Search This Blog

Sunday, October 31, 2010

One Democratic State In Palestine: A Pending, Undeniable Reality

Picture By Ruqayyah Chamseddine
30/10/2010 By Ruqayyah Chamseddine

Building on the Madrid, Boston, and Haifa conferences, a select group of activists from a variety of backgrounds convened last weekend in Dallas, Texas in order to implement an international project - to pass a declaration which professes the need for creating a single democratic state in what is now occupied Palestine.

The declaration is unlike anything else written; a plethora of more mainstream proposals speak in representation of the people of Palestine, neglecting to give them room to voice their grievances and necessities. For too long the Palestinians have been forced to remain bystanders, watching with hands bound as others negotiate on their behalf.

The One Democratic State in Palestine Declaration emphasizes a vital alternative, placing the occupied and subjugated people of Palestine in a position to create a new beginning for not only one another but for those who once lived amongst them as brothers and sisters, the Jewish people: “We the people of Palestine [...] call on all who value justice and peace to join us in a movement to establish one democratic state in Palestine that can serve all its people equally.”

The ODS conference in Dallas, Texas gathered within its vast walls Arabs and Jews, Muslims and Christians, Agnostics and Atheists. In league with those elsewhere we assembled in order to affirm the Declaration of the Movement for One Democratic State in Palestine and debate and agree on a plan of action.

The objectives of the One Democratic State in Palestine Movement:

● The creation of a unified one democratic state in Mandate Palestine.
● Repudiate Zionism and eliminate all forms of discrimination and segregation and end violence, militarism, and warfare.
● Unify Jewish Israelis and Palestinians in a shared non-ethnic democratic state in Palestine.
● Restore Palestinian inalienable rights in Palestine and to compensate Palestinians for their pain and suffering.
● Establish an international solidarity movement, composed of individuals and organizations, to organize and spearhead efforts to realize the objectives of one democratic state in Palestine.

Speakers included:

Dr.Mazin Qumsiyeh, Palestinian author and expert on Palestinian refugee rights, who spoke to us via video from occupied Palestine.
Lenni Brenner, Jewish anti-Zionist author of Zionism in the Age of the Dictators.
Gilad Atzmon, Israeli-born British jazz musician and anti-Zionist political activist and writer, who spoke to us from Britain.
Paul Hershfield, co-founding member of the Campaign to End Israeli Apartheid, Southern California. Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton University.
Virginia Tilley, professor of political science, author of The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock, who spoke to us from South Africa.

The Aims and Accomplishments of The conference were as Follows:

● Affirming the Declaration.
● Clarifying the principles and goals of the Declaration.
● Developing an honest discussion on the Declaration.
● Establishing a mechanism to discuss, incorporate and follow up on issues of concern to the Declaration that have been discussed during the conference.

The conference went beyond holding a conventional dialogue on what is best for the Palestinians and what should be done in order for them to live as they once did in the land of their ancestors - it’s aspirations included abolishing middle-man diplomacy, most commonly associated with the US led ‘peace-talks’.

Attendee of the ODS Conference Haitham Zabri, activist and head of the Palestine Online Store, expressed that it was “...inspiring and uplifting to be around this small group of committed activists who are determined to push the cause of one democratic state with equal rights for all. This conference was the cornerstone of a movement that will inevitably snowball to build a universal consensus that all humans are entitled to equal rights and that one democratic state is the only durable solution for Palestine.” The Movement for One Democratic State in Palestine (ODS) concluded its inaugural convention on October 24, 2010 in Dallas, Texas.

The event was a resounding success, cultivating the Movement’s three objectives:
● Adopt the Declaration of the Movement for One Democratic State in Palestine,
● Establish and launch the Movement for One Democratic State in Palestine, and
● Approve a 5 year Action Plan for the Movement.

So, as the Declaration profoundly states, “..on this platform, with our international friends and allies, we commit ourselves to restore justice to the people by establishing a unitary democratic state in Palestine in which all citizens can live in security, peace, equality and freedom. We firmly believe that this great accomplishment will stand as a monument to humanity’s capacity to overcome the legacy of bitter strife; move all peoples of the world to reject beliefs of ethnic supremacy and separation; and inspire people everywhere to work with new hope and energy to create societies, nations and states that defend and secure equality, dignity and human rights for all.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Who is trying to bluff the Palestinians?

A critical view of Alan Hart’s proposal to Palestinians

By Nahida the Exiled Palestinian
Alan Hart, a friend and supporter of Palestine, invited ALL Palestinians, at home and in Diaspora with all their political shades, factions and affiliations to unite and “call israel’s bluff”

July 27, 2010
He writes: (emphasis mine)
“They could do so with a joint Fatah-Hamas statement to something like this effect:
“We cannot and will not recognise Israel’s “right” to exist because it has no such right, but we are a pragmatic people and we hereby declare that we are prepared to recognise and live in permanent peace with the reality of an Israel inside its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war, with Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states… We further declare that our pragmatism extends to accepting that the right of the dispossessed Palestinians to return must and will be confined to the Palestinian state, which means that many of those who wish to return will have to settle for compensation for the loss of their homes and their land.”

Alan Hart recapitulates:

The point of the article above is only that I believe the Palestinian leadership should now say, in the most explicit terms, that most Palestinians are still prepared to live in permanent peace with an Israel inside its pre-1967 borders."

Our friend wants the Palestinians to attest their good-intention publicly, once and for all and demonstrate to the world and to the occupiers of their lands that they are only interested in peace, they "should" reassure their rapist murderers, "in the most explicit terms" that they want to "live in permanent peace" with a "Jewish state" encroached over 80% of their land!! In other words, Palestinians are strongly advised by our friend to pull their acts together, organize, unite and hurry up, sign the statement he prepared for them in which they sign off permanently their RIGHTS to their OWN historic land of Palestine. Furthermore, he wants the Palestinians to declare publicly and permanently that they are giving up their right of return!

These are precisely the demands of our enemy!
Total Surrender, nothing less nothing more, and that’s at a time when the Palestinian struggle and resistance are finally gaining global support and momentum.

By doing so, Mr. Hart reflects better his domain of interest and expertise; namely zionists and “israelis”, but not Palestine or Palestinians.
Had he any real knowledge of Palestinians, he would’ve known that Palestinians do NOT surrender.

More than a century of struggle, sacrifices and extreme anguish did not weaken their fortitude to resist, nor did it destroy or even abate their aim of return and of the liberation of all of Palestine.

Now, the question is:

Why Palestinians should NEVER recognize “israel”?


Why REAL friends of Palestine should NEVER insist or even ask that Palestinians recognize “israel”?

Amazingly enough, Alan Hart’s own articles prove that he knows perfectly well the answer to those questions; but he apparently assumes that Palestinians have a memory span of a fish!
On Oct 16th, 2009, he wrote: (emphasis mine)

legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not and cannot take from the Palestinians by force.”
“The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.”

On one hand, Mr. Hart acknowledges that “israel” has no right to exist unless explicitly recognized and legitimized by the Palestinians -ONLY the Palestinians, and he also acknowledges that “israel” is craving for this recognition.

On the other hand, Mr. Hart now volunteers, on the bases of his good name, to obtain that recognition by temptation and persuasion, regardless of the miscarriage of justice that would cause, and the irreversible harm this would inflect on Palestinians.

To this effect, it is with condescension that he makes the misleading demand that ALL Palestinians should on his say-so show pragmatism and unite to recognize and legitimize the Jewish state on 80% of their land.

What would Palestinians lose if they accept Mr. Hart’s proposal? what is in there in his scheme for Palestinians?

What would happen if ALL Palestinians including Hamas and the Diaspora are CONNED into recognising “israel” within the 1967 borders, (under the pretext of “calling israel’s bluff”)?

There are two outcomes:

At best; the conscience of the “israeli” occupiers would suddenly be awakened and they would accept the Palestinian offer, in which case the Palestinians would’ve signed off their right of return, and signed away 80% of their historic land of Palestine, forever!

And at worst; the zionists would just continue to ignore the Palestinians and their lawful demands, and would clutch onto the ONLY document that would give them the legal power to legitimize their entity, namely the surrender of the Palestinians to their occupiers to achieve complete and final take over the entire land of Palestine!

By being aware that “israel’s” legitimacy is unobtainable by force, and nevertheless suggest the Palestinians should call “israel’s” bluff, i.e. recognise it within the 1967 borders, Mr. Hart in effect volunteers to achieve for the zionists the “legitimacy” they are craving for, through a final and comprehensive declaration of recognition and legitimization of the Jewish state from those very oppressed and dispossessed, the ONLY ones who could grant that legitimacy to the criminal state.
Whether at best naïve, or at worst cunning and deceptive, Mr. Hart’s suggestion would leave all Palestinian losing everything with absolutely nothing to gain.

Furthermore, under the double pretext of realism and extreme disproportion of power, Alan Hart uses intimidation to blackmail Palestinians with his “knowledge” of the “seriousness” of the zionist threat of nuclear annihilation;

“Always in my own mind is what Prime Minister Golda Meir said to me in a BBC Panorama interview and from which I quote in my book – in a doomsday situation Israel “would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it.””
It appears that Mr. Hart uses the carrot and the stick to bring Palestinians to line and trap them to surrender their rights and land, once and for all.

Knowingly or unknowingly, Mr. Hart is doing a great job on behalf of our oppressors.

His proposal serves nothing but to finalize the zionist project by achieving the permanent Jewish conquest of Palestine.

Incidentally, terminating the Palestinian human right to return to their homeland, trampling over the souls of millions who raised the banner of freedom for over a century, trashing and thrashing their sacrifices is not much of a concern to Mr. Hart.

What he worries most about is to prevent the rise of anti-Semitism, and to secure the permanent presence of a Jewish state on the occupied land of Palestine, be it as it may at the cost of slaughtering justice at the alter of the “Chosen”, and extinguishing the candle of freedom in the service of the “Light unto nations”

Mr. Hart’s proposal would trap Palestinians to become an archetype of disintegration and worse, it would offer the jurisprudential grounds justifying future wars of conquest and aggression.

What a stark contrast with the pertinent, insightful and astute suggestion offered with great sincerity by Dr. Francis Boyle, expert in International Law

"The Palestinians must sign nothing and let Israel collapse!"

With all due respect, I wonder if by enticing Palestinians to “call israel’s bluff”, was Mr. Hart trying to bluff the Palestinians?

Nahida Izzat is a Jerusalem-born Palestinian refugee who has lived in exile for over forty two years, after being forced to leave her homeland at the tender age of seven in 1967, during the six-day war. She has a degree in mathematics, but art is one of her favorite pastimes. She loves hand-made things and so makes dolls, cards, and most of her own clothes. She also writes poetry, participates in written dialogues and believes in building bridges, not walls.
She started writing when her friends insisted she should write about her memories, experiences and feelings as a Palestinian.When she did it all came out sounding—she was told—like poetry! So she self-published two books: I Believe in Miracles and Palestine, The True Story.

Her dream is to return back home to a free and liberated Palestine.

If you like poetry and are intrigued by the notion of helping the Palestinian people and learning more, you can purchase Nahida's books, I Believe in Miracles and Palestine, The True Story by visiting:
I Believe in Miracles: a Collection of Palestinian Poems
ISBN 13: 9780954839109 ISBN 10: 0954839102
£12.99 paperback Nahida Izzat (2004)
You can write to Nahida :


Dear Debbie Manon passed to me this article written by Alan Hart, Mr. Hart did a great Job in exposing Zionism as the rael ememy of the Jews. I have no problem with the Jews of the world, as long as they continue to live where they live.
My problem is with the Zionist entity occupying my, and its ongoing crimes against my people.
My problem with Alan is is his "Peace conspiracis", and contradictions."

On July 27 he wrote, "I believe the Palestinian leadership should now say, in the most explicit terms, that most Palestinians are still prepared to live in permanent peace with an Israel inside its pre-1967 borders.". I assume a man who acted as a link between Arafat and Peres, is aware that Arafat did that in Oslo.

On Sept 4 he concluded that when Obama launched his push for peace, the Zionist state was already a monster beyond control.

On Sept 8 Alan  seconded Fredman's to invite Netanyahu to Riyadh, which I considered a call for Puppet Arab regimes to surrender, after the Surrender of their Master.  

On Sept 16 Alan asked "Will future historians conclude that the Palestinian diaspora betrayed its occupied and oppressed brothers and sisters?". I believe Palestinian diapora are starving to get engaged to help their occpied brothers and sisters, and prevent selling out their right of return, the same applies to their brothers and sisters in 1948 starving for equality, for helping their occpied brothers and sisters in WB and Gaza, and now fighting for their right to stay on their Land.

On Sept 25 Alan considered Obama speaks at the UN, a Goodbye to peace

On Oct 10 "Will Arab leaders ever learn how to play their cards (if only to best protect their own longer term, real interests)?" Alan asked "I fear not." he answered.

On Oct 16 In the third he hailed the Traitor's challaging the Zionist Entity: Yes indeed, show us all the map! "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." he said, he ignored the core Issue: Recognitian of Israel as a Jewish state and its tragic impact on the Uprooted Palestinian's Right of Return and the Abab 48 Right to Stay.
Surprised with Lieberman's the “Go to hell” reponse to Abed Rabbo's "challenge", Alan (I mean Miko Peled) found it: “ZIONISM AND PEACE ARE INCOMPATIBLE”,

Mr. Hart is crydtal clear, afraid that anti-Israelism "will be transformed into anti-Semitism if the Westerners among whom most Jews live are not educated to understand the difference." between zionism and Judaism" Driven by his fear from the expected trasformation, the power balance on ground, the awesome power of the Zionist lobby, Arab betrayal, and the nuecular entity, he calls for the total Palestinian/Arab surrender, and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, otherwise,Israel will send "the rest of the world can go to hell!" as Mother Israel assured him.

Alan wants to "stop the countdown to Armageddon.", at the expense of the Palestinian Rights. I am connecting the dots, not putting the words on his tongue,

In his interview with a publisher he said his  message to diaspora Jews "hold Israel to account and, by so doing, prevent the monster of anti-Semitism from going on the rampage again and stop the countdown to Armageddon. How can they do that’? By making common cause with the rational half (more or less) of their co-religionists in Israel – for the purpose of de-Zionising Israel, by which I mean turning it from being a Zionist state into a Jewish state; a state in which the most powerful force would be the moral principles of Judaism."
That is his messgae to Jews, what is his message to Palestine Diaspora and Non-Jewish citizens of Israel ( Mean Arab48):  “Go to hell”

Finally, my message to Alan:  We say in Arabic, "People of Mecca know better its topography أهل مكة ادرى بشعابها", You are also under Zionist Occupation, the occupation RUPERT MURDOCH, and Chabads occupying the Hub of World Power, So pls spare your efforts and energy (Like, William A. Cook, Gordon Duff, Gilad Atzmon, and many others) to kill the real monistor and liberate yourself from Golda Picture (Your insurance policy).

In doing so, you help in preventing the  transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism, and also you help in stopping the countdown to Armageddon.


- 30. Oct, 2010

It is true that in the eyes of many if not most peoples of the world (and probably many of their governments behind closed doors) Israel is increasingly being seen as a pariah state. But that’s a consequence of Israel’s policies and actions, war crimes and all.

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.

In his speech Murdoch said his own perspective on the evil of anti-Semitism was “simple”. He put it this way (my emphasis added): “We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews. For the first decades after Israel’s founding, this war was conventional in nature.

The goal was straightforward – to use military force to overrun Israel.” That was Murdoch’s carefully understated way of endorsing Zionism’s assertion that for the first decades of its life Israel lived in danger of annihilation, the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. As I document in detail through the three volumes of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Israel’s existence was never, ever, in danger from any combination of Arab force.

Zionism’s assertion to the contrary was the cover that allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most (in America and Western Europe) with presenting its aggression as self-defense and itself as the victim when, actually, it was and is the oppressor. The main event during the period in which Murdoch asserted that the Arabs were trying to “overrun” Israel was the 1967 war. Zionism’s story of it, which the mainstream media still peddles to this day, is that Israel went to war either because the Arabs attacked first or were intending to attack. Both, the either and the or, are Zionist propaganda nonsense.

It was a war of Israeli aggression. I don’t expect Murdoch to pay any attention to what the Gentile me has to say on the subject, but if he is not an agent of Zionist deception (i.e. if he is merely ignorant), he ought to consider what various Israeli leaders have said. I quote them in America Takes Sides, War With Nasser Act II and the Creation of Greater Israel, Chapter 1 of Volume Three the American edition of my book, which is sub-titled Conflict Without End?
I preface the quotes of Israeli leaders with this observation.
“If the statement that the Arabs were not intending to attack Israel and that the existence of the Jewish state was not in danger was only that of a goy, it could be dismissed by Zionists as anti-Semitic conjecture. In fact the truth the statement represents was admitted by some of the key Israeli players – after the war, of course. Before we look at what actually happened in 1967 and why, here is a short summary of some pertinent, post-war Israeli confessions.”
In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar contained the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
On 4 April 1972, General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff, was quoted in Ma’ariv as follows: “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Days war, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”
In the same Israeli newspaper on the same day, General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations during the war and a nephew of Chaim Weizman, was quoted as saying: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”
In the spring of 1972, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, addressed a political literary club in Tel Aviv. He said: “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.” In a radio debate Peled said: “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” He added that “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”
In the same program Chaim Herzog (former DMI, future Israeli Ambassador to the UN and President of his state) said: “There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.”
On 3 June 1972 Peled was even more explicit in an article of his own for Le Monde. He wrote: “All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defense’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”
The preference of some generals for truth-telling after the event provoked something of a debate in Israel, but it was short-lived. If some Israeli journalists had had their way, the generals would have kept their mouths shut. Weizman was one of those approached with the suggestion that he and others who wanted to speak out should “not exercise their inalienable right to free speech lest they prejudice world opinion and the Jewish diaspora against Israel.”

It is not surprising that debate in Israel was shut down before it led to some serious soul-searching about the nature of the state and whether it should continue to live by the lie as well as the sword; but it is more than remarkable, I think, that the mainstream Western media continues to prefer the convenience of the Zionist myth to the reality of what happened in 1967 and why. When reporters and commentators have need today to make reference to the Six Days War, they still tell it like the Zionists said it was in 1967 rather than how it really was.

Obviously there are still limits to how far the mainstream media is prepared to go in challenging the Zionist account of history, but it could also be that lazy journalism is a factor in the equation. For those journalists, lazy or not, who might still have doubts about who started the Six Days War, here’s a quote from what Prime Minister Begin said in an unguarded, public moment in 1982. 

In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

My own favourite Israeli quote is the one I use to draw the Prologue to Volume One of my book to a conclusion. In 1980 I had a number of conversations with the best and the brightest of Israel’s Directors of Military Intelligence, Major General (then retired) Sholmo Gazit. Over coffee one morning I said to him: “I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s all a myth. Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger.” He replied: “The trouble with us Israelis is that we’ve become the victims of our own propaganda.”

In his speech to the ADL dinner, Murdoch said that phase two of the “ongoing war against the Jews” (after the failure to “overrun” Israel by force) was “terrorism” He seems to have no idea of reality on this front either. One of a number of summary truths about terrorism is this. In Palestine that became Israel, it was the Zionists who turned to terrorism first – to drive out the occupying British and then the indigenous Arabs.

 Murdoch spoke of the terrorists targeting Israelis at home and broad – “from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada.”

Fact: All but two of the Israeli athletes in Munich were killed by German security forces after Israeli Defense Minister Dayan insisted, against Prime Minister Golda Meir’s own best judgement, on a shoot-out to prevent a negotiated end to the hostage drama. Fact: The second intifada, which PLO Chairman Arafat was doing his best to prevent, was provoked by Ariel Sharon to improve his prospects of becoming prime minister by seeing off a challenge from Netanyahu.

A second summary truth about Palestinian terrorism is this. The Palestinians were not and are not “at war with the Jews”. Black September’s Munich operation, for example, was terrorism for a public relations purpose – to draw the attention of the world to the fact that the Palestinians existed, were occupied and oppressed and in need of some justice.

A summary truth about general Arab and wider Muslim terrorism is this. It is primarily a response of the weak and oppressed to Israel’s arrogance of power and insufferable self-righteousness; to the impotence, corruption and repression of Arab and other Muslim regimes which are correctly regarded by their masses as little more than puppets of America-and-Zionism; and to the deadly double-standard of Western foreign policy – in particular its unconditional support for Israel right or wrong. (In at least one respect the  Arab and other Muslim masses have much more wisdom than Western leaders.

They, Arab and Muslims masses, know that unconditional support for Israel right or wrong is not in anybody’s best interests, not even those of Israel’s Jews). According to Murdoch “the war against the Jews” has now entered a new phase. “This,” he said, “is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it. The battleground is everywhere – the media… multinational organizations … NGOs. In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah.”

It is true that in the eyes of many if not most peoples of the world (and probably many of their governments behind closed doors) Israel is increasingly being seen as a pariah state. But that’s a consequence of Israel’s policies and actions, war crimes and all. What Murdoch sees as the rise of anti-Semitism is, in fact, the rise of anti-Israelism.

The danger for the Jews of the world is that it will be transformed into violent anti-Semitism at a foreseeable point in the future if the Zionist state is not called and held to account for its past crimes and is allowed by the major powers to go on committing new ones. It is a fact that prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, most Jews were opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise.

One of their fears was that Zionism would one day provoke anti-Semitism if it was allowed by the big powers to have its way. As I never tire of writing and saying, this fear was given a fresh airing by Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence.

In 1986 he published a remarkable book, Israel’s Fateful Hour. It contains this warning (my emphasis added): 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. Nearly a quarter of a century on I think it can and should be said that Israel’s “misconduct” has become the prime factor in the equation that could transform anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism.

If I had the opportunity to address Mr. Murdoch directly, I would say to him the following. If you really care about the Jews (I mean the Jews as people as opposed to their money), you would put your media empire at the service of the truth of history. I would also tell him that when I joined ITN (Independent Television News) as a very young reporter many years ago, its great editor-in-chief, Geoffrey Cox, gave me the mission statement in one short sentence. “Our job is to help keep democracy alive.” I would then say to Murdoch that my charge today is (generally speaking) that the mainstream media has betrayed democracy. And I would add, “You, sir, are the greatest betrayer, traitor, of them all.”

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East.  His Latest book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, is a three-volume epic in its American edition. 
Related post:


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Gilad Atzmon: Zionist Tolerance For a Change

Friday, October 29, 2010 at 8:24PM Gilad Atzmon
‘Jewish left’ is basically an oxymoron. It is a contradiction in terms, because ‘Jewishness’ is a tribal ideology, whilst ‘the left’ are traditionally understood as aspiring to universalism.
On the face of it, the ‘Jewish left’ is, at least categorically, no different from Israel or Zionism: after all, it is an attempt to form yet another ‘Jews only political club’. And as far as the Palestinian solidarity movement is concerned, its role is subject to a growing debate -- For on the one hand, one can see the political benefit of pointing at a very few ‘good Jews’, and emphasizing that there are Jews who ‘oppose Zionism as Jews’. Yet on the other hand, however, accepting the legitimacy of such a racially orientated political affair, is in itself, an acceptance of yet another form, or manifestation of Zionism, for Zionism claims that Jews are primarily Jewish, and had better operate politically as Jews(1).
To a certain extent then, it is clear that Jewish anti Zionism, is, in itself, still just another form of Zionism.
‘Jewish dissidence’ has two main roles: First, it attempts to depict and bolster a positive image of Jews in general (2). Second, it is there to silence and obscure any attempts on the part of the outsider to grasp the meaning of Jewish identity and Jewish politics within the machinations of the Jewish state. It is also there to stop elements in this movement from elaborating on the crucial role of Jewish lobbying.
The Jewish Left is there then, to mute any possible criticism of Jewish politics within the wider Left movements. It is there to stop the Goyim from looking into Jewish affairs.
A decade ago I met the Kosher dissident brigade for the first time -- As soon as I started to express criticism of Israel and Zionism -- they started to bounce around me.
For a short while, I fitted nicely into their discourse : I was young and energetic. I was an award winning musician, as well as a promising writer. In their eyes I was a celebrity, or at least a good reason to celebrate. Their chief commissars reserved the best, and most expensive dining tables ahead of my Orient House’s Ensemble concerts. The five grass-root penniless activists, followed the trend and came to my free stage Jazz Combo afternoon concerts in the Barbican Centre’s Foyer. They all wanted to believe that I would follow their agenda, and become a commissar myself.
They were also very quick to preach to me who were the ‘bad guys’, those who should be burnt in hell: Israel Shahak, Paul Eisen, Israel Shamir and Otto Weininger were just a few amongst the many baddies. As one may guess by now, it didn’t take me too long to admit to myself that there was more wisdom in a single sentence by Eisen, Weininger, Shahak or Shamir than in the entire work of the Jewish Left put together.
I was quick to make it clear to my new ‘Red’ fans that it was not going to work : I was an ex-Israeli, and I no longer regarded myself as a Jew any more. I shared nothing with them and I did not believe in their agenda. Indeed, I had left Israel because I wanted to drift as far away as I could from any form of tribal politics.
Paddling in chicken soup has never been my thing.
Naturally, I bought myself at least a half a dozen enemies, and they were quick to run a campaign against me. They tried to silence me; they desperately ( and hopelessly ) tried to wreck my music career; they mounted pressure on political institutions, media outlets, and music venues. One of them even tried to drag me to court.
But they failed all the way through and they failed on every possible level. The more pressure they mounted, the more people read my writing. At a certain point, people around me were convinced that my detractors were actually running my PR campaign. Moreover, the relentless attempts to silence me could only prove my point. They were there to divert attention away from the crucial role of Jewish politics and Jewish identity politics.
I have asked myself often enough -- how is it that they failed with me? But I guess that the same internet that successfully defeated Israeli Hasbara, has also defeated the Jewish left and its hegemony within the movement. In the wider scheme of things, it is totally obvious how marginal the Jewish Marxist discourse is. Its voice within the dissident movement is, in actuality, insignificant.
I guess also, that the fact that I am a popular Jazz artist didn’t make life easy for them -- At the time those Jewish commissars labeled me as a racist and an anti Semite, I was touring around the world with two ex Israeli Jews, an Argentinean Jew, a Romanian Gipsy and a Palestinian Oud player. It just couldn’t work for them, and it didn’t.
But here is an interesting twist : In comparison with the contemporaneous Jewish Red terror, Zionism comes across as a relatively tolerant endeavour. In recent months I have been approached by every possible Israeli media outlet. In the summer, Ouvda, the leading Israeli investigative TV show asked repeatedly to join with me and my band on the road. They were interested to launch a debate, and to discuss my ideas in prime time. This week, The Israeli Second Channel approached me for a news item. Again, they were interested in my views. Yesterday, I discussed my views for an hour with Guy Elhanan on Israel’s 'Kol ha-shalom' (Voice of Peace).
For the most obvious of reasons, I am very cautious when dealing with the Israeli media. I choose my outlets very carefully. I usually tend to refuse. But, I also accept that as a person who cares about the prospect of peace I must keep an open channel with the Israeli public, and two weeks ago I agreed to be interviewed by Haaretz writer,Yaron Frid. This was my first published interview in Israel for more than a decade.
I must admit that I was shocked to find out that not a single word of mine had been removed or censored. Haaretz let me say everything that the Kosher ‘Socialists’ had consistently tried to stop me from saying.
On my ‘self-hatred’ and Jewishness the Israeli paper Haaretz let me say :
“I am not a nice Jew, because I don't want to be a Jew, because Jewish values don't really turn me on and all this 'Pour out Thy wrath on the nations' stuff doesn't impress me."
It also let me question the entire Zionist ethos; the reality of plunder and deluded historicism : “Why do I live on lands that are not mine, the plundered lands of another people whose owners want to return to them but cannot? Why do I send my children to kill and be killed, after I myself was a soldier, too? Why do I believe all this bullshit about 'because it's the land of our forefathers' and 'our patrimony' if I am not even religious?
And about Palestinians' right of return, I said : "The Israelis can put an end to the conflict in two fucking minutes. Netanyahu gets up tomorrow morning, returns to the Palestinians the lands that belong to them.”
They let me express how I would differentiate between, and define Israel and Palestine: “Palestine is the land and Israel is the state. It took me time to realize that Israel was never my home, but only a fantasy saturated in blood and sweat."
About chosen-ness, de-Judification and Jewish identity I said, “for Netanyahu and the Israelis to do that (accept the Palestinian right of return), they have to undergo de-Judaization and accept the fact that they are like all peoples and are not the chosen people. So, in my analysis this is not a political, sociopolitical or socioeconomic issue but something basic that has to do with Jewish identity.”
And in the interview I compared Jewish left with National Socialism -- And Haaretz’s editorial let it through: “The idea of left-wing Jews is fundamentally sickening. It contains an absolute internal contradiction. If you are leftists it doesn't matter whether you're Jewish or not, so on principle when you present yourselves as leftist Jews you are accepting the idea of national socialism. Nazism.”
Haaretz, as could be expected, challenged my opposition to Jewish politics : “Atzmon has been accused from every possible platform of disseminating vitriol against Jews. He, though, maintains that he ‘hates everyone in equal measure.’ He's also been accused of self-hatred, but he is the first to admit this, and in comparison with Otto Weininger - the Austrian Jewish philosopher who converted to Christianity and of whom Hitler said, ‘There was one good Jew in Germany, and he killed himself’ - he is even proud. ‘Otto and I are good friends.’”
But clearly, at least Israelis can cope with Otto Weininger and his ideology. However -- when I gave a talk about Otto Weininger in a London Marxist book shop five years ago (Bookmarks), a ‘synagogue’ of fourteen Jewish Marxists unsuccessfully tried to picket the event and to pressure the SWP into submission.
Guess what; they failed.
Haaretz challenged my take on the Holocaust; yet it printed my answer without changing a single word. “I am fighting against all the disgusting laws and persecutions of those so-called Holocaust deniers - a categorization I don't accept. I think the Holocaust, like any historical episode, must be open to research, to examination, to discussion and debate.”
And Haaretz, evidently an Israeli Zionist paper, let me express my thoughts about Israeli mass murderers and their destiny. “It might be a good thing if the Nazi hunters hunt down [Shaul] Mofaz and [Ehud] Barak, for example, and not all kinds of 96-year-olds who are barely alive. It's pathetic."
It also let me tell Israelis that they are all to be blamed : “In Israel 94 percent of the nation supported Operation Cast Lead. On the one hand, you want to behave like a post-enlightenment state and talk to me about individualism, but on the other hand you surround yourselves with a wall and remain attached to a tribal identity.”
Yaron Frid ended his piece saying, “Israel lost Gilad,” and, “The score, for now: 1-0, Palestine leading.”
I was happy with the article. But I was also jealous. For here in Britain, we are still far from being free to explore these issues.
The message here is plain and simple -- Haaretz, a Zionist paper, has let me discuss all those intellectual avenues that ‘the Kosher Socialists’ insist on blocking. A week before my Haaretz special, the Israeli paper featured Mavi Marmara hero Ken O’keefe. Again, Haaretz coverage was fairly balanced; certainly more balanced than BBC Panorama.
The moral is clear : As much as Zionism is repugnant and murderous -- it is still way ahead of the Jewish Left , simply because it is still, in some regards at least, part of an ongoing and open discourse.
There is no doubt that amongst the most prolific enemies of Israel and Jewish identity, you will find Israelis and ex Israelis, such as Ilan Pappe, Gideon Levi, Amira Hass, Tali Fahima, Israel Shamir, Israel Shahak, Nurit Peled , Rami Elhanan Guy Elhanan, Jonathan Shapira, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Mordechai Vanunu, Uri Avneri, Shimon Tzabar, myself, and others.
We may not always agree with each other -- but we let each other be.
Zionism was an attempt to bring about a new Jew: an ethical, productive and authentic being. But Zionism failed all the way through. Israel is a criminal state, and the Israelis are collectively complicit in relentless crimes against humanity. And yet, Zionism has also succeeded in erecting a solid school of eloquent and proud ‘self haters’. Israelis are taught to be outspoken and critical. Unlike the Diaspora Jewish left, that for some reason, operates as a thought-police, Israeli dissidence speaks out. Israelis are trained to celebrate their ‘symptoms’ -- and this also applies in the case of dissidence.
Unlike Jewish Marxism that operates largely as a tribal PR campaign, Israeli dissidence is an ethical approach : You wouldn’t hear Israeli activists shouting ‘not in my name’. The Israelis mentioned above do accept that each Israeli crime is committed in their names. They also accept that activism is the crucial shift from guilt into responsibility. Hence, it is also far from surprising that on the ‘Jewish Boat to Gaza’ mission, the Israeli veteran AIF pilot Shapira and also Elahanan, both spoke about ethics and humanitarian issues, while the British Jew, Kuper, was apparently, judging from his words, perhaps more concerned with the amendment of the image of world Jewry.
Being an ex Israeli, I believe that the only thing I can do for Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, myself, my family, my neighbours and humanity -- is to stand firm and speak my heart against all odds.
I also believe that we all know the truth.
We just need to be courageous enough to spit it out.
(1) As bizarre as it may sound to some, ‘Jews Against Zionists’ (JAZ) and ‘Jews for BDS’ (Boycott of Divestment of Israeli Goods) do affirm the Zionist mantra : They operate, primarily, as Jews. As much as it is impossible for uprooted Palestinians to settle in Israel and become a citizen with equal civil rights -- it is also impossible for them to join any of the primarily Jewish groups for Palestine.
(2) Richard Kuper, the person behind ‘Irene-the Jewish Boat to Gaza’, was bold enough to admit it -- “Our goal is to show that not all Jews support Israeli policies toward Palestinians,” he said. It is now an established fact that the Jewish boat carried hardly any humanitarian aid for the Gazans : its main mission, as far as Kuper was concerned, seems to have been to amend Jewish reputation.I have spent the last ten years elaborating on Jewish national ideology and tribal politics. During my journey of grasping what Zionism and Israel stand for, I came to realize that it is actually the Jewish left -- and Jewish Marxists in particular -- that provide us with an adequate glimpse into contemporary Jewish identity, tribal supremacy, marginal politics and tribalism.

The STL tide has changed: "Enough is enough" "Do you think we’re that stupid?”

By Uprooted Palestinian

"Let’s blame (Imad) Mughniyah for killing Hariri. He’s dead so the investigative trail ends. Just say, ‘We had no idea what he was doing’. No more tribunal. Everyone is happy. And as a sweetener we’ll take Hezbollah off our Terrorism list.” US undersecretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman to Hezbollah via the Saudi-Syrian, back channel on 10/22/10

“Do you think we’re that stupid?” Hezbollah (smelling a set-up) to Obama via the same channel 10/23/10

Angry Arab ended his report on the encounter in the clinic in the southern suburbs of Beirut saying: "Shame on the Lebanese government and the Lebanese Order of Physicians for providing cover for such a travesty to take place."

Hizbullah Coordination and Liaison Unit Denies Future Movement lie that it was Informed of STL Investigators Visit to Southern Suburb. I believe, such Formal Inforemation was not done because the STL wanted to test Hezbullah reaction, therefore Hezbullah women were waiting. 
Hasbara At Work

On the other side, Zarathustra (they call him Zara, I used to call him Khara, an editor at a "Palestinian site" speaclised in spreading Zionist Hasbara, crisized Nasrallah's over reaction.

"I fully don't understand the reaction of the Party to the tribunal." he preyed from a dark room in Yankivile. "Nasrallah's over reaction points to implict quilt." he added "he calls on "All Lebanese" but everyone who knows anything about Lebanon is that "All Lebanese" are divided up in this matter on sectarian lines. He can preach all he wants to the Sunnis and Christians but that will not change their attitude or view of either the tribunal or the Resistance. " 
On the same wave, STL, March 14 Condemned the call for Boycotting Tribunal “Is Nasrallah threatening the Lebanese citizens?” the war criminal Lebanese Forces (LF) leader Geagea asked, adding that Nasrallah’s statements are strange and incomprehensible. “It is not acceptable for any party to make a decision on behalf of all Lebanese. Cooperating with the [STL’s] investigators is an issue that only the Lebanese government decides,” Geagea also said.
The ASSHOLE, said that Nasrallah can't speak on behalf of all Lebanese, "for him (Nasrallah) to try to convince the non Shia Lebanese that he is speaking on behalf of All Lebanon is both inaccurate and insincere." Zara claimed. 
Today Jumblat considered the encounter in the clinic in the southern suburbs of Beirut an attempt to foil any Saudi /Syrian understanding on Lenanon.Moreover, Nasrallah never said or claimed that all Lebanese are united on Resistance.

There, zionist message is Lebanese devided on sectarian lines, there fore Nasrallah can't speak on behalf of all Lebanese. They ignored the fact that Nasrallah's "preaching" changed the opinion and the attitude of at least half the Christians (loyal to Michel Aoun, one third of Sunnis, and almost united all the Droze, on both the tribunal and the Resistance. Let us ont forget that the Free Patriotic Movement was the core of "March 14 Movement", and Jumblat was its leader. YES, as Zara admitted "the Tribunal is politicized and is acting as a tool of the US/Israel/KSA" But the STL tide has changed and is changing every day. Thanks to Nasrallah's "Preaching".

In harmony with Jeffrey Feltman, Hilary Clinton and March 14 Ramanents Khara claimed that Nasrallah is adding fuel to the fire, he "should stop acting like he is guilty , stop being defensive. Because all he is doing now is adding fuel to the fire"
Who is adding fuel to the fire?

I shall start, with a voice representing at least Half lebanon's Christians, Change and Reform parliamentary bloc member MP Nabil Nkoula.

He said "Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has every right to ask the Lebanese not to deal with the international investigators and tribunal. He stressed that the action taken by the international tribunal is a violation of the Lebanese and international even humanitarian laws." He added that the behavior of the international investigators in the women clinic in Southern Suburbs was unacceptable. "All over the world and including Lebanon there are special laws pertaining to the patients and this law is called secret medical records and they are considered sacred just like a confession in a church. The doctor has no right to reveal any information on any patient even in court without prior approval from the patient," added Nkoula. "This kind of behavior will push a person not to cooperate with such types of tribunal that are not aimed at reaching the truth but rather silence the Lebanese."

Responding to the statement of head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea who he considered Sayyed Nasrallah's speech as a threat to the government, Nicolas responded: "If Geagea accepts any one to read his medical file then I will approve his statement."
"Not before the dust settled down after Iranian President Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon where he was received as a national hero, Jeffrey David Feltman, landed in Beirut to to deliver a message from Obama."

"The message in fact concerned the finding of the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) on the assassination of the former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri (father of the current prime minister Sa’ad Hariri). Both US and Israel worries that STL may find the truth about Israeli Mossad being behind the assassination."
According to the well informed Dr. Franklin Lamb, Board Member of The Sabra Shatila Foundation and the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, reporting from Shatila in the southern suburbs of Beirut.
  • " People are edgy in Dahiyeh and elsewhere in Lebanon about foreigners seeming to snoop around." thus reported Franklin Lamb from lebanon. 
  •  Jeffrey Feltman told his friend, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. His mission was to denounce Ahmadinejad’s visit as “provocative, creating instability, and not helpful to the “peace process.”
  • On the same wave Hilary Clinton declared "We reject any efforts to destabilize or inflame tensions within Lebanon. We are very committed to supporting the Lebanese Government as it deals with a number of challenges in its region"
  • "Various diplomatic sources, as well as some political party officials and security contacts think they know what caused yesterday’s incident. Jeffrey the prime suspect among some."
  • Frightened with Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon, Feltman, rushed to KSA, "to solve the growing STL problem which he admitted Washington and Tel Aviv had underestimated. The Saudi’s told Feltman they would discuss the matter with the Syrians who would contact Hezbollah"
According to Franklin Lamb desperate Feltman, instead of going to Damuscus, arrived suddenly to Beirut
  • "......... His meeting with Lebanon’s President Suleiman and Prime Minister Saad Hariri were perfunctory. Parliamentary Speaker Berri, ally of Hezbollah even declined to meet with Feltman"
  • "........what apparently really caused Feltman to urge to STL to squeeze Hezbollah by sending its investigators to Dahiyeh to signal that the Tribunal was impossible to stop, was the rejection by all factions but the Lebanese Forces, of the Feltman Plan. Its reported essence, now apparently scrapped,"
  • "......Given that Washington realized that there is no way that the Tribunal is going to work out, it is best to find a way to trash it. Feltman has a “Dead men don’t talk” plan. Imad, Mughniyah who many thought was dead these past 26 years was really killed this time on February 12, 2008 in Damascus. Beirut sources reveal that Israel, who killed Mughniyah, aimed for February 14, not the 12th in order to deliver the message that it can carry out an assassination at will and on any date. Israel wanted to kill Mughniyah on the same day they killed Hariri, i.e. February 14. But they missed their target date by less than 48 hours due to “mission correction contingencies"
  • ..........Earlier this month, Feltman sent a message to Hezbollah.......if Hezbollah will go along with blaming Mughniyah for killing Hariri that works for the Americans because it will be circumstantial evidence that he also did acts of terrorism in the 1980’s so all files could be closed once and for all. He told more than one person he met with in Beirut this month that he thought his was “a really great plan.
Lamb concluded:
  • Apparently Secretary Clinton and President Obama did too.
  • Hezbollah did not." 
According the editorial in Al Akhbar "Feltman is anxious to have the 'Hezbollah indictment' issued sooner than 'scheduled' because he senses that Abdallah of Saudi Arabia and Saad Hariri are buckling under pressure, and could end up making a deal with the Iranians and Syrians. Feltman has been adamant in his refusal to link the impasses in Iraq and in Lebanon ..."

No surprise, because the tide is changing, causing serious problems to the STL, Feltman, is so desperate to squeeze Hezbullah to reach a deal with Nasrallah, and Zioinist Hasbara outlets are doing their paid job.
They got Nasrallah's reply yesterday.

The same Hasbara Site, imediatlly after Imad Mughniyah assasination, dropped it's Bombshell: Syria did it.
Khara's Comment

His over reaction could also points to an implicit guilt !!
[One thing Nasrallah is not is naive , but I fully don't understand the reaction of the Party to the tribunal. He calls on "All Lebanese" but everyone who knows anything about Lebanon is that "All Lebanese" are divided up in this matter on sectarian lines. He can preach all he wants to the Sunnis and Christians but that will not change their attitude or view of either the tribunal or the Resistance.
His over reaction could also points to an implicit guilt !! If the party did not do it (and there is not enough evidence to indict anyone and the witnesses have been proven to be lying) they should not be so reactionary towards the tribunal. The Tribunal is politicized and is acting as a tool of the US/Israel/KSA to be used against the resistance, most rational people believe so. But most people in Lebanon are not thinking rationally and think along sectarian lines, and he FAILED to gain the support of Lebanon the moment he took over Beirut 2 years ago , and for him to try to convince the non Shia Lebanese that he is speaking on behalf of All Lebanon is both inaccurate and insincere. He should stop acting like he is guilty , stop being defensive. Because all he is doing now is adding fuel to the fire]


The encounter in the clinic in the southern suburbs of Beirut

Talal, a comrade and friend who heads a division at a major medical center at well-known US university, sent me this regarding the "visit" by a Hariri tribunal team to the clinic of a Lebanese physician: "Is it not interesting that the International Tribunal sanctions practices in Lebanon that would be banned in the native countries of its investigators and jurists?
For example, they went into a clinic in the Southern district of Beirut asking to check on the names and files of a large number of women who attend the clinic. That would not fly in the USA. One cannot just come in, even with legal sanction, and check wholesale on the FILES (containing sensitive personal information) of ALL those that come through (they claimed to start with 17 names but it was made obvious that it was to be an open ended investigation with a free hand to investigate any file in the clinic).
Such an act would constitute a serious violation of Medical Privacy laws, unnecessarily exposing not only their names of a large number of individuals but also the details of their medical conditions as well as other private information.
This is ILLEGAL under any of a number of medical privacy laws. One is usually presented with a court order to obtain information on a SPECIFIC person, and no other subjects so as to safe guard people's privacy.
I am amazed the Physician in question even let them in.
She should have been the first to kick them out of the clinic, court order notwithstanding.
Shame on the Lebanese government and the Lebanese Order of Physicians for providing cover for such a travesty to take place."
Posted by As'ad at 10:59 PM
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian