Search This Blog

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Why Americans should oppose Zionism

Steven Salaita, The Electronic Intifada, 26 August 2010




Eden Abergil's now infamous photos do not represent anomalous, excess behavior. (Facebook)


Israel has been subject to some bad publicity recently. In 2008-09, it launched a brutal military campaign in the Gaza Strip that killed more than 400 Palestinian children. In May 2010, bumbling Israeli commandos murdered nine nonviolence activists on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla's Mavi Marmara. It only got worse for Israel when it was revealed that soldiers stole and sold personal items such as laptops from the ship. Last week, former Israeli soldier Eden Abergil posted photos onto Facebook showing her preening in front of blindfolded and despondent Palestinian prisoners, in some instances mocking those prisoners with sexual undertones. The photos were part of an album entitled "IDF [Israeli army] -- the best time of my life."


While Abergil's pictures may not seem as abhorrent as the Gaza and Mavi Marmara brutality -- Abergil, for her part, described her behavior as nonviolent and free of contempt -- all three actions are intimately connected. First of all, we must dispel the notion that Abergil's photos are nonviolent. As with the Abu Ghraib debacle, a sexualized and coercive humiliation is being visited on the bodies of powerless, colonized and incarcerated subjects, which by any reasonable principle is a basal form of violence. There is also the obvious physical violence of Palestinians being bound and blindfolded, presumably in or on their way to prisons nobody will confuse with the Ritz Carlton.

More important, these recent episodes merely extend an age-old list of Israeli crimes and indignities that illuminate a depravity in the Zionist enterprise itself. What is noteworthy about Israel's three recent escapades is that more and more people are starting to pay attention to its crimes and indignities. In so doing, more and more people are questioning the origin and meaning of Zionism -- that is, the very idea of a legally ethnocentric Israel.

I would like to address this piece to those who have undertaken such questioning or to those who are prepared to initiate it. I would urge you not to limit your critique of Israel only to its errors of judgment or its perceived excesses; it is more productive to challenge the ideology and practice of Zionism itself. There is no noble origin or beautiful ideal to which the wayward Jewish state must return; such yearnings are often duplicitous mythmaking or romanticized nostalgia. Zionists always intended to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, a strategy they carried out and continue to pursue with horrifying efficiency.
Likewise, Zionism was always a colonialist movement, one that relied on the notions of divine entitlement and civilizational superiority that justified previous settlement projects in South Africa, Algeria and North America. Zionism, by virtue of its exclusionary outlook and ethnocentric model of citizenship, is on its own a purveyor of fundamental violence. The bad PR to which Israel sometimes is subject today is a reflection of changed media dynamics, not a worsening of Israel's behavior.

The 2008-09 Gaza invasion, the attack on the Mavi Marmara and Abergil's Facebook photos aren't anomalous or extraordinary. They are the invariable result of a Zionist ideology that cannot help but view Palestinian Muslims and Christians as subhuman, no matter how ardently its liberal champions assert that Zionism is a liberation movement. Zionism has the unfortunate effect of proclaiming that one group of people should have access to certain rights from which another group of people is excluded. There is nothing defensible in this proposition.

Here, then, are four reasons why Americans (and all other humans regardless of race or religion) should oppose Zionism:

1. Zionism is unethical and immoral:

Because Zionists claim access to land and legal rights that directly obviate the same access to an indigenous community, it operates from within an idea of belonging that is cruel and archaic. Israel bases its primary criterion for citizenship on religious identity. Imagine having your religion on your driver's license. And imagine having limited access to freeways, farmland, family, education, employment and foreign travel because the religion by which the state has chosen to identify you is legally marginalized. Such is the daily reality of the Palestinian people.

2. Zionism is racist:
This claim isn't the same as saying that all Zionists are racist. I would make a distinction between the categories of "Zionist" and "Zionism." However, inherent in the practice of Zionism is a reliance on racialist judgments about who can fully participate in the benefits and practices of a national community. Many Zionists view themselves merely as supporting freedom and safety for Jewish people. I would suggest that people who identify themselves as Zionist look more closely at the ideology they support. Such freedom and safety, both of which are in fact mythologies, come at the direct expense of people confined to Bantustans and refugee camps.

3. Zionism contravenes the geopolitical interests of the United States:

Many Americans have heard former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert boast that he once pulled George W. Bush off the dais while Bush was giving a speech, or more recently current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announcing that "America is something that can be easily moved." Israel costs the United States billions of dollars in direct aid and in bribe money to Jordan and Egypt for their docility. Israel also is the main reason for disgruntlement about American foreign policy in the Arab and Muslim Worlds. I raise this point with some hesitation because I believe all citizens of the United States should challenge and not celebrate American geopolitical interests. I would also point out that Zionism's narrative of salvation and redemption resonates deeply among Americans because of the US' origin and continued presence as a nation of settler colonists. In the end, America itself needs to be decolonized and the vast sums of money that support the imperial projects Israel so brazenly exemplifies need to be directed toward the well-being of those who pay the government its taxes.

4. Zionism is fundamentally incompatible with democracy

Israel, as a result, is undemocratic and will be as long as it uses religious identity as the operating criterion of citizenship. We hear much in the US about Islam being incompatible with democracy, a belief that is historically untrue and that elides the massive military and monetary support the US provides to the assortment of dictators and plutocrats that rule much of the Arab World. Neoconservative and mainstream commentators both evoke Israel in opposition to Islam as a symbol of democratic achievement. In reality Israel performs one of the most barbaric forms of oppression today in the West Bank and Gaza Strip while simultaneously discriminating against the Palestinian citizens of Israel who constitute approximately twenty percent of the citizenry. The alternative media engendered by new technology have allowed more people to witness the unremitting violence that has been Israel's stock in trade for decades.

Many consumers of this information and these images believe that Israel is guilty of excess when a simpler explanation exists: Israel is acting out the requisites of an exclusionary and inherently violent ideology.

These days all it takes is a little braggadocio from an ex-soldier such as Eden Abergil to so perfectly symbolize the callousness of Zionist colonization. Ten years ago, the Israeli government's lies about the killings aboard the Mavi Marmara would have been unchallenged by gruesome footage distributed through alternative news networks and social media.


Nobody these days could have stopped the images of white phosphorous exploding and spreading over the Gaza Strip from being aired; Israelis themselves were foolish enough to capture Jewish children writing messages on soon-to-be-launched missiles.

Americans now have all the evidence they need for a reasonable and morally-sound conclusion, that Zionism produces a cruelty and truculence that they bankroll with their taxes and legitimize with either silence or consent. As a result, I am not arguing that Americans should reassess their level of support for Israel. I am arguing that Americans should oppose Zionism altogether. Perhaps in this way we might begin the long and difficult process of redeeming our own nation of its imperial sins.

Steven Salaita is author, most recently, of The Uncultured Wars: Arabs, Muslims, and the Poverty of Liberal Thought. A version of this essay was originally published by Foreign Policy Journal and is republished with the author's permission.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Monday, August 30, 2010

Gilad Uncovered


Monday, August 23, 2010 at 8:11AM
A Book of my solo transcriptions is out
FROM GILAD…

One can imagine how delighted I am to see a book of my solo transcriptions being published. I’d like to use this opportunity to thank Chris Gumbley, a great friend, a superb educator and an excellent musician for making the effort and looking deeply into my music and improvising skills. To a certain extent it makes my musical journey into a meaningful event. The fact that someone out there believes that my work is worthy of intellectual scrutiny is indeed reassuring and nothing less than a great compliment.

As an educator, I feel that it is necessary to mention that I do believe in the primacy of the ear. I stress rather often that music should be learned primarily through listening.

Those who are interested in my music vocabulary and improvised shapes will probably benefit from trying to understand my sound through listening. I guess that once an intuitive understanding of my musical language, rhythm, scales, micro-tonality and dynamics is explored, only then should the reading exercise be put into practice.

Looking into solo transcriptions is no doubt part of a healthy jazz diet. I’ve done it myself in the past, in spite of the fact that my music reading skills are far from being advanced. In general I use every opportunity to look into other musicians’ work.

Playing a transcribed solo is not an easy task.  I can only wish luck to those who take the challenge on board.

Gilad Atzmon

ABOUT GILAD…

Gilad was born in Israel in 1963 and had his musical training at the Rubin Academy of Music, Jerusalem.  Hearing Charlie Parker play April in Paris on a radio programme at the age of 17 was a pivotal moment, providing inspiration and motivation, and he spent the next 14 years playing jazz, R&R and ethnic music in Europe and the USA as well as acting as producer-arranger for various Israeli Dance & Rock Projects.

In 1994 he came to the UK and his brand of exciting, turbo-charged bop, combined with an endearing on-stage wit, soon won over the hearts of British jazz audiences. Equally at home on Soprano, Alto, Tenor and Baritone Saxes, Clarinet and Flutes, he was described by John Lewis at the Guardian as the “hardest-gigging man in British jazz".

However, it would be wrong to regard Gilad as simply an exciting purveyor of jazz standards: his own compositions evoke wide-ranging emotions and a cornucopia of different influences, encompassing music from the Middle East, North Africa and Eastern Europe. These can be seen in his work with The Orient House Ensemble, formed in 2000, which has since provided the perfect vehicle for his music and an increasing  political awareness.

Gilad has recorded nine albums to date which include Exile  - BBC Jazz Album of the Year in 2003 - and In Loving Memory of America, which nods in the direction of  Bird’s 1949 album Parker With Strings.
Gilad is also a prolific writer. His two novels 'Guide to the Perplexed' and 'My One And Only Love' have been translated into 24 languages.


THE TRANSCRIPTIONS…
Transcribing is frankly solitary, laborious and time-consuming. So the music has to be very special to create such a rampant desire to explore and understand the nuts and bolts of someone’s playing. That is certainly the case with Gilad.

Out of the five albums featured in this book, these tracks were my personal favourites – memorable for their melodic invention, technical mastery and, above all, emotional intensity. All transcriptions were made at actual speed using a Sony CDP-XE330 CD player – a machine notable for its snappy rewinding abilities – and are as accurate as I could make them in terms of notes, phrasing, rhythm and nuance.
It is of course essential to study them alongside the recordings, details of which are given opposite.
CHRIS GUMBLEY September 2010

CREDITS…

Special thanks to my son Dan Nicholls for cover design, layout and advice.
For enquiries regarding this book and to order and browse other music available from Gumbles Publications, visit gumblespublications.co.uk

Content:

From the album THE TIDE HAS CHANGED: Gilad Atzmon & The Orient House Ensemble (2010)  (world village 450015)
In the Back Seat of a Yellow Cab            Gilad Atzmon                                           4                                                            
The Tide Has Changed                          Gilad Atzmon                                           6                                                   
GILAD as/ss/clt, FRANK HARRISON p, YARON STAVI b, EDDIE HICK d

From the album IN LOVING MEMORY OF AMERICA: Gilad Atzmon (2009) (enja TIP-888 8502)

Everything Happens T                                    Matt Dennis & Tom Adair                              10   musiK                                                      Gilad Atzmon                                      12                In The Small Hours                                Gilad Atzmon                                     14                                                             
Tutu Tango                                             Gilad Atzmon                                           16                                                
I Didn’t Know What Time It Was           Rodgers & Hart                                           18                                

GILAD as/ss/clt, FRANK HARRISON p, YARON STAVI b, ASAF SIRKIS d, SIGAMOS STRING QUARTET arr. ROS STEPHEN and JONATHAN TAYLOR

From the album REFUGE: Gilad Atzmon & the Orient House Ensemble (2007) (enja TIP-888 849 2)

Autumn In Baghdad                               Gilad Atzmon                                             21                                                   
Her Smile                                                 Gilad Atzmon                                             23                                                   

GILAD as/ss FRANK HARRISON p/rhodes, YARON STAVI b, ASAF SIRKIS d
From the album EXILE: Gilad Atzmon & The Orient House Ensemble (2003) (enja TIP-888 8442)
Land of Canaan                                     Gilad Atzmon                                            24                                                 
GILAD as/ss/clt, FRANK HARRISON p/rhodes,YARON STAVI b, ASAF SIRKIS d/bandir & tray, KOBY ISRAELITE acc
From the album NOSTALGICO: Gilad Atzmon & The Orient House Ensemble (2001) (enja TIP-888 8412)

Petite Fleur                                              Sidney Bechet                                            26                                                  
GILAD clt, FRANK HARRISON p, OLI HAYHURST b, ASAF SIRKIS d

The Zionist Strategy Of Demonizing Islam

Via Free Thought Manifesto

Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

By Anait Brutian
On August 18th, 2010
Courtesy Of "The Foreign Policy Journal"

On August 4, 2010,  Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun Magazine and chair of the Interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives, published an article in Sabbah Report, entitled “Shame on ADL for Opposing Mosque 2Blocks from Ground Zero.”
Rabbi Lerner’s position on the ADL’s (Anti-Defamation League) objection to building an Islamic Community Center in Manhattan, near Ground Zero is praiseworthy.  But his interpretation of ADL’s reasons for resisting such a project lacks insight.  ADL leader Abe Foxman’s statement: “In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right,” spells out the real reasons behind the decision.  That decision cunningly reinforces the notion that Muslim fundamentalists were behind the attacks of 9/11 – a position also perpetrated by the architects of those attacks.
Rabbi Lerner’s statement: “It was not ‘Muslims’ or Islam that attacked the World Trade Center, but some Muslims who held extreme versions of Islam and twisted what is a holy and peace-oriented tradition to justify their acts and their hatred,” echoes George W. Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday, September 20, 2001,  whereby the blame for 9/11 was put on “a fringe form of Islamic extremism … that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.”  Unfortunately, both positions – the first, explicitly, the second, apologetically – demonize Islam.
As rightly noted by Jack G. Shaheen in his book Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilified a People (see also, Reel Bad Arabs – Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5), a consistent stereotype of Arabs and their religion existed since the earliest, most obscure days of Hollywood.  Perhaps, this was the continuation of European fascination with Orientalism.  However, in the hands of Hollywood, it acquired a new malicious bend that increased proportionally with the number of Jewish entrepreneurs in Hollywood.  Arabs were typically presented as rich and stupid, and their Western captives as victims of prejudice, manipulation and oppression.  This pattern was further exploited by Zionists to include violence and acts of terrorism.
In 1993 Foreign Affairs published an article by Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington entitled: “The Clash of Civilizations?” that expanded into a book with the same title in 1996.  The article endorsed the idea that “during the Cold War, the world was divided into the First, Second and Third Worlds.”  According to Huntington, “those divisions … [were] no longer relevant”: “It is far more meaningful now to group countries not in terms of their political or economic systems or in terms of their level of economic development but rather in terms of their culture and civilization.”  “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic.  The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.  Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations.”
Amplifying the “differences among civilizations,” Huntington emphasized the role played by history, language, culture and tradition.  According to Huntington, differences of religion are the most important among cultural discrepancies: “Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people.  A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simultaneously even a citizen of two countries.  It is more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim.”  Huntington identified seven or eight major civilizations including “Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African,” predicting that the most important conflict will occur “along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another”: “The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”
According to Huntington, the same “fault lines” will replace the “political and ideological boundaries of the Cold War as the flash points for crisis and bloodshed”:  “… Conflicts between groups in different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilization.”  Huntington identifies these conflicts as “the most likely and most dangerous source of escalation that could lead to global wars.”  “The West and the Rest” in Huntington’s prediction of future clashes amounts to a conflict between “the West and several Islamic-Confucian states.”  Islam is not identified as the single source of conflict; rather it appears in juxtaposition with Confucian civilization.  Yet, Huntington’s reliance on the opinions of Indian Muslim author M. J. Akbar – “The West’s ‘next confrontation’ … ‘is definitely going to come from the Muslim world” – allows him to ignore the advice of Bernard Lewis, whose article “The Roots of Muslim Rage” inspired his title.
Bernard Lewis’ statement:  “We are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them.  This is no less than a clash of civilizations – the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both,” quoted by Huntington, had a continuation: “It is crucially important that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally irrational reaction against that rival” – that was perhaps more relevant for the argument than the emphasis on the clash of civilizations.  This statement and the embedded advice were ignored by Huntington.  Instead, Huntington sites historical and modern factors to promote the idea that a “bloody” clash between Western and Islamic civilizations is imminent: “Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years.”
A superficial overview of history allows him to state that “Islam has bloody borders.”This statement, notoriously emphasizing a civilizational conflict between “Islam and the West,”  became the credo of Zionists like Steven Emerson, whose crusade against Muslims conveniently took yet another turn – anti-Muslim attitudes were camouflaged as anti-terrorist sentiments.  Emerson’s 1994 PBS video, Jihad in America “was faulted for bigotry and misrepresentations.”   Robert Friedman accused Emerson of “creating mass hysteria against American Arabs.”  Emerson accused Bill Clinton for “legitimizing self-declared ‘civil rights’ and ‘mainstream’ Islamic organizations that in fact operated as propaganda and political arms of Islamic fundamentalist movements.”  He went as far as to declare that “Muslim terrorist sympathizers were hanging out at the White House.”
Conveniently ignoring the growing problem of Jewish fundamentalism in Israel and the United States (see, “The Ugly Face of the Zionist Jihad: The Halachic Guide for the Killing of Gentiles”), and typically prefacing his “diatribes” by stating that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, Emerson blacklisted Islam by espousing in a deliberate assault against it: “The level of vitriol against Jews and Christianity withincontemporary Islam, unfortunately, is something that we are not totally cognizant of, or that we don’t want to accept.  We don’t want to accept it because to do so would be to acknowledge that one of the world’s great religions – which has more than 1.4 billion adherents – somehow sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine.”
After the events of 9/11, a few of Emerson’s earlier comments acquired the status of “prophesy.”  In 1994 he claimed that radical Muslims in the United States were plotting the “mass murder of all Jews, Christians and moderate Muslims.”  In 1996 he attacked the Council on Foreign Relations for including “Muslim points of views” in its newsletter.  And finally, in1997 he warned that “the U.S. has become occupied fundamentalist territory.”
The anti-Muslim rhetoric of the “grand inquisitor” acquires a new meaning, when one considers Emerson’s “friends.”  Yigal Carmon, “a right-wing Israeli intelligence commander, who endorsed the use of torture” stayed in Emerson’s Washington apartment during his trips “to lobby Congress against Middle East peace initiatives.”  A retired CIA counterterrorism specialist Vince Cannistraro said that Emerson’s allies, Pomerantz, Revell and Carmon were “Israeli-funded.”  “How do I know that?”  Cannistraro explained – “Because they tried to recruit me.”  Cannistraro’s assertions were vehemently denied, but others suspected Israeli backing as well.  Jerusalem Post of September 17, 1994 noted that Emerson had “close ties to Israeli intelligence,” Mossad, whose director reported only to the Israeli Prime Minister.
Hollywood’s groundwork was certainly useful to all that planned on instigating a clash of civilization between Muslims and non-Muslims.  Huntington’s civilizational conflict between “Islam and the West” became the cornerstone of Zionist propaganda.  But long before the establishment of Israel, the Zionist intellectual Maurice Samuel in hisYou Gentiles of 1924 polarized the Gentile and the Jewish worlds:  “There are two life-forces in the world I know: Jewish and Gentile, ours and yours … Your outlook on life, your dominant reactions, are the same to-day as they were two thousand years ago.  All that has changed is the instrument of expression” (pp. 19-20).  Samuel admits that the “surface credo of a Jewish faith” imposed on a Gentile way of life did not make a fundamental difference:  “But in the end your true nature works itself into the pattern of the borrowed faith, and expresses itself undeniably” (p. 22).
According to Samuel there is a “clear and fateful division of life – Jewish and Gentile,” with an “unsounded abyss between” them.   Gentiles have a “way of living and thinking” that is distinctly different from Jews: “I do not believe that this primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconcilable.  You and we may come to an understanding, never to a reconciliation.   There will be irritation between us as long as we are in intimate contact.  For nature and constitution and vision divide us from all of you forever…” (pp. 22-23).
Samuel’s description provides a classic example of a real “clash of civilizations.”  The notion of a clash also fits Samuel’s final solution, based on the destruction of the existing world order:  “A century of partial tolerance gave us Jews access to your world.  In that period the great attempt was made, by advance guards of reconciliation, to bring our two worlds together.  It was a century of failure. …  We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands.  We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build” (p. 155).
The modern equivalent of Samuel’s “God-world” and “destroyers” is religiously motivated terrorism – the accusation conveniently hurled at Muslims.   After 9/11 – a false flag operation, no doubt – every Mossad-induced terrorist hoax, from shoe-bombers to crotch-bombers, is blamed on Muslims.   Meanwhile, terrorist attacks on civilians of a humanitarian aid ship are dubbed as self-defence.   There certainly is a clash of civilizations, witnessed by its concomitant double standard.  But the clash is not between Muslims and non-Muslims, as the Zionists claim.  Rather, the real clash, as Samuel described so promptly, is between Jews and Gentiles.  The bogus clash, conveniently induced through tags like “Islam has bloody borders,” is of Zionist origin.  It fits the Zionist strategy of demonizing Islam, and is an expedient cover for the real clash between Jews and Gentiles.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Palestinian Resistance Factions Demand Abbas Resign

Al-Manar

(Archive)
27/08/2010 A day after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas urged Israel to take advantage of “this historic opportunity” to achieve peace via the imminent direct negotiations, Hamas and 10 other Palestinian resistance groups on Thursday demanded that he resign because of his “failure to resist heavy American and Israeli pressure” to abandon his preconditions for the talks.

The resignation call was issued following a meeting of the groups’ heads in Damascus.

Izzat Risheq, a Hamas representative who attended the meeting, said participants agreed that Abbas “was no longer trustworthy to look after the interests of the Palestinian people and should therefore quit all his positions.”

Speaking during a meal he held to mark the breaking of Wednesday’s Ramadan fast, Abbas declared that the Palestinians were entering the direct talks on September 2 of their own volition and with the hope of achieving peace with their neighbors.

“We are going to Washington to launch direct talks under the sponsorship of the US and the presence of a representative of the Quartet of our own volition and national sense because we want peace,” Abbas told his guests over the meal in his Mukata presidential compound in Ramallah.

Referring to the PA’s previous conditions for participating in direct talks with Israel, Abbas explained: “As Palestinians, we’re not in a position that allows us to impose preconditions. No party should be allowed to set preconditions before entering negotiations.”

He added that the issue of settlement construction was mentioned in all bilateral agreements between the Israelis and Palestinians and in most international accords. “Since the Oslo Accords, we agreed that neither party would take measures that would prejudice the outcome of the final-status negotiations,” Abbas said.

“This means that Israel would refrain from changing the reality on the ground, while the Palestinians would refrain from unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state.”

ISRAELI POLITICIANS TO FIGHT FREEZE AT SCHOOLS

Meanwhile, the first day of school date has now become Israeli political fodder.

September 1 will coincide with a White House dinner marking the long-awaited beginning of direct diplomatic negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Abbas under the auspices of US President Barack Obama.

Politicians on the Right intend to use the day to send a message to Netanyahu that the construction moratorium in Judea and Samaria must end as scheduled on September 26 and to Obama that continuing the freeze would harm West Bank children.

At the request of the Knesset’s Land of Israel caucus, ministers and top MKs will spend the day visiting schools in the West Bank.

Asked whether the visits of the Israeli ministers to the settlements while he is in Washington would bother Netanyahu, a source close to the Israeli PM said, “The ministers have the right to express their views, especially in this case, when they are not different from those of the prime minister.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Bishop Donald Corder: Gaza, Zionism and World Domination: Global Economic Warfare and the U.S

Via Intifada Palestine

25. Aug, 2010

Part 2 of 4: Global Economic Warfare and the US

Bishop Donald R. Corder

Peering into the archives of Jewish history we find hidden away in the scrolls and obscured in the understanding of Christian Zionism that here are a people who were purportedly given the power to get wealth.

Theodor Herzl the founding Father of Modern Zionism writes in his book entitled The Jewish State, “When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our “terrible power of the purse.” Global economic warfare is declared, “It is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains: war will thus be brought on to the economic ground, where the nations will not fail to perceive in our assistance, we give the strength of our predominance, and this state of things will put both sides at the mercy of our international.”

“In all that has so far been reported by me to you, I have endeavored to depict with care the secret of what is coming, of what is past, and of what is going on now, rushing into the flood of the great events coming already in the near future, the secret of our relations to the GOYIM (non-Jews) and of financial operations. On this subject there remains still a little for me to add. In our hands is the greatest power of our day – gold: In two days we can procure from our storehouse any quantity we please. Surely there is no need to seek further proof that our rule is predestined by God? Surely we shall not fail with such wealth to prove that all that evil which for so many centuries we have had to commit has served at the end of ends the cause of true well-being – the bringing of everything into order?” Excerpts from “Protocols of the Meetings of the 70 Learned Elders of Zion.”

Gerald Krefetz, A New York City Jewish Person Author of “Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality,” discloses a well received history and information on Jewish manipulations of USA business and banking. Wherein we learn modern banking… started in the nineteenth century with the rise of the House of Rothschild. They were not the only important Jewish bankers in Europe: indeed, a surprising number of continental banks were founded by Jews. The old Court Jew had primarily raised money for local rulers to cover his expenses, his personal diplomacy, and his extravagances. The new bankers floated state loans to finance emerging industries and railroads.

Between 1840 and 1880, a dozen first-rate banking houses were started: Bache; August Belmont; Goldman, Sachs; J.W. Seligman; Kuhn, Loeb; Ladenburg, Thalmann; Lazard Freres; Lehman Brothers; Speyer; and Wertheim. Influential, conservative in life-style, but unorthodox in financial matters, and inbred (like the Rothschilds, their children married each other), Jewish bankers projected animage of concentrated power because they often acted in concert, collaborating on financial deals. In twentieth century America, Jewish businessmen were developing investment banking expertise to finance consumer-oriented businesses department stores, Alaskan fisheries, movies, theatres, copper mining and smelting, airlines, and clothing factories.

In the 1960s, Jews were again in the forefront in creating a new business form – the conglomerate, a multi-purpose holding company whose disparate profit centers were purportedly synergistic- greater than the sum of its component parts. It was not a Jewish invention but Lehman Brothers, Lazard Freres, LoebRhoades, and Goldman Sachs were forceful in selling the new notion. Besides the self-interest of these investment banking houses (the major interest in conglomerates was only partially due to new products, market penetration, increased revenues, balance sheet growth, and rising price-earnings ratios), mergers and acquisitions generated volumes of new corporate issues that Wall Street underwrote, sold, and traded. And a number of Jewish businessmen were quick to see the potential of the new financial form.

Christian Old-Line Companies were destroyed by Jewish conglomerate-builders from the flamboyant to the conservative they spearheaded an attack of the “Terrible Power of the Jewish Purse”. Aided by clever investment bankers, a permissive Democratic president, and a credulous public, they shook up old managements, created anomalous corporations and provided Wall Street with a string of dazzling investment vehicles. Just about every one was a star of the go-go years, and just about every one suffered grievously when reality in form of recession and a strict Republican administration returned -in the seventies.

Herzl’s vision for the political and technological preparations by the Society of the Jews was fully engaged in response to the Nixon initiatives prepared to stem the deterioration of the faltering US economy. Infiltration had been complete as the Zionist Elite seized control of the likes of World Bank, Federal Reserve System, The Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), New York Board of Trade, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. James Stenzel presents…This Scholarly Library of Facts about Domestic & Worldwide Zionist Criminality. An Oasis of News for Americans Who Presently Endure the Hateful Censorship of Zionist Occupation.
Stenzel’s work provides for us the fuller scope of this strategically critical influx of the serpentine body of the Zionist and their strict adherence to the Protocols. Jewish Supremacy of Major Associations and Movements: Jews Who Run Major Associations: Money & Business Groups. Not given to contemporary political correctness H. H. Beamish, in a New York address, October 30 – November 1, 1937 states, “In 1848 the word “anti-Semitic” was invented by the Jews to prevent the use of the word “Jew.” The right word for them is “Jew” … “I implore all of you to be accurate – call them Jews. There is no need to be delicate on this Jewish question. No he has got you absolutely by the throat – that is your reward.”

Our international rights will then wipe out national rights, in the proper sense of right (might is right), and we will rule the nations precisely as the civil law of States rules the relations of their subjects among themselves.” “Protocols of the Meetings of the 70 Learned Elders of Zion,” Protocol No. 2. Zionist have used their vaunted money-power to seize control of the Democratic Party and constitute over 50% of all its financial contributions. Today they are buying up more and more major U. S. companies. While only 3% of the population, their group control over 25% of the nation’s wealth and this percentage rises every year. Zionist Ruling Class are the only group totally organized to work for political domination over America.

Gaza represents the great Jewish State experiment in government according to the principals of the Protocols. That the peoples may become accustomed to obedience it is necessary to inculcate lessons of humility and therefore to reduce the production of articles of luxury. Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings. Subjects, I repeat once more, give blind obedience only to the strong hand which is absolutely independent of them, for in it they feel the sword of defense and support against social scourges …. What do they want with an angelic spirit in a king? What they have to see in him is the personification of force and power.

“At the present day we are, as an international force, invincible, because if attacked by some we are supported by other States. It is explained by the fact that these dictators whisper to the peoples through their agents that through these abuses they are inflicting injury on the States (Turkish, Arab and Religious Leadership) with the highest purpose – to secure the welfare of the peoples, the international brotherhood of them all, their solidarity and equality of rights. Naturally they do not tell the peoples that this unification must be accomplished only under our sovereign rule.” The Protocols.

In the late 1800′s, at an annual dinner of the American Press Association, John Swinton, an editor at the New York Times, said: “There is no such thing, at this date, of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.

If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke in ‘Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents’

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Intifada Palestine

Special Thanks to our writer Bishop Donald R. Corder
Bishop Donald R. Corder is the spiritual leader of the Spirit of Life International Believers Fellowship and Senior Pastor for the Pillar of Truth Ministries.

Mr. Corder is a published author, grassroots organizer and community activist, in addition to his work in urban and international development as a business consultant and entrepreneur. 


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Israeli Spy Networks in Lebanon and USA Alike: Former CIA Officer

26/08/2010 A former CIA officer accused the Israeli Mossad of spying intensively on the United States for military and dual-use civilian technology.

Philip Giraldi said Tel Aviv's claims of not spying in the US are only intended for the media. He added that the Israeli lobby is so powerful that Washington cannot address Tel Aviv regarding the spying issue, which has been going on for many years. Thus the Mossad is spying in the US with impunity, Giraldi said.

Relations between the United States and Israel have been damaged historically and repeatedly regarding several incidents of Israeli and Jewish spies. In 2008, the US arrested an American suspected of spying for Israel.

Ben-Ami Kadish had given Israel secrets on nuclear weapons, fighter jets and missiles in the 1980s.

The case was linked to the Jonathan Pollard spy scandal that put US and Israeli relations in jeopardy. In November 1985, the FBI arrested Jonathan Pollard on charges of selling classified material to Israel, which was later sold to the Soviets. Pollard was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. His wife, Anne, got five years in jail for assisting her husband.

According to Lebanese news Website El-Nashra, Giraldi revealed that the Israel spy network that was recently nabbed in Lebanon, and which focused on the mobile phone telecommunications sector have a similar modus operandi to Mossad spy networks operating in the US.

The Website quoted Giraldi as saying that the “Israelis have established a technological infrastructure that enables them to tap most conversations in the United States and the world whether via mobile or land phones.”

Source: Agencies



River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Gaza, Zionism and World Domination: Origins of Zionist Ideology

25. Aug, 2010



Bishop Donald R. Corder

Theodore Herzl the Father of Modern Zionism writes of the mystical manner wherein The Jewish State was idealized in the white heat of spontaneous revelation. “…then suddenly the storm breaks the clouds open. A thousand impressions beat upon him at the same time – a gigantic vision. He cannot think; he is unable to move, he can only write; breathless, unreflecting, and unable to control himself or to exercise his critical faculties lest he dam the eruption, he dashes down his thoughts on scraps of paper. As if under increasing command, so furiously did the cataract of his thoughts rush through him, that he thought he was going out of his mind. He was not working out the idea. The idea was working him out. It would have been an hallucination had it not been so informed by reason from first to last.”

Setting aside the historic writings of the Jewish origins of state wherein is contained, they would be scattered from one end of the earth unto the other, they would find no ease as their hearts would be full of fear and they would be sold unto their enemies and none would desire them. Herzl rather employs the 1847 construct developed by the Jews in response to their historic sufferings. Anti-Semitism is coined as the inspiration for the Jewish State and elaborately detailed methodology is framed for bringing the Nation of Israel into existence. Asserting, “Our national character is too historically famous, and, in spite of every degradation, too fine to make assimilation desirable.”

Thereinafter he asserts a simple design in order to execute the complexities of bringing his plans to pass. Security for the integrity of the movement and vigor of its execution would be the creation of a corporate body to be called, “The Society of the Jews.” These would do the preparatory works in terms of technology gathering and politics. While the second corporation identified as the “Jewish Company” would have responsibility for wealth accumulation and practical applications of the Society’s information gathering. His vision moves to acknowledging the need to produce a global kingdom governed in the similitude of the Vatican. Thus, setting the stage and framework for World Domination, as thoroughly detailed in the “Protocols of the Meetings of the 70 Learned Elders of Zion.”

“According to the records of secret Jewish Zionism, Solomon and other Jewish learned men already, in 929 B.C., thought out a scheme in theory for a peaceful conquest of the whole universe by Zion.” Dr. Ehrenpreis, Chief Rabbi of Sweden, said in 1924, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were in point of fact not the original Protocols at all, but a compressed extract of the same. Of the 70 Elders of Zion, in the matter of origin and of the existence of the original Protocols, there are only ten men in the entire world who know.” The 24 Protocols contained within the volume embody the substance of addresses delivered to the innermost circle of the Rulers of Zion accumulated over centuries and reveals that the scheme was worked out in detail and completed by men who converted this plan of action of the Jewish Nation for world domination.  The belief is strong that the Protocols were issued, or reissued, at the First Zionist Congress held at Basle in 1897 under the presidency of the Father of Modern Zionism, the late Theodore Herzl. (“The Great Within the Small” published by Nilus in 1901).

Symbolic Snake of Judaism was employed to depict the global serpentine movement of the Jewish people throughout the nations of the world in the implementation of their power grabs. While the head of the beast, depicted the secret society of those who have been initiated into the plans and made a part of the Jewish administration required to carry out the manipulations required. In the year 1844, on the eve of the Jewish Revolution of 1848, Benjamin Disraeli, published his novel, “Coningsby” stating, “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes of all governments.” as this Snake penetrated into the hearts of the nations which it encountered it undermined and devoured all the non-Jewish power of these States.

The return of the head of the Snake to Zion can only be accomplished after the power of all the Sovereign of Europe has been laid low, that is to say, when by means of economic crises and wholesale destruction effected everywhere, there shall have been brought about a spiritual demoralization and a moral corruption. But the late Walter Rathenau writing in the WIENER FREIE PRESSE, December 24, 1912, said: “Three hundred men, each of whom knows all the others, govern the fate of the European continent, and they elect their successors from their entourage.” This is a secret which has not been revealed. They are the Hidden Hand. And he went on to show that these personages were all Jews.

Extreme cunning, patience and stealth has allowed for the successful political and financial execution of Herzl’s ‘Society of the Jews’ and the ‘Hidden Hand’ schemas, symbolically, pictured as the “Snake.” Now, the beast is being drawn through the Americas and in the United States of America, it has been partially identified as the “Council on Foreign Relations” (C.F.R.) and the “Trilateral Commission“. Excerpts from the chapter “Who Are the Elders” (“The Great within the Small” published by Nilus in 1901).

In the early 1960s, Senator William J. Fulbright fought to force the American Zionist Council to register as agents of a foreign government. The Council eluded registration by reorganizing as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC has since become what Fulbright most feared: a foreign agent dominating American foreign policy while disguised as a domestic lobby. (“How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy” by Jeff Gates.)

Volunteers or helpers to the Jewish State agenda shaped by Herzl and the Learned Elders of Zion; staff positions in political offices and play strategic roles in U.S. Policy making. Where there are also numerous guys at the working level of Capitol Hill, who happen to be Jewish and are willing to look at certain issues through Jewish eyes. All of these collectively are in position to make decisions for those senators with whom they work. 

Author Victor Ostrovsky, formerly a Zionist agent, conceded in 1990 that the Mossad had 7,000 sayanim (volunteers or helpers) in London alone. What this vast volunteer corps is not told is that an operation may endanger not only Israel but also the broader Jewish community when Tel Aviv is linked to extremism, terrorism, extortion, organized crime, espionage and treason. Ostrovsky explains in “By Way of Deception.”

James Petras, retired Bartle Professor (Emeritus) who has published prolifically on Latin American and Middle Eastern political issues. Petras describes himself as a “revolutionary and anti-imperialist” activist and writer. He coined the term Zionist Power Configuration. It is much more than a lobby. The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) has over two thousand full-time functionaries, more than 250,000 activists, over a thousand billionaire and multi-millionaire political donors who contribute funds to both political parties. The ZPC secures 20% of the US foreign military aid budget for Israel, over 95% congressional support for Israel’s boycott and armed incursions in Gaza, invasion of Lebanon, and preemptive military option against Iran. “Zionism and the Media” by Donald Dinelli.

Jewish Achievement reports that 42% of the largest political donors to the 2000 election cycle were Jewish, including four of the top five. That compares to less than 2% of Americans who are Jewish. Of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, 25% are Jewish according to Michael Steinhardt, a key funder of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC was led by Jewish Zionist Senator Joe Lieberman when he resigned in 2000 to run as vice president with pro-Israeli presidential candidate Al Gore. When asked if the US will object, Netanyahu responds: “America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction … They won’t get in our way … Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.” “Netanyahu: I deceived US to destroy Oslo accords.”

In all corners of the earth the words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the GOYIM (non-Jews), putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the GOY States. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card – the destruction of the privileges, or in other words, of the very existence of the aristocracy of the GOYIM, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy of the GOYIM we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money. The qualifications for this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge, for which our learned elders provide the motive force. “Protocols of the Meetings of the 70 Learned Elders of Zion.”
WAKE UP!!!

Special Thanks to our Writer Bishop Donald R. Corder

Bishop Donald R. Corder is the spiritual leader of the Spirit of Life International Believers Fellowship and Senior Pastor for the Pillar of Truth Ministries. Mr. Corder is a published author, grassroots organizer and community activist, in addition to his work in urban and international development as a business consultant and entrepreneur. 
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

U.S. Senate pressures Abbas not to move from peace talks

[ 29/09/2010 - 10:40 AM ]

WASHINGTON, (PIC)-- The majority of the U.S. Senate is pushing for pressure on Palestinian de facto president Mahmoud Abbas to stay put in negotiations without any pre-conditions, threats, or withdrawals after the settlement freeze date of expiry.

Several members of the Senate on Monday called on President Barack Obama in a personal letter to him to publicly pressure Abbas not to walk out of the direct talks that kicked off earlier this month.

The American Foreign Policies magazine reported that the letter undersigned by 87 of the 100 U.S. Senators said neither of the two parties should threaten to leave the talks that have already begun, referring to repeated threats by Abbas to leave the negotiations if the settlement freeze was not extended.

The senators urged Arab nations to play a larger role in the peace process, saying they believe the Arab states could do more to provide financial and political support for the process.

The letter concluded the importance of reaching an agreement acceptable by both parties that would achieve “lasting security for Israel”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Dr. Lawrence Davidson: Netanyahu & Abbas: What are the Possibilities?

Via Intifada Palestine
24. Aug, 2010
Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Despite the fact that Obama and the Europeans act like Abbas is the head of a Palestine government, he represents almost no one but a largely corrupt cabal armed and financed by the Americans and the European Union

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has announced that direct “negotiations” between Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas will begin on September 2, 2010. It is reported that Abbas agreed to these talks only after heavy pressure from both the United States and the European Union. As part of the pressure President Obama is said to have told Abbas in June that the U.S. could do more to help the Palestinians if direct negotiations were ongoing.

George Mitchell, the United States special Middle East envoy, vowed that Washington would be an “active and sustained partner” and when necessary would offer “bridging proposals” to move the negotiations along. Abbas, who is the head of Fatah, has agreed to enter the negotiations without preconditions. The only proviso he has put forth is that if Israel suspends its “settlement freeze” he will stop participating in the talks. We shall see.

These sort of diplomatic exercises have happened before.

To take just one example, in 2000 Yasir Arafat was pressured by President Bill Clinton to attend Camp David II. Arafat, who was a more skillful leader than Abbas, knew that there had not been a proper groundwork laid for a successful summit between himself and then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. But the Americans got him to the table by promising to be “active” and “impartial” in the process and also not to lay blame on any one party if the talks failed.

Barak showed up with a list of “red-line” non-negotiable items and demands that foredoomed the meeting. Clinton was active all right, but most of his activity was directed at twisting Arafat’s arm to give in to the Israelis. When, despite a number of compromises on the part of the Palestinians, the talks failed, Clinton betrayed his promise to Arafat and publically blamed him for the failure.

Abbas is in an even weaker position than Arafat was. At least Arafat was a respected statesman and the elected leader of the Palestinian people. Abbas is not generally supported by his people as witnessed by the fact that his Fatah party was defeated in free and fair elections by Hamas in January 2006. Despite the fact that Obama and the Europeans act like Abbas is the head of a Palestine government, he represents almost no one but a largely corrupt cabal armed and financed by the Americans and the European Union–which might have a lot to do with their ability to get him to the negotiating table.

Even though Abbas’s status as the leader of the Palestinians is open to question, Obama will try to do to him what Clinton was not able to do to Arafat, that is brow beat Abbas into signing an agreement with the Israelis.

Assuming that this is accomplished, the question is how would Abbas implement the agreement?

There is a small middle class element of Palestinians on the West Bank who are understandably exhausted and fed up with the situation they find themselves in. If guaranteed some peace and quiet and the ability to do business, they may go along with the apartheid deal that Netanyahu has in mind. The Palestinian government bureaucrats and militia mercenaries (trained and armed by the Americans), are financially dependent on the Fatah regime, and they too might go along as well.

But the bulk of West Bank Palestinians–shop keepers, day laborers, agriculturists, etc.– would probably take to the streets in protest. Would Abbas use his party militia to violently suppress the opposition’s outrage? And, would the militia soldiers fire on the crowds if ordered to shoot? Could very well be.

The Israelis would, of course, offer to use their American Apache helicopters as air support for Abbas. Yasir Arafat must truly be turning over in his grave at the possibilities.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has proclaimed that an agreement with the Palestinians is “doable.” But that just means he sees Abbas as weak and vulnerable and therefore more easily cheated out of a Palestinian homeland than any prior Palestinian leader.

Netanyahu holds all the cards. The Palestinians cannot hurt him, the Americans will not hurt him, and so he is free to play to the only force that may indeed hurt him–the right wing parties that hold his government coalition together. He will settle only for a deal he can sell to them. And, if Abbas does balk, Netanyahu can always say he tried and, once again, it is all the fault of the Palestinians. At that point he would probably haul out the old Israeli saying that the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

And what does President Obama get out of this exercise?

Well, he is able to say that he too is trying really hard to settle this seemingly endless conflict. He promised to try to do so, and here he is keeping his promise. That should carry him through the November elections. Further down the line, however, he has made the political mistake of promising to present his own peace plan if, after one year of negotiating, the Israelis and Palestinians have not made serious progress. If things actually work out this way, Obama might find himself, by virtue of his peace plan, in the midst of political turmoil just as he prepares for reelection. After all, how does the President implement any prospective plan? By waving a magic wand and making all the political obstacles presented by the Zionist lobby go away? Or does he just put it on the table and then run away from it?

Just to vary the perspective, here is a possibly relevant comparative case. At the beginning of 1918 Leon Trotsky, the People’s Commissar for Foreign Policy in the new revolutionary Soviet government, sat in the city of Brest-Litovsk (located today in Belarus) trying to negotiate a peace treaty with the aggressive representatives of imperial Germany. World War I was still raging and the German armies had been consistently victorious on the eastern front. As a result, the Russian army was in a state of collapse. For their part the Bolsheviks were desperate to end the war so that they could concentrate on consolidating power in a struggle against competing Russian forces. In other words, at Brest-Litovsk the Germans held all the cards. So they demanded that Trotsky stop lecturing them on the dialectical nature of class conflict and accept terms that essentially turned most of western Russia into a satellite of the German Empire. Trotsky was appalled. But the pan-European revolution that was suppose to tip the balance of power in favor of Communism had not materialized, and Vladimir Lenin decided that to not accept peace on German terms would mean the eventual collapse of the young Soviet government in Russia. Lenin forced the Bolshevik Central Committee to accept the draconian treaty terms laid down by the Germans. The catch in all of this is that the Germany went on to lose the war on the western front which meant that the balance of power in the east finally did shift in favor of the Soviet regime. The men in Moscow were very lucky.

Is there a lesson here for the Palestinians?

The Palestinian struggle is also a two front affair. There is Palestine proper and then a worldwide front where a movement of civil society seeks to isolate the Israeli government because of its barbarous behavior and policies. If the fate of South Africa is an applicable precedent, that front should gain strength and eventually raise the cost of occupation and apartheid in Israel to a point where the Israeli government serious considers a change of policies.

In the meantime, what should the West Bank Palestinians do?

Should they make amends with Hamas and continue to resist as best they can for however long it takes to wear the Israelis down–assuming that can be done?

Or should they cut their losses and sign a draconian treaty with the Israelis in the hope that, when and if, Tel Aviv loses the war on the worldwide front, the treaty terms can be favorably restructured?

Of course, moving in that direction raises the question of whether such a deal might not take the wind out of the anti-Israel boycott movement, and thereby weaken the second front?

Then there is the question, what does Abbas and his Fatah party followers really want? Do they want a just peace for the Palestinians, or like Lenin, do they want to consolidate their power even if it is in a diminished Palestine?

It is a complicated affair and there are no clear cut answers to any of these questions.

My own feeling is that Abbas could not make a Brest-Litvosk style settlement stick even if he is inclined to sign such an agreement. Things have gone too far for the majority of Palestinians, both inside and outside of Palestine, to accept it. Abbas would become the Palestinian version of a Quisling and he would not die in bed. Whatever happens, those of us outside of Palestine must hunker down and push the worldwide front. That seems to be our only viable choice.

Lawrence Davidson
Department of History
West Chester University
West Chester, Pa 19383
USA
Special Thanks to our writer Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Dr. Lawrence  Davidson has done extensive research and published in the areas of American perceptions of the Middle East, and Islamic Fundamentalism. His two latest publications are Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood Press, 1998) and America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood  (University Press of Florida, 2001).

He has published thirteen articles on various aspects of American perceptions of the Middle East. Dr. Davidson holds a BA from Rutgers, an MA from Georgetown University and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Alberta.



25/08/2010 Israeli settlers warned on Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will face his "day of judgment" if he caves in to pressure to further limit settlement construction in the West Bank.
"This is not a time to mince words as this is literally a day of judgment for our prime minister and government," said Naftali Bennett, head of Yesha, the main association of settlers in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory.

Yesha wrote a letter warning Netanyahu there would be "serious diplomatic and political implications" if he reneges on his promise to resume issuing building permits for settler homes when a partial, 10-month moratorium concludes on September 26.

The Palestinians initially insisted they would not sit at the negotiating table with the Israelis without guarantees the moratorium on building permits be extended.

But no such guarantee has been made public in statements from the US administration sponsoring the talks and the Middle East peace Quartet when they announced the new round of negotiations.
(AFP)


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian