As usual in these circumstances, Israel is trying to exploit the Paris bombings for its propaganda purposes.
Israeli and Zionist officials have been insinuating that the widely condemned terrorist bombings in Paris, for which the ISIS took responsibility, justified Israel’s crackdown on Palestinian resistance against Jewish colonialism, especially Israel’s lebensraum policies in the West Bank.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been quoted as saying that the Paris bombings should make France and other countries understand Israel’s war on Palestinian terror.
Netanyahu’s opportunistic remarks seem to have been motivated by two main considerations.
First, is the desire to alleviate international pressure on Israel to terminate the decades-old occupation of the Palestinian homeland and allow for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.
And, second, Israel is always eager to see as many French Jews as possible immigrate to Occupied Palestine in order to augment the ranks of a dwindling Jewish population due to comparatively higher demographic growth among Palestinians.
As a pathological liar, Netanyahu understands the Palestinian cause as a matter of propaganda and public relations quagmire, not as real problems requiring real political solutions.
This is one of the main reasons that the conflict in Palestine has remained unresolved and blood on both sides continues to be spilled on a daily basis.
Indeed, hasbara, media lies, carefully produced sound-bites may help the Zionist state reap some short-term political capital in the capitals of the West. But it will never succeed in bringing the conflict even one centimeter closer to a historic solution.
I am quite sure that many wise people on the Jewish side of the isle realize this equation.
However, it seems that Netanyahu and cohorts are too insolent and too arrogant to listen to the voices of wisdom.
He thinks that brute military power alone guarantees Israel’s future, forgetting the fact that entire empires collapsed for reasons, not including military weakness.
Netanyahu, in a cynical way, always tries to lump Israel in the company of civilized countries.
But the peoples of the world do know too well Israel’s criminal credentials and that this state is actually a crime against humanity.
Have the peoples of the world forgotten Israel’s genocidal crimes against the people of Gaza in 2008-9, 2012, and 2014?
Does the world need to be reminded that the number of Palestinian children murdered by Israel in one month exceeds the number of civilians killed by ISIS ever since its appearance a few years ago?
Do we have to remind the world that unlike terrorist entities, Israel dropped heavy bombs on apartment towers packed with terrified women and children in Gaza, causing hundreds of civilian casualties.
In fact, in 3 hours, the Israeli army killed and maimed more innocent civilians at the Shujaiyya in Gaza than the victims of the Paris bombings last night.
My point here is not to belittle the criminal nature of the Paris bombings.
My point is rather to caution the world against hard criminal states such as Israel which is routinely perpetrating ethnic cleansing and other genocidal crimes against the Palestinian people and then plays the self-righteous card of identifying with the victims of the terrorist bombings in Paris.
In fact, Israel is behaving very much like the little Hitler of Damascus who has murdered and maimed a million Syrians while forcing more than 15 million others out of their homes, forcing them to flee death and seek safety all over the world.
Still, Assad has the audacity to shed crocodile “tears of sympathy” with the victims of terror in Paris, ignoring the fact that his genocidal terror against the innocent civilians of Syria made the terrorist bombings in Paris inevitable.
Likewise, Netanyahu and his “shitty state”, as a French diplomat referred to Israel a few years ago, goes on murdering Palestinians, murdering their children, destroying their homes, stealing their land, bulldozing their fields and narrowing their horizons. Netanyahu is raising his eyebrows every time he watches a Palestinian child throws a stone on Israeli military vehicle patrolling the West Bank.
And instead of honestly trying to find out what makes that child behave as such, the Israeli premier closes his mind and opens his big mouth, complaining about “Arab terror” and concocting corrupt analogies between the Nazis and Zionism’s victims.
But the world, including France, yes France, the US, Britain and Russia, is hypocritical par excellence.
Otherwise, Israel the perpetual crime against humanity should have been declared as such from the first moment it was created.
Indeed, had the world behaved moralistically then, the world would have been spared the terror of ISIS and other similar groups, whose violence, however despicable it might look, is an ultimate product or by-product of the much greater terror and violence committed by criminal players such as Israel, the US, France, the UK and now Russia.
Can there be a scandal more scandalous than the seizure and usurpation of Palestine by Zionism?
So to the West in general I say, please, don’t pretend to be innocent because you are not innocent.
(Source / 15.11.2015)
At last night’s Democratic debate in Iowa, Bernie Sanders responded to the Paris horror saying that we have to rid the earth of ISIS, that there’s a war for the soul of Islam, and the Muslim nations have to get their hands dirty too.
These belligerent and self-righteous statements were concerning because once again American leaders, and American Jews, are pure innocence when it comes to the religious dimension of the Middle East conflict. The hypocrisy would be appalling were it not so functional: the biggest impediment to both the reform of Islam and peace in the Middle East that Americans have the ability to remove is our support for a militant Jewish ideology that few Arabs and Muslims have ever accepted.
This understanding dinned in on Americans after the last big shocker, 9/11. At that time some observers pointed out a simple truth: that Osama bin Laden and his radical little army were motivated by the occupation of Palestine as well as the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia. But that idea was suppressed. They hate us because of our freedom, became the watchword, and the Bush administration’s foreign policy turned into a neoconservative war policy guided by the same ideologues who had lately advised the Israeli Prime Minister to end the peace process and move the Arabs over, from Palestine to Jordan, from Jordan to Iraq. The 9/11 Commission concluded that US policy in Palestine was part of the reason for the attacks, but that analysis was whittled down to a few sentences– even as the head of the commission said that the Iraq war was launched to protect Israel. (And Condi Rice said the war would provide “strategic relief” to Israel and Colin Powell said it was dreamed up by the Zionist thinktank the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).
Last night Sanders pointed out that that war, authored by Hillary Clinton and George Bush, among others, is what destroyed Iraq and led to the rise of ISIS. No doubt this is the case; but the analysis is insufficient till it includes the fact that the war was dreamed up and fomented by neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and Jeffrey Goldberg, whose chief concern is the stability of Israel. Americans have never had that discussion; but it is more urgent than ever now that Syria is no more and Europe is reaping the harvest. Yes the political discussion took place in the shadows. But Walt and Mearsheimer were vilified as anti-semites for making the case that the Israel lobby was the crucial element in starting that war; and the left tiptoed away from the analysis. And this blog– for which the Iraq war was the core issue– began after my brother told me that he had demonstrated against the Vietnam War but his Jewish newspaper said this war might be good for Israel; and this blog got pushed out the door at the New York Observer, then the Nation Institute.
Bernie Sanders and I both opposed the Iraq war. Most American Jews opposed that war. But Sanders’s assertion that there is a war for the soul of Islam is hollow, cheap and condescending so long as he and the mainstream Jewish community continue to suppress the war for the soul of Judaism. That war is happening all around us in the margins; but the west will not be able to rid the earth of ISIS and the radical Islamism that we are told is not Islam (believe me, I can’t wait for their demise) till we conduct a similar scathing inventory of Jewish political beliefs.
Sanders is of course an atheist. But the biggest political event of his young life, maybe his entire life, his older brother says, was the news of the Holocaust when he was a boy. After college, Sanders went to Israel before he went to Vermont, and worked on a kibbutz; the same hegira undertaken by many other Jewish leftists, including Noam Chomsky and Tony Judt. Smart men, but there was surely a utopian belief on all their parts; many Jews believed in the establishment of the Jewish state as a redemptive act of history. “It is difficult to assess which of the two miracles was greater– the miracle of [Israeli] independence or the miracle of [international Jewish] unity,” the socialist atheist David Ben-Gurion wrote. Countless Jews refer to Israel as a miracle, from Jeffrey Goldberg to Ari Shavit, and Chaim Weizmann, Jeremy Ben-Ami, and Leonard Nimoy, too. Not to mention Barack Obama and Marco Rubio.
The leading American political theorist Michael Walzer says that the long and continuous Jewish political tradition that produced Israel is derived from the bible, the story of Exodus. He writes:
Its point of departure is always the Hebrew bible…. [Its] big issues [are] election or ‘chosenness’, the holiness of the Land of Israel, the experience of exile, and the hope for redemption….That tradition begins with God’s authority, with divine rule and divine revelations. Exactly how much room there is for human authority and decision making is always a question.
And you’re worried about Christian evangelists? But Walzer is a leading authority on Israel in allegedly secular publications like the New York Review of Books!
Golda Meir famously said that she was an atheist because she didn’t believe in God; but she did believe in the Jewish people. Ben-Gurion said that the “Sinai covenant” with God had produced the miracle of Israel’s birth. Thus Jewish nationalism (Zionism) was infused from the start with religious ideas. And the creation of Israel always had a religious character for many Jews: a faith so core that it gave life meaning, a faith so strong that it overruled reality. The former SDS leader Todd Gitlin says that Jews are a chosen people: they have “an unshakable attachment to the wild idea of divine election, which, however dampened, however sublimated, continues to ripple beneath the surface of everyday events.”
Till it doesn’t just ripple and goes, Ka-Boom! That’s the sound of suicide bombers in Paris and Baghdad, and the sound of Jewish terrorists blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem to get rid of the British.
All those terrorists are religious nationalists who have some Michael-Walzer-like belief in God’s guidance of their ethnocentric designs. But our world is too small to look on chosenness as anything but a dangerous philosophy.
Count me out of this religious tradition. An anti-Zionist in the war for the soul of Judaism, I call on all American Jews to examine how much of their support or tolerance of a Jewish state has a religious character– in the vision of Jewish agency as a redemptive historical force and answer to the Holocaust and the Jewish question in Europe. Secular Jews who prize their freedom in the United States must come to grips with the ideas of Jewish superiority and uniqueness that have propelled Zionist landgrabs and Jim Crow across Palestine to this day. Secular Jews who celebrated the Egyptian peace treaty and Oslo accords must reckon with their celebration of deals in which 80 million Arabs were put on ice in Egypt by the west and another 6 million in Palestine just so the Jewish state could continue in peace. Neoconservatives must come to terms with their promotion of a war that would stabilize Israel by destroying the great Arab cities of Baghdad, Damascus and Aleppo so far, with hundreds of thousands of Muslim victims–whose national colors are not displayed in grief on the Empire State Building, the Freedom Tower, or the Sydney Opera House. Till we undertake that inventory, there won’t be peace in the Middle East, or the west either.
Yesterday James North and I wrote here that we’re not monocausal; even if there was justice in Palestine it would not end Islamist violence. I stand by that point. But the ultimate question is the one Bernie Sanders raised last night, What can we do to end the religious element of the conflicts in the Middle East? And the answer is that Jews must end their support for Zionism, which has turned out to be religious, fascistic and militant, and is fueling rage across the Middle East and further.
How long can Jews not have this conversation? Hannah Arendt wrote in 1944 that opposition to Zionism drew on great understandings: the “realization of the fatal, utopian hyperbole of the demand for a Jewish commonwealth and a rejection of the idea of making all Jewish politics in Palestine dependent on the protection of great powers.” The realization of the fatal, utopian part is still the Jewish struggle 70 years later: Arendt is pointedly excluded from Michael Walzer’s retinue of the “Jewish political tradition.” Because of the inward self-governing structure of the Jewish community, anyone who says that apartheid is apartheid is a heretic who must be excommunicated; but even if you conclude that it has all the elements of apartheid, as Peter Beinart told Rabbi Sharon Brous in a Los Angeles synagogue last week, well you must support it, you must not boycott it, you must describe it as a democracy. These are foolish claims that you can only maintain in a religious space, or one from which Palestinian Americans and anti-Zionist Jews are segregated, which is to say, every Jewish establishment space in the United States, from J Street to the 92d Street Y to AIPAC to Terry Gross’s radio show. And God bless Jewish Voice for Peace.
The other illusion Arendt tried to blow up, and Walt and Mearsheimer too, was that Israel was finished if it depended on great powers, rather than the acceptance of its neighbors. That dependence was one that the State Department deprecated from the start. If the U.S. helps to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, that state will be dependent on the U.S. and it will lead to endless unrest, State’s realists said. Secretary of State George Marshall threatened to vote against his president if he went through with the decision to recognize Israel; but the nascent Israel lobby was already delivering in the ’48 election, and its vote counted more.
While Harry Truman’s predecessor Franklin Roosevelt surely saw Paris coming when he said of two leading rabbis who came into the White House to urge a Jewish state in 1944:
To think of it, two men, two holy men, coming here to ask me to let millions of people be killed in a jihad.
It was an American problem then and it’s an American problem now. We have set aside our own secular values when it comes to the Middle East. We should stop lecturing Muslims about their backward ideas till we reckon with our own.
(Source / 15.11.2015)
Very few of the 11.8 million Syrians who have fled their homes during the current conflict are now in Europe.
(Source / 15.11.2015)
GAZA CITY (Ma’an) — Israeli forces on Sunday detained a Palestinian man at the Erez crossing as he was attempting to leave the Gaza Strip for medical treatment in the occupied West Bank, locals said.The man, identified as 30-year-old Ahmad Abed Rabbo from Jabalia in northern Gaza, was stopped by Israeli soldiers at the border crossing and taken into custody.He was reportedly travelling with his sister, who was detained for several hours, before being released on the Gazan side of the border.Erez is the only land crossing between Gaza and Israel, although travel is heavily restricted by Israeli authorities as part of a crippling blockade on the coastal enclave in place since 2007.
(Source / 15.11.2015)
Israel murders, brutalizes, mass imprisons and tortures Palestinians daily – ignored by Western and Israeli media, blaming victims for state-sponsored high crimes.
Parisians justifiably mourn their dead. Worldwide sympathy supports their family members and an aggrieved nation.
Palestinians suffer isolated on their own. The world community ignores their horrific ordeal. Jewish rights alone matter.
Since October 1, Israel killed 86 Palestinians, the vast majority extrajudicially executed in cold blood. Clear evidence exposed the myth of knife-wielding terrorists. Over 8,000 Palestinians were injured, scores arrested daily, children treated as brutally as adults, women the same as men.
Israel is guilty of premeditated state-sponsored terrorism. Soldiers and police use live fire against defenseless people, wanting long denied freedom, resisting largely with their bare hands against one of the world’s most ruthless regimes, generously supported by Washington, both nations partnering in each other’s high crimes.
Multiple independent daily reports indict Israel for state-sponsored terrorism. Unaccountability denies Palestinians justice they deserve.
The world community stands in solidarity with Parisians, mourning for their loss – at the same time, letting Israel continue murdering and brutalizing Palestinians with impunity. Longstanding torment of millions of defenseless people goes largely ignored.
Palestinian suffering is longstanding – since losing 78% of their nation in 1948, the rest in June 1967, suffering horrifically under Israel’s repressive boot, obligated the way Jefferson explained to resist for freedom.
Parisians deserve world support in the aftermath of Friday attacks. Palestinians deserve it far more after nearly 70 years of tyrannical Israeli oppression.
(Source / 15.11.2015)
We destroyed ourselves with our dumb 9/11 overreactions. It’s essential not to make the same mistake again
What is terrorism? Many are convinced that the word is inherently so vague as to be meaningless. I have never understood this. To me the definition seems singular, and obvious, and it would appear that simply understanding it is the key to avoiding terrible missteps in the aftermath of an attack like the one in Paris.
Terrorism is a tactic in which the primary objective is to produce fear, rather than direct harm. Terrorist attacks are, first and foremost, psychological operations designed to alter behavior amongst the terrorized in a way that the actors believe will serve them.
The 9/11 perpetrators killed about 3,000 people, and did about $13 billion in physical damage to the United States. That’s a lot of harm in absolute terms, but not relative to a nation of 300 million people, with a GDP of almost $15 trillion. It was a massive blow to many families, and to New York City. But to the nation as a whole that level of damage was about as dangerous as a bee sting.
You may find that analogy suspect because bee stings are deadly to those with an allergy. But what kills people is not the sting itself. It is their own massive overreactionto an otherwise tiny threat, that fatally disrupts the functional systems of the body. And that is exactly what terrorists hope to trigger—a muscular and reflexive response on the part of the victim-state that advances the perpetrators’ interests far beyond their own capacity to advance them.
The 9/11 attack was symbolic. It was not designed to cripple us economically or militarily, at least not directly. It was designed to provoke a reaction. The reaction cost more than 6,000 American lives in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than $3 trillion in U.S. treasure. The reaction also caused the United States to cripple its own Constitution and radicalize the Muslim world with a reign of terror that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians.
The return on the terrorists’ investment was spectacular. Assuming the official story is right, then Al Qaeda got $7 million of effect for every dollar it spent on the attack–$7 million, to one. The ratio of harm inflicted on U.S. targets by the 9/11 attacks, to the financial harm the U.S. inflicted on itself reflects the same amplification. For every $1 of damage they did to us, we did $231 to ourselves. For every American that was killed in the attack, we sacrificed more than two on the battlefield. And that is all before we consider the instability we brought to the Middle East, the harm we did to our own freedoms, and the spectacular cost to our reputation abroad.
The lesson, of course, is that above all else a nation should refuse to do what everyone will expect it to do in response to an attack. And if there is a silver lining, it is that one does not need to be sure of the identity or intent of their attackers to respond intelligently.
Terrorists do not engage in terror attacks because they are strong. They engage in these attacks because they are weak. The gruesome spectacle of terrorism is a cost saving measure in which the fears of the victims and onlookers amplify the resources that the terrorists themselves are able to deploy.
Reacting reflexively is inherently self-defeating. If a nation wishes to make itself an unappealing target, then it should get its primordial fears under control.
We are not made safe from terrorists by helicopters, or missiles or boots on the ground. Nor is it drones, torture or digital dragnets that protect us. What makes us as individuals safe from a terror attack is the staggering probability that we will be elsewhere when one occurs. Accepting a tiny chance that we will die at the hands of terrorists is a bargain price for freedom. Reconciling oneself to it is very much like accepting a small chance that one will die on the highway, in exchange for the ability to travel at will.
There is much we do not know, and much we many never know about ISIS and its objectives. We can, however be sure of this: ISIS would like the citizens of the West to surrender their liberties, while lashing out blindly into the dark.
This time, let’s not.
(Source / 15.11.2015)
The baby had several injuries in the head
According to the paramedics, the baby had several injuries in the head, but his condition is less than moderate
Days of Palestine, West Bank –Israeli military jeep ran over 2-year Palestinian baby in West Bank city of Beir Nabalah on Sunday evening.
Witnesses said that the Palestinian boy was holding his father’s hand as they were walking along an alleyway in the city.
“An Israeli military jeep got close to them and hit the baby in the head and ran away,” the eyewitness said. “The father screamed at the Israeli soldiers in the jeep, but they ignored him and continued driving fast until they disappeared,” he added.
Palestinian paramedics said that the baby was evacuated to a Palestinian hospital in Ramallah and he is under continuous observation until tomorrow.
According to the paramedics, the baby had several injuries in the head, but his condition is less than moderate.
(Source / 15.11.2015)
British analysts say the crisis created by ISIL terrorists cannot be resolved through military means
In the wake of the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris, concerns are rising that certain Western countries may be already preparing to take a military action against ISIL terrorists in Syria.
While the exact efficiency of any military move against the terrorists may not be known, concerns are rising among analysts that this could eventually prove counterproductive.
Nahella Ashraf, an activist based in Manchester, has told Press TV that bombing ISIL in Syria will do nothing to stop terrorism as the experience of wars that were waged in the region since 2001 clearly shows.
“If you do nothing [in Syria] but create more refugees around the world, you are only going to make the people of the Middle East more angry with the West and instead make the ISIL more acceptable,” said Ashraf.
Other analysts believe that taking any military action on Syria is a wrong political move and will lead to a confrontation with Russia.
“What we are going to have is not going to be necessarily a military action per se but a military action obviously with overtones and undertones,” Clive Hambidge, the director of human development at Facilitate Global told Press TV.
“Now that Russia has become involved …if we look at it in terms of a war, it is not going to be a war that Russia would want to lose,” he added.
Hambidge added that any decision by Britain to get involved in the Syrian war would be as wrong as the historic mistake that was taken to take the country to the war in Iraq back in 2003.
Such a decision, he warned, could threaten Britain’s national interests from the political point of view.
“We would go ahead in partnership with America in creating a greater a greater problem in Syria and that’s a humanitarian catastrophe that is taking place we have millions of refugees internally and externally,” said Hambidge.
“We have a catastrophe that is unfolding,” he warned. “I think a majority of people who are right minded would see that going into Syria and creating more disturbance is only going to provoke confrontation with Russia”.
Ian Williams, a senior analyst with the Foreign Policy in Focus, believes that taking a military action against the ISIL in Syria is not as easy as it sounds.
“It is very complicated. This is a three or four sided war in Syria. When you take action, who you are taking action against? This is because any action taken against one party implies that you are taking action against the other,” he told Press TV’s UK Desk in an exclusive interview.
“So NATO is hardly going to come right in to the rescue of President Assad and the remnants of the Ba’ath regime in Damascus. On the other hand, the Turks are not going to let them come to the rescue of the Syrian Kurds.”
And simply to go against ISIL without supporting the Free Syrian Army is going to meet objections from the powers that support Assad such as Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, he added.
Williams said there is still a lack of a coherent plan on what really needs to be done toward the terrorists in Syria.
He added that many are nonetheless worried that the Western states may proceed with a bombing campaign on Syria without a clear objective.
“Bombings initially may look great for public relations because it shows that you are doing something,” he said. “But the civilian collateral damage is so high that you will lose public support the very first time you manage to hit a yet another hospital or a yet another housing block the support for this diminishes.”
Sabby Dhalu, a UK-based anti-racism activist, has told Press TV that some key details that have come out of the Paris terror attacks are murky.
“Does anybody know for sure if the perpetrators of these attacks were actually people who were refugees because of some passports that have been found?” said Dhalu.
“We don’t know if that passport belongs to one of the perpetrators. We simply don’t know. That passport could have belonged to a victim who died as a result of the attack,” she added.
Dhalu emphasized that some details on the attacks that have come out to the media appear to have been purposefully engineered to tarnish the image of the refugees who have escaped the war in Syria and fled to Europe.
“The truth is that even if one of the perpetrators happens to be a refugee, just because one person is connected to an act of terrorism, the idea that the global population of refugees are terrorists is conveniently ludicrous and factually incorrect,” she added.
(Source / 15.11.2015)