demanded the words “killed by Muslim terrorists” be engraved on the plaque, it was rejected by town council members. Ruth Epstein, one of the town leaders who voted it down, correctly pointed out that such language is disparaging, detrimental to the town’s image and hurtful to its Muslim residents.
However, “killed by Muslim terrorists” is not so offensive in that it is insensitive or promotes a negative stereotype: it is just plain inaccurate.
A “Muslim terrorist,” is a myth, a fictional character based in part on the hypocritical definition of terrorism that Western policymakers and the media have used to promote their own agenda and partly due to territorial and political conflicts being erroneously framed in a religious context. Most of the “terrorist groups” and “state sponsors of terrorism,” so named by the US State Department are reactive, formed as organized resistance in the face of oppression.
During her recent visit to Pakistan, Secretary of State Clinton condemned marketplace bombings as terrorism, while stating in a town hall meeting that US drone attacks on villages were not, even though such attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and the destruction of madrasas, religious schools for children.
Throughout the world, Muslims have had no choice but to form organized resistance to the myriad injustices committed against their communities and institutions. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran was a reaction to the Shah’s bloody regime and the CIA’s now admitted role in the coup which overthrew democratically elected (and secular) Mossadegh to put him in power. The Abu Sayyaf movement in the Philippines formed as a result of the government’s policy to encourage Catholic settlers to move from the north to Mindanao, which was richer in natural resources. Poorer Muslim communities were subsequently displaced and marginalized. Abu Sayyaf’s desire for an independent state in the southern Philippines has more to do with historical injustice (along with Spanish and American colonial influence) than religion.
The same false religious context is ascribed to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a fight between Muslims and Jews. In reality, Zionism begin as a secular movement, later establishing a state atop the mass graves of Deir Yassin, Ramleh, Acre and countless other villages decimated by the western-backed Irgun, Stern and Israeli military. In the 61 years following that disaster, the United States—founded on the principles of religious equality and freedom—has become the greatest ally of a state who has co-opted religion to justify the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, while turning survivors into the world’s largest refugee population.
Recent weeks have seen Islam’s third holiest shrine, Al-Aqsa Mosque, fall under a siege by the Israeli police, attacking worshippers therein with tear gas grenades and rubber bullets. If we really lived in the alternate universe of FOX News and AM talk radio, Muslims would be carrying out daily spectacular attacks to avenge this desecration; instead Al-Aqsa is defended by a band of youths with rocks while there is silence from Islamic countries, most of whom boast corrupt western puppets as heads of government.
The assault on Al-Aqsa is the latest outrage Muslims have endured; from genocide and strangulation by the Israeli assault on Gaza to the humiliating maltreatment suffered in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram and elsewhere. According to Newsweek, tactics used in US military prisons in Iraq include the use of loud music during interrogations; one of the most frequently played songs is entitled “F-k Your God” by Deicide, attacking their very faith itself.
However, the persecution of Muslims does not just take place overseas. On October 28, FBI agents shot Detroit imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah during a botched arrest in which they loosed a police canine on him. Abdullah fired at the dog and was subsequently shot 18 times, dying at the scene. The dog was airlifted to a medical facility where it was pronounced dead. According to the FBI, Abdullah was allegedly dealing in stolen goods and was “anti-government.”
Now as the latest violent incident involving a Muslim unfolds, Arab and Islamic advocacy groups are tripping over each other to condemn the Ft. Hood shootings. Koreans did not feel such urgency when Seung-Hui Cho murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007. The difference is, Koreans have not been the victims of a sustained media campaign to define alleged criminals on the basis of their religion or nationality. Muslims have.
For far too long, our politicians and the media have preyed on an uneducated public, attempting to turn us all into Islamophobes, fearing a Muslim takeover that will turn the United States into a caliphate. For those misguided individuals, rest easy: Muslims worldwide are too busy fighting for their very existence in a war the West declared long ago.
One of those killed in the World Trade Center was a young man named James Gadiel whose hometown of Kent, Connecticut wanted to commemorate a plaque in his honor. Since Gadiel’s father demanded the words “killed by Muslim terrorists” be engraved on the plaque, it was rejected by town council members. Ruth Epstein, one of the town leaders who voted it down, correctly pointed out that such language is disparaging, detrimental to the town’s image and hurtful to its Muslim residents.
However, “killed by Muslim terrorists” is not so offensive in that it is insensitive or promotes a negative stereotype: it is just plain inaccurate.
A “Muslim terrorist,” is a myth, a fictional character based in part on the hypocritical definition of terrorism that Western policymakers and the media have used to promote their own agenda and partly due to territorial and political conflicts being erroneously framed in a religious context. Most of the “terrorist groups” and “state sponsors of terrorism,” so named by the US State Department are reactive, formed as organized resistance in the face of oppression.
During her recent visit to Pakistan, Secretary of State Clinton condemned marketplace bombings as terrorism, while stating in a town hall meeting that US drone attacks on villages were not, even though such attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and the destruction of madrasas, religious schools for children.
Throughout the world, Muslims have had no choice but to form organized resistance to the myriad injustices committed against their communities and institutions. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran was a reaction to the Shah’s bloody regime and the CIA’s now admitted role in the coup which overthrew democratically elected (and secular) Mossadegh to put him in power. The Abu Sayyaf movement in the Philippines formed as a result of the government’s policy to encourage Catholic settlers to move from the north to Mindanao, which was richer in natural resources. Poorer Muslim communities were subsequently displaced and marginalized. Abu Sayyaf’s desire for an independent state in the southern Philippines has more to do with historical injustice (along with Spanish and American colonial influence) than religion.
The same false religious context is ascribed to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a fight between Muslims and Jews. In reality, Zionism begin as a secular movement, later establishing a state atop the mass graves of Deir Yassin, Ramleh, Acre and countless other villages decimated by the western-backed Irgun, Stern and Israeli military. In the 61 years following that disaster, the United States—founded on the principles of religious equality and freedom—has become the greatest ally of a state who has co-opted religion to justify the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, while turning survivors into the world’s largest refugee population.
Recent weeks have seen Islam’s third holiest shrine, Al-Aqsa Mosque, fall under a siege by the Israeli police, attacking worshippers therein with tear gas grenades and rubber bullets. If we really lived in the alternate universe of FOX News and AM talk radio, Muslims would be carrying out daily spectacular attacks to avenge this desecration; instead Al-Aqsa is defended by a band of youths with rocks while there is silence from Islamic countries, most of whom boast corrupt western puppets as heads of government.
The assault on Al-Aqsa is the latest outrage Muslims have endured; from genocide and strangulation by the Israeli assault on Gaza to the humiliating maltreatment suffered in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram and elsewhere. According to Newsweek, tactics used in US military prisons in Iraq include the use of loud music during interrogations; one of the most frequently played songs is entitled “F-k Your God” by Deicide, attacking their very faith itself.
However, the persecution of Muslims does not just take place overseas. On October 28, FBI agents shot Detroit imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah during a botched arrest in which they loosed a police canine on him. Abdullah fired at the dog and was subsequently shot 18 times, dying at the scene. The dog was airlifted to a medical facility where it was pronounced dead. According to the FBI, Abdullah was allegedly dealing in stolen goods and was “anti-government.”
Now as the latest violent incident involving a Muslim unfolds, Arab and Islamic advocacy groups are tripping over each other to condemn the Ft. Hood shootings. Koreans did not feel such urgency when Seung-Hui Cho murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007. The difference is, Koreans have not been the victims of a sustained media campaign to define alleged criminals on the basis of their religion or nationality. Muslims have.
For far too long, our politicians and the media have preyed on an uneducated public, attempting to turn us all into Islamophobes, fearing a Muslim takeover that will turn the United States into a caliphate. For those misguided individuals, rest easy: Muslims worldwide are too busy fighting for their very existence in a war the West declared long ago.
2009/10/12
End Israeli Exemption to International Law
Throughout the world, people have attempted to distinguish ordinary Americans from the United States government. Perhaps our complacency for aiding and abetting war crimes has been attributed to lack of education, apathy in the face of an omnipotent pro-Israeli lobby or that we are simply hapless workaholics with time for little else. Yet private citizens, either for some warped religious or political viewpoint, or through sheer ignorance often exacerbate the control pro-Israel interest groups have over American institutions.
In September, the city of Dayton, Ohio--population roughly 160,000--signed a three-year commitment to share military technology with Israel. One of the key components of the agreement is the further development of unmanned aircraft. County officials reported $350,000 in private donations was raised to contribute to this and other “economic development projects” in Israel.
The attitude of this small Midwestern city is reflective of the American nation as a whole. Sharing military technology with a nation that is known to use such technology against civilians is against international law; yet human rights take a back seat to the promise of job opportunities and economic growth at the expense of people half a world away. While Americans enjoy the freedom of unfettered Internet access and ample educational opportunities, the majority choose to remain deliberately ignorant of the law and an all but forgotten value system.
The American Society of the Red Cross offers a four-hour class on International Humanitarian Law during armed conflict, which draws its legal basis from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Ratified by all 194 of the world’s countries, the Conventions prohibit attacks on civilians and institutions such as hospitals, houses of worship and schools. They also mandate the humane treatment of sick and injured combatants as well as prisoners of war.
In 1998, the world community took additional steps to establish a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) responsible for prosecuting individuals for violations of International Humanitarian Law. Ironically, the United States did not ratify the Rome Statute which created the ICC and notified the United Nations that it will not recognize the authority of such a court.
Not coincidentally, the United States made this announcement in May 2002, less than a month after Israel’s attack on the Jenin refugee camp. Untold numbers of civilians were massacred in the onslaught and survivors were subsequently denied Red Cross and Red Crescent access, representing yet another grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Journalists were kept out in an attempt to conceal mass graves of Palestinian men, women and children from the rest of the world—crimes worthy of referral to the ICC.
Small wonder the United States, protector-in-chief of the Jewish State, chose that time to deny the court’s right to exist. Yet, as horrific as was the Jenin massacre, it served as a merely a bloody preamble to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon in 2006 and most recently, Gaza.
During Israel’s December 2008-January 2009 offensive, Gazans suffered indiscriminate attacks on civilian neighborhoods, mosques, clinics and a UN school.
The BBC reported a clinic run by Christian Aid, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical equipment, was destroyed in an Israeli missile attack. The clinic provided free health care, with specific focus on mothers and children. Its purpose was well-known, as Israeli military officials called the organization 15 minutes prior to its destruction, alleging “terrorist operations in the area.”
Civilians, particularly children, were targeted by Israeli soldiers. Dr. Ahmed Yahia, head of neurosurgery at the El-Arish hospital in Egypt told BBC News that brain scans “made it clear that a number of the child victims had been shot at close range.”
Compounding the human toll, Israel used white phosphorus and the DIME bomb, a heinous weapon causing catastrophic internal wounds and the rapid onset of cancer in those exposed to it.
The Geneva Convention calls on its signatories—all 194 of them—to prosecute war crimes. When a nation is unwilling or unable to do so, it is up to the international community to step in and apply sanctions against the offending nation.
However, when governments are unwilling to live up to their agreements, it should fall into the hands of private citizens to pressure these said governments; when private citizens are ignorant of international law, the pro-Israeli media juggernaut and corrupt politicians are all too eager to fill the vacuum.
Such was the case at the recent G-20 summit held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The United States, France and Britain called for sanctions against Iran for pursuing nuclear power, hypocritically ignoring Israel’s already hefty nuclear arsenal along with its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction.
It is time International Humanitarian Law be made an educational requirement in our public schools rather than an optional course offered intermittently. Only then will we have a citizenry capable of demanding government adherence to the Geneva Convention.
The alternative is unfolding before our very eyes: a decline in civility, the breakdown of morality and the rapidly decreasing value we place on a human life. This is the legacy the children of the world are doomed to inherit if teaching international law is not made a priority.
In September, the city of Dayton, Ohio--population roughly 160,000--signed a three-year commitment to share military technology with Israel. One of the key components of the agreement is the further development of unmanned aircraft. County officials reported $350,000 in private donations was raised to contribute to this and other “economic development projects” in Israel.
The attitude of this small Midwestern city is reflective of the American nation as a whole. Sharing military technology with a nation that is known to use such technology against civilians is against international law; yet human rights take a back seat to the promise of job opportunities and economic growth at the expense of people half a world away. While Americans enjoy the freedom of unfettered Internet access and ample educational opportunities, the majority choose to remain deliberately ignorant of the law and an all but forgotten value system.
The American Society of the Red Cross offers a four-hour class on International Humanitarian Law during armed conflict, which draws its legal basis from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Ratified by all 194 of the world’s countries, the Conventions prohibit attacks on civilians and institutions such as hospitals, houses of worship and schools. They also mandate the humane treatment of sick and injured combatants as well as prisoners of war.
In 1998, the world community took additional steps to establish a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) responsible for prosecuting individuals for violations of International Humanitarian Law. Ironically, the United States did not ratify the Rome Statute which created the ICC and notified the United Nations that it will not recognize the authority of such a court.
Not coincidentally, the United States made this announcement in May 2002, less than a month after Israel’s attack on the Jenin refugee camp. Untold numbers of civilians were massacred in the onslaught and survivors were subsequently denied Red Cross and Red Crescent access, representing yet another grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Journalists were kept out in an attempt to conceal mass graves of Palestinian men, women and children from the rest of the world—crimes worthy of referral to the ICC.
Small wonder the United States, protector-in-chief of the Jewish State, chose that time to deny the court’s right to exist. Yet, as horrific as was the Jenin massacre, it served as a merely a bloody preamble to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon in 2006 and most recently, Gaza.
During Israel’s December 2008-January 2009 offensive, Gazans suffered indiscriminate attacks on civilian neighborhoods, mosques, clinics and a UN school.
The BBC reported a clinic run by Christian Aid, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical equipment, was destroyed in an Israeli missile attack. The clinic provided free health care, with specific focus on mothers and children. Its purpose was well-known, as Israeli military officials called the organization 15 minutes prior to its destruction, alleging “terrorist operations in the area.”
Civilians, particularly children, were targeted by Israeli soldiers. Dr. Ahmed Yahia, head of neurosurgery at the El-Arish hospital in Egypt told BBC News that brain scans “made it clear that a number of the child victims had been shot at close range.”
Compounding the human toll, Israel used white phosphorus and the DIME bomb, a heinous weapon causing catastrophic internal wounds and the rapid onset of cancer in those exposed to it.
The Geneva Convention calls on its signatories—all 194 of them—to prosecute war crimes. When a nation is unwilling or unable to do so, it is up to the international community to step in and apply sanctions against the offending nation.
However, when governments are unwilling to live up to their agreements, it should fall into the hands of private citizens to pressure these said governments; when private citizens are ignorant of international law, the pro-Israeli media juggernaut and corrupt politicians are all too eager to fill the vacuum.
Such was the case at the recent G-20 summit held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The United States, France and Britain called for sanctions against Iran for pursuing nuclear power, hypocritically ignoring Israel’s already hefty nuclear arsenal along with its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction.
It is time International Humanitarian Law be made an educational requirement in our public schools rather than an optional course offered intermittently. Only then will we have a citizenry capable of demanding government adherence to the Geneva Convention.
The alternative is unfolding before our very eyes: a decline in civility, the breakdown of morality and the rapidly decreasing value we place on a human life. This is the legacy the children of the world are doomed to inherit if teaching international law is not made a priority.
2009/08/10
The King-Crane Commission: Required Reading Buried Under 100 Years of Zionist Propaganda
“Down with American Imperialists.” This sign, or one of its variations, can be seen at protests and demonstratons throughout the world. U.S. policies have given credence to it, fueling legitimate hatred in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and others victimized by America’s lust for oil and support of the Israeli military juggernaut. Yet less than 100 years ago, the United States was admired in the global arena as a bastion of justice and freedom. Furthermore, Zionism—the belief that all Jews are entitled to a “homeland” in Palestine—was condemned in an official document.
The King-Crane Commission is relatively unknown, buried under a century of Zionist propaganda and attempts to discredit Dr. Henry Churchill King and Charles R. Crane as Nazi sympathizers. On the contrary, Dr. King was one of the best known educators of his time and served as the director of religious work for the YMCA in France. Mr. Crane was selected as part of a special diplomatic mission to Russia and was U.S. Ambassador to Chinafrom 1920-1921. In 1919, after World War I and the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, President Woodrow Wilson apppointed King and Crane to head the Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey.
King and Crane’s mission was to record the wishes of the people in the former Ottoman territories regarding their desired form of government and the degree to which outside intervention would be accepted. President Woodrow Wilson’s July 4, 1918 address provided the backdrop for their objective:
“The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.”
It was in this spirit that King and Crane had embarked on their 42-day tour of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Asia Minor. The commission conducted conferences throughout the region, gathering opinions on such topics as territorial limits, independence, form of government, choice of mandate and Zionism.
The King and Crane Commission examined responses from religious, political and social/economic organizations and found overwhelming support among the Muslim population in Syria for an American mandate, as opposed to Britain or France, should it be determined that the fledgling government needed external assistance. The reasoning behind this preference was summarized in the final report as “…the nearly universal recognition of the fact that America sought no additional territory…” Article 4 of the General Syrian Congress, convened that same summer in Damascus, supported their finding:
“…And desiring that our country should not fall a prey to colonization and believing that the American Nation is farthest from any thought of colonization and has no political ambition in our country, we will seek the technical and economic assistance from the United States of America…”
While there was some disagreement in the territories as to the choice of mandate, there was nearly universal opposition to Zionism. The General Syrian Congress unanimously passed articles opposing partitioning Palestine from the rest of Syria. Leaders at that time grasped all too well the strategy of “divide and conquer”; they also understood the Zionist ambitions of setting aside Palestine as future Jewish state.
Prior to their journey, King and Crane had been lobbied by pro-Zionist groups and were, by their own admisstion, “pre-disposed in its favor.” However, during conferences with local Jewish representatives, it became apparent that their goal was the “practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine by various forms of purchase.”
Further investigation revealed something far more sinister than acquiring the land by mere “purchase.” Statements made by British officials increased the commissioners’ misgivings about the entire Zionist project. In their final recommendations, King and Crane wrote:
“No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program…Decisions requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary. But they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interest of a serious injustice.”
King and Crane also took into consideration the status of holy sites in Palestine: “The places which are most sacred to Christians—those having to do with Jesus—and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them.” The Commissioners went on to reason that it was neither logical nor prudent to place these most holy sites in the control of a Jewish authority.
Finally, King and Crane concluded that the implementation of the Zionist plan would be contrary to the aforementioned principle outlined by President Wilson, whereby nations have a right to self-determination free from external pressure. Nine-tenths of the population surveyed, including Muslim and Christian groups, were against Zionism. Their final recommendation read “…This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.”
It is nothing short of tragic that in the 90 years since the King-Crane Commission, subsequent American leaders have abandoned the principles which led President Wilson to embark on that diplomatic effort in the first place. The common sense and mutually beneficial policy of non-intervention was rejected in favor of big oil and strategic interests. The opportunity to forge an allegiance with emerging governments eager for freedom and self-determination was squandered in favor of the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing and genocide, from Deir Yassin to Lebanon to Gaza. And America will continue to pay the price.
The entire King-Crane Commission Report can be read at: http://www.atour.com/government/un/20040205g.html
The King-Crane Commission is relatively unknown, buried under a century of Zionist propaganda and attempts to discredit Dr. Henry Churchill King and Charles R. Crane as Nazi sympathizers. On the contrary, Dr. King was one of the best known educators of his time and served as the director of religious work for the YMCA in France. Mr. Crane was selected as part of a special diplomatic mission to Russia and was U.S. Ambassador to Chinafrom 1920-1921. In 1919, after World War I and the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, President Woodrow Wilson apppointed King and Crane to head the Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey.
King and Crane’s mission was to record the wishes of the people in the former Ottoman territories regarding their desired form of government and the degree to which outside intervention would be accepted. President Woodrow Wilson’s July 4, 1918 address provided the backdrop for their objective:
“The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.”
It was in this spirit that King and Crane had embarked on their 42-day tour of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Asia Minor. The commission conducted conferences throughout the region, gathering opinions on such topics as territorial limits, independence, form of government, choice of mandate and Zionism.
The King and Crane Commission examined responses from religious, political and social/economic organizations and found overwhelming support among the Muslim population in Syria for an American mandate, as opposed to Britain or France, should it be determined that the fledgling government needed external assistance. The reasoning behind this preference was summarized in the final report as “…the nearly universal recognition of the fact that America sought no additional territory…” Article 4 of the General Syrian Congress, convened that same summer in Damascus, supported their finding:
“…And desiring that our country should not fall a prey to colonization and believing that the American Nation is farthest from any thought of colonization and has no political ambition in our country, we will seek the technical and economic assistance from the United States of America…”
While there was some disagreement in the territories as to the choice of mandate, there was nearly universal opposition to Zionism. The General Syrian Congress unanimously passed articles opposing partitioning Palestine from the rest of Syria. Leaders at that time grasped all too well the strategy of “divide and conquer”; they also understood the Zionist ambitions of setting aside Palestine as future Jewish state.
Prior to their journey, King and Crane had been lobbied by pro-Zionist groups and were, by their own admisstion, “pre-disposed in its favor.” However, during conferences with local Jewish representatives, it became apparent that their goal was the “practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine by various forms of purchase.”
Further investigation revealed something far more sinister than acquiring the land by mere “purchase.” Statements made by British officials increased the commissioners’ misgivings about the entire Zionist project. In their final recommendations, King and Crane wrote:
“No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program…Decisions requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary. But they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interest of a serious injustice.”
King and Crane also took into consideration the status of holy sites in Palestine: “The places which are most sacred to Christians—those having to do with Jesus—and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them.” The Commissioners went on to reason that it was neither logical nor prudent to place these most holy sites in the control of a Jewish authority.
Finally, King and Crane concluded that the implementation of the Zionist plan would be contrary to the aforementioned principle outlined by President Wilson, whereby nations have a right to self-determination free from external pressure. Nine-tenths of the population surveyed, including Muslim and Christian groups, were against Zionism. Their final recommendation read “…This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.”
It is nothing short of tragic that in the 90 years since the King-Crane Commission, subsequent American leaders have abandoned the principles which led President Wilson to embark on that diplomatic effort in the first place. The common sense and mutually beneficial policy of non-intervention was rejected in favor of big oil and strategic interests. The opportunity to forge an allegiance with emerging governments eager for freedom and self-determination was squandered in favor of the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing and genocide, from Deir Yassin to Lebanon to Gaza. And America will continue to pay the price.
The entire King-Crane Commission Report can be read at: http://www.atour.com/government/un/20040205g.html
2009/07/21
Obama: What Change?
Congratulations to President Barack Obama for duping the Arab and Muslim community in America yet again with another hollow speech. He became the darling of many by opening his recent Cairo address with “Assalamu Aleikum.” So he is better at languages and public relations than G.W. Bush. Other than that, there is little difference between the two administrations.
First, there is the matter of closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Obama has backpedaled on the issue of releasing photos of prisoner abuse citing it would “enflame anti-American sentiment.” Sound familiar? Then there is the manufactured red tape regarding which country will take the detainees once they are released. Common sense dictates they should be dropped off wherever U.S. soldiers captured them before unlawfully whisking them away to an overseas limbo.
If Obama supporters can stop fist-bumping long enough at their success in bringing hope and change to the masses, they might have time to raise these points and also question the status of detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, America’s new Guantanamo. If they get around to it, maybe they can also ask why Obama (like Bush in the beginning of his first term) pay lip service to the idea of a Palestinian state without holding the Israelis accountable for their actions.
In Cairo, Obama stood lamenting how “terrorists” could fire rockets at sleeping children in Sderot without one word as to the utter devastation and carnage visited on Gaza by Israeli Occupation Forces less than six months ago. Not a single word. Obama never mentioned the 1,500 Palestinian men, women and children that were murdered, not to mention the thousands of mutilated wounded: amputees, burn victims and those who simply died due to lack of equipment, electricity and medicine during the Israeli-imposed blockade.
It is frustrating when supporters of a Palestinian state—to be built on less than 20% of historical Palestine—express hope in Obama’s empty rhetoric against Israeli settlement construction, while Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu states that Jerusalem will be the undivided capital of “Israel” and that there will be no Palestinian military. No military with a hostile nuclear neighbor? The scenario would be laughable except that so many are buying into it.
To add insult to injury, Obama followed up his Cairo visit with a tour of Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany. Nothing plays into Zionist spin better than tying a visit to the Arab World with a Nazi concentration camp. Obama is smart enough to know that, and with quintessential opportunism, he invoked the Holocaust at every turn during that visit and later at the D-Day commemoration in France.
Obama also used these occasions to launch a verbal attack against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad for his “threats” against the Jewish State, mostly created when western media mistranslated and misrepresented his words. Also appearing at Buchenwald, fellow opportunist Elie Wiesel recited a litany of man’s inhumanity to man in the decades since WWII. After Rwanda and Darfur, the massacre in Gaza was blatantly omitted yet again.
So while Obama enthusiasts talk about hope, change, and what a pleasant departure from the Bush-Cheney era the last few months have been, nothing has changed on the ground.
Ask a villager in Waziristan if she has seen any change since Obama’s inauguration. Has she seen any respite from drone attacks and do she and her children sleep any more easily?
Ask Mohammad Ahmad Abdallah Salih, who was detained at Guantanamo Bay for over seven years with no charges if he saw any change from the endless torture of being held indefinitely. Did a brief surge of hope rise up in his chest as Obama pledged to close the facility? We will never know what Salih hoped and dreamed; he killed himself on June 2.
It is high time we step up the pressure on Obama and not let him get away with the double-talk, smokescreens and blatant lies which got him elected in the first place.
First, there is the matter of closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Obama has backpedaled on the issue of releasing photos of prisoner abuse citing it would “enflame anti-American sentiment.” Sound familiar? Then there is the manufactured red tape regarding which country will take the detainees once they are released. Common sense dictates they should be dropped off wherever U.S. soldiers captured them before unlawfully whisking them away to an overseas limbo.
If Obama supporters can stop fist-bumping long enough at their success in bringing hope and change to the masses, they might have time to raise these points and also question the status of detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, America’s new Guantanamo. If they get around to it, maybe they can also ask why Obama (like Bush in the beginning of his first term) pay lip service to the idea of a Palestinian state without holding the Israelis accountable for their actions.
In Cairo, Obama stood lamenting how “terrorists” could fire rockets at sleeping children in Sderot without one word as to the utter devastation and carnage visited on Gaza by Israeli Occupation Forces less than six months ago. Not a single word. Obama never mentioned the 1,500 Palestinian men, women and children that were murdered, not to mention the thousands of mutilated wounded: amputees, burn victims and those who simply died due to lack of equipment, electricity and medicine during the Israeli-imposed blockade.
It is frustrating when supporters of a Palestinian state—to be built on less than 20% of historical Palestine—express hope in Obama’s empty rhetoric against Israeli settlement construction, while Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu states that Jerusalem will be the undivided capital of “Israel” and that there will be no Palestinian military. No military with a hostile nuclear neighbor? The scenario would be laughable except that so many are buying into it.
To add insult to injury, Obama followed up his Cairo visit with a tour of Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany. Nothing plays into Zionist spin better than tying a visit to the Arab World with a Nazi concentration camp. Obama is smart enough to know that, and with quintessential opportunism, he invoked the Holocaust at every turn during that visit and later at the D-Day commemoration in France.
Obama also used these occasions to launch a verbal attack against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad for his “threats” against the Jewish State, mostly created when western media mistranslated and misrepresented his words. Also appearing at Buchenwald, fellow opportunist Elie Wiesel recited a litany of man’s inhumanity to man in the decades since WWII. After Rwanda and Darfur, the massacre in Gaza was blatantly omitted yet again.
So while Obama enthusiasts talk about hope, change, and what a pleasant departure from the Bush-Cheney era the last few months have been, nothing has changed on the ground.
Ask a villager in Waziristan if she has seen any change since Obama’s inauguration. Has she seen any respite from drone attacks and do she and her children sleep any more easily?
Ask Mohammad Ahmad Abdallah Salih, who was detained at Guantanamo Bay for over seven years with no charges if he saw any change from the endless torture of being held indefinitely. Did a brief surge of hope rise up in his chest as Obama pledged to close the facility? We will never know what Salih hoped and dreamed; he killed himself on June 2.
It is high time we step up the pressure on Obama and not let him get away with the double-talk, smokescreens and blatant lies which got him elected in the first place.
Inscription à :
Messages (Atom)
