Sections on today's Signs Page:
Signs Editorials
Editorial: Litvinenko - By Way Of Deception
Joe Quinn
Signs of the Times
24/11/2006
How easily our logic fails us in the face of the all-knowing mainstream media. ex-Russian intelligence agent Alexander Litvinenko has succumbed to the effects of a radioactive isotope polonium 210, one of the rarest substances on the planet and one few could obtain according to Dr Andrea Sella, lecturer in chemistry at University College London, which he may or may not have ingested at a sushi bar in London.
Litvinenko, a critic of Putin, had been investigating the killing of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, also a vocal critic of Putin, who was gunned down at a Moscow flat last month. There is also the fact that Litvineko had penned a piece back in July of this when for the now-defunct Chechen press where he claimed that Putin was a pedophile. See here for the google cached article.
So, case closed? I mean, all the evidence would seem to point to Putin as the cause of Litvinenko's untimely demise. Well, no, actually. Thinking logically about it, or rather, thinking 'conspiratorially' about it (since this is, after all, a very clear case of conspiracy) it is far more plausible that Litvinenko's murder was carried out by an enemy of Putin. As with all cloak and dagger cases, in the absence of any empirical evidence, the closest approximation to the truth is generally achieved by asking "who benefits?"
Consider how utterly masochistic the Putin government would have to be to murder a man who had been publicly attacking Putin himself. Consider further how amazingly crass it is for Putin, having supposedly decided that Litvinenko had to be "taken care of" to opt for a method of assassination that was absolutely certain of being identified as poisoning. Has the Russian SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) never heard of "accidental death"? What about a "heart attack"? For god's sake, even pushing the man under a number 9 bus would have been less obvious than poisoning him with an "extremely rare radioactive isotope".
Consider the Israeli Mossad. According to ex-Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky, the fine upstanding members of Israel's 'cut-throat incorporated' have made covert assassination into a fine, if very unsavory, art form. For example, there was the case where the 'assassinee', who was laid up in a Belgian hotel room, was given a sedative in his drink to first render him unconscious at which point a group of Mossad operatives entered his room, stripped him naked, inserted a tube into his anus, inserted several tablets into the tube which raised his body temperature to dangerous levels, before dumping him in a bath full of cold war. The result? The man was found the next morning in his bath having suffered an "obvious" and verifiable "heart attack".
Do you think the SVR would not capable of something similar if the need arose?
Speaking of Israel; Over the past 6 months, Zionist politicians such as Bibi Netanyahu have gone through dozens of pairs of pants in their excitement at the thought of a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran. Sadly, over the same period, Putin has repeatedly stonewalled Israeli-American attempts to have the UN sanction some "shock and awe" for the Iranian people, and has even gone so far as to ink big contracts to supply advanced weaponry to Ahmadinejad.
In a message from his death bed, Litvinenko himself accused the Kremlin, but then who else was he going to accuse? Litvinenko was poisoned, but as the SVR stated, neither he nor his claims were important enough to cause Putin to lose any sleep, let alone make the crass error of setting himself up for some extremely bad press.
Demonization of Putin by way of a third party, or rather, "by way of deception", is what we are dealing with in the death of Litvinenko. Which reminds us of the recent murder of Lebanese minister Pierre Gemayel by "parties unknown", an event which has served to "destablize" Lebanon.
Who benefits?
Before you answer:
Andrei Kozlov was the first deputy chairman of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation from 1997 to 1999 and again in 2002 to 2006. On September 14th this year he was shot to death in his car by unknown gun men. Before his death, Kozlov was busily shutting down Russian banks that had been accused of money laundering.
Boris Abramovich Berezovsky is a Russian Jewish billionaire who was head of Russian National Security under Boris
Yeltsin. When Putin came to power he opened investigations into Berezovsky's business activities, including money laundering. Berezovsky responded by feeling to the UK where he was granted political asylum.
 |
| Boris Abramovich Berezovsky |
Berezovsky has been accused of money laundering by the French authorities.
Berezovsky either holds or has held, Israeli citizenship.
In its Dec. 30, 1996 issue, Forbes Magazine published an extensive article called "Godfather of the Kremlin?," in which it charged Berezovsky with responsibility for the 1995 killing of popular television journalist Vladimir Listev. The magazine also accused Berezovsky of having numerous mafia connections and embezzling $50 million collected by his company from thousands of Russians who purchased AVVA shares-allegedly to start producing a new passenger car.
Boris Berezovsky has admitted that he is plotting the violent overthrow of the Russian government and was "warned" by Jack Straw, (who was subsequently sacked from his position as British Foreign Secretary) not to "abuse" his asylum status in Britain. Putin has demanded that Berezovsky be extradited to Russia. Blair had refused to do so.
Boris Berezovsky's lawyer is Alexander Goldfarb. Goldfarb helped Berezovsky secure asylum in the UK. Goldfarb is a Russian dissident who now holds American citizenship.Goldfarb was also a close friend of Litvinenko. Litvinenko's death bed accusation that Putin was being his killer was publicly read out by Goldfarb in a recent BBC broadast. Goldfarb claims that the document was dictated to him by Alexander Litvinenko.
Now, tell me again who killed Alexander Litvinenko.
A final note: All of this has much more to do with Douglas Reed's book The Controversy of Zion, that you could possibly imagine.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Psycho-Babel: A Ponerological Approach to Modern Doublespeak and the Distortion of Language
Harrison Koehli and members of the Signs of the Times forum
24/11/2006
Language deliberately distorted to veil its true meaning is commonly referred
to as 'doublespeak' (from Orwell's 'newspeak' and 'doublethink').
This distortion of words is becoming increasingly severe and overt. Even modern
cinema, as evidenced in the immensely popular V for Vendetta, has noticed and
commented upon this fact. The meanings of words are being changed. Disturbing, and
often violent, concepts are labeled with neutral and ambiguous words, like "collateral
damage", "reducing safety margins" and "extraordinary
rendition", while neutral or meaningless words are given nefarious and
suggestive meanings, like the ubiquitous yet chimerical "suspected terrorist".
How are we to account for this phenomenon? Why is it so viral?
In fact, its appearance in our daily discourse, and its ultimate significance
for our understanding of government and the mental 'hygiene' of
those subject to government policies, was clearly understood and explained
by scientists working behind the "Iron Curtain" during Nazi occupation
and under Communist rule. The work of these scientists was conducted in secret,
beyond the peering eyes of the state and its secret police. Nevertheless, the
scientists soon realized that someone in authority was aware of their work,
for when they attempted to access materials on relevant subjects
from university libraries, (such as human psychology for example), they found
that all such books had been systematically removed. From this, the scientists
quickly understood that to be caught with such forbidden material and research
would mean almost certain death. The research in question is summarized and
explicated in the work of Prof. Andrzej Lobaczewski's Political
Ponerology, and was only made available to the general public when it
was published by Red Pill Press in early 2006.
In his book, Lobaczewski approaches the question of political
evil as a physician approaches the pathodynamics of an infectious virus, following
the causal links between psychopathic individuals in positions of political
power and the negative effects they have on a non-psychopathic population.
One of the key concepts throughout his analysis is the psychopath's use
of language. From an early age, psychopaths become aware of their difference
from the vast majority of their peers, and learn to recognize each other in
a crowd. As a psychopath does not have the in-born ability to feel complex
emotions, expressions of such emotion in normal humans (like an expression of love, a widow in
mourning, a man fearing for his life or family) are seen by the psychopath
as contemptible signs of weakness and naiveté, and only provoke in him
a misplaced sense of superiority. Normal humans are seen by psychopaths as
little more than cattle, and are treated accordingly by them.
However, while psychopaths are aware of their difference
(they might say 'superiority') from 'the mob' of general
humanity, they learn to act as if they, too, are 'normal'. Growing
up, they learn to mimic the movements and expressions that accompany specific
human emotions. They do this because appearing normal is essential to their
own survival at the expense of their victims. A psychopath can appear to be
in emotional pain, eliciting pity and material support; he can seduce women
with his air of confidence (the textbooks are full of unattractive psychopaths
who are surprisingly successful in this venture); he can lead a church congregation
with high-sounding words, while embezzling the funds they give in support.
However, psychopaths know that if what lies behind their mask of sanity were
to be publicly exposed, and if the masses of normal people were suddenly
to understand that psychologically deviant human beings in positions of power
are the real source of war,
the most the Pathocrats could hope for would be long stretches in the nearest
penitentiary. The people would rebel against the terror they have been subjected
to under their influence - the manipulation, the lying and injustice
that have led to interminable war, death and suffering. But for a psychopath,
the only injustice is not getting what he wants: power.
Once a group of psychopaths has reached a position of such
power in government (although the dynamic applies to any organization or hierarchy),
such a government must work to make itself and its policies appear acceptable
to the non-psychopathic human's sense of morality. If such a government
were to lower its mask prematurely and truthfully say, "We, the government
of psychopaths, despise you as much as we despise our so-called 'enemy'.
We will work our hardest until you, our very own citizens, and those of any
hostile foreign power, are utterly destroyed. Through poverty, total war, and
genocide we will kill you all", the people would naturally revolt. As
such, the government of psychopaths (or pathocracy) must mask its language
in an acceptable ideology. Thus, a war of aggression becomes a "holy
war" or
"pre-emptive" war, not for the purpose of imperialistic invasion,
but to
"protect the homeland". This language is immediately recognized
for what it is by other psychopaths, and they can pledge their support accordingly.
But with experience, and after extensive observation and research, a non-psychopathic
individual, too, can develop an ability to read the hidden meaning.
The effect of such language on the minds of normal individuals
is that which Lobaczewski calls 'conversive thinking'. This is
a subconscious selection of premises that leads to false or paralogical conclusions.
The conscious manipulations of psychopaths are unconsciously converted in the
mind of the normal person and taken for truth. For example, we see evidence
of this in the irrational fear many Americans have come to have for Muslims.
It is not uncommon to hear emotional pleas to "nuke them all",
or "turn
the whole
Middle East
into a glass parking lot". A recent CNN commentator, Glenn Beck, even
went so far as to ask a Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, why he should not
suspect him of being "a terrorist". The net effect of this hysteria is that
the guilt of the minority of every population (i.e., the psychopathic
minority) is projected onto a separate and identifiable religious or racial
group.
The fact that such language, and the resultant conversive
thinking, is pervasive in our own political discourse is not a promising sign
for the health and future of humanity, and should prompt an immediate and in-depth
analysis of the nature of psychopathology and its presence in the leaders of
our governments, military, and intelligence services. The history of "man's
inhumanity to man" is actually one of pathocracy, and if we can learn
one thing from the pathocracies of past generations, it is that millions will
die as a result of the present one. With the advent of depleted uranium munitions
(used during the current occupation of Iraq), white-phosphorous (used in the
recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Palestine), and current advances in ethnic-specific
weapons, to name but three modern weapons of mass-genocide, things are looking
far worse than ever before.
The remainder of this essay will provide contemporary examples
of such distortions of language. As a warning, I should say that stripping
the veneer of ideology from the following words and phrases may come as a shock
to some readers. As Lobaczewski warns, "even normal people, who condemn
this kind of [pathocracy] along with its ideologies, feel hurt and deprived
of something constituting part of their own romanticism, their way of perceiving
reality, when a widely idealized group is exposed as little more than a gang
of criminals. Perhaps even some of the readers of this article or Lobaczewski's
book will resent the unceremonious stripping away of all of the literary motifs
of the psychopathic mind.
The fact is; there is no romanticism in the global "War
on Terror". The men and women promoting it are nothing more than a "gang
of criminals", as Lobaczewski puts it. There is no epic "clash
of civilizations"; there is no primeval "good against evil";
there is no heroic "protecting Western freedoms and values". These
are simply ideological "literary motifs", and the truth is much
more prosaic.
War Cries
- "Bringing peace to [insert foreign country here]" - This
refers not to bringing any kind of meaningful peace to a country in turmoil
but to killing all foreign enemies. The idea is that, without anyone to fight
back, there will be peace. For a psychopath, 'peace' is achieved when
any and all opposition has been exterminated;
- "Bringing freedom to [insert foreign country here]" -
This refers not to any real freedoms, but merely the psychopathic freedom
to rape, pillage, plunder, and murder a given group of people. For a psychopath,
freedom means being able to do whatever he wants, without opposition.
- "Protecting our Freedoms" - A variation of #2, this simply
means protecting the right to rape, pillage, plunder, and murder from the
perceived threat of people who disapprove of, and may attempt to bring a
stop to, such acts.
- "Defending oneself" / "acting in self-defense" -
This refers not to any real type of defense resulting from an unprovoked
attack. Self-defense means that a psychopath has the right to maim, torture,
terrorize, or kill anyone who complains that he is already being maimed,
tortured, terrorized by the psychopath in question. For a psychopath, defending
oneself means attacking and blaming the victim for the psychopath's own crimes,
and then holding them fully accountable for these actions.
- "Support our troops" - The does not refer to any real
moral, empathic, physical, emotional, or monetary support for those sent
to die as cannon fodder. For a psychopath, "support" means sacrifice; normal
people, whether part of, or foreign to, the country of the pathocracy, must
be killed, as they form an ever-present obstacle to complete control. Wars
are a perfect means to not only kill a pathocracy's own citizens, but also
those of any 'enemy state'. On another level it means "support what we say
our troops should be doing - do not, under any circumstances, ask the troops
themselves or support their right to disobey illegal orders".
- "The War on Terror" - The war on terror is a war of terror.
It is a war on the victims of terror at the hands of psychopaths. When the
victims of psychopathic terror respond (as have the Palestinians to the terror
of the Israeli government and military), they are attacked in the name of 'anti-terrorism'.
The victims of terrorists (e.g. the Palestinians) become the 'terrorists',
and are killed as a result.
Masks of Sanity
- "Outrageous conspiracy theories" - This refers to actual conspiracies.
By associating the word 'outrageous' with completely plausible conspiracies,
normal people are hesitant to question "official" lies. In fact,
all covert/black operations are considered
'conspiracies'. However, when one is exposed for what it is (whether
it be an assassination, a propaganda campaign, a spy-ring, a drug-running
operation, a
coup d'état, a false-flag), it
is pejoratively labeled "conspiracy theory" for the purpose of
damage control.
- "Patriotism"
- This does not refer to love of one's homeland, but unquestioning belief
and support of official government doctrine. Anyone opposing the official
doctrine is labeled as "unpatriotic", "anti-American", "anti-Israel",
etc.
- "Diplomacy"
- This refers to threats and intimidation preceding an already decided upon
military strike. For example, the invasion of
and the inevitable invasion of
,
Syria
, Lebanon etc.
- "Appeasement"
- This refers to failure to preemptively attack those considered to be "enemies",
like
Iran
presently, and usually refers to an ideology that promotes peace between
nations. For example, Donald Rumsfeld's statement: "Can
we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can
be appeased?" In fact, Rumsfeld represents the very "vicious extremists" whom
the majority of world powers are appeasing.
- "Free Elections" This
refers to the
'freedom' psychopaths have to steal elections, by bribing candidates
with campaign donations, blackmailing them for support, and using widespread
voter fraud. In short, free elections are stolen elections.
- "Morality"
(e.g. "Jewish or Christian morality" or "
Israel
's military is the most moral in the world"). When used in the context
of a psychopathic military, 'morality' refers to the psychopathic morality
of complete lack of conscience. For example, feeling empathy for your enemy
is "soft", "weak" or "simple-minded".
Cold-blooded killing machines are extremely moral soldiers, in the minds
of pathocrats.
Word Salad
- "Extraordinary Rendition" - This phrase refers to "out-sourced
torture", without any extradition proceedings. Cynically, 'rendition' can
refer to "giving back" (although prisoners are often 'given
back' to foreign countries that happen to not comply with human rights
legislation), "melting down", "processing", as for
industrial use, as livestock is "rendered". The euphemism is
that these often innocent prisoners are processed as cattle.
- "Collateral Damage" - The intentional killing of innocent civilians.
- "Free Speech Zone" - A (usually) wire enclosure in which
citizens who wish to publicly voice their displeasure with the ruling pathocracy
are confined, which is set up at a enough of a distance from the representatives
of said Pathocracy to ensure the displeasure does not actually reach them.
Any dissenter wishing to express his or her free speech outside of the "free
speech zone" may be harassed or arrested.
- "Intelligence" - The
information (viewable only by military and government leaders) that is used
to justify war, revoking freedoms, and increasing control. Since there is no
way to verify intelligence due to its secrecy, it can easily (and usually is)
fabricated, and the proof of its fabrication usually comes only after it has
served its purpose, and hundreds of thousands are dead.
- "National Security" - How
safe a country is, as determined by "intelligence".
- "The world-wide threat of militant Islamo-fascism" -
This reveals that the psychopaths uttering these words, in fact, wish to
take over the world of normal people, installing the universal 'law' of
the psychopath. This 'law'
can manifest itself in any ideology, whether capitalist, socialist, fascist,
communist, Judaic, Talmudic, Christian, Muslim, etc.
- "Globalization"
- This is not about the distribution of wealth to poor countries, but another
way for pathocratic corporations to steal and plunder the natural resources
of those same poorer countries, leaving the native populations to starve.
Non-substantive Labels
- "Suicide Bomber" - a) an explosive device detonated
at a distance by intelligence services of the pathocracy (Mossad, CIA,
MI5, etc.) and blamed on a fanatical extremist belonging to the religion
of the enemy of the pathocracy. This can also take the form of bombs being
placed in vehicles of the civilian population at check points and later
detonated to create the most mayhem and chaos while maximizing the propaganda
effect. b) A patsy incited to blow themselves up for a cause that appears
worthwhile, but which only suits their handlers, which are again agents
of the intelligence services of the pathocracy (Mossad, CIA, MI5, etc.).
- "Hero"
- This refers to a pathocracy's own military 'cannon fodder',who
died for the expressed purpose of "bringing freedom
and democracy to [country]". They usually die young, and serve the purpose
of emotionally entangling a hesitant population into a war of aggression.
Used in conjunction with "support our troops", this label stifles any
criticism of an aggressor's war crimes.
- "Infiltrators"
- Walid Phares, a neoconservative Pathocrat,
recently wondered "how deeply have 'Jihadist' elements
infiltrated the
U.S.
government and federal agencies?" In fact, as anyone opposing Zionist
terror and propaganda is labeled a "terrorist sympathizer", or "terrorist",
these
'infiltrators' are merely individuals who oppose Zionist terror
and propaganda.
- "Anti-Semitic"
- A label which refers to any behavior critical of the pathocratic Zionist
genocide of Palestinians, or critical of any crime committed by a Jew.
By stifling any criticism of Jews in general, psychopathic Jews escape
any legitimate criticism for their crimes.
- "Self-hating Jew" - A Jew that displays "anti-Semitic" behavior
but cannot have this label/libel applied for obvious reasons.
- "Anti-defamation"
- This refers to "defamation". The so-called "Anti-Defamation
League of B'nai B'rith" and
their imitators commonly use such terms as 'anti-semite', 'Islamo-fascist',
'rabble-rouser', 'radical Left', 'paranoiac', 'lunatic', 'conspiracy
theorist',
'madman', 'nut', 'terrorist sympathizer' to
stifle criticism of Israel or pro-Israeli policies.
- "Security Contractors" - More accurately described as
mercenaries - agencies
and individuals paid to carry out 'black' or 'covert' operations,
usually involving false-flag operations or inciting sectarian violence.
- "Insurgents"
- Individuals who are resisting (often by force of arms) an illegal invasion
of their country by a foreign power.
- "Terrorists"
- Very often, also individuals resisting an illegal invasion of their country.
Terrorism can also be used factually to describe the false flag operations
of the illegal invaders. But generally, when this is the case, they are
called "Arab Terrorists."
- "Freedom Fighters" - Usually the very same "terrorists",
when their actions are acceptable or funded by members of the Pathocracy.
For example, when being funded by the CIA and ISI in
Afghanistan
against Soviet invasion, militant Islamic groups were referred to as freedom
fighters, not terrorists.
The lead article at this
link provides an insightful look at doublespeak in media coverage of
the Palestinian Occupation. Also visit this link for
another lexicon of doublespeak.
[Thanks to Green_Manalishi, Johnno, Justin,
Laura, Navigante, Noise, Ryan, ScioAgapeOmnis, SleepyVinny and
all other contributors to the topic at the Signs of the Times Forum]
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Palestinian Solidarity Discourse and Zionist Hegemony
By Gilad Atzmon
A talk given at 11/22/06 in Edinburgh hosted by the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign
Let's face it; while the Palestinian and Arab resistance evolves into an absolute example of the ultimate heroism and collective patriotism, the Palestinian solidarity movement in the UK and around the world is not exactly what could be called a profound success story. In fact, it would be erroneous to state that this is really the fault of those who dedicate their time and energy to it. Supporting the Palestinians is a complicated subject. Though the crimes against the Palestinians have taken place in broad daylight and are not some well-kept secret, the priorities of the solidarity movement are far from being clear.
When thinking about Palestinian society we are basically used to thinking of some sharp ideological and cultural disputes between the Hamas and PLO. Not that I wish to undermine that staunch disagreement, but I am here to suggest an alternative perspective that perhaps could lead towards a different understanding of the notion of Palestinian activism and solidarity both ideologically and pragmatically.
I maintain that Palestinian people are largely divided into three main groups and it is actually this division that dictates three different political narratives, with three different political discourses and agendas to consider: The three groups can be described as follows:
1. The Palestinians who happen to live within the Israeli State and possess Israeli citizenship - The Israelis have a name for them; they call them 'Israeli Arabs'. These Palestinians are largely discriminated by Israeli law in all aspects of their lives; their struggle is for civil rights and civil equality.
2. The Palestinians who live in the Occupied Territories - In most cases those Palestinians are locked behind walls and barbed wire in Bantustans and concentration camps in the so-called 'Palestinian Authority Controlled Area' (PA). Practically speaking, those people live under a criminal occupation. For three decades these people have been terrorised on a daily basis by Israeli soldiers in roadblocks and incursions, they are subject to air raids and artillery bombardments. Their civil system is shattered, their educational system is falling apart, their health system is extinct. These Palestinian people are craving for a single day with no casualties.
3. The Diaspora Palestinians - Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed over the course of the years and denied return to their homes by the racially orientated Israeli legal system (the Law of Return and Absentee Laws). The Israelis do not have a name for them, they simply deny their existence. The Diaspora Palestinians live all over around the world. According to the UN statistics every third refugee is a Palestinian. Millions of exiled Palestinians live in the region in refugee camps, the others can be found in every corner of the globe, many are here may be among us tonight. The Diaspora Palestinians know their rights and they want to be able to come home if they so choose, they demand their right of return.
Confronting very different realities, the three groups above have managed to develop three competing political discourses: The 1st group, the so-called 'Israeli Arabs', struggle for equality. The means they have to achieve their goals are largely political. They search for a voice within the racially orientated Israeli society.
The 2nd group, namely the 'PA inhabitants', battle against the occupation. They fight for liberation. Their means are political, civil resistance as well as armed struggle (in fact it is within the 2nd group where the bitter struggle for hegemony between the PLO and the Hamas is taking place).
Being out of Israel and lacking international support as well as adequate political representation, the 3rd group is still ignored by the entire Israeli political system and even by major players within the international community. The exiled Palestinians are largely neglected and their demand for the right of return is yet to be addressed properly.
Apparently, the Palestinian discourse is fragmented. It is divided into at least three different, sometimes opposing discourses. Cleverly, not to mention mercilessly, on their behalf, it is the Israelis who maintain this very state of fragmentation. It is the Israelis who manage to stop the Palestinian political and cultural discourse from integrating into a single grand solid narrative. How do they do it? They apply different tactics that maintain the isolation and conflict between the three distinct groups. Within the State of Israel the Israelis maintain a racially orientated legal system that turns the Israeli Palestinians into 10th class citizens. When PA inhabitants are concerned, the Israeli military maintains solid and constant pressure on the civilian population. Gaza is kept starving, it is bombed on a daily basis. Some of it is flattened. More than a few observers regard the situation in the PA as nothing but slow extermination and genocide.
In order to humiliate the 3rd group, the Israelis enforce a racist legislation that welcomes Jews to the country but rejects others (Law of Return). In practice it is a racially orientated system that stops exiled Palestinians from returning to their land.
Paradoxically enough, the more pain the Israelis inflict on any of the groups, the further the Palestinians get from establishing a grand narrative of resistance. Similarly, the more vicious the Israelis are, the further the Palestinian Solidarity movement is getting from establishing a unified agenda of activism.
Indeed the Palestinian solidarity campaigner is confused and asks himself what campaign to choose. Who should be supported? The division of the Palestinian discourse into three conflicting narratives makes the issue of solidarity rather complicated. Seemingly, different Palestinian solidarity groups follow different political calls and Palestinian causes. Some call for an end to the Israeli occupation, others call for the right of return. Some call for equality. Many of the solidarity campaigners are divided amongst themselves. Those who call for the right of return and 'one State' are totally unhappy with what they regard as a watery and limited demand for the 'end of occupation'. Seemingly, Palestinian solidarity is trapped.
Joining one call and not another is actually surrendering to a discourse that is violently and criminally imposed by the Israelis. This is exactly where Zionism is maintaining its hegemony within the Palestinian solidarity discourse. It is Israeli brutality that dictates a state of ideological fragmentation upon the Palestinian solidarity discourse. Whatever decision the Palestinian activist is willing to make is set a priori to dismiss a certain notion of the Palestinian cause. It is indeed painful to admit that it is the Israelis who have set us into this trap. Our work, discourse and terminology as activists are totally shaped by Israeli aggression.
The Battle Is Not Lost
However, there is a way around that complexity. Rather than surrendering to the Zionist practice which splits the Palestinian solidarity discourse, we can simply redefine the core of the Palestinian tragedy, which is now turning into a global crisis.
Once we manage to internalise that the discourse of solidarity with Palestinians is dominated by the malicious and brutal Israeli practices, we are more or less ready to admit: it is the Jewish State: a racist nationalist ideology that we must oppose primarily. It is Jewish State and its supporters around the world that we must tackle. It is Zionism and global Zionism that we must confront immediately.
Yet, this is exactly where the solidarity campaigner loses his grip. To identify the Palestinian disaster with the concept of 'Jews Only State' is a leap not many activists are capable to do for the time being. To admit that the Jewish State is the core of the problem implies that there may be something slightly more fundamental in the conflict than merely colonial interests or an ethnic dispute over land. To identify the 'Jews Only State' as the core of the problem is to admit that peace is not necessarily an option. The reason is rather simple: the 'Jews Only State' follows an expansionist and racially orientated philosophy. It leaves no room for other people as a matter of fact and principle.
Yet, once we come to grips with this very understanding, once we are enlightened and realise that something here is slightly more fundamental than merely a battle between an invader facing some indigenous counter freedom fighting. We are probably more or less ready to engage in a critical enquiry into the notion of Zionism. We are more or less ready to grasp the notion of the emerging secular emancipated Jewish collective identity. We are ready to confront the modern notion of Jewishness (rather than Judaism). Once we are brave enough to admit that Zionism is a continuation of Jewishness (rather than Judaism), once we admit that Israel draws its force from a racist ideology, harboured in national chauvinism and blatant expansionism, once we admit that Zionism, which was once a marginal Jewish ideology, has become the voice of world Jewry, once we accept it all, we may be ready to defeat the Zionist disease. We do it for the sake of the Palestinians but as well for the sake of world peace.
The Gatekeepers
Let's try to think of an imaginary situation in which a dozen exiled German dissident intellectuals insist upon monitoring and controlling Churchill's addresses to the British public at the peak of the Blitz. Every time Churchill speaks his heart calling the British people to stand firm against Germany and its military might, the exiled dissident Germans raise their voice: "It isn't Germany, Mr Prime Minister, it is the Nazi party, the German people and the German spirit are innocent." Churchill obviously apologises immediately.
I assume that you all realise that such a scene is totally surreal. Britain would never allow a bunch of German exiles to control its rhetoric at the time of a war against Germany. Moreover, dissident German intellectuals would not have the Chutzpah to even consider telling the British what should or what shouldn't be the appropriate rhetoric to use at time of a war with Germany.
However, when it comes to the Palestinian solidarity discourse, we are somehow far more tolerant. In spite of the fact that it is the 'Jews Only State' that we struggle against, we allow a bunch of self-appointed Jewish leaders and activists to become our gatekeepers. As soon as anyone identifies the symptoms of Zionism with some fundamental or essential Jewish precepts a smear campaign is launched against that person.
I have been closely monitoring the Jewish left discourse for more than a few years now. I might as well admit that I can think of at least one good reason behind Jewish anti-Zionist activism. I do understand the need of some humanist Jews to stand up and say, 'I am a Jew and I find Zionism disgusting.' At a certain stage of my life I myself was saying just that. As some of you know, I totally admire Torah Jews for doing just that. However, when it comes to predominantly Jewish socialist and secular left groups, I am slightly confused.
Moshe Machover, a legendary Israeli dissident and a Jewish Marxist who happens to be the intellectual mentor of the British progressive Jewish activists, expressed the following view just a few days ago when he stated a complaint he had with a petition. (http://www.petitiononline.com/grosveno/petition.html) "anti-Semitism is a Palestinian problem, as it pushes Jews into the arms of Zionism. This has long been understood by all progressive Palestinians. Anti-semitism is an objective ally of Zionism, and the common enemy of Palestinians, Jews, and all humankind." (http://redress.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=404627)
Indeed anti-Semitism may be a problem, yet, is it really a Palestinian problem? Should the Palestinian solidarity campaign engage in fighting anti-Semitism? Shouldn't we leave it to ADL and Abe Foxman? I think that we better try to do whatever we can to save the people of Beit Hanoun. This is where we are needed. I am certain that the vast majority of the Palestinian activists know that I am right.
Every PSC campaigner I have ever spoken to admits to me that only very few Palestinians find interest in the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. In fact, the statement by Machover provides the reason. According to Machover, those amongst the Palestinians who fail to see that anti-Semitism is the problem are nothing but reactionary, as only the 'Progressive' Palestinians acknowledge that anti-Semitism is indeed a problem. Let me tell you, the Palestinians I know do not like it when Machover or anyone else calls them reactionaries just because they are not that concerned with anti-Semitism. Reading Machover, it is rather clear that such views serve as a body shield for Jewish secular collectivism and the Zio-centric historical narrative. If to be honest, there is not much reason for any Palestinian to join a movement predominated by the obsession with anti-Semitism.
May I tell you, I am not an historian. I am academically trained as a philosopher and particularly as a continental one. I am interested in the notion of essence. For me to attack Zionism is to aim towards a thorough realisation of the essence of Zionism. To a certain extent I am indeed an essentialist. This is pretty worrying for those who try to reduce the discourse into positivistic exchange regarding numbers and historical facts. I am interested in the spirit of Zionism. I'm concerned about that which transforms the Israelis and their supporters into ethically blind killing machines.
Beyond Chutzpah
You may have heard of the book I am holding in my hand. Probably, it's the ultimate Zionist filth: Alan Dershowitz's The Case For Israel. I don't know whether any of you have ever considered reading this banal not to say idiotic text. I did, it fell into my hands a few days ago.
Shockingly enough, this book is structured as a beginner's guide for the Zionist enthusiast, a kind of "Israel for Dummies". It teaches the nationalist Jew how to be an advocate and defend the 'case of Israel'. We know already that Norman Finkelstein has managed to prove beyond doubt that the text is academically a farce. Yet, there is something revealing in this text.
The book is a set of deconstructions of 'the anti-Zionist argument'. It starts with the heaviest ideological and moral accusation against Israel and it gets lighter, more historical and forensic as you progress.
Dershowitz launches with the 'million Shekels' question "Is Israel a Colonial, Imperialist State?" To a certain degree Dershowitz manages to tackle the question. He asks, "if it is indeed a colonial state, what flag does it serve?" Fair enough, I say, he may be right. I myself do not regard Zionism as a colonial adventure. However, hang on for a second, Mr. Dershowitz. It seems you might be getting off the hook easily here. Our problem with Israel has nothing to do with its colonial characteristics. Our problems with the 'Jews Only State' have something to do with its racist, expansionist and nationalist qualities. Our problems with Israel have something to do with it being a Fascist State supported by the vast majority of Jewish people around the world.
Now if you, Scottish activists stop for a second, ask yourselves why Dershowitz starts his book tackling the colonial aspect of Israel rather than facing its Fascist characteristics. My answer is simple. We are afraid to admit that Israel is indeed a Fascist State. It is predominantly the politically correct groups that furnish Dershowitz with a Zionist fig leaf. In fact, it is the Jewish gatekeepers on the left who have managed to reduce Zionism merely into a colonial adventure. Why did they do it? I can think of two reasons:
1. If Israel, the 'Jews Only State' is wrong for being a racially orientated adventure, then 'Jews for peace', 'Jews against Zionism', 'Jewish Socialists', 'Jews Sans Frontieres' etc. are all wrong for the very same reason (being a racially orientated adventure).
2. To regard the Israeli Palestinian conflict as a colonial dispute is to make sure it fits nicely into their notion of working class politics. May I suggest that a universal working class vision of Israel implies that the Jewish State is nothing but a Fascist experiment.
I would use this opportunity and appeal to our friends amongst the Jewish socialists and other Jewish solidarity groups. I would ask them to clear the stage willingly, and to re-join as ordinary human beings. The Palestinian Solidarity movement is craving for a change. It needs open gates rather than gatekeepers. It yearns for an open and dynamic discourse. The Palestinians on the ground have realised it already. They democratically elected an alternative vision of their future. Isn't it about time we support the Palestinians for what they are rather than expecting them to fit into our worldview?
Raised as a secular Israeli Jew in Jerusalem, Gilad Atzmon witnessed and empathised with the daily sufferings of Palestinians and spent 20 years trying to resolve for himself the tensions of his background. Finally disillusioned, he moved away from Israel and went to England to study philosophy. Visit his website http://www.gilad.co.uk
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Syria Is A Convenient Fallguy
By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth
24 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Unlike my colleagues, I do not claim to know who killed Gemayel. Maybe Syria was behind the shooting. Maybe, in Lebanon's notoriously intrigue-ridden and fractious political system, someone with a grudge against Gemayel -- even from within his own party -- pulled the trigger. Or maybe, Israel once again flexed the muscles of its long arm in Lebanon.
It seems, however, as if the last possibility cannot be entertained in polite society. So let me offer a few impolite thoughts.
As anyone who watches TV crimes series knows, when there is insufficient physical evidence in a murder investigation for a conviction, detectives examine the motives of the parties who stood to benefit from the crime. Better detectives also consider whether the prime suspect -- the person who looks at first sight to be the guilt party -- is not, in fact, being turned into a fallguy by one of the other parties. The murderer may be the person who benefits most clearly from the crime, or the murderer may be the person who benefits from the prime suspect being fingered for the murder.
As most of our politicians and the media's commentators have deduced, suspicion falls automatically on Syria because the Christian Phalangists are one of Syria's main enemies in Lebanon. Partly as a result, they have opposed recent attempts by Syria's main ally in Lebanon, the Shiite group Hizbullah, to win a greater share of political power.
They are also -- and this seems to clinch it for most observers -- part of the majority in the pro-American government of Fuad Siniora that supports a United Nations tribunal to try the killers of Rafik Hariri, an anti-Syria politician and leader of the Sunni Muslim community, who was blown up by a car bomb more than a year and a half ago.
After all six Shiite ministers walked out of the Siniora cabinet two weeks ago, and now with Gemayel's assassination, the government is close to collapse, and with it the tribunal that everyone expects to implicate Syria in Hariri's murder. If Syria can "bump off" another two cabinet ministers and the government loses its quorum, Syria will be off the hook -- or so runs the logic of Western observers.
But does this "evidence" make Syria the prime suspect or the fallguy? How will Syria's wider interests be affected by the killing, and what about Israel's interests in Gemayel's death -- or rather, its interests in Hizbullah or Syria being blamed for Gemayel's death?
In truth, Israel will benefit in numerous ways from the tensions provoked by the assassination, as the popular and angry rallies in Beirut against Syria and Hizbullah are proving.
First, and most obviously, Hizbullah -- as Syria's main political and military friend in Lebanon -- has been forced suddenly on to the back foot. Hizbullah had been riding high after its triumph over the summer of withstanding the Israeli assault on Lebanon and routing an invasion force that tried to occupy the country's south.
Hizbullah's popularity and credibility rose so sharply that the leaders of the Shiite community had been hoping to cash in on that success domestically by demanding more power. That is one of the reasons why the six Shiite ministers walked out of Siniora's cabinet.
Despite the way the Shiite parties' political position has been presented in the West, there is considerable justification for their demands. The system of political representation in Lebanon was rigged decades ago by the former colonial power, France, to ensure that power is shared between the Christian and Sunni Muslim communities. The Shiite Muslims, the country's largest religious sect, have been kept on the margins of the system ever since, effectively disenfranchised.
With their recent military victory, this was the moment Hizbullah hoped to make a breakthrough and force political concessions from the Sunnis and Christians, concessions that indirectly would have benefited Syria. With Gemayel's death, the chances of that now look slim indeed. Hizbullah, and by extension Syria, are the losers; Israel, which wants Hizbullah weakened, is the winner.
Second, the assassination has pushed Lebanon to the brink of another civil war. With a political system barely able to contain sectarian differences, and with the various factions in no mood to compromise after the spate of recent assassinations, there is a real danger that fighting will return to Lebanon's streets.
This will most certainly not be to the benefit of Lebanon or any of its religious communities, who will be dragged into another round of bloodletting. Hizbullah's underground cadres who took on the Israeli war machine will doubtless have to come out of hiding and will pay a price against other well-armed militias.
The benefits for Syria are at best mixed. A possible benefit is that a bloody civil war may increase the pressure on the United States to talk to Syria, and possibly to invite it to take a leading role again in stabilising Lebanon, as it did during the last civil war.
But, given the continuing ascendancy of the hawks in Washington, it may have the opposite effect, encouraging the US to isolate Syria further.
Conversely, civil war may pose serious threats to Syrian interests -- and offer significant benefits to Israel. If Hizbullah's energies are seriously depleted in a civil war, Israel may be in a much better position to attack Lebanon again. Almost everyone in Israel is agreed that the Israeli army is itching to settle the score with Hizbullah in another round of fighting. This way it may get the next war it wants on much better terms; or Israel may be able to fight a proxy war against Hizbullah by aiding the Shiite group's opponents.
Certainly one of the main goals of Israel's bombing campaign over the summer, when much of Lebanon's infrastructure was destroyed, appeared to be to provoke such a civil war. It was widely reported at the time that Israel's generals hoped that the devastation would provoke the Christian, Sunni and Druze communities to rise up against Hizbullah.
Third, Syria is already the prime suspect in Hariri's murder and in the assasination of three other Lebanese politicians and journalists, all seen as anti-Syrian, over the past 21 months.
The US exploited Hariri's death, and the widespread protests that followed, to evict Syria from Lebanon. Syria's removal from the scene also paved the way, whether intentionally or not, for Israel's assault this summer, which would have been far more dangerous to the region had Syria still been in Lebanon.
Despite the looming threat of the UN tribunal into Hariri's death, from Syria's point of view the accusations have grown stale with time and threatened to prove only what everyone in the West already believed. With the walk-out by the Shiite ministers from the Lebanese government, the investigations were looking all but redundant in any case.
Gemayel's assassination, however, has dramatically revived interest in the question of who killed Hariri and brings Syria firmly back into the spotlight. None of this benefits Syria, but no doubt Israel will be able to take some considerable pleasure in Damascus's discomfort.
Fourth, the Israeli government has been under international and domestic pressure to engage with Syria and negotiate a return of the Golan Heights, an area of Syrian territory it has been occupying since 1967.
With it would be resolved the fraught question of the Shebaa Farms, still occupied by Israel but which Hizbullah and Syria claim as Lebanese territory that should have been returned in Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. The status of the Shebaa Farms has been one of the main outstanding areas of dispute between Israel and Hizbullah.
President Assad of Syria has been hinting openly that he is ready to discuss Israel's return of the Golan Heights on better terms for Israel than it has ever before been offered.
According to reports in the Israeli media, Assad is prepared to demilitarise the Golan and turn it into a national park that would be open to Israelis. He would probably also not insist on a precise return to the 1967 border, which includes the northern shoreline of the Sea of Galilee. Traditionally Israel's leaders balked at this idea, and provoked popular fears by conjuring up the vision of Assad's father, Hafez, dipping his feet in the lake.
But if negotations on the Golan are desperately sought by the young Assad, Israel shows no interest in exploring the option. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has repeatedly ruled out talking to Damascus. That is for several reasons:
* Israel, as might be expected on past form, is not in the mood for making territorial concessions;
* it does not want to end Syria's pariah's status and isolation by making a peace deal with it;
* and it fears that such a deal might suggest that negotiations with the Palestinians are feasible too.
Peace with Syria, in Israeli eyes, would inexorably lead to pressure to make peace with the Palestinians. That is most certainly not part of Israel's agenda.
Gemayel's death, and Syria being blamed for it, forces Damascus back into the fold of the "Axis of Evil", and forestalls any threat of talks on the Golan.
Fifth, pressure has been growing in the US Administration to start talking to Syria, if only to try to recruit it to Washington's "war on terror". The US could desperately do with local local help in managing its occupation of Iraq. It is unclear whether Bush is ready to make such an about-turn, but it remains a possibility.
Key allies such as Britain's Tony Blair are pushing strongly for engagement with Syria, both to further isolate Iran -- the possible target of either a US or Israeli strike against its presumed ambitions for nuclear weapons -- and to clear the path to negotiations with the Palestinians.
Gemayel's death, and Syria's blame for it, strengthens the case of the neoconservatives in Washington -- Israel's allies in the Administration -- whose star had begun to wane. They can now argue convincingly that Syria is unreformed and unreformable. Such an outcome helps to avert the danger, from Israel's point of view, that White House doves might win the argument for befriending Syria.
For all these reasons, we should be wary of assuming that Syria is the party behind Gemayel's death -- or the only regional actor meddling in Lebanon.
Jonathan Cook is a journalist and writer based in Nazareth, Israel. His book Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net
Comment on this Editorial
Living Under Terror
Gaza Revisited; Back to Basics
By Mamoon Alabbasi*
irst Published 2006-11-16, Last Updated 2006-11-16 10:49:08
The recent massacre that killed about eighteen people, mostly women and children, in Beit Hanoun as a result of a direct Israeli attack was nothing new, horrid as it was. Also expected were Israel's explanations of the 'tragic' event.
Both Israeli officials and their apologists were quick to claim that the strike was an accident and that it was supposedly targeting militants who fired Qassam rockets from civilian areas in 'no-longer-occupied' Gaza into 'no-longer-occupying' Israel. Unsurprisingly, many of those apologists added that though they felt sad for the victims' loss of life, they do, however, fully understand Israel's legitimate right to defend itself and its concern for security.
What is truly astonishing, however, is the fact that Israel has managed to get away with what it did unpunished from most mainstream media outlets. Had it been done by any other state or organisation, the normally critical media would have not given the undertakers of the act the benefit of the doubt, while ignoring the whole context of the crisis.
Instead mainstream media has generally acted as an accomplice to Israel's crimes by either abstaining from mentioning the context of the conflict or portraying a misleading context when reporting the Middle East conflict. Whether intentionally or unwittingly, the media has sponsored a number of fallacies and even myths when covering the recent massacre.
No-longer-occupied Gaza:
Israeli officials repeatedly claim that they no longer occupy Gaza. But what are we to understand from that claim? Is Gaza an independent sovereign state with full control of its borders, airspace and sea? The fact that the Israeli army (ironically called 'Israeli Defence Force') is no longer patrolling the streets of tiny but populated Gaza does not make the besieged strip free of occupation.
Retreating from inside the totally occupied area to surrounding positions, Israel has not ended its occupation of Gaza under any law including its own. About 1.5 million people living in a small area surrounded by a ruthless army that has 'fully' occupied them for over 38 years and can come back in whenever it feels like it to commit any inhuman action it pleases is not the concept of 'no-longer-occupied' that would spring to mind to the average Western observer. The fact is, the unholy Israeli presence has never left the God-tested strip.
As a follow up to their claim of no longer occupying Gaza, the Israeli authorities demand that Palestinians living in the strip should no longer engage in military action against Israel. But even if Gaza were suddenly (if not magically) to become an independent sovereign state with full control of its economy, borders, and the rest, such a demand should never escape the scrutiny of free objective media. It's like Bin Laden asking the people of Texas not to antagonise al-Qaeda because his followers never targeted the southern state in the tragic terrorists' attacks of 9/11.
Imagine if Nazi Germany had occupied London during World War II, would it be understandable if Hitler were to ask, say the people of Manchester not to help out the Londoners because his troops were not marching in the streets of Manchester?
What has also escaped the attention of many journalists, and a greater number of lawyers I might add, is the fact that ceasing to do a crime that you've been continuously doing for over 38 years does not give you immunity from punishment. Like the unforgivably monstrous sponsors of the Holocaust, the equally ugly mass murdering occupiers must be brought to justice and shame.
Rockets from civilian areas:
Another repeated claim that goes unnoticed is the idea that Palestinian militants are firing at the Israeli army or at Israel from civilian areas. Not many have bothered to point out that in a small land that has been occupied and severely controlled for over 38 years there is no such thing as a military area. It's not a case of two countries at war. There is no Palestinian army. Those 'militants' are in effect civilians fighting occupation from their homes. Risky and unadvisable as it may be, they do not see a credible alternative way to obtain liberation.
However, if Israel acknowledges that it is 'hitting back' at civilian areas, why aren't there cries of 'terrorism' in Western media? Is this a green light for terrorists that see it as acceptable to kill innocent civilians if there is a non-civilian among them?
Israel's security:
Although they certainly are perusing counter-productive methods, Israel has the right to be concerned about its own security. However, to expect the Palestinians to give a hand is like anticipating invaded Poland to give a damn about Nazi Germany's security phobia. From the perspective of his generals, Hitler had legitimate security concerns, too.
At the end of the day, invading or occupying powers are human too, even if their actions appear to be far from it. But shouldn't people, or countries in this matter, be more concerned with the security of the invaded or occupied party instead? Do you go to the bullied child and ask him/her not to push back? Not for the concern that it would make matters worse for the bullied child, but because it might discomfort the bulling child.
Qassam rockets:
'If it wasn't for the Qassam rockets,' the Israelis would like us to believe, 'none of this would have happened.' But it did happen before. Countless number of times, throughout Israel's 38-year long occupation, and certainly long before the invention of those so called rockets, Israel has committed one atrocity after another. But most journalists and editors fail to mention that. They just nod their heads as Israeli officials make their - what should be -unbelievable statements.
That's probably why the people of Gaza (and the rest of Palestine) seem - and in some cases indeed are - suicidal. They can't bank on international organisations or world media to save them. Even during those instances where the whole world appears to side with them, they have not been rescued from this torturing never-ending occupation. Here's a word that would sum up the context of the whole Middle East conflict; occupation.
* Mamoon Alabbasi is a freelance journalist and editor for Middle-East-Online.com and AlarabOnline.org - He can be reached at: alabbasi@journalist.com
Comment on this Article
Palestinian factions agree on limited ceasefire with Israel
www.chinaview.cn 2006-11-24 06:29:52
GAZA, Nov. 23 (Xinhua) -- A senior Palestinian official affirmed on Thursday that the armed Palestinian factions has agreed on a limited ceasefire with Israel.
Khader Habib, Islamic Jihad leader in Gaza, told reporters that representatives of national and Islamic factions, who met with Prime Minister Ismail Haneya in Gaza on Thursday night, has agreed on a limited ceasefire with Israel.
He stressed that the ceasefire is mutual and synchronous, noting that "Israel stops its military operations in Gaza and the West Bank, while Palestinian militants stop firing rockets at Israel."
"The agreement also needs the acceptance of both Fatah and Hamas movements," he added.
On Monday, the Israeli army launched a ground military operation into northern Gaza Strip, where 12 Palestinians have been killed and more than 20 others wounded in the latest Israeli operation.
As Palestinian militants continued to launch rockets against southern Israeli cities, Israel decided on Wednesday to continue its military operations in Gaza.
Comment on this Article
Palestinians militants: We'll halt Qassam fire if IDF stops attacks
Ynet
24/11/2006
A spokesperson for Islamic Jihad said the representatives of the various organizations in Gaza have reached an agreement according to which the Qassam attacks on Israel would cease in return for an end to the IDF's activity in the Strip and in the West Bank.
Comment: Such offers are pointless. Israel is not interested in peace. It is interested only in provoking Palestinians into attempting to defend themselves and then using such defense as justification for the continued ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Comment on this Article
Israel rejects Palestinian offer to halt rocket fire
AFP
24 November 2006
GAZA CITY - A proposal from Palestinian factions to stop rocket attacks in exchange for an end to Israeli offensives in Gaza and the West Bank was rejected as inadequate by Israel on Friday.
Just hours after a spokesman for the ultra-radical Islamic Jihad made the offer following an overnight meeting between rival factions, a Hamas militant was killed during ongoing Israeli operations in the northern Gaza Strip.
"We are getting nothing from these rockets because nothing they achieve matches the force and power of the Israeli response," Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas declared in Gaza City late Thursday.
"We talked about the rocket fire. There is an agreement to stop the fire in exchange for a halt to Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza," the Jihad spokesman said after inter-faction talks.
"This idea will be transmitted to the Israelis by Abu Mazen (Abbas). If they accept, there will perhaps be a stop to fire on Israeli towns but not a general truce," Khader Habib added.
But Israel did not accept the offer, with government spokeswoman Miri Eisin describing it as a "partial ceasefire" impossible to take seriously.
"The suggestion concerns a partial ceasefire, limited to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip in exchange for a total halt to Israeli operations on all fronts. This is not serious," she told AFP.
"Israel has always aspired to an end to violence and we count on a change of attitude from the Palestinians and primarily Hamas in order to give development a priority in the Gaza Strip instead of continued attacks," she added.
The army, meanwhile, said three rockets fired from the territory exploded in Israel overnight, one of which damaged a commercial centre in the town of Sderot, where two people have died in such attacks in the last 10 days.
A spokesman for the Islamist movement Hamas, which heads the internationally boycotted Palestinian government, and an independent MP involved in the faction talks said there could be no way forward if Israel remained intransigent.
"There is no chance of a truce as long as the enemy aggression continues," said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum.
"If the enemy agrees to withdraw from the zones it is occupying and top its operations, we can look at something else," he added.
Independent MP Mustapha Barghuti lashed out, branding the Israeli reaction "very discouraging".
"Israel is responsable for the cycle of violence. Each time Palestinians want an end of violence, Israel refuses. Israel is the one that does not want to stop the cycle of violence," he told AFP in Gaza City.
The Jihad spokesman had said that Hamas, Abbas's Fatah movement, his own faction and the Popular and Democratic Fronts for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP and DFLP) had accepted the agreement.
A spokesman for the cabinet headed by Hamas, whose armed wing on Thursday claimed its first suicide attack in almost two years when a grandmother blew herself up in Gaza, also said there was willingness for a mutual halt.
"The Palestinian groups are ready to stop the rocket fire if Israel agrees to stop all forms of aggression. If there is such a halt, there will be a halt to the (rocket fire)," said Ghazi Hamad.
But Tawfiq Abu Khussa, a spokesman for Fatah said talks needed more time, saying the movement was talking about an "unconditional" halt to violence.
Israeli troops have stepped up an air and ground offensive in the northern Gaza Strip in a bid to counter near daily Palestinian rocket attacks.
Ayman Juda, 22, a Hamas militant was killed by Israeli fire in Beit Lahiya, a medic said. An army spokeswoman said she was "checking" the report.
Seven Palestinians, including at least four militants, were killed by Israeli fire in the territory on Thursday.
Comment on this Article
Israel dismisses militants' offer on partial ceasefire
First Published 2006-11-24, Last Updated 2006-11-24 09:04:30
JERUSALEM - Israel on Friday dismissed an offer from Palestinian armed groups to stop rocket attacks in exchange for a halt to Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
"The suggestion concerns a partial ceasefire, limited to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip in exchange for a total halt to Israeli operations on all fronts. This is not serious," government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said.
"There is no commitment on the part of armed Palestinian groups to put an end to terrorist operations and suicide attacks in particular," she added.
"Israel has always aspired to an end to violence and we count on a change of attitude from the Palestinians and primarily Hamas in order to give development a priority in the Gaza Strip instead of continued attacks," she added.
The army, meanwhile, said three rockets fired from the territory exploded in Israel overnight, one of which damaged a commercial centre in the southern town of Sderot, where two people have recently been killed by such attacks.
A spokesman for the ultra-radical Islamic Jihad group said late Thursday that Palestinian factions were ready to stop firing rockets into Israel if the Jewish state ends its operations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
"We talked (with Palestinian groups) about the rocket fire. There is an agreement to stop the fire in exchange for a halt to Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza," said Khader Habib.
Comment on this Article
Seven Palestinians killed on Thursday in the Gaza Strip, over twenty residents injured
IMEMC
24/11/2006
Several attacks were carried out at different areas in the Gaza Strip; at least twenty residents were injured. Resident Nasser Al Nithir, 22, was killed after the army fired artillery shells at Palestinian houses in Sheikh Zayid city, in the northern part of the Gaza Strip; two residents were injured in the attack.
Comment on this Article
Israel kills 2 Palestinians in Gaza- medics
Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:49 PM GMT
By Nidal al-Mughrabi
GAZA (Reuters) - Israeli forces shot dead a 10-year-old Palestinian boy and a militant in Gaza on Friday, hospital officials said as the government vowed it would only end its assault when militants stopped attacking Israel.
The latest Israeli ground and air offensive, about a week old, is part of ongoing efforts to stop Gaza militants from firing rockets at Israel. Two Israeli soldiers were slightly wounded in the northern Gaza Strip when gunmen detonated an explosive device near troops, the army said.
"If the Palestinian terror factions, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, stop terror activities from the Gaza Strip, Israel would have no reason or incentive to operate in Gaza," said government spokeswoman, Miri Eisin.
Palestinian factions in Gaza late on Thursday had offered to stop firing rockets if Israel halted military action in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Israel rejected the offer.
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told reporters it was up to Israel to respond positively.
"The issue should not be seen as if there is a Palestinian army with an arsenal of rockets ... The issue is that there is an unarmed Palestinian people who are subject to Israeli aggression," he said.
Palestinian hospital officials said the boy was shot dead east of the town of Beit Lahiya. Israel's army said it was not aware of the incident. Hamas said the other dead Palestinian was a militant and cameraman from the faction's armed wing who filmed Hamas fighters in action.
Israel has killed nearly 400 Palestinians in Gaza, about half of them civilians, since it began its offensive in June following the abduction of an Israeli soldier in a cross-border raid, hospital officials and residents say.
Three Israeli soldiers have been killed.
ROW OVER UNITY GOVERNMENT
The fresh fighting coincides with a visit to Gaza by President Mahmoud Abbas of the once-dominant Fatah faction, who has been meeting Haniyeh to try to revive talks on forging a unity government.
Haniyeh is a member of the Hamas movement, which ousted Fatah in elections earlier this year and has resisted international pressure to renounce violence and recognise the state of Israel.
Hamas accused Abbas on Friday of imposing what it called unacceptable conditions for a unity cabinet, including the release of a captured Israeli soldier and a halt to attacks on Israel.
Palestinians hope a unity government will convince Western nations to renew aid to the Palestinian Authority after sanctions were imposed because of Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel and renounce violence.
"Mr Abu Mazen (Abbas) has started putting new conditions which were not included in the understandings and agreements we have concluded to form a unity government," said a Hamas statement from Damascus, where many of its leaders live in exile.
Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Abbas aide, said Hamas had "invented" the idea the president was imposing new terms, saying they had been on the table for months.
"This is the latest trick by the Hamas leadership to portray itself to the public as not being responsible for the destruction of the internal Palestinian situation," he said.
Haniyeh was more upbeat, saying the "true intention" of the talks was to reach an agreement.
(Additional reporting by Ari Rabinovitch in Jerusalem, Mohammed Assadi in Ramallah and Khaled Yacoub Oweis in Damascus)
Comment on this Article
November in Gaza: 105 killed, 353 injured, 52 left handicapped for life
Maan News
23/11/2006
105 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip since the beginning of November, Palestinian medical sources have reported. The emergency and first aid department in the Palestinian ministry of health reports that 31 percent of the victims were children. Of the 105 killed, 14 were women.
Comment on this Article
Israeli soldiers wounded by 55-year-old woman suicide bomber
www.chinaview.cn 2006-11-24 11:09:46
GAZA, Nov. 23 (Xinhua) -- A Palestinian woman, member of al-Qassam Brigades, armed wing of Islamic Hamas, blew herself up on Thursday evening amid a group of Israeli soldiers in northern Gaza Strip and wounded four of them, Palestinian eyewitnesses and security sources reported.
The sources said that Fatema al-Najjar, a 55-year-old member of Hamas armed wing, carried an explosive belt and walked towards the Israeli army forces, who are operating into northern Gaza Strip, and blew herself up.
An Israeli army spokesman confirmed that a Palestinian female suicide bomber blew herself up near an Israeli army force east of Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza Strip, and wounded four Israeli soldiers.
Shortly before the suicide bombing attack, three Palestinians were killed in two separate strikes in northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian security sources said.
Two militants, who were in a car travelling in northern Gaza Strip, were killed when an Israeli aircraft fired one rocket that had directly hit the car, the sources said.
A third Palestinian was killed in Israeli artillery shelling on northern Gaza Strip.
Palestinian medics said the death toll of Palestinians that were killed in a daylong of violence with Israelis reached to seven, including the suicide bomber woman, four militants and two civilians.
Comment: Other reports place her age at 64 and 68. You'd think that her Mossad handler would get the facts straight.
Comment on this Article
Matriarch who lost grandson in conflict with Israelis turns into "suicide bomber"
IHT
24/11/2006
Her daughter said Fatma Omar An-Najar was driven to lay down her life in an attack on Israelis Thursday because one grandson was killed and another disabled in clashes with troops. Fatma presided over a small army of militants, mostly from the Islamic Hamas movement, but with a few active in the rival Fatah. Her husband, who died a year ago, served time in Israeli jails, so did five of her seven sons.
Comment: When a person's life has been made into a living hell, many members of their family murdered in cold blood, and the rest in jail for no reason, and they are denied any way to defend themselves or seek retribution, what is there left to live for? What would be driven to do?
Comment on this Article
Hamas says new rift with Abbas on government
Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:44 PM GMT
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis
DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Hamas accused Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday of imposing what it called unacceptable new conditions for forming a unity government.
Abbas is putting conditions on the formation of the proposed government, including the release of an Israeli soldier captured by Palestinian militants in June and a halt to attacks by Hamas and other groups on Israel, said a Hamas statement.
The statement is the latest twist in months of on-off talks between Abbas and Hamas to try to form a coalition government that they hope will succeed in lifting eight months of Western financial sanctions.
"Abu Mazen (Abbas), has started putting new conditions which were not included in the understandings and agreements we have concluded to form a unity government," it said.
"The issue of calming down armed resistance was not on the table and should not be raised at this time," The statement said. "Hamas had announced it is ready to stop rocket attacks if Zionist aggression and assassinations stop."
Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior aide to Abbas, denied that Abbas had imposed new terms.
Hamas said it had not received guarantees from Abbas that the West would recognise the proposed government and lift sanctions.
The United States and European Union cut off direct aid to the Palestinian Authority in March after Hamas won elections. Hamas, an Islamist group that is sworn to Israel's destruction, is listed as a terrorist organisation by the U.S. and EU.
The hope is that a new government that unites "technocrats" and members of Fatah, which is more moderate than Hamas, might open the way for the sanctions to be lifted and for the government to again receive desperately needed Western aid.
Even if it is formed, there is no certainty that the sanctions, which have increased poverty throughout the West Bank and Gaza, where 3.8 million people live, will be lifted.
Hamas and Fatah had on Monday suspended negotiations over the formation of the government after disagreement emerged over the distribution of key ministries.
Fatah wants independent "experts" to take them over.
Hamas said in its statement that although it has agreed with Fatah to exclude leading politicians from the new cabinet, it should not be comprised totally of independents.
"This will not be purely technocratic government," it said.
"The new government must not be linked to other issues, such as a ceasefire or the captured soldier. Hamas is deeply worried about attempts to go beyond the bases agreed on with Fatah," the statement said.
"Linking the soldier issue with the proposed government damages Palestinian interests," it said.
Comment on this Article
Israel Snubs the World
France okays firing at IAF over Lebanon
Jpost.com
23 Nov 06
French soldiers in Lebanon who feel threatened by aggressive Israeli overflights are permitted to shoot at IAF fighter jets, a high-ranking French military officer told The Jerusalem Post.
Wednesday, several days after meeting with an IDF general in Paris to discuss what he said was a "blatant violation of the cease-fire."
Last weekend, Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan, head of the IDF Planning Directorate, traveled to Paris and met with military officials to explain why the IAF flies over Lebanon despite the UN-brokered cease-fire.
Nehushtan, new to his post and previously deputy commander of the air force, told his French counterparts that Israel was conducting the flights to collect intelligence on Hizbullah positions in southern Lebanon.
According to the French officer, Nehushtan apologized for an incident on October 31 when an IAF fighter carried out a mock bombing run over a French UNIFIL position in southern Lebanon, almost prompting troops to fire anti-aircraft missiles.
"There was a reality on the ground and it was important for us to reaffirm what we had seen and explain clearly what are the orders of the French soldiers to protect themselves," the French officer said.
The French told Nehushtan they would view further aggressive flyovers as a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
"No assurances were made to us that they [the IAF] would stop [the flights]," the French officer said. "The orders that the [French] soldiers have is that their weapons are for self-defense and if a commander will feel threatened, as it was about to happen on the 31st of October, he would have the right to use force."
Milos Strugar, spokesman for UNIFIL, supported the French position, saying that according to the UN resolution, UNIFIL had the right to use force in self-defense, even against Israeli aircraft.
"UNIFIL has the right to take all necessary action to protect UN personnel in self-defense," he said.
France's furor at the overflights was not divorced from French domestic political considerations, government officials in Jerusalem said Wednesday.
France is scheduled to hold the first round of presidential elections in April, and one of those reportedly considering tossing her hat into the ring is Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie.
According to these officials, taking a tough stance toward Israel on the issue - a position that grabs headlines in France - helps her raise her profile.
The officials said it didn't hurt Alliot-Marie politically to be seen as someone who needed to be "held back" from responding forcefully to the overflights.
France has said on a few occasions since the end of the war that it came close to firing at Israeli jets over Lebanon. In late October, Alliot-Marie told parliament that Israeli F-15's had dived close to French positions in southern Lebanon.
"Our troops barely avoided a catastrophe," Alliot-Marie told parliament. "Our troops find themselves in a position where they have to fire in legitimate self-defense."
Alliot-Marie is a close ally of French President Jacques Chirac, and if Chirac does not decide to run for a third term, he may back Alliot-Marie to thwart his rival, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.
The Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, has not - contrary to some press reports - asked the IDF to stop the overflights, diplomatic officials said. Rather, they have passed on to the IDF European concerns that the flights be performed more discreetly, and not in a way that could be interpreted by either the Lebanese or the Europeans as a provocation.
Nehushtan declined to be interviewed for this report and the IDF Spokesman's Office released a statement confirming that the IDF general had visited Paris.
Comment on this Article
Iraq war was good for Israel: Olmert
Reuters
November 22, 2006
The Iraq war was a boon for Israel's security, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Wednesday, voicing fresh endorsement for a Bush administration sapped by the unpopularity at home of its Middle East policies.
The mid-term election losses of U.S. President George W. Bush's Republican Party were widely considered a repudiation of his decision to topple Iraq's Saddam Hussein as part of a vision of democratizing the region and bolstering allies like Israel.
Olmert avoided explicit comment on the Republicans' fortunes during Washington talks with Bush earlier this month. But in a speech to visiting American Jews, Olmert made clear he had few regrets about the changes wrought by the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"I know all of his (Bush's) policies are controversial in America. There are some who support his policies in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, and some who do not," he said.
"I stand with the president because I know that Iraq without Saddam Hussein is so much better for the security and safety of Israel, and all of the neighbors of Israel without any significance to us," added Olmert, who was speaking in English.
"Thank God for the power and the determination and leadership manifested by President Bush."
With U.S.-led forces mired in an Iraqi insurgency, political analysts have speculated that Bush may redirect his attentions toward solving an Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is a major grievance in the Arab and Muslim world.
That could prompt Olmert to reconsider his unilateral policies towards a Palestinian leadership that he has argued is incapable or unwilling to make peace with Israel.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate who has been struggling to revive rapprochement efforts despite opposition from the Hamas Islamists with which he shares power, has said that Israel should seek peace as a key to wider regional calm.
Under Saddam, Iraq backed Palestinian militants and posed a menacing presence to Israel's east. During the 1991 Gulf war, Iraq rained missiles on Israel but Israel held its fire at the behest of Washington, which was wary of alienating Arab allies.
But Olmert's views on today's Iraq have not been shared by all Israeli experts.
Yuval Diskin, chief of the Shin Bet intelligence service, said in a leaked briefing earlier this year that Israel could come to rue Saddam's ouster if it deepens regional instability.
"When you take apart a system in which a dictator has been controlling his people by force, you have chaos," Diskin said in a recording broadcast by Israeli television. "I'm not sure we won't end up missing Saddam."
Comment: Strange. The state of Israel usually profits from the deaths of large numbers of Arab civilians.
Comment on this Article
Cleric holds US, Zionist Regime responsible for Gemayel's assassination
Tehran, Nov 24, IRNA
Tehran's substitute Friday prayers leader Hojjatoleslam Ahmad Khatami on Friday held the US and the Zionist Regime of Israel responsible for assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel.
"All proof and evidence point clearly to the fact that the US and Zionists are behind the assassination because the US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice had earlier disclosed that many assassinations would take place in Lebanon; large amount of weapons have also been shipped to the US Embassy in Lebanon and Gemayel too was assassinated with the same arms," said Khatami in his second Friday prayers sermon.
At least three gunmen rammed their car into Gemayel's vehicle as it was traveling in Beirut's Christian neighborhood and then riddled it with bullets from their silencer-equipped automatic weapons at pointblank range, witnesses said.
Gemayel, 34, was rushed to hospital where he later died of his wounds.
Khatami went on to say, "The reality is that we are witnessing a plot in Lebanon."
He hoped such plots would be defused through wise initiatives of the Lebanese popular officials.
The cleric said, "True, the plots have been masterminded by foreigners, notably the US, but the enemy is at home."
He recalled the 33-day of Lebanese resistance against the Zionist enemy and said there were some Lebanese statesmen who tried to harm the resistance.
Comment on this Article
VP: Zionist regime, occupation are indices of bullying system
Istanbul, Nov 24, IRN
Iran's first vice president Parviz Davoudi here on Thursday night said that the Zionist regime and occupation in Iraq are indicators of bullying policy in the region.
Attending the Regional Conference of World Economic Federation in Istanbul, Turkey, Davoudi noted, "Economic strategy based on maximum benefit and maximum personal profit caused an economic development a illegal domination, and neo-liberalists' movement in economy accelerated globalisation in line with benefits of the system."
"Within the framework, the regional nations' rights have been infringed, therefore, they are legally allowed to open markets through political and even military levers," he added.
"After the cold war, unilateral domination policy and efforts to misuse the opportunity in line with strengthening power fomented instability worldwide and the Middle East," he stated.
The VP went on to say that restoration of stability in the region depends on attention to crisis in Palestine, and noted that the nation's legitimate rights have been denied for 60 years, because the Zionist regime usurped their territories and made them baseless.
The US is to deprive Iran from its inalienable peaceful nuclear right based on NPT regulations, and is storming Tehran for its nuclear activities, he said.
He added that the US' skyrocketing debts have brought about instability on the international financial markets and it is issuing dollars to repay the debts which has decreased trust in the exchange unit.
Touching on energy as the most important resource in the region, he noted that energy management is considered as the base factor in regional development and cooperation.
The official stipulated that the total oil and gas reserves should be regarded as a supportive element to promote a great movement for cooperation in all fields particularly in regional and international trade, security and energy sectors.
Davoudi arrived in Turkey on an invitation by Turkish Prime nister Recep Teyyip Erdogan to participate in the Regional Conference of the World Economic Federation.
The two-day conference dubbed 'Joining Regional and Creating New Opportunities' is attended by 13 Turkish ministers including the economy, finance and foreign ministers.
Comment on this Article
The Republican Jewish Committee's results for its ad campaign just don't add up.
Dr. Daniel E. Loeb,
Philadelphia Jewish Voice
23 Nov 06
In the run up to the recent mid-term elections, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) mounted an unprecedented advertising blitz in the Jewish media. The goal? To convince Jewish voters that the Republican party and its candidates best reflect the interests of America's Jews.
The campaign included two and a half months of weekly full-page ads in Jewish newspapers (and even some Russian-language publications) around the country as well as a 500,000-piece direct mailing. Not surprisingly, the campaign gained a lot of attention, but not just for its size. It was also accused of misstating facts and intentionally quoting politicians out of context to make its own partisan points.
To gauge the effectiveness of past ad campaigns, the RJC used the National Election Pool's exit polls as their benchmark. The NEP is a non-partisan organization founded by a consortium of national media outlets, including Fox News, CNN, CBS, NBC and Associated Press. In 2004, the National Election Pool initially suggested that 24% of the Jewish vote was cast to reelect Pres. George W. Bush --- an increase over previous elections. Months later when state samples were available (boosting the total sample from 250 or 300 to about 1500) the Bush's Jewish support slipped to
22% about the same as the 21% Bush received when he was first elected in 2000.
What value did the RJC get on their investment in 2006?
This fall, the National Election Pool conducted a similar exit poll. The results indicate that the RJC's ad campaign was something less than effective. According that poll, Republicans received only 12% of the Jewish vote in the mid-term elections; nearly half of their support had evaporated. This loss of GOP support among Jews mirrored GOP losses in the general electorate where Democrats increased their backing from 46.6% in 2004 to 57.7% in 2006.
Will big RJC donors be asking for their money back?
How does the Republican Jewish Coalition react to this rout?
They are in a state of denial. After a landslide in which they are only left with half of the support they had carefully nurtured over twelve years, they conducted for the first time their own internal survey which purports to show Jewish GOP vote actually increasing to 26.4%.
So which numbers are right?
In effect, the Republican Jewish Coalition abandoned the National Election Pool's exit poll results which they had used in the past, in favor of a home-grown "poll" focusing on particular demographic groups and geographical regions which were likely to be less unfavorable to the RJC. Indeed, according to Matthew Brook's own numbers the RJC oversampled Republicans and undersampled Democrats compared to the most recent American Jewish Committee Survey.
In order to assess this claim we need to take a look at the methodology used in each poll. The RJC has been reluctant to discuss their methodologies, but certain facts are worth noting.
Is the poll non-partisan?
The RJC poll was conducted by Republican political operative
Arthur J. Finkelstein. Over the last twenty-five years, Finkelstein has directed campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel. On the other hand, the National Election Pool exit poll is conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, two well-known survey companies whose reputations are based on their accuracy and non-partisanship.
Scholarly analysis of political polls usually ignores all polls commissioned by a group aligned with a particular party or candidate since such polls are usually
non-predictive outliers.
When is an exit poll an exit poll?
While described as an "exit poll," the RJC polls were actually conducted over the telephone. Instead of picking random voters, the RJC called people and asked them
if they had voted, and if so, for whom. According to University of Florida political science professor Kenneth Wald, "there is no assurance that those who say they voted
or would vote actually did; [that is why] exit polls are done [exclusively] at polling places." It is well understood that people tend to respond to polls with the answer
they feel they ought to have given. Perhaps Republicans insufficiently motivated to actually turn out at the polls were included as "voters" in the RJC survey.
Do Unaffiliated Jews Count?
The National Election Pool's exit poll asked voters to indicate their religion if any, and included as "Jewish" any voter who identified themselves as Jewish. In contrast, the RJC's phone survey asked if the "voter" attended an Orthodox, a Conservative or a Reform synagogue.
If the caller was Reconstructionist or unaffiliated,
the call was terminated.
Prof. Steven M. Cohen, sociologist studying the American Jewish community at the Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion determined that if the Republican Jewish Coalition's "restrictions were in place on a national level, 54% of America's Jews would qualify and 46% would not."
How are respondants selected?
Since Jews represent only 2% of the American population, the RJC did not call random people to see if they were Jewish. Doing so like the National Election Pool does would have been prohibitively expensive. Instead, they obtained "commercially available Jewish vote lists" which identify Jewish names. Matthew Brooks declined to provide
additional information about the organizations selling their lists to the RJC, but it is likely that the organizations and their mailing lists do not provide a random
cross-section of the Jewish community.
For example, in the RJC sample, 17 percent of respondents included identified themselves as Orthodox, as compared to 8 percent in the most recent American Jewish Committee Survey.
According to the RJC, 42 percent of Orthodox Jews vote Republican, so inflating the Orthodox Jewish vote inflates the overall Republican numbers. Matthew Brooks justified this practice saying, "We wanted to measure people who are practicing Jews [and] expressed some level of religious observance."
Is the survey national in scope?
The National Election Pool took great efforts to count every area of the country in proportion to their electorate. However, the RJC phone survey focused exclusively
on voters in Florida's 22nd district, Pennsylvania's 6th district, and the state of New Jersey.
According to the National Election Pool, Kean of New Jersey, though he lost, had the most Jewish support (28%) among all Republican Senate candidates. Meanwhile,Pennsylvania's 6th district is a gerrymandered marvel designed specifically to elect Jim Gerlach to Congress. Gerlach squeaked by with 50.6% of the vote. These districts are not indicative of the overall trend in 2006,where Democratic candidates for Congress won 57.7% of the vote.
Prof. Cohen concurred "The RJC-sponsored survey ... restricts its coverage to three areas with relatively high rates of Jewish residential density, where Republican
inclinations run a bit higher." In particular, the RJC neglected to survey the Jewish community in liberal bastions such as New York, California, and Illinois. Instead, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer explained that they wanted to survey voters "where it mattered the most."
In 2004, the RJC had no trouble citing National Election Pool numbers when it served their interests. This fall, when those numbers showed a dramatic fall in Jewish support for the GOP, the RJC ignored them and relied instead on the results of its own dubious survey. What could have motivated such a maneuver? Could it be that the RJC was desperate to show its donors that the money they spent to fund the ad campaign wasnââ,¬â„¢t wasted? As mentioned above, the RJC ad campaign was severely criticized for misstating facts and misquoting politicians. It appears the RJC applied the same level of accuracy to its poll.
In retrospect, after hearing the administration praise FEMA Chief Michael Brown for doing a "heck of a job" and hearing the administrations claims of "Mission Accomplished"
in Iraq, is it surprising that the RJC is patting itself on the back for a job well-done?
© 2006. Permission is hereby granted to redistribute this issue of The Philadelphia Jewish Voice or (unless specified otherwise) any of the articles therein in their full original form provided these same rights are conveyed to the reader and subscription information to The Philadelphia Jewish Voice is provided. Subscribers should be directed to http://www.pjvoice.com/Subscribe.htm.
www.pjvoice.com
Daniel Elliott Loeb Ph.D. is a professional mathematician and publisher of the Philadelphia Jewish Voice www.pjvoice.com.
Comment on this Article
S. African Jewish paper causes storm
By AMIR MIZROCH
22 Nov 06
The South African Jewish Report, published weekly in Johannesburg, is engaged in a heated public spat with the country's Jewish minister of intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils, and the South African Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), over the newspaper's refusal to publish a letter by Kasrils that, the paper's editor says, compares Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories to those of the Nazis during WWII.
The Report last week refused to publish Kasrils's reply to an article that questioned his stance on Israel.
SAJR editor Geoff Sifrin initially approved Kasrils's request to reply to an article by Anthony Posner entitled "Some Pertinent Questions to Kasrils."
Posner had concluded the article with the challenge: "So Mr Kasrils... now is your chance to engage in 'civilized discussion.' But perhaps this 'kitchen' is too hot for you? I am sure that the readers of the SAJR will be interested to see whether you have the ability to respond in a rational manner to all the points I have raised in this letter."
Sifrin refused to print Kasrils's reply, arguing in an editorial that it would not contribute to constructive debate and would offend the SAJR's readers.
Kasrils told The Mail and Guardian newspaper he suspected Sifrin had been pressured not to publish his views.
Sifrin rejects that claim. In a telephone interview with The Jerusalem Post, Sifrin said he had initially agreed to publish Kasril's letter but that "what he sent, in my estimation, was too offensive to publish. It referred to an analogy to Nazi action in the Warsaw ghetto and Nazi action after [SS leader Reinhard] Heydrich's assassination after which the Nazis destroyed [the Czech village of] Lidice. He basically said the Israelis are doing the same, and that crossed a red line as far as we were concerned."
Sifrin said he had "agonized" over whether to publish Kasril's letter, and had consulted with the chair of the paper's editorial committee. He rejected, however, Kasril's claim that he had been pressured into not publishing the letter.
"It's not true that I came under pressure by the [South African Jewish] Board of Deputies; nobody called me to threaten me. There is an ethos of a newspaper that one operates with, there was no order from anyone not to publish it. We don't operate in a vacuum. We know our readership - some of which are Holocaust victims. The editorial committee head and I agreed we couldn't publish the letter. Its effect would be unfair to our readers, and we could not give him a platform for this view, which basically crossed a red line," Sifrin told the Post.
In an open letter to Sifrin, published by the the South African Jewish Report on November 17, Kasrils accused the paper of "stifling his words" and said the editorial and Posner's column had distorted what he had written.
"This is a shameful debasement of journalistic ethics, not to mention the questionable morality and crass intolerance that refuses to allow my right to reply to questions directly put to me in your columns," wrote Kasrils.
"You reneged on an undertaking to publish my reply and yet have the temerity to claim that 'the richness and creativity of Jewish life owes much to its acceptance of open debate, even if acrimonious.'
"Your utterances fly in the face of a cowardly action last personally experienced when anything I said or wrote was silenced by an apartheid government banning order in 1962," Kasrils wrote.
He accused the newspaper of misleading readers into believing that he was calling for the annihilation of Israel and that he was a Holocaust denier.
"On the question of my invoking the Nazi parallel with Israel, you fail to acknowledge that I have consistently and pointedly referred to certain comparable measures being employed against the people of Palestine and Lebanon," he said. "I am clearly referring to certain actions and not a total genocidal system such as the Holocaust," Kasrils wrote.
"Mr. Editor, you and the cowardly cabal behind you can ban and vilify me, but as long as I have breath I will continue to protest against Israel's fascist-style brutality and declare 'Not in my name' in the interest of the true values of Judaism and humanity and in support of justice and security for all Christians, Jews and Muslims in the Middle East and further afield."
Kasrils said it was "absolutely dishonest" of the paper to publish Posner's piece without his reply.
Despite his anti-Israel stance, it is thought that Kasrils has been providing protection from terrorist threats to South Africa's Jewish community, several Jewish leaders, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter, told the Post.
"I can't comment on that, because I don't know, but it is certainly possible he uses his office to provide protection. Nobody is accusing him of being anti-Jewish. I wouldn't be surprised if he was behind the scenes doing something like that," Sifrin said.
Regarding the decision not to publish Kasril's letter, Safrin said the minister's words had the potential to promote anti-Jewish feelings in South Africa. "The general atmosphere here is pretty anti-Israel. Comments like these rub off on the Jewish community here. All the comparisons that are being made between apartheid and Israel are all over the place, and Kasrils is adding to this. But I wouldn't accuse him of being anti-Jewish in any way," Sifrin said.
"We are not excluding Kasrils from the paper, just his letter, which we couldn't publish," Sifrin said.
Kasrils, in an e-mail exchange with the Post, confirmed that he does use his office to protect South Africa's 80,000-strong Jewish community, but would not go into specifics. Asked if he thought his comments could inflame anti-Jewish sentiment, he replied in the negative.
"No, not anti-Jewish sentiment. The black population in general and the Muslim population in particular congratulate me on demonstrating that not all Jews support Israel's inhumane treatment of the Palestinian and Lebanese people. My actions help them to understand that there is a distinction between Judaism, on the one hand, and Zionism and the Israeli government on the other," Kasrils told the Post.
"I oppose the brutal treatment of the Palestinian people by successive Israeli goverments, and like your first agriculture minister, Aharon Cizling, who in 1948 said to the cabinet, 'Now we too have behaved like Nazis,' I do compare methods such as the indiscriminate bombings of civilians, collective punishment and ethnic cleansing as measures utilized by the Nazis and other fascist regimes.
"I feel it is necessary to remind your government, your military, and Jews everywhere what is being done by a people who should have learnt the dreadful lessons of the Holocaust," Kasrils said.
The South African Jewish Report is also going head-to-head with the South African Freedom of Expression Institute. In a statement released to the media this week condemning the SAJR's decision not to publish Kasril's letter, Jane Duncan, director of the institute, wrote, "The newspaper is engaging in contradictory behavior by publishing an opinion piece posing questions and then denying the person to whom the questions are being put the right to answer them. The SAJR had the right to editorial independence, but this was qualified by normal editorial ethics, which included 'the sacrosanct principle of the right to reply.'"
Duncan further wrote, "Likening certain policing or military measures that the Israeli state uses to Nazi measures does not meet the objective test [of hate speech]."
What really bothered Sifrin, however, were the following words in Duncan's press release: The Jewish Report "comes out of this incident looking like a mere extension of Zionism's repressive project... We wonder what chance ordinary members of the Jewish community have to be heard if they voice dissent against the Israeli state's policies of forced colonial occupation of Palestinian land."
Sifrin said he was writing an editorial for the SAJR's Thursday edition calling into question the institute's claim to be an independent, objective watchdog of freedom of information in South Africa, in light of Duncan's statement.
"This is supposed to be an impartial organization set up for the freedom of information. What is this doing in their media release: "Extension of Zionism's repressive project, and Israeli state's policies of forced colonial occupation of Palestinian land," Sifrin asked. "The FXI was set up several years ago by respected and well-intentioned editors, and this has what became of the organization. This is the organization that is tearing us to pieces. And I have to ask what their agenda is."
Sifrin said he was never contacted by the FXI for comment before the institute published its statement.
"The first I knew was when I read the media release on the Internet. Which again calls into question their credentials. How can they, as a respected watchdog, insert words like that? It shows their bias. They have the audacity to then tear us apart for our editorial policy. Those two phrases are damning, they state it as fact. An impartial organization would never write anything like that," Sifrin said.
Duncan sent a lengthy response to the Post outlining why, in her words, "The FXI has a bias towards poor people resisting colonial occupation."
"We recognize that freedom of expression is heavily mediated by power and politics. So in interpreting this mandate, we have taken a strategic decision to adopt a pro-poor bias, prioritizing marginalized communities who are resisting censorship, repression, colonial occupation, racism and sexism. This is because it is in these communities or sections of our populations where the bulk of freedom of expression problems generally lie. Struggling for freedom of expression in South African in the past meant taking a principled position against apartheid, because it was apartheid that gave rise to the censorship of the media, the banning of gatherings, etc. Similarly, we cannot take a pro-freedom of expression position without taking a position against any ideology or power structure that is used to justify the denial of rights (including the right to freedom of expression) of people.
"Zionism is one such ideology in that it denies various rights of Palestinians and Arabs in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory," the FXI statement said.
"Needless to say, the definition of Zionism is contested, but one constant thread is the assertion that Jews constitute a nation, and therefore have a right to national self-determination on what was Palestinian land.
"The Israeli nation is therefore not constituted by all those who live in that particular geographic area, or who have historic claim to the land in spite of the fact that they may have been rendered stateless. Israel, not being a state of its citizens but a Jewish state, is thus an exclusive, not an inclusive, form of nationalism, and therein lies the problem. In Israel, this has translated into policies that have denied many people the right to coexist and enjoy equal rights on the basis that they fall outside the definition of who should constitute the nation.
Comment on this Article
Pharmacy under attack after anti-Semitism charges
By Jane Ulman
Jewish Journal
Fraudulent E-mail alert claims Jewish-owned Beverly Hills store is source of hate
"I verified this information," one woman wrote as she passed the e-mail on. "Please forward this."
Many recipients took the request to heart, forwarding the e-mail to friends, family and contacts at Jewish organizations. Others phoned the pharmacy themselves. A local rabbi asked his orthodontist, who works across the street, to investigate. A formal complaint was lodged with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
First, to put rumors to rest, the charge is definitely false.
An anti-Semitic pharmacy in Beverly Hills?
The notion may sound unlikely, but a widely circulated e-mail bearing the subject heading "Druggist won't do business with 'Jews or Jew Doctors'" sparked concern and outrage in recent weeks as it landed in hundreds of computer mailboxes across the country. After all, the source -- a Jewish woman in Florida -- appeared to be without hostile intent, and the allegation, targeting the Wilshire Roxbury Medical Pharmacy at 436 North Roxbury Drive, allegedly had been vetted.
"I verified this information," one woman wrote as she passed the e-mail on. "Please forward this."
Many recipients took the request to heart, forwarding the e-mail to friends, family and contacts at Jewish organizations. Others phoned the pharmacy themselves. A local rabbi asked his orthodontist, who works across the street, to investigate. A formal complaint was lodged with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
First, to put rumors to rest, the charge is definitely false. The pharmacist/owner, who preferred not to have his name published, is Jewish, as is his assistant. They cater to Jewish customers as well as Jewish doctors.
But almost as problematic as the allegation itself is the absence of a plausible explanation. What brought this about? Was it, perhaps, the result of a misunderstanding, a vendetta or a joke gone awry? The genesis remains a mystery.
"It's like something out of Kafka," said Aaron Breitbart, a senior researcher for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who investigated the allegation.
Here are the known facts:
On Wednesday, Nov. 1, Sue Hazan, a pharmaceutical representative in Boca Raton, Fla., was making cold-calls to promote a particular medication with a new co-pay plan. The contact information for the Wilshire Roxbury Medical Pharmacy appeared randomly on her computer screen, and she placed a call at 12:21 p.m. Pacific time.
Hazan explained the new plan to the pharmacist, who had answered the phone with the pharmacy's name and who later identified himself as "Jed Shoohed." She then mentioned that two doctors in his building had signed on to use the co-pay plan.
"Is that a Jew doctor?" "Shoohed" asked. "We don't take kindly to Jews around here, and we don't fill Jew doctors' prescriptions."
"But I'm a Jew," Hazan said.
"That's good for you, but don't call my store again if you're one of them," he said.
Hazan reported the incident to her boss and also called her daughter, Helene Abramson, in Princeton, N. J. Abramson, who is active in the Jewish community, then contacted people in her Israel support network for advice. On Monday, Nov. 6, she sent out an e-mail to her Israel support network detailing the incident, and that e-mail was quickly forwarded to hundreds of others.
The following Thursday morning, Nov. 9, a Jewish Journal reporter visited the pharmacy and met the pharmacist, who appeared agitated. The pharmacy is a small operation tucked in the corner of a medical building's wood-paneled lobby. On repeated visits that same afternoon it was virtually empty, except for one customer, the postman, the pharmacist and his assistant. The telephone was ringing almost non-stop.
The pharmacist said he has no idea how or why his pharmacy has come under attack. He confirmed that no one named Jed Shoohed works there, and he denied ever receiving a phone call from Hazan.
"We have no knowledge of this phone call," he said, refusing to say whether or not he was manning the pharmacy on Nov. 1, when Hazan made the call. He also refused to go on record with any further questions, threatening to sue if a story were to be published. He said he had been referring all inquiries to the Beverly Hills Police Department, where he has filed a report.
According to the pharmacist's attorney, Grant Carlson, of Beverly Hills, the pharmacist believes he is the target of an unfair and unwarranted attack by someone who doesn't even know him.
"The person clearly is hysterical and is making things up," Carlson said. But Hazan was not the only person on the receiving end of an anti-Semitic comment after calling this pharmacy. Jami Gan, who lives in Tucson, Ariz. and is part of the Israel support network, phoned the pharmacy at 3 p.m. Pacific time on Monday, Nov. 6. She wanted to confirm the e-mail allegation before forwarding it.
Gan asked for "Jed" and was told he was on another line. She explained she was calling to verify the e-mail. The person who answered assured her he knew what she was talking about and told her to go ahead and pass it along, saying that one day she would understand why people like him felt the way they did about people like her.
He also asked, "Are you familiar with Borat?" referring to the anti-Semitic fictional Sacha Baron Cohen character.
Many people in the building report having a cordial relationship with the pharmacist.
The building manager, Kia Saidnia, has known the pharmacist for about six years, since NIC Real Estate Group took over management of the property. He reported that the pharmacist has been renting the same space for at least 15 years, and he said he has never received any complaints about him.
"He gets along with everyone in the building, as far as I know," Saidnia said. NIC's owner confirmed that.
"He's really nice," said Hamid Shoohed, who himself is Jewish