Posts Tagged ‘Tungsten’

The victims of Europe and the Holocaust decided that they want a state of their own, somewhere, anywhere in the world.

After considering many options (at the expense and with total disregard to whoever may have already lived in the selected lands), Palestine was chosen. Among the Jewish Zionist options were such countries as Argentina, Ghana and other countries.

The Zionist movement arose in late nineteenth-century Europe, influenced by the nationalist ferment sweeping that continent. Zionism acquired its particular focus from the “ancient Jewish longing” for the return to Zion and received a strong impetus from the increasingly intolerable conditions facing the large Jewish community in Tsarist Russia. The movement also developed at the time of major European territorial acquisitions in Asia and Africa, and benefited from the European powers’ competition for influence in the shrinking Ottoman Empire.


One result of this involvement with European expansionism, however, was that the leaders of the nascent nationalist movements in the Middle East viewed Zionism as an adjunct of European colonialism. Moreover, Zionist assertions of the contemporary relevance of the Jews’ historical ties to Palestine, coupled with their land purchases and immigration, alarmed the indigenous population of the Ottoman districts that comprised Palestine. The Jewish community (yishuv) rose from 6 percent of Palestine’s population in 1880 to 10 percent by 1914. Although the numbers were insignificant, the settlers were outspoken enough to arouse the opposition of Arab leaders and induce them to exert counter pressure on the Ottoman regime to prohibit Jewish immigration and land buying.

As early as 1891, a group of Muslim and Christian notables cabled Istanbul, urging the government to prohibit Jewish immigration and land purchase. The resulting edicts radically curtailed land purchases in the Sanjak (district) of JERUSALEM for the next decade. When a Zionist Congress resolution in 1905 called for increased colonization, the Ottoman regime suspended all land transfers to Jews in both the Sanjak of Jerusalem and the Wilayat (province) of Beirut.
After the coup d’etat by the Young Turks in 1908, the Palestinians used their representation in the central parliament and their access to newly opened local newspapers to press their claims and express their concerns. They were particularly vociferous in opposition to discussions that took place between the financially hard-pressed Ottoman regime and Zionist leaders in 1912-13, which would have let the world Zionist Organization purchase crown land (Jiftlik) in the Baysan Valley, along the Jordan River.

The Zionists did not try to quell Palestinian fears, since their concern was to encourage colonization from Europe and to minimize the obstacles in their path. The only effort to meet to discuss Palestinian and Zionist aspirations occurred in the spring of 1914. Its difficulties illustrated the incompatibility in the aims of both sides aspirations. The Palestinians wanted the Zionists to present them with a document that would state

  • Zionists precise political ambitions,
  • Zionists willingness to open their schools to Palestinians, and
  • Zionists intentions of learning Arabic and integrating with the local population.

The Zionists rejected this proposal.

The proclamation of the BALFOUR DECLARATION on November 2, 1917, and the arrival of British troops in Palestine soon after, transformed the political situation. The declaration gave the Zionist movement its long-sought legal status. The qualification that: nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine seemed a relatively insignificant obstacle to the Zionists, especially since it referred only to those communities’: civil and religious rights, not to political or national rights. The subsequent British occupation gave Britain the ability to carry out that pledge and provide the protection necessary for the Zionists to realize their aims.

Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, placed maximalist demands before the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919. He stated that he expected 70,000 to 80,000 Jewish immigrants to arrive each year in Palestine. When they became the majority, they would form an independent government and Palestine and would become: “as Jewish as England is English”

Weizmann proposed that the boundaries should be the Mediterranean Sea on the west; Sidon, the Litani River, and Mount Hermon on the north; all of Transjordan west of the Hijaz railway on the east; and a line across Sinai from Aqaba to al-Arish on the south. He argued that:

“the boundaries above outlined are what we consider essential for the economic foundation of the country. Palestine must have its natural outlet to the sea and control of its rivers and their headwaters. The boundaries are sketched with the general economic needs and historic traditions of the country in mind.”


A Virus called Israel

Quite an expansionist dream for a Russian Jew!

The irony is that all most Jews living in Israel today are Europeans. Those born in Palestine since 1948 cannot claim the land as theirs. They are Palestinians but of Jewish faith. Does the fact that, say, American Muslims who were born and raised in the USA, have any right to claim America as a “Muslim State?”

Thank You!

The map above (Palestine 1946), published as a United Nation Map number 93 (b) in 1950, clearly proves – when compared to present-day Israelis maps,  that the Nazi-like Zionist simply occupied, terrorized and continue to ethnic cleanse the land of Palestine.

The seven well equipped Arab armies who attempted to destroy the poorly armed and newly founded ‘Jewish State’!

he baseless myth, of how the Arab armies wanted to destroy the ‘Jewish State’, has been propagated in all sectors of the Israeli society, especially in its school system, military boot camps, and media. As it will be proven below, this myth was deemed necessary by most Zionists to legitimize their continued USURPATION of the Palestinian people’s political, civil, and economic rights.

Often when Israelis and Zionists are confronted with facts contrary to their liking, they counter by accusing the sources of fabrication or being part of the “anti-Semitic” Arab propaganda. To avoid such a “confusion”, we’ll directly quote two of the most prominent pro-Israeli historians, Martin Van Creveld (the renowned Israeli military strategist and historian) and Martin Gilbert, who wrote:

  • “In the Event of invading [Arab] forces were limited to approximately 30,000 men. The strongest [consider this fact while reading the next quote] single contingent was the Jordanian one, already described. Next came Egyptians with 5,500 men, then the Iraqis with 4,500 who ….. were joined by perhaps 3,000 local irregulars. The total was thus around eight rather under strength brigades, some of them definitely of second-and even third-rate quality. To these must be added approximately 2,000 Lebanese (one brigade) and 6,000 Syrians (three brigades). Thus, even though the Arab countries [population] outnumbered the Yishuv by better then forty-to-one, in terms of military manpower available for combat in Palestine the two sides were fairly evenly matched. As time went on and both sides sent reinforcements the balance changed in the Jews’ favor; by October they had almost 90,000 men and women under arms, the Arabs only 68,000.” (The Sword And The Olive, p. 77-78)
  • “Senior Hagana commanders met with committee [UN Special Committee On Palestine-UNSCOP] members in Jerusalem’s Talpiot quarter in similarly surreptitious circumstances to express confidence that Jewish forces, which they numbered at 90,000, including 35,000 reservists, could overcome any Arab assault should it come to war.” (Jerusalem Post)
  • “Ben-Gurion made serious efforts, shortly before the United Nations vote on the Partition proposal, to seek the neutrality of King Abdullah of Transjordan, whose British trained and officered army, the Arab Legion, was the STRONGEST fighting force in the Middle East. The king had long been at loggerheads with Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, for the moral leadership of the Arabs of the whole region. Abdullah’s secret interlocutor was to be Golda Meir:”‘ …… He [King Abudullah] soon made the heart of the matter clear: he would not join in any Arab attack on us. He would always remain our friend, he said, and like us, he wanted peace more than anything else. After all, we had a common foe, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.'”(Israel: A History, p.149-150)
  • “As for Abdullah’s Arab Legion, it had fought better than any other Arab force. Yet on scarcely any occasion had the Arab Legion attempted to conquer territories allotted to the Jews by the partition plan, preferring to stay on the defensive.” (The Sword And The Olive, p. 95)
  • “…. there was no common military headquarters, no attempts at coordinating the offenses of the Arab armies, and … not even a regular liaison service for sharing enemy intelligence.” (The Sword And The Olive, p. 83)
  • “Perhaps the most important [of the Arab armies problems] was a crippled shortage of ammunition, owing to the international arms embargo …, in the case of the Iraqis and Egyptians, long lines of communications. For example, after February 25, 1948, the Arab Legion received no new ammunition for its 20mm guns. Some of the ammunition used by the Iraqi artillery was more than thirty years old; the Syrians had no ammunition for their heavy 155mm guns. Whereas Jewish stockpiles were growing all the times [especially the big arms shipment from Czechoslovakia in May 1948], the enemies were so depleted they stole ammunition shipments for each other. In addition, they were ill-coordinated, technically incompetent, slow, ponderous, badly led, and unable to cope with night operations that willy-nilly, constituted the IDF’s expertise.” (The Sword And The Olive, p. 95-96)
  • Soon after the execution of Operation Dani in the first half of July 1948, Yigal Allon wrote a Palmach (Haganah’s strike force) report stating that the expulsion of Lydda‘s and Ramla‘s inhabitants had:

    “clogged the routes of the advance of the [Transjordan Arab] Legion and had foisted upon the Arab economy the problem of “maintaining another 45,000 souls . . . Moreover, the phenomenon of the flight of tens of thousands will no doubt cause demoralization in every Arab area [the refugees] reach . . . This victory will yet have great effect on other sectors.” (Israel: A History, p. 218 & Benny Morris, p. 211)

Although we disagree with the Arab armies’ statistics (30,000 men) that was presented by Mr. Creveld, the reader could conclude the following:

  • The strongest Arab army to enter Palestine was in cahoots with the Israelis from the start. Based on H.M. King Abdullah‘s orders (who also commanded the Iraqi Army in addition to Transjordan’s), the strongest Arab armies did not even encroach on the areas allotted to the Jewish state by the 1947 UN GA Partition plan. On the contrary, the truth was the exact opposite, for example:

    1- Lydda, Ramla, and the Triangle Areas were handed over to the Israelis without a fight. Although Transjordan’s Army withdrew based on the orders of H.M. the King, the Iraqi Army (which was positioned few kilometers north in Ras al-‘Ayn) was given explicit orders not to intervene (their motto in Arabic was: maku ‘Awamer). It should be noted that these areas used to be densely populated with Palestinians, were fertile, and were strategically located for both Arab and Israeli supply lines.

    2- When the Israeli Army attacked the Egyptian (south) and Syrian (northeast) armies in mid-October, 1948, the Iraqi and Jordanian armies were forbidden from opening a third front in the middle and south. The Iraqi Army was capable of splitting Israel in half if it was given the orders, and the Jordanian Army watched from the sidelines as the Israeli Army mauled the Egyptians in southern Hebron and Beersheba areas (Righteous Victims, p. 244). Note that the Iraqi Army was well positioned in the Tulkarm-Jinin areas (southeast of Haifa) which is only 12-14 kilometers from the Mediterranean, click here for a map illustration.
  • The other strongest Arab armies, Egyptian and Iraqi, had long supply and communication lines away from their bases in their respective countries.
  • Saudi Arabian and Sudanese armies contributed few thousand soldiers in the middle of the war to shore up the exhausted Egyptian army in southern Palestine.
  • Under American and French pressure, the Lebanese Army was sidelined from the start, and it did not even cross the international borders. At the most, the Lebanese army provided a mediocre artillery cover to some ALA [Arab Liberation Army] volunteers at the beginning of the war. (Righteous Victims p. 233-234)
  • When the Arab armies entered Palestine on May 15, 1948, close to 400,000 Palestinian refugees were already ethnically cleansed out of their homes, and they clogged the roads, burdened local economies, and demoralized the Arab populations and armies, as it was admitted by Yigal Allon. In other words, the Palestinian refugees were used as a weapon against Israel’s enemies.
  • The Arab armies neither coordinated their military operational plans, nor shared military intelligence among themselves. In fact, it wasn’t until April 30, 1948 that the Arab armies’ chiefs of staff met for the first time to work out a plan for military intervention. It’s worth noting that this plan was later wrecked by H.M. King Abdullah, when he made last minute changes just before the entry of any Arab army into British Mandated Palestine. (Simha Flapan, p. 133 & Iron Wall, p. 35)
  • According to a Jewish Agency assessment of the Arab intentions and capacities, submitted in March 1948, reported that the Arabs chiefs of staff had warned their government against an invasion of Palestine and any lengthy war because of the internal situation in most of the Arab countries. For example, revolt in Yemen kept the Saudis at bay and there was a mass riot in Iraq against the Anglo-Iraqi treaty, (Simha Flapan, p. 123-124)
  • Yochai Sela of Tel-Aviv University, has provided the following breakdown for the number of Israelis killed during the 1948 war:
Fatality Category Value Percentage of Total

Civilians killed*

1,150 20.15%
Military killed 4,558 79.85%

Total

5,708

100%
Soldiers killed between
Nov. 30, 1947 – May 15, 1948
1,345** 23.56%
Soldiers killed between
May 15, 1948- March 10, 1949
3,213** 56.29%
Killed within the
areas designated by the UN
1,581 27.70%
Killed outside the
areas designated by the UN
2,759*** 48.33%
Killed defending
Jewish settlements
984 17.24%
Killed attacking
Arab settlements
1,212 21.23%

Source: Simha Flapan, p. 198-199.
* Majority died in Jerusalem
** The number of Israelis killed while fighting the Arab Legion 1,367; the Palestinians, 1,092; the Egyptians, 910; the Syrians, 238; the Iraqis, 241; the Lebanese 129; Qawukji’ ALA, 336, the British 30.
*** Mostly soldiers, non-civilians.

  • These statistics clearly show that the number of Israeli soldiers killed in offensive actions were well over 60% (2,759/4,558) of the total Israeli soldiers killed between November 30, 1947 and March 10, 1949. So from the Israeli prospective, the so called “War of Independence” was more offensive than defensive in nature.
  • The Israelis maximally exploited the rivalry between H.M. the King Abdullah of Transjordan and al-Hajj Amin al-Husseini. For example, before the entry of any Arab armies to Palestine on May 15th, 1948, al-Hajj Amin (who resided at the time in Tyre-southern Lebanon) wanted to declare a provisional Palestinian government in the Galilee, with Safad being its capital. To preempt such a plan, H.M. the King pulled out Transjordan’s irregulars troops out of Safad on May 11th, 1948, which was the primary reason for its falling into Israeli hands few days later (Benny Morris, p. 105). Another good reason that enticed H.M. the King to collaborate with the Jewish Agency was the promise of future payments of $4 million a year for the next subsequent 5 years. (Simha Flapan, p. 138)
  • Although there was an arms embargo on the warring parties in the Middle East, the embargo negatively affected the Arabs more than the Israelis. While the Arab armies were depleting their arms and ammunitions, the Israeli army was stockpiling weapons and ammunitions from a huge arms shipment from Czechoslovakia that arrived in early May, 1948.
  • By October 1948, the Israeli army had 90,000 armed men, while the Arab armies had 68,000 armed men.
  • It’s a fabricated myth that seven well equipped, organized, and coordinated Arab armies attempted to PUSH the poorly armed Jews into the sea, click here to read our rebuttal to this myth.

Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, recognized that Palestinian nationalism created the very danger he was most afraid of. He knew that the victory in 1948 was achieved not because the Israeli Army was more heroic but because the Arab armies were corrupt and the Arab world was divided. He became obsessed with the fear that a charismatic leader would modernize Arab education, their economies, and unite all the Arab states. He wrote on November 11, 1948:

“The Arab people have been beaten by us. Will they forget it quickly? Seven hundred thousand people beat 30 million. Will they forget this offense? It can be assumed that they have a sense of honor. We will make peace efforts, but two sides are necessary for peace. Is there any security that they will not want to take revenge? Let us recognize the truth: we won not because we performed wonders, but because the Arab army is rotten. Must this rottenness persist forever? The situation in the world beckons towards revenge: there are two blocs; there is fear of world war. This tempts anyone with a grievance. We will always require a superior defensive capability.” (Simha Flapan, p. 238)

Finally, directly quoting the famous Israeli historian Avi Shlaim who stated in his famous Iron Wall book:
  • “This popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war has been used extensively in Israeli propaganda and is still taught in Israeli schools. It is a prime example of the use of a nationalistic version of history in the process of nation building. In a very real sense history is the propaganda of the victors, and the history of the 1948 war is no exception.” (Iron Wall p. 34)
  • “Despite all the political miscalculations and failures of those who planned the Sinai Campaign, it is their version that became firmly entrenched in the mind of the overwhelming majority of Israelis. The popular perception of the 1956 war in Israel is that it was a defensive war, a just war, a brilliantly executed war, and a war that achieved nearly all of its objectives. This version of the war was propagated not only by members of the Israeli defense establishment but by a host of sympathetic historians, journalists, and commentators. However deeply cherished, this version does not stand up to scrutiny in the light of the evidence now available. It is a striking example of the way in which history can be manipulated to serve nationalist ends. The official Israeli version of the 1956 war, like that of the 1948 war, is little more than the propaganda of the victor.” (Iron Wall, p. 185)

Palestine The Only One State Solution

The Israeli virus that infected a region of 300,000,000 Arab Semites has no room for such foreign and Nazi-like criminals. It is time these “people” move back to their countries of origin (except the descendants of the original Jews who lived in Palestine prior to Zionism’s arrival) or face the erupting Arab revolutions sweeping the Arab world. There will be no mercy then.

Remember: the Jewish “good book” demands that its followers kill with NO MERCY! So, an Eye for an Eye!

And that’s probably  why the Jewish teachings and prophecies expect the demise of “Israel” in the near future!

81 Reasons Why Gaza has the right to self-defense

By Julie Webb-Pullman

Seventy-nine of them can be found in United Nations Security Council Resolutions “directly critical of Israel for violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions, the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions, international terrorism, or other violations of international law.” (1)

Ironically, after violating 80+ UN Resolutions,  Israel Demanded UN Response to Palestinian Rocket “Attacks!”

Number 80 can be found in the Goldstone Report (2), the recommendations of which have yet to implemented some 18 months after its submission to the Human Rights Council, and Paragraph 1912 of which stresses “all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.”

Has that happened? Clearly not. (3)

The most compelling reason number 81, can be found in the United Nations Charter, Article 52 which states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” (4)

There would also be a Reason 82, but for the United States power of veto exercised in the Security Council in February 2011. (5)

Read Ashkelon: Why Gaza Exists

If the international community has abandoned its responsibilities towards Palestinians, and particularly towards Gaza, as the above examples over the last 63 years plus this map of Palestinian territories so graphically illustrate, what else is left to Gaza but self-defense?

The Stealing -and Ethnic Cleansing – of Palestine

Israel and its chorUS disingenuously cite Israel’s right of “self-defense” to justify not only Israel’s disproportionate military response to Gaza – and Palestinians’ – genuine right to self-defense, but also to attempt to disguise Israel’s blatant land-theft from existing citizens.

Contrast the “newcomers” in Israel, for example, to many of those who in recent years have arrived in Australia. The latter have been considered illegal immigrants and incarcerated in off-shore islands or desert detention camps –the subtle distinction being that

  1. those latterly arriving in Australia sought refuge from repressive regimes whereas the Israeli immigrants came from European and North American democracies…(enough said, perhaps) and
  2. unlike Australia’s (and New Zealand’s) immigrants, who now accept the existing population’s rights to their existing property, culture and citizenship, Israel’s immigrants bulldoze and destroy the homes of existing residents to build their own in their place, not only rendering thousands homeless but also destroying historic, economic and culturally-important sites such as religious buildings, olive groves, farms, and cemeteries – and now legislating that they also be of the Jewish religion in order to have citizenship.

Is not our perception of the wrongness of such actions why New Zealanders, for instance, just spent thirty years redressing such wrongs in their own country, through the Waitangi Tribunal? Is not our perception of the wrongness of such discrimination why we all fought to end similar structural apartheid in South Africa?

In the past week, Israel has killed at least 10 people and seriously wounded scores more in in Gaza in sustained military attacks with sophisticated weaponry targeted at civilians, a week in which so-called ‘rocket’ attacks from Gaza (into traditional Palestinian territory) have not caused any Israeli deaths, or physical injury. Yet Israel on Wednesday threatened “After barrage of rocket and mortar fire, Vice Premier Shalom says Israel may have to consider wide operation in Gaza; Minister Limor Livnat: Operation Cast Lead 2 may be in order.” (6)

After a cosy telephone chat to US President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Thursday said from Moscow that “Israel’s reaction to rocket attacks will be measured” (7) – but by what, is the question…caesium, perhaps?

US Secretary of Defense Robert now waits in Israel for Netanyahu’s return, discussing with his Israeli counterpart Barak how to ensure Israel maintains its ‘qualitative military edge’ in ‘a period like now when Israeli-US security relations were so strong.’ (8)

Obama in South America while his troops hammer Libya, insisting that the US role will be minor, Netanyahu in Moscow proclaiming the same for Gaza…this arms’ length war-mongering to give an appearance of moderation makes me very suspicious – to paraphrase Shakespeare, “Methinks they doth protest too much.”

Yes, on any reading of the situation, Gaza certainly does have good cause for concern about their security and territorial integrity.

In the face of continuing military attacks against civilian targets and the absence of any meaningful and/or enforceable UN Security Council Resolution to protect them, and of any meaningful assistance from the international community in preventing Israel’s ongoing use of force, they have every legitimate reason to resort to self-defense, under Article 52 of the UN Charter.

Source

References

(1) Israeli Violations of UN Security Council Resolutions

(2) HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE

(3) Amnesty International UK et al (2008) The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion , and
Amnesty International UK et al (2010) Dashed Hopes: Continuation of the Gaza Siege
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
(2010) The illegal closure of the Gaza Strip: Collective Punishment of the civilian population
UNICEF, UNRWA and Minister of Education and Higher Education
(2010) Palestinian children deprived of basic rights to education ;
UNDP (2010) One Year After GAZA Early Recovery and Reconstruction Needs Assessment ;
OCHA (2010) Farming without Land, Fishing without Water: Gaza Agriculture Sector Struggles to Survive
(4) Charter of the United Nations Chapter V11 Article 52

(5) United States vetoes Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements

(6) and (7) links: broken or do not load.

(8) Gates calls for bold action to reach two-state solution

Related Articles

Israel is reportedly planning to launch a new war to strengthen its position in the Middle East, following recent political reforms in regional states.

A Western diplomat in the Jordanian capital Amman said on Wednesday that Israel has decided to attack Syria and Lebanon following the downfall of Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt, which served as a great loss to Tel Aviv, the Lebanese daily Assafir reported.

The diplomat reiterated that since Tel Aviv is seriously worried about consequences of the Egyptian revolution and future developments in the region, it wants to start a new war in the Middle East in order to turn the situation back in its favor.

“Israel intends to overthrow Bashar al-Assad government in Syria in a matter of weeks after a war with Lebanon’s resistance movement of Hezbollah east of Lebanon, near the border with Syria,” Assafir quoted the diplomat as saying.

He added that Israel has already informed Washington about the plan.

Egypt, which shares a long border with Israel, was the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Tel Aviv in 1979, following secret negotiations at the Camp David resort in the US.

For years, Egypt Mubarak helped Israel impose a deadly siege on the Gaza Strip by closing the Rafah crossing to Palestinians, keeping Gaza’s 1.5 million population trapped in the tiny coastal enclave.

The Israeli regime now fears that by the opening of Rafah, Hamas, the democratically-elected government of Gaza, will gain more power.

Source

Israel has informed Washington? And Washington, apparently approved! Do these morons-of-so-called-leaders learn anything from history, let alone current events?  Then the Western Powers “discuss” a No Fly Zone over Libya? Makes sense!!!

May be Israel should start a war. The last two aggressions against Palestinians in Gaza and the Lebanese resulted in humiliating defeats for the Israeli Terror Forces. Maybe we need to celebrate another humiliation of Israel.

David Cronin

Since I first came here to Amsterdam in 1998, I have been in the Netherlands on many occasions and have always enjoyed myself. While I intend to continue visiting this country, I have realised that I need to reassess some of my assumptions about it. 

Until recently, I was under the impression that the Netherlands was a democracy, in which freedom of expression was regarded as sacrosanct. Then I read some comments attributed to your foreign minister Uri Rosenthal.

The minister is putting pressure on the Dutch anti-poverty organisation ICCO to cease funding The Electronic Intifada, an excellent website that consistently defends the rights of the Palestinian people. Rosenthal has indicated that he cannot tolerate how ICCO supports this website, given that the Dutch government is a strong supporter of Israel. He has threatened to withdraw Dutch state grants to ICCO, telling the organisation: “It is alright to be critical but not to directly oppose the government”.

Rosenthal’s comments about The Electronic Intifada follow a report by a Zionist lobby group called NGO Monitor. This group accused The Electronic Intifada of being anti-Semitic without providing any evidence to back up its claims. Sadly, this is a typical tactic of the pro-Israel lobby. As soon as somebody tells the truth about Israel being an apartheid state and a vicious colonial project, it is only a matter of time before the lobby will label him or her an anti-Semite. This is a deliberate move designed to muzzle debate. 

When Rosenthal says “it is alright to be critical but not to directly oppose the government”, we need to ask exactly what he means.

I am proud to be a contributor to The Electronic Intifada because I know that it defends the core human values enshrined in international law. It fearlessly exposes how international law is violated by such activities as the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the merciless blockade of Gaza.

Can somebody please explain to me how one Dutch organisation can be treated as a charity, when it supports violations of international law? But when another Dutch organisation – such as ICCO – defends international law, the government threatens to punish it. Where is the justice here?
Is it no longer acceptable in the Netherlands to defend international law?

 

Rather than becoming so exercised about The Electronic Intifada, I would urge Rosenthal and his government colleagues to investigate those Dutch organisations that facilitate abuses of international law.
Perhaps, for example, they could take a trip to the Israel Centre in Nijkerk, which is run by Christians for Israel. I visited this centre myself last summer and discovered how its shop sells many products manufactured by companies who are active in illegal Israeli settlements. These included cosmetics from Ahava, a firm based in the West Bank settlement of Mitzpe Shalem.

Perhaps, too, the Dutch government could examine the activities of the Sar-El Foundation, one of several organisations here in the Netherlands dedicated to supporting the Israeli army. Max Arpels Lezer, the chairman of this foundation, has boasted of how Dutch volunteers who take part in training exercises with the Israeli army “help the battle against the Palestinians” as if helping the oppression of an entire people is something admirable.

For some bizarre reason, the Sar-El Foundation is considered to be a charity. Donations to the foundation are, therefore, tax deductible. This is despite how the Israeli army that it supports has committed crimes against humanity, according to the United Nations investigation led by the retired South African judge Richard Goldstone into Israel’s attacks on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.

Can somebody please explain to me how one Dutch organisation can be treated as a charity, when it supports violations of international law? But when another Dutch organisation – such as ICCO – defends international law, the government threatens to punish it. Where is the justice here?

Late last year a very interesting diplomatic cable from the American embassy in The Hague was released by the website WikiLeaks. Drafted by Clifford Sobel, as he was preparing to step down as ambassador to the Netherlands in 2005, the cable states that Britain and the Netherlands are America’s most trusted allies in western Europe. The cable commends Dutch diplomats for being willing to act as America’s “eyes and ears” in the countries where they are posted and describes the Dutch as “go-to-guys” when the US is seeking a mediator to resolve internal disputes in NATO.

Among the similarities between The Netherlands and the US are that both governments consistently accommodate Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people. Some veteran observers of the Israel-Palestine conflict to whom I have spoken have gone so far as to name The Netherlands as Israel’s most steadfast supporter in Western Europe.

Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister until last year, proved especially amenable to Israeli propaganda.

During 2008 and 2009, Verhagen blamed the violence in Gaza entirely on Hamas. In doing so, he ignored how Hamas observed an Egyptian-brokered truce with Israel between June and November 2008. It was Israel which resumed the cycle of violence by attacking Gaza on 4 November that year, a day when the world was preoccupied with the election of a new American president.

Almost all of the victims of Operation Cast Lead, the three-week bombardment of Gaza that Israel launched in late December 2008, were Palestinians. In total, 1,387 Palestinians were killed. Almost 800 of these took no part in the hostilities, according to investigations by human rights monitors. These included 320 children.

By contrast, nine Israelis were killed during the violence. Six of them were Israeli soldiers, three were non-combatants.

If gestures of solidarity were required in early 2009, then surely it was the people of Gaza who required them most. Verhagen decided instead to express his solidarity with Israel. In January 2009, he travelled to Sderot in southern Israel, where he voiced concern about the rockets being fired by Hamas. If he had extended his trip by a few kilometres and ventured into Gaza, Verhagen would have witnessed far worse suffering caused by far more lethal weapons. But he refused to visit Gaza, showing no interest in seeing first-hand what was happening.

Could this be the same Maxime Verhagen who had previously presented a strategy paper to the Dutch parliament officially aimed at giving human rights a central role in his country’s foreign policy? Could it be the same Maxime Verhagen who stated in 2008 that “human rights apply to all people, in all places and at all times”?

I have a question for Verhagen and for other Dutch politicians today. Why do the human rights you claim to champion not apply to the Palestinian people?

·Excerpt from a presentation given in the ABC Treehouse, Amsterdam, 15 January 2011. Thanks to the Netherlands Palestine Committee for organising the event.

Posted by David Cronin at 12:26 AM

Israel is a Lunatic State – Finkelstein

The Israelis – and Zionist supporters – are desperately spinning stories in hopes of making people rethink their crimes against humanity!

But when they view the world of non Jews as Goyim, then anything they do – they believe – is justifiable: from piracy to massacres and from home demolitions to ethnic cleansing!


Goyim:

  1. Used by racist Jewish supremacists against Christian whites (or non Jews). Used to strike anger within and start up wars (as when an angry white calls an African American the N word!).When used, it means that you are lower than the scum at the bottom of a well.

  2. To Jews, white straight Christians (and non Jews) are to be used as slaves, Goyim, when the end times come.

Urban Dictionary

Israel also has said that its forces started shooting after passengers on the Miva Marmara assaulted them.

Interesting! People defending themselves – IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS – against terrorists and pirates have that right: to assault any terrorist or intruder coming in with heavy weapons, boats, missiles and machine guns to steal their vessel!

Most amusing is that the Peace Activists were able to throw one Israeli degenerate thug overboard and beat another with sticks. What does that say about these so-called-commandos? Terrorists in uniform!

Not only do these supporters continue to spin lies and justifications about the Israeli Massacre aboard the Freedom Flotilla, but they keep coming up with mind-boggling analysis.

In other words, they are never wrong, never violent, never kill and always seem to be the victim!

According to these Zionist thugs and their supporters:

  1. It’s normal to attack anyone – or country – in International Waters. They attacked the USS Liberty so why are you surprised?
  2. Yet the Somalis in the Indian Ocean attacking vessels are called PIRATES!
  3. Armed with machine guns, grenades, missiles and God knows what else, the Israeli terrorists felt threatened by “a knife” and therefore justified to Massacre 19 civilians!
  4. No civilian should resist any act of piracy – especially when the Pirates are Israeli terrorists.
  5. Any act against Israeli views is TERRORISM!
  6. Criticizing Israel in any way is Anti-Semitic!


The Jewish-Israeli-Zionist Media and the Israeli supporters/ thugs views, can be summarized as such:

  • Attacks against Africans or African Americans: Racism.

  • Attacks against Women: Sexism.

  • Attacks against homosexuality: Intolerance.

  • Attacks against your Country: Treason.

  • Attack a religious sect: Hate.

  • Attacks against Jewish people: Antisemitism.

  • But when Israelis and their supporters attack or massacre:

    • Palestinians or Activists: it’s Self-defense!

    • Islam or Muslims: Freedom of speech!

So the Israeli Terrorists Massacred 19 or 20 civilians. In the words of one Jewish Israeli thug when he asked the rhetorical question: so who’s right?

His answer was: Who Cares!

Typical Zionist Arrogance!


The U.S. Must Condemn Israeli terrorism and this heinous crime and immediately stop all U.S. Aid to this terrorist nation! We can use the money at home.

Dr. Finkelstein said it best: “Israel is a Lunatic State” – on Gaza Flotilla Attack

Exposing lies is so simple. Especially when Israeli Zionist thugs want to cover-up their murderous nature.

Lie # One:

This blog, called Middle East Informer, posted pictures about Gaza – and or the abundance of food in Gaza! Jonathan Boyko’s – with all his ignorance and propaganda – forgot a simple fact! The Date of the Photo!

He simply “cleaned up” the “photo’s info” so that you, the average reader, won’t find the truth! Taking a photo out of context to spread his lies just discredited his blog.  It’s just propaganda: in other words, it’s a big LIE!

The other in August of 2008. The beauty of this one: it’s an Israeli Source!

The world had already witnessed first hand the truth: Israeli terror, massacres and Nazism – Rabbis ordering Israeli soldiers – and allowing them – to kill everyone: men, women, children! All from Israeli sources. All as reported by Haaretz!

Lie # 2

This is just as “good.”

He shows a photo of Palestinian children carrying guns!

I left a comment on his site that stated the following:

124 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,441 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)

We know who the Terrorist is…

I added that it was Israel who is a Nazionist state or something to this effect!

His reply was lovely: “[Edited by moderator: Hatespeech, racism and propaganda will not be allowed on this blog]

Interesting: but the photo with the children carrying guns and the comment with it, was.. ehem.. not propaganda and hate speech?

Jonathan: let’s look at the facts, you ignorant Zionist propagandist!

Click Here

Informer, you are not.  “LIAR” describes you better!