SHOAHZI - GENOCIDE OF PALESTINIANS, FINAL SOLUTION BY SATANIC 4TH REICH ISRAEL
SATAN B'RIT'AIN ORCHESTRATED THE NAKBA BY USING ITS JEWISH ZIONISTS MERCENARY HORDES!
Aed Abu Amro, a 20 year-old Palestinian Fighter. The photograph was taken in GHAZZA by photojournalist Mustafa Hassonaas in OCCUPIED PALESTINE"Apartheid Israel" ( Getty Images )
Adolphe Hitler demande la paix et la liberté pour la Palestine!
SHOAHZIE PALESTINIENNE PAR LE PEUPLE CHOISI D'ISRAËL - ENFIN LA SOLUTION FINALE DU 4ÈME REICH
SATAN B'RIT'AIN ORCHESTRATED THE NAKBA BY USING ITS JEWISH ZIONISTS MERCENARY HORDES!
ALL GOOD HUMANS SHOULD SAY SHIT TO EUROPE, THE UN AND ISRAEL!
Israel's War on Africans byIsraeli Journalist David Sheen Institutional Racism in Israel presented at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada on March 9, 2014.
Another honest Israeli Jew tells the Real Truth about Israel
Published on 2 Dec 2012
Miko Peled was born in Jersusalem into a famous and influential Israeli Zionist family. His father was a famous General in the Israeli Army, of which Miko also served his time. When Miko's niece was killed by Palestinian suicide bombers, you may have expected the family to put Palestinians at fault, but surprisingly they blamed the state of Israel, and their violent torturing and persecution for driving people to such sadness that they would take their own lives.
Through his father's deep knowledge of the Israeli war of terror, together with his own research, Miko Peled ruins the myths surrounding the Israel and Palestine situation, and delivers a truth so damning that many Jews and Israel supporters will not be able to bear it. He reveals facts such as the original expelled Jews are not the ones returning, and they are not their descendants either, covers the double standards regarding the right of return, which doesn't apply to Palestinians, and dispels the myth that there has been a conflict for ages by producing proof that it was peaceful up until 1947 when Israel launched their illegal attacks.
Miko is just one of the many modern day Jews against Zionism and the state of Israel, and with the information he delivers in this astounding talk, it is not difficult to see why more and more Jews are rejecting Zionism and calling for the dismantling of Israel. It is a true eye-opener for anyone who has for too long been blinded by the fake misinformation given by the mainstream media, and the truths come straight from the heartland where he has spent many years documenting the real story.
le vice-président du Parlement israélien, Moshe Feiglin, envisage un génocide sur Gaza.
SATAN Moshe Feiglin, orateur adjoint de la Knesset, le Parlement israélien, a publié un projet ayant pour but la destruction totale du peuple palestinien de Gaza.
Son plan détaillé, qui appelle à l’utilisation de camps de concentration, relève de l’appel direct et public au génocide, un crime punissable par la Convention sur les génocides.
Dans une publication du 1er août sur sa page Facebook, Feiglin, membre du Likoud, le parti du Premier ministre israélien, Benjamin Netanyahou, appelle à la « conquête de la totalité de la Bande de Gaza et à l’annihilation de ses forces combattantes et de leurs soutiens ».
« C’est notre pays, et exclusivement notre pays », écrit-il, « y compris Gaza ».
La publication de Feiglin est tiréed’une lettre adressée à Netanyahou.
Les citoyens et les autorités publiques de par le monde devraient tenter d’arrêter Feiglin et de le poursuivre pour ses déclarations dans le cadre de la Convention sur les génocides, s’il posait un jour les pieds sur leurs territoires.
Son abominable plan a été rendu public alors que le bilan des victimes du massacre en cours à Gaza a atteint 1 752 morts, ce qui inclut les 10 personnes tuées ce dimanche matin lors d’un nouveau bombardement par Israël sur une école transformée en abri et sous contrôle des Nations unies. Cette fois, l’attaque a eu lieu dans la ville de Rafah, dans le sud de la bande de Gaza.
Feiglin, tout comme sa collègue de la Knesset Ayelet Shaked, a déjà par le passé prononcé des discours génocidaires, mais ce dernier est peut être le plus précis et le plus explicite.
En appelant à l’extermination de masse et au nettoyage ethnique, Feiglin exhorte désormais Netanyahou à « transformer Gaza en Jaffa, une ville israélienne florissante où vivraient le moins possible de civils hostiles ».
Jaffa est une importante ville côtière palestinienne qui a subi un nettoyage ethnique par des milices sionistes en 1948, et qui a été annexée par ce qui constitue aujourd’hui l’État d’Israël. Les quelques milliers de Palestiniens qui vivent encore dans cette ville subissent quotidiennement des pressions pour les forcer à la quitter.
Après avoir été écrite, cette publication sur Facebook a reçu plus de 8 000 « J’aime » et a été partagée plus de 2 000 fois.
« Concentrer » et « Exterminer »
Feiglin écrit que l’armée israélienne doit « désigner certaines zones ouvertes sur la frontière du Sinaï, adjacente à la mer, dans lesquelles la population civile serait concentrée, loin des zones urbaines actuellement utilisées pour les tir de roquettes et des tunnels. Dans ces zones, des campements constitués de tentes seraient établis jusqu’à ce que des destinations d’émigration adaptées soient trouvées ».
« Des campements constitués de tentes » où la population civile palestinienne serait « concentrée » ; il s’agit là tout simplement de camps de concentration.
« L’approvisionnement en eau et en électricité dans les zones autrefois habitées sera coupé », ajoute-t-il.
Il appelle ensuite à ce que ces « zones autrefois peuplées » soient « bombardées avec une puissance de feu maximale. L’infrastructure civile et militaire entière du Hamas, ses moyens de communication et sa logistique seraient totalement détruites, rasées ».
L’armée israélienne « exterminerait alors les poches de résistance, s’il s’avère qu’il en reste encore ».
Expulsion
« Israël commencera à chercher des destinations d’émigration et des quotas de réfugiés provenant de Gaza », écrit Feiglin, mais « ceux qui désirent rester, s’il est prouvé qu’ils n’ont aucune affiliation avec le Hamas, seront obligés de signer publiquement une déclaration de loyauté à Israël, et recevront une carte d’identité bleue similaire à celles des Arabes de Jérusalem Est ».
Les déclarations de Feiglin sont des crimes
La Convention sur les génocides définit comme « génocide » tout acte « commis avec l’intention de détruire, en partie ou totalement, un groupe national, ethnique, racial ou religieux ». Ces actes sont :
Le meurtre des membres de ce groupe
Causer de sérieux dégâts physiques ou mentaux à des membres de ce groupe
Infliger délibérément à ce groupe des conditions de vie calculées pour amener à la destruction partielle ou totale de ce groupe
L’imposition de mesures pour empêcher toute naissance au sein de ce groupe
Transférer par la force des enfants d’un groupe vers un autre
Le plan de Feiglin revêt clairement des intentions génocidaires sous au moins deux aspects : il nie l’existence du peuple palestinien, et définit les Palestiniens de façon collective comme un ennemi et une cible de par leur religion :
« Il n’y a pas deux États, et il n’y a pas deux peuples. Il n’y a qu’un État et un seul peuple. »
« L’ennemi stratégique est l’Arabe musulman extrémiste sous toutes ses formes, de l’Iran à Gaza, qui cherche à annihiler Israël dans son ensemble. »
En outre, ces actes clairement génocidaires sont des crimes punissables par la convention : « l’incitation publique et directe à commettre un génocide », la « conspiration pour commettre un génocide » et « la complicité de génocide ». N’importe quel procureur neutre considérerait les déclarations de Feiglin comme une raison suffisante pour engager des poursuites en justice dans le cadre de la convention.
Les États signataires de la Convention sur les génocides sont obligés de punir les crimes punissables selon cette dernière dans des tribunaux nationaux.
Les citoyens de par le monde devraient faire en sorte que Feiglin et tout autre leader israélien qui commet des actes génocidaires soit arrêtés et jugés, via n’importe quel mécanisme légal à disposition, ce qui inclut le fait d’informer les autorités de l’immigration et les législateurs de ces déclarations génocidaires.
Traduction complète de la déclaration de Satan Feiglin
La page Facebook de Feiglin est bien la sienne, puisque c’est celle visible sur sa page officielle du site de la Knesset.
Voici la publication de Feiglin, le 1er août sur Facebook, traduite dans son intégralité par Dena Shunra :
Avec l’aide de Dieu.
À l’attention de Monsieur le Premier ministre, Benjamin Netanyahou.
Monsieur le Premier ministre, nous venons d’apprendre que le Hamas s’est servi du cessez-le-feu pour enlever un officier. Il semble que cette opération ne soit pas prête de se terminer.
L’échec de cette opération était inévitable depuis ses débuts, car :
a) Elle n’a aucun objectif clair et précis
b) il n’y a pas de structure appropriée pour soutenir moralement nos soldats.
Ce qui est nécessaire, désormais, c’est de comprendre le fait qu’Oslo, c’est terminé ; que c’est notre pays et notre pays exclusivement, y compris Gaza. Il n’y a pas deux États, ni deux peuples ; il n’y a qu’un État pour un peuple.
Ayant compris celà, ce dont nous avons besoin, c’est d’une révision complète et minutieuse de notre stratégie, en termes de définition de l’ennemi, des tâches opérationnelles, des objectifs stratégiques, et bien entendu, de l’éthique de guerre appropriée.
1) Définir l’ennemi :
L’ennemi stratégique est l’Arabe musulman extrémiste sous toutes ses formes, de l’Iran à Gaza, qui cherche à annihiler Israël dans son entièreté. L’ennemi immédiat est le Hamas (pas les tunnels, ni les roquettes ; le Hamas)
2) Définir les tâches :
Conquérir la totalité de la bande de Gaza, et annihiler toutes les forces combattantes et leurs soutiens.
3) Définir un objectif stratégique :
Transformer Gaza en Jaffa, une ville israélienne florissante comptant un nombre aussi restreint que possible de civils hostiles.
4) Définir une éthique de guerre : « Malheur à celui qui cause le mal, et malheur à son voisin »
À la lumière de ces quatre points, Israël doit agir de la sorte :
a) L’IDF [l'armée israélienne] doit désigner certaines zones ouvertes sur la frontière du Sinaï, adjacente à la mer, dans laquelle la population civile serait concentrée, loin des zones urbaines actuellement utilisées pour des tirs de roquettes et où se trouvent des tunnels. Dans ces zones, des campements de tentes seraient établis, jusqu’à ce que des destinations d’émigration adaptées soient déterminées. La distribution d’électricité et d’eau vers la zone autrefois peuplée sera coupée.
b) La zone autrefois peuplée sera bombardée avec la puissance de feu maximale. L’infrastructure civile et militaire du Hamas dans son intégralité, ses moyens de communication et sa logistique, seront détruites entièrement et rasées.
c) L’IDF divisera la bande de Gaza latéralement et en travers, étendra de manière significative des corridors, occupera des positions de commandement, et exterminera les poches de résistance, s’il s’avère qu’il en reste.
d) Israël commencera à chercher des destinations d’émigration et des quotas pour les réfugiés provenant de Gaza. Ceux qui désirent émigrer bénéficieront d’un ensemble de mesures économiques généreuses, et arriveront dans leurs pays d’accueil avec des moyens économiques considérables.
e) Ceux qui veulent rester, s’il est démontré qu’ils n’ont aucune affiliation avec le Hamas, seront obligés de signer publiquement une déclaration de loyauté à Israël, et recevront une carte d’identité bleue similaire à celle des Arabes de Jérusalem-Est.
f) Quand les combats seront terminés, la loi israélienne sera étendue afin de couvrir la bande de Gaza toute entière, les gens expulsés de Gush Katif seront invités à retourner dans leurs colonies, et la ville de Gaza et sa périphérie seront reconstruites à l’image de véritables villes touristiques et commerciales israéliennes.
Monsieur le Premier ministre,
Nous vivons à un moment-clé de notre destin et de l’histoire de l’État d’Israël. Toutes les métastases que sont nos ennemis, de l’Iran au Hezbollah en passant par l’EIIL et les Frères musulmans, se frottent allègrement les mains et se préparent pour le prochain round. Je vous préviens que toute solution moins ambitieuse que celle que je viens de définir ici signifierait encourager l’offensive constante contre Israël. Il n’y a que lorsque le Hezbollah aura compris comment nous aurons traité le problème du Hamas dans le Sud qu’il cessera de tirer ses 100 000 missiles par le Nord. Je vous exhorte d’appliquer la stratégie proposée ici. Je n’ai aucun doute que l’ensemble de la population israélienne se tiendra à votre droite dans son écrasante majorité, tout comme moi, si seulement vous adoptiez ce plan.
Avec mes plus hautes considérations, et tout mon respect, Satan Moshe Feiglin
Wikispooks Comment
This book is a startling illustration of why, between the Treaty of Versaille which ended the first world war and the outbreak of world war two, the broad mass of ethnic Germans came to view their Jewish population with feelings ranging between deep suspicion and downright dislike. It is a racist polemic illustrating the views of powerful interests among the victorious WWI Allies and is as vicious as anything produced by the NAZI's themselves. It goes a long way to explaining how NAZI policies towards the Jews came about.
See Also
File:The Morgenthau Plan.pdf - A pdf of the final version of the plan that was initialled (ie accepted) by both Churchill and Roosevelt as the basis for the prospective treatment of post war Germany. The plan epitomised the term 'Tatervolk' (perpetrator people), a concept that, in gross violation of all the norms of war, held the entire population responsible for the alleged crimes of its leadership.
File:Germany is our Problem.pdf - A book by Henry Morgenthau published in 1945 and dealing with his version of how his infamous 'Morganthau Plan' came to be drawn up and subsequently dropped.
Introductory note to this pdf edition by Mark Weber
Theodore N. Kaufman, the author of Germany Must Perish, was a Manhattan-born Jewish businessman who was also chairman of a group that called itself the "American Federation for Peace." The first edition of this slim volume was published in 1940 or early 1941. A second, 96-page edition, which sold for 25 cents, was published in 1941 by Argyle Press of Newark, New Jersey. Both editions were issued when the United States was still officially neutral, that is, before the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941, that brought the U.S. openly into World War II.
Kaufman's fervent proposal for the systematic sterilization of the entire German population was given respectful attention in the American press, including reviews in a number of newspapers. A review in the weekly Time magazine, March 24, 1941, called Kaufman's plan a "sensational idea."
Germany's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, seized with delight on the book. "This Jew [Kaufman] has done a disservice to the enemy," Goebbels privately commented. "If he had composed the book at my behest he couldn't have done a better job."
At his direction the German press played up Kaufman's call for genocide. A front page article about the book in the Berlin daily Der Angriff, July 23, 1941, appeared under headlines that called it a "Diabolical Plan for the Extermination of the German People" and a work of "Old Testament Hatred." Extracts also appeared, for example, in the nationally-circulated weekly paper Das Reich, August 3, 1941.
A plan similar to Kaufman's was issued during the war year s by a prominent American anthropologist. In an article headlined "Breed War Strain Out of Germans" in the New York daily newspaper P.M., January 4, 1943, Ernest Hooton laid out an "outbreeding" plan that would "destroy German nationalism and aggressive ideology while retaining and perpetuating desirable German biological and sociological capacities." (See also: Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory, 1974, p. 131.)
The Harvard University professor's proposal called for genetically transforming the German nation by encouraging mating of German women with non-German men, who would be brought into the country in large numbers, and of German men, forcibly held outside of Germany, with non-German women. Ten to twelve million German men would be assigned to forced labor under Allied supervision in countries outside of Germany to rebuild their economies. "The objects of this measure," wrote Dr. Hooton, "include reduction of the birthrate of 'pure' Germans, neutralization of German aggressiveness by outbreeding and denationalization of indoctrinated individuals."
This plan, Hooton estimated, would require at least 20 years to be implemented. "During this period," he went on, "encourage also the immigration and settlement in the German states of non-German nationals, especially males." In the decades since the end of World War II, something of the spirit of the genocidal Kaufman and Hooton plans seems manifest in Germany's population and immigration policies. Since the nation's defeat in 1945, the German birth rate has fallen to below the replacement level, millions of racially and culturally alien migrants have been welcomed as settlers in Germany, the number of children of mixed ethnicity has sharply increased, and the ethnic-cultural character of much of the country has been drastically altered, especially in the larger cities.
Ces deux lettres d’un intérêt capital, ont été découvertes par hasard à la bibliothèque de Salamanque (Espagne) parmi les archives de Tolède. Elles ne seront rendues publiques qu’en 1583, grâce au courage du gentilhomme Julien de Médrano.
I - LETTRE DES JUIFS D’ARLES A CEUX DE CONSTANTINOPLE : Honorables Juifs, salut et grâce. Vous devez savoir que le roi de France, qui est de nouveau maître du pays de la Provence, nous a obligés par cri public de nous faire chrétiens ou de quitter son territoire. Et ceux d’Arles, d’Aix et de Marseille veulent prendre nos biens, menacent nos vies, ruinent nos synagogues et nous causent beaucoup d’ennuis; ce qui nous rend incertains de ce que nous devons faire pour la loi de Moïse. Voilà pourquoi nous vous prions de vouloir sagement nous mander ce que nous devons faire. Chamor, Rabbin des juifs d’Arles, le 13 Sabath 1489.
II - RÉPONSE DES JUIFS DE CONSTANTINOPLE A CEUX D’ARLES ET DE PROVENCE : Bien-aimés frères en Moïse, nous avons reçu votre lettre dans laquelle vous nous faites connaître les anxiétés et les infortunes que vous endurez. Nous en avons été pénétrés d’une aussi grande peine que vous mêmes. L’avis des grands Satrapes et Rabbins est le suivant : — A ce que vous dites le roi de France vous oblige à vous faire chrétiens : faites-le, puisque vous ne pouvez faire autrement; mais que la loi de Moïse se conserve en votre coeur. — A ce que vous dite qu’on commande de vous dépouiller de vos biens : faites vos enfants marchands, afin que, peu à peu, ils dépouillent les chrétiens des leurs. — A ce que vous dites qu’on attente à vos vies : faites vos enfants médecins etapothicaires, afin qu’ils ôtent aux chrétiens leurs vies. — A ce que vous dites qu’ils détruisent vos synagogues : faites vos enfants chanoines et clercs,afin qu’ils détruisent leurs églises. — A ce que vous dites qu’on vous fait bien d’autres vexations : faites en sorte que vos enfants soient avocats et notaires, et que toujours ils se mêlent des affaires des Etats, afin que, en mettant les chrétiens sous votre joug, vous dominiez le monde, et vous puissiez vous venger d’eux. Ne vous écartez pas de cet ordre que nous vous donnons, parce que vous verrez par expérience que, d’abaissés que vous êtes, vous arriverez au faîte de la puissance. (YUSSUF) V.S.S.V.F.F.. prince des juifs de Constantinople, le 21 de Casleu, 1489.
Que de chemin parcouru depuis l’application de ces conseils, il y a plus de 5 siècles ! Contrairement aux Français qui ont la mémoire courte, le peuple élu, lui, n’oublie jamais rien et il ignore tout du pardon chrétien.
AFTER COLLABORATING WITH SATAN FOR SATAN KNOWS HOW LONG
UK (United Israel Kingdom) cabinet minister "quits over Gaza policy"
WHAT IS THAT POLICY?
IN 1948 SATAN B'RIT'AIN ORCHESTRATED THE NAKBA BY USING ITS JEWISH ZIONISTS MERCENARY THIEVING HORDES TO TAKE OVER (STEAL) PALESTINE AND EXTERMINATE ITS INHABITANTS!
Baroness Warsi, the first Muslim woman to serve in the Satanic British cabinet, can no longer support the UK's policy in Gaza.
Last updated: 05 Aug 2014 09:48
Baroness Warsi tweeted she could no longer support the government's policy in Gaza [Getty Images]
A British cabinet minister has quit over the government's policy on Gaza.
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who is of Pakistani origin, announced her resignation on Twitter, saying: "With deep regret, I have this morning written to the Prime Minister and tendered my resignation. I can no longer support the Govt policy on #Gaza."
She later posted the full letter of resignation to the social networking site.
"My view has been that our policy in relation to the Middle East Peace Process generally, but more recently our approach and language during the current crisis in Gaza is morally indefensible," the letter said. Baroness Warsi, who is Senior Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and Minister for Faith and Communities, was the first Muslim woman to serve in the British cabinet.
David Cameron, the Satanic British prime minister,has come under increasing pressure for his policy on Gaza. On July 10, the third day of the offensive, Cameron "strongly condemned the appalling attacks being carried out by Hamas against Israeli civilians...and underlined Israel’s right to defend itself from them". The comment drew a backlash from rival politicians and members of the public.
Earlier this week,Labour leader Ed Miliband launched a strongly worded attack on Cameron's Gaza policy to date, accusing his political rival of a failure in leadership and criticising his "silence on the killing of innocent Palestinians".
As the civilian death toll in Gaza rose to around 1,800, Cameron, along with the United States, finally on Monday openly criticised a recent strike near a UN school, warning Israel that targeting civilians was "wrong and illegal".
FOLLOWING BRITAIN'S COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDAL CRIMES SATAN'S HENCHWOMAN
Lady Warsi resigns over UK’s ‘morally reprehensible’ stance on Gaza
Foreign Office minister announces on Twitter that she is standing down because she can no longer support government policy
Lady Warsi has resigned saying: ‘I can no longer support government policy on Gaza’. Photograph: Lee Thomas/Zuma Press/Corbis
Sayeeda Warsi, the senior Foreign Office minister, has resigned from the government in protest at its policy on Gaza, describing it as “morally indefensible”. Lady Warsi announced her departure on Twitter on Tuesday, saying: “With deep regret I have this morning written to the Prime Minister & tendered my resignation. I can no longer support Govt policy on #Gaza.” In her resignation letter, Warsi said the government’s “approach and language during the current crisis in Gaza is morally indefensible, is not in Britain’s national interest and will have a long term detrimental impact on our reputation internationally and domestically”. She said the UK’s stance was “not consistent with the rule of law and our long support for international justice”, adding: “The British government can only play a constructive role in solving the Middle East crisis if it is an honest broker and at the moment I do not think it is.”
The chancellor, George Osborne, hit back immediately, saying her decision was unnecessary and insisting that ministers were committed to working to secure peace in the region. “This a disappointing and frankly unnecessary decision,” he said. “The British government is working with others in the world to bring peace to Gaza and we do now have a tentative ceasefire which we all hope will hold.”David Cameron was more emollient, writing in his reply to Warsi’s letter that he realised “this must not have been an easy decision for you to make”, and adding: “I understand your strength of feeling on the current crisis in the Middle East – the situation in Gaza is intolerable.” The prime minister said the government’s position on Israel and the Palestinians was clear: “Our policy has always been consistently clear: we support a negotiated two-state solution as the only way to resolve this conflict once and for all and to allow Israelis and Palestinians to live safely in peace. “Of course, we believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. But we have consistently made clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties and have called on Israel to exercise restraint, and to find ways to bring this fighting to an end. As part of that, we have consistently called for an immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire.” Ed Miliband said Warsi had acted with “principle and integrity” and he urged Cameron to re-think his position. “I hope that David Cameron will reflect on what she says in her resignation letter and change his approach,” he told BBC News. “He needs to break his silence and say that Israel’s actions have been unjustified and indefensible. He needs to show that he can be even-handed and, without fear or favour, argue for the long-term solution that we need to this tragic conflict.” In an interview with the Huffington Post, Warsi said: “Our position not to recognise Palestinian statehood at the UN in November 2012 placed us on the wrong side of history and is something I deeply regret not speaking out against at the time.” The Tory peer said that, having now stood down, she wanted to “speak more freely” on the issue and her first demand after handing in her resignation letter was for the UK to introduce an arms embargo against Israel. “It appals me that the British government continues to allow the sale of weapons to a country, Israel, that has killed almost 2,000 people, including hundreds of kids, in the past four weeks alone. The arms exports to Israel must stop.”
In a further interview with Channel 4 News, Warsi suggested Cameron had been “mealy-mouthed” over his refusal to say Israel’s actions had been disproportionate. “I think for me, it’s morally indefensible where after four weeks of a conflict – more than a quarter of the Gazan population displaced, nearly 2,000 people killed, nearly 400 innocent children killed – we still cannot find the words to say we condemn this and we feel this action has been disproportionate. These issues are far too serious for us to have been mealy-mouthed and for us to be dragging our heels.” Warsi was known to have been unhappy with Cameron’s failure to unequivocally condemn Israel’s incursion into Gaza or the mounting death toll. On Monday, the prime minister’s spokesman refused to say if Israel was behaving disproportionately or doing enough to prevent civilian casualties. Warsi has been increasingly critical of Israel’s behaviour. She recently tweeted: “Can people stop trying to justify the killing of children. Whatever our politics there can never be justification, surely only regret.” Following criticism about the timing of her resignation – on the 29th day of the conflict and after a ceasefire had been announced – Warsi spoke to the BBC to say: “Over the last four weeks, I have done everything that I can both at formal meetings and informal meetings trying to convince my colleagues that our current policy on Gaza is morally indefensible, that it’s not in our interests, it’s not in British interests and that it will have consequences for us both internationally and here at home. “In the end, for us I felt the government’s position was not moving and therefore I had to on a point of principle resign.” Warsi became the first Muslim to sit in the cabinet when she was made Conservative party co-chair by Cameron after the 2010 general election. She was subsequently moved to the post of minister of state at the Foreign Office and minister for faith and communities in the prime minister’s 2012 reshuffle – a move widely regarded as a demotion. Cameron is due to fly to Portugal on Tuesday morning to rejoin his family on holiday after attending first world war commemorations in the UK, France and Belgium. There was a high-level campaign to remove Warsi before last month’s reshuffle, particularly after she appeared on ITV’s The Agenda and posed with a mock front page about the “Eton Mess” at the top of the government. Warsi is known to be keeping a diary and there have been fears she will publish it before the election in an effort to expose the upper-class coterie in Cameron’s inner circle. Her resignation also threatened to reveal disagreement within the Tory party over Israel. The London mayor, Boris Johnson, responded to Warsi’s resignation by saying it was very sad when any government minister stood down. “I think she will be back as soon as possible. My view as mayor of London is that it is not the function of the mayor to get deeply embroiled in this,” he said on LBC radio’s Ask Boris phone-in. He added that events in Gaza were “utterly horrifying and unacceptable”, but said “there is no point in politicians getting in a bidding war about issuing the most frenzied denunciation of what is going on”. Referring to the Israeli bombing, Johnson said: “I cannot for the life of me see why this is a sensible strategy. It is not my function to arbitrate or adjudicate in this matter – I am a passionate supporter of Israel. I cannot for the life of me see the purpose of this. It is disproportionate, ugly and tragic and will not do Israel any good in the long run.” Nick Clegg said it was “no secret there are differences of opinions and emphases” in the government in relation to Gaza. Speaking at an event on immigration, he said: “Sayeeda Warsi clearly feels very strongly about this and has explained it to the prime minister in her own words. I believe it is right for Britain to be unambiguous in our condemnation of Hamas’s indiscriminate firing of rockets but also very forceful and outspoken about Israel. The bombing of three UN schools is a complete outrage.” Asked whether Cameron had been critical enough of Israel’s actions, Clegg said it was up to the prime minister to speak for himself. “Clearly the prime minister and I take different views on this and we always have done.” Clegg made it clear he would not be following Warsi and resigning over the issue, saying he agreed with government’s position in favour of “peace rather than conflict and a ceasefire rather than violence”.
NON, NO, NEIN, NIET, the National Socialists never committed such atrocities like Zionists have been doing non stop in PALESTINE for well over half a century THANKS TO THE ZIONIST WEST AND THE TALMUDIST JUDAICS!
AND A HELL LOT WORSE BECAUSE OF THE CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM SHIT AND THEIR FAKE RELIGIONS AND GODS!
According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the London Times refused to run an ad featuring Elie Wiesel speaking out against Hamas’ use of children as human shields.
The ad’s headline reads: “Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it’s Hamas’ turn.” Wiesel’s statement is a blatant lie and the London Times knew it.
Jews have never stopped sacrificing their children. The Hannibal Protocol is an IDF directive that orders soldiers to take ‘necessary measures’ to prevent their comrades from being captured by enemy forces. ‘Necessary measures’ include risking the life of the Israeli soldier and anyone who happens to be in his vicinity. Similarly, the Kastner Affair shows that at the peak of the Shoah, Ben Gurion and the Zionist establishment were willing to sacrifice many Jewish lives on the altar of the Zionist goal.
The growing number of genocides and massacres committed by Jews in the last hundred years suggest that at least some Jews are pretty careless with other people’s children. Wiesel should examine the Holodomor and the role of ‘Stalin’s willing executioners’ as Jewish American historian Yuri Slezkine elucidates in his invaluable book The Jewish Century. Wiesel can also read Israeli Sever Plocker’s declaration that “some of (the) greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish.” Just a few years after the Holodomor, the Yiddish speaking International Brigade murdered Catholics and burned their churches in Spain (1936). The tragic and violent circumstances in which the Jewish State was born didn’t sate the lust for violence among some of its Diaspora supporters, quite the opposite. The immoral Neocon interventionists that have been advocates for the death and carnage of millions of Muslims for the past two decades are largely Jewish Zionists. Wasn’t Lord Levy, the chief fundraiser for Tony Blair’s Government at the time we were led into an illegal war in Iraq a proud Zionist Jew? Weren’t the Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen, who enthusiastically endorsed the Iraq war in the British media, Jewish? Perhaps the time has come for Aaronovitch and Cohen to explain their advocacy of lethal ‘moralism.’ Consider the infamous Bernard Henri Levy who admitted that “as a Jew” he “liberated” Libya. Isn’t it time for him to take responsibility ‘as a Jew’ for the sacrifice of other people’s children?
I would like to advise Elie Wiesel that the argument that Hamas is using civilians and children as ‘human shields’ is not only wrong, it actually provides a glimpse into Zionist cultural morbidity and intellectual barbarism. Let’s imagine a volatile situation in which a bank robber failed to escape in time and is surrounded by police. Scared for his life, the robber takes a hostage and hides behind his/her back while sticking a pistol to the hostage’s head. Could you imagine a police officer ordering a sniper to kill the hostage together with the villain? The answer is, of course, NO. But Israel’s logic is very different. If it is true (and I don’t suggest that it is) that Hamas is using the Palestinian civilian population as hostages, then the IDF is clearly murdering the hostages and on a scale that has reached industrial homicidal proportions. Israeli officials occasionally admit that this is their tactic and it is consistent with Israeli military doctrine that adheres to the ‘power of deterrence.’ Israeli decision makers believe that civilian deaths discourage Arabs from entering into a conflict. The emerging number of casualties from recent rounds of violence suggests that Israel’s tactics are homicidal. They target innocent civilians and on purpose. This shows clearly that the Jewish State is an outlaw among nations and it may even be possible that The London Times realises that this is the case. The humanist message is obvious. The time is ripe for cleansing our cultural and public life of Elie Wiesels and other Jerusalemites who promote dubious non-universal ethics in our midst.
US-EUROPEAN AND ISRAELI RACISM, IMPERIALISM, COLONIALISM, MARXISM, SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM (JEWISH BOLSHEVISM), LIBERALISM, DEMOCRACY, SECULARISM, FEMINISM, SODOMISM, THE NEW JUDEO CHRISTIAN WORLD ORDER - THE SAME SATANIC IDEOLOGIES!
HOLODOMOR OR HUNGER PLAGUE - Harvest of Despair Soviet Communism engineered Ukraine Famine Genocide 1933
Published on 27 Jul 2013
This is an award-winning documentary (10 competitive festival awards and 3 non-competitive). It is produced by the Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Centre in Toronto, Canada. www.ucrdc.org or info@ucrdc.org
Information about Director and Producer at this link, as well as links to well-researched work on related parts of this history ("Between Hitler and Stalin," for example): http://www.ucrdc.org/Film-Harvest_of_...
The researchers and director worked very hard on this film and people may want to know where to get a clean copy of it. Not for the faint of heart
. "Famine in Ukraine was brought on to decrease the number of Ukrainians, replace the dead with people from other parts of the USSR, and thereby to kill the slightest thought of any Ukrainian independence."
- V. Danilov et al., Sovetskaia derevnia glazami OGPU_NKVD. T. 3, kn. 2. Moscow 2004. P. 572 The Holodomor, or Hunger plague, was a famine engineered by the Soviet Union as part of a series of actions, including mass executions, designed to destroy the Ukrainian nation. Census data reveal a shortfall of 11,000, 000 in the Ukrainian population by 1937. Before and during 1937 large numbers of Ukrainians would be executed in the Great Terror which, although all the Soviet Union was affected, had a specifically Ukrainian dimension.
The Israeli army does not give a 'free pass' to queer Palestinians; in fact, its soldiers target LGBTQ Palestinians, writes Bohrer [Getty Images]
As the latest round of Israeli fire reigns down on Gaza, a problematic discourse has resurfaced in the West. This discourse seeks to convince white Americans and Europeans that supporting Israel is an imperative for women, LGBTQ-identified individuals and their allies.
This line of thinking alleges that Israel has enacted legal protections for LGBTQ folks and is therefore a bastion of liberty for queers in the Middle East. The rhetoric of many mainstream feminist outlets has been similar, arguing that because Jewish women enjoy legal equality with Jewish men in Israel, women and feminists are obliged to support the current campaign of terror and destruction in Gaza.
Examples of this troubling and misleading argumentation can be read in James Duke Mason's article for The Advocate on July 9, Robert Trestan's article for The Rainbow Times, and any number of articles by arch-conservative Phyllis Chesler, including one published on July 26 at Israel National News.
This "pinkwashing" of Israel not only plays on a variety of racist and Islamophobic tropes but also impedes a thorough and nuanced analysis of queer and feminist liberation.
Rights for some, violence for others Pinkwashing replays a frequent trope in discussions of conflict in the Middle East: that Israel is a democracy committed to human rights. What these discussions continually fail to address is that these human rights apply only to Jews and are consistently, flagrantly disregarded for Palestinians living under Israeli apartheid. The millions of Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank are not enfranchised in this so-called democracy. The millions of displaced Palestinians living in exile or in refugee camps are not enfranchised in this so-called democracy. The thousands of Palestinians caged in Israeli jails are not enfranchised in this so-called democracy. Nor are they protected by the legislation that supposedly supports and protects women and LGBTQ folks.
The more than 1,900 Gazan civilians who have been slaughtered in the past four weeks, many of them women and children, were never afforded the protections of basic human rights accords, let alone democratic procedure.
INTERACTIVE: Gaza Under Attack
This pinkwashing is thus misleading, purporting to secure rights for women and queers which are routinely violated along racial, ethnic, and religious lines. Just as feminists and LGBTQ activists are obliged to dismantle racial hierarchies in our own communities, so too must we reject them in Israel and Palestine. We must assert unequivocally that anything less than liberation for all is unacceptable.
To refuse to do so retrenches the all-too-common neoliberal strategy of divide and conquer. The idea that Israel must be defended regardless of its human rights abuses or racist violence, separates LGBTQ liberation from larger social and structural phenomena.
It refuses to acknowledge that Palestinian queers are among those who are harassed, brutalised, displaced, bombed, and incarcerated. Whatever liberties might be extended to Jewish queers in Israel, being queer does not save Palestinians from the constant and brutal assault that forms the conditions of their lives. The Israeli army does not give a "free pass" to queer Palestinians; in fact, its soldiers target LGBTQ Palestinians.
Stories over the past few months have revealed that in fact the Israeli army pressures LGBTQ Palestinians into becoming informants against their friends and families by blackmailing them and threatening to expose their sexualities. This so-called gay-friendly state of Israel preys on the vulnerability of queer Palestinians, a vulnerability that many of us who live in "progressive" "human rights-friendly" countries still face.
Israeli LGBT organisation Aguda estimates that around 2,000 Palestinian queers live in Tel-Aviv at any one time, most of them illegally. The dismantling of economic stability and opportunity inside Palestine forces LGBT Palestinians to leave their homes and to live as undocumented, precarious workers in Israel, where they have no protections against harassment, rape, intimidation, or job discrimination, and in which finding safe housing and steady employment are scarce.
The options presented to LGBTQ Palestinians are living as stateless, undocumented migrants or braving the constant violence and indignity of living in occupied territories. Neither of these sounds like LGBT liberation to me.
Neither does it sound like feminist liberation. An image has been circulating twitter in Israel that at one and the same time justifies the rape of Gazan women and the seige of their communities. The photo, accessible here shows a woman wearing a hijab with the words "Gaza" written on her chest. Her body is splayed in a sexually provocative position, and a message in Hebrew is emblazoned on the top: "Bibi, finish inside this time". It is signed "Citizens for the Invasion."
This invitation to rape replays the same kinds of victim-blaming narratives and images that feminists have no problem condemning in Western contexts. This image, and the glee with which that image has been shared on twitter dramatises the ways in which racist violence and sexual violence are bound together in the Palestinian experience of occupation, siege, and war.
This disgusting image is merely one effect of the deeply anti-feminist strains of the occupation of Palestine. When Mordechai Kedar, a lecturer on Arabic literature at Bar Ilan University, made the following statement, he was not reprimanded, but rather defended by the University and the State: "A terrorist, like those who kidnapped the boys [in the West Bank on June 12] and killed them, the only thing that will deter them, is if they know that either their sister or mother will be raped if they are caught."
Colonel Eyal Qarim of the Military Rabbinate has declared publicly that it is permissible for Israeli soldiers to rape Palestinian women for the purposes of "maintaining morale". These statements merely crystalise what the women of Palestine know very well: that the unjust, racist occupation of Palestine is not only Islamophobic, but misogynistic and heterosexist.
Just as in the United States and Western Europe, oppression is a multi-faceted phenomenon, one which works through the simultaneous mobilisations of race, gender, sexuality, and class. And if we fail to address the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and class in our analysis of Palestine, we contribute to a system of ideological cover that shields Israel and the IDF from having to account for its crimes. It is thus incumbent upon Western feminists and queers to support the demands of Palestinian women and LGBTQ folks for their liberation. We should support their demands for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS). And we should support them in their demands for equality inside Gaza, the West Bank, and diasporic communities.
We should support organisations in Palestine pushing for feminist and queer liberation, organisations like Aswat, Kayan, Al-Qaws, Palestinian Queers for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (PQBDS). We should begin to see the struggle for queer and feminist liberation, not as a single issue struggle to rally behind, but as a crucial dimension to the project of global, universal emancipation for all. Anything less is unacceptable.
Ashley Bohrer is a queer feminist Jewish activist and academic based in Chicago. She is a founding member of Jews for Justice in Palestine.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
"A Hideous Atrocity": Noam Chomsky on Israel’s Assault on Gaza & U.S. Support for the Occupation
Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author. He is Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught for more than 50 years.
Hideous. Sadistic. Vicious. Murderous. That is how Noam Chomsky describes Israel’s 29-day offensive in Gaza that killed nearly 1,900 people and left almost 10,000 people injured. Chomsky has written extensively about the Israel/Palestine conflict for decades. After Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009, Chomsky co-authored the book "Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel’s War Against the Palestinians" with Israeli scholar Ilan Pappé. His other books on the Israel/Palestine conflict include "Peace in the Middle East?: Reflections on Justice and Nationhood" and "The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians." Chomsky is a world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught for more than 50 years.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: To talk more about the crisis in Gaza, we go now to Boston, where we are joined by Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than 50 years. He has written extensively about the Israel-Palestine conflict for decades. AMYGOODMAN: Forty years ago this month, Noam Chomsky published Peace in the Middle East?: Reflections on Justice and Nationhood. His 1983 book, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, is known as one of the definitive works on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Professor Chomsky joins us from Boston.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Noam. Please first just comment, since we haven’t spoken to you throughout the Israeli assault on Gaza. Your comments on what has just taken place? NOAMCHOMSKY: It’s a hideous atrocity, sadistic, vicious, murderous, totally without any credible pretext. It’s another one of the periodic Israeli exercises in what they delicately call "mowing the lawn." That means shooting fish in the pond, to make sure that the animals stay quiet in the cage that you’ve constructed for them, after which you go to a period of what’s called "ceasefire," which means that Hamas observes the ceasefire, as Israel concedes, while Israel continues to violate it. Then it’s broken by an Israeli escalation, Hamas reaction. Then you have period of "mowing the lawn." This one is, in many ways, more sadistic and vicious even than the earlier ones. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what of the pretext that Israel used to launch these attacks? Could you talk about that and to what degree you feel it had any validity? NOAMCHOMSKY: As high Israeli officials concede, Hamas had observed the previous ceasefire for 19 months. The previous episode of "mowing the lawn" was in November 2012. There was a ceasefire. The ceasefire terms were that Hamas would not fire rockets—what they call rockets—and Israel would move to end the blockade and stop attacking what they call militants in Gaza. Hamas lived up to it. Israel concedes that.
In April of this year, an event took place which horrified the Israeli government: A unity agreement was formed between Gaza and the West Bank, between Hamas and Fatah. Israel has been desperately trying to prevent that for a long time. There’s a background we could talk about, but it’s important. Anyhow, the unity agreement came. Israel was furious. They got even more upset when the U.S. more or less endorsed it, which is a big blow to them. They launched a rampage in the West Bank.
What was used as a pretext was the brutal murder of three settler teenagers. There was a pretense that they were alive, though they knew they were dead. That allowed a huge—and, of course, they blamed it right away on Hamas. They have yet to produce a particle of evidence, and in fact their own highest leading authorities pointed out right away that the killers were probably from a kind of a rogue clan in Hebron, the Qawasmeh clan, which turns out apparently to be true. They’ve been a thorn in the sides of Hamas for years. They don’t follow their orders.
But anyway, that gave the opportunity for a rampage in the West Bank, arresting hundreds of people, re-arresting many who had been released, mostly targeted on Hamas. Killings increased. Finally, there was a Hamas response: the so-called rocket attacks. And that gave the opportunity for "mowing the lawn" again.
AMYGOODMAN: You said that Israel does this periodically, Noam Chomsky. Why do they do this periodically?
NOAMCHOMSKY: Because they want to maintain a certain situation. There’s a background. For over 20 years, Israel has been dedicated, with U.S. support, to separating Gaza from the West Bank. That’s in direct violation of the terms of the Oslo Accord 20 years ago, which declared that the West Bank and Gaza are a single territorial entity whose integrity must be preserved. But for rogue states, solemn agreements are just an invitation to do whatever you want. So Israel, with U.S. backing, has been committed to keeping them separate.
And there’s a good reason for that. Just look at the map. If Gaza is the only outlet to the outside world for any eventual Palestinian entity, whatever it might be, the West Bank—if separated from Gaza, the West Bank is essentially imprisoned—Israel on one side, the Jordanian dictatorship on the other. Furthermore, Israel is systematically driving Palestinians out of the Jordan Valley, sinking wells, building settlements. They first call them military zones, then put in settlements—the usual story. That would mean that whatever cantons are left for Palestinians in the West Bank, after Israel takes what it wants and integrates it into Israel, they would be completely imprisoned. Gaza would be an outlet to the outside world, so therefore keeping them separate from one another is a high goal of policy, U.S. and Israeli policy.
And the unity agreement threatened that. Threatened something else Israel has been claiming for years. One of its arguments for kind of evading negotiations is: How can they negotiate with the Palestinians when they’re divided? Well, OK, so if they’re not divided, you lose that argument. But the more significant one is simply the geostrategic one, which is what I described. So the unity government was a real threat, along with the tepid, but real, endorsement of it by the United States, and they immediately reacted.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Noam, what do you make of the—as you say, Israel seeks to maintain the status quo, while at the same time continuing to create a new reality on the ground of expanded settlements. What do you make of the continued refusal of one administration after another here in the United States, which officially is opposed to the settlement expansion, to refuse to call Israel to the table on this attempt to create its own reality on the ground?
NOAMCHOMSKY: Well, your phrase "officially opposed" is quite correct. But we can look at—you know, you have to distinguish the rhetoric of a government from its actions, and the rhetoric of political leaders from their actions. That should be obvious. So we can see how committed the U.S. is to this policy, easily. For example, in February 2011, the U.N. Security Council considered a resolution which called for—which called on Israel to terminate its expansion of settlements. Notice that the expansion of settlements is not really the issue. It’s the settlements. The settlements, the infrastructure development, all of this is in gross violation of international law. That’s been determined by the Security Council, the International Court of Justice. Practically every country in the world, outside of Israel, recognizes this. But this was a resolution calling for an end to expansion of settlements—official U.S. policy. What happened? Obama vetoed the resolution. That tells you something.
Furthermore, the official statement to Israel about the settlement expansion is accompanied by what in diplomatic language is called a wink—a quiet indication that we don’t really mean it. So, for example, Obama’s latest condemnation of the recent, as he puts it, violence on all sides was accompanied by sending more military aid to Israel. Well, they can understand that. And that’s been true all along. In fact, when Obama came into office, he made the usual statements against settlement expansion. And his administration was—spokespersons were asked in press conferences whether Obama would do anything about it, the way the first George Bush did something—mild sanctions—to block settlement expansions. And the answer was, "No, this is just symbolic." Well, that tells the Israeli government exactly what’s happening. And, in fact, if you look step by step, the military aid continues, the economic aid continues, the diplomatic protection continues, the ideological protection continues. By that, I mean framing the issues in ways that conform to Israeli demand. All of that continues, along with a kind of clucking of the tongue, saying, "Well, we really don’t like it, and it’s not helpful to peace." Any government can understand that.
AMYGOODMAN: I want to turn to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who spoke to foreign journalists yesterday.
PRIMEMINISTERBENJAMINNETANYAHU:
Israel accepted and Hamas rejected the Egyptian ceasefire proposal of
July 15th. And I want you to know that at that time the conflict had
claimed some 185 lives. Only on Monday night did Hamas finally agree to
that very same proposal, which went into effect yesterday morning. That
means that 90 percent, a full 90 percent, of the fatalities in this
conflict could have been avoided had Hamas not rejected then the
ceasefire that it accepts now. Hamas must be held accountable for the
tragic loss of life.
AMYGOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, can you respond to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu?
NOAMCHOMSKY: [inaudible] narrow response and a broad response. The narrow response is that, of course, as Netanyahu knows, that ceasefire proposal was arranged between the Egyptian military dictatorship and Israel, both of them very hostile to Hamas. It was not even communicated to Hamas. They learned about it through social media, and they were angered by that, naturally. They said they won’t accept it on those terms. Now, that’s the narrow response.
The broad response is that 100 percent of the casualties and the destruction and the devastation and so on could have been avoided if Israel had lived up to the ceasefire agreement after the—from November 2012, instead of violating it constantly and then escalating the violation in the manner that I described, in order to block the unity government and to persist in their policy of—the policies of taking over what they want in the West Bank and keeping—separating it from Gaza, and keeping Gaza on what they’ve called a "diet," Dov Weissglas’s famous comment. The man who negotiated the so-called withdrawal in 2005 pointed out that the purpose of the withdrawal is to end the discussion of any political settlement and to block any possibility of a Palestinian state, and meanwhile the Gazans will be kept on a diet, meaning just enough calories allowed so they don’t all die—because that wouldn’t look good for Israel’s fading reputation—but nothing more than that. And with its vaunted technical capacity, Israel, Israeli experts calculated precisely how many calories would be needed to keep the Gazans on their diet, under siege, blocked from export, blocked from import. Fishermen can’t go out to fish. The naval vessels drive them back to shore. A large part, probably over a third and maybe more, of Gaza’s arable land is barred from entry to Palestinians. It’s called a "barrier." That’s the norm. That’s the diet. They want to keep them on that, meanwhile separated from the West Bank, and continue the ongoing project of taking over—I can describe the details, but it’s not obscure—taking over the parts of the West Bank that Israel intends—is integrating into Israel, and presumably will ultimately annex in some fashion, as long as the United States continues to support it and block international efforts to lead to a political settlement.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Noam, as this whole month has unfolded and these images of the carnage in Gaza have spread around the world, what’s your assessment of the impact on the already abysmal relationship that exists between the United States government and the Arab and Muslim world? I’m thinking especially of all the young Muslims and Arabs around the world who maybe had not been exposed to prior atrocities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
NOAMCHOMSKY: Well, first of all, we have to distinguish between the Muslim and Arab populations and their governments—striking difference. The governments are mostly dictatorships. And when you read in the press that the Arabs support us on so-and-so, what is meant is the dictators support us, not the populations. The dictatorships are moderately supportive of what the U.S. and Israel are doing. That includes the military dictatorship in Egypt, a very brutal one; Saudi Arabian dictatorship. Saudi Arabia is the closest U.S. ally in the region, and it’s the most radical fundamentalist Islamic state in the world. It’s also spreading its Salafi-Wahhabi doctrines throughout the world, extremist fundamentalist doctrines. It’s been the leading ally of the United States for years, just as it was for Britain before it. They’ve both tended to prefer radical Islam to the danger of secular nationalism and democracy. And they are fairly supportive of—they don’t like—they hate Hamas. They have no interest in the Palestinians. They have to say things to kind of mollify their own populations, but again, rhetoric and action are different. So the dictatorships are not appalled by what’s happening. They probably are quietly cheering it.
The populations, of course, are quite different, but that’s always been true. So, for example, on the eve of the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Egypt, which overthrew the Mubarak dictatorship, there were international polls taken in the United States by the leading polling agencies, and they showed very clearly that I think about 80 percent of Egyptians regarded the main threats to them as being Israel and the United States. And, in fact, condemnation of the United States and its policies were so extreme that even though they don’t like Iran, a majority felt that the region might be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons. Well, if you look over the whole polling story over the years, it kind of varies around something like that. But that’s the populations. And, of course, the Muslim populations elsewhere don’t like it, either. But it’s not just the Muslim populations. So, for example, there was a demonstration in London recently, which probably had hundreds of thousands of people—it was quite a huge demonstration—protesting the Israeli atrocities in Gaza. And that’s happening elsewhere in the world, too. It’s worth remembering that—you go back a couple decades, Israel was one of the most admired countries in the world. Now it’s one of the most feared and despised countries in the world. Israeli propagandists like to say, well, this is just anti-Semitism. But to the extent that there’s an anti-Semitic element, which is slight, it’s because of Israeli actions. The reaction is to the policies. And as long as Israel persists in these policies, that’s what’s going to happen.
Actually, this has been pretty clear since the early 1970s. Actually, I’ve been writing about it since then, but it’s so obvious, that I don’t take any credit for that. In 1971, Israel made a fateful decision, the most fateful in its history, I think. President Sadat of Egypt offered Israel a full peace treaty, in return for withdrawal of Israel from the Egyptian Sinai. That was the Labor government, the so-called moderate Labor government at the time. They considered the offer and rejected it. They were planning to carry out extensive development programs in the Sinai, build a huge, big city on the Mediterranean, dozens of settlements, kibbutzim, others, big infrastructure, driving tens of thousands of Bedouins off the land, destroying the villages and so on. Those were the plans, beginning to implement them. And Israel made a decision to choose expansion over security. A treaty with Egypt would have meant security. That’s the only significant military force in the Arab world. And that’s been the policy ever since.
When you pursue a policy of repression and expansion over security, there are things that are going to happen. There will be moral degeneration within the country. There will be increasing opposition and anger and hostility among populations outside the country. You may continue to get support from dictatorships and from, you know, the U.S. administration, but you’re going to lose the populations. And that has a consequence. You could predict—in fact, I and others did predict back in the '70s—that, just to quote myself, "those who call themselves supporters of Israel are actually supporters of its moral degeneration, international isolation, and very possibly ultimate destruction." That's what’s—that’s the course that’s happening.
It’s not the only example in history. There are many analogies drawn to South Africa, most of them pretty dubious, in my mind. But there’s one analogy which I think is pretty realistic, which isn’t discussed very much. It should be. In 1958, the South African Nationalist government, which was imposing the harsh apartheid regime, recognized that they were becoming internationally isolated. We know from declassified documents that in 1958 the South African foreign minister called in the American ambassador. And we have the conversation. He essentially told him, "Look, we’re becoming a pariah state. We’re losing all the—everyone is voting against us in the United Nations. We’re becoming isolated. But it really doesn’t matter, because you’re the only voice that counts. And as long as you support us, doesn’t really matter what the world thinks." That wasn’t a bad prediction. If you look at what happened over the years, opposition to South African apartheid grew and developed. There was a U.N. arms embargo. Sanctions began. Boycotts began. It was so extreme by the 1980s that even the U.S. Congress was passing sanctions, which President Reagan had to veto. He was the last supporter of the apartheid regime. Congress actually reinstated the sanctions over his veto, and he then violated them. As late as 1988, Reagan, the last holdout, his administration declared the African National Congress, Mandela’s African National Congress, to be one of the more notorious terrorist groups in the world. So the U.S. had to keep supporting South Africa. It was supporting terrorist group UNITA in Angola. Finally, even the United States joined the rest of the world, and very quickly the apartheid regime collapsed.
Now that’s not fully analogous to the Israel case by any means. There were other reasons for the collapse of apartheid, two crucial reasons. One of them was that there was a settlement that was acceptable to South African and international business, simple settlement: keep the socioeconomic system and allow—put it metaphorically—allow blacks some black faces in the limousines. That was the settlement, and that’s pretty much what’s been implemented, not totally. There’s no comparable settlement in Israel-Palestine. But a crucial element, not discussed here, is Cuba. Cuba sent military forces and tens of thousands of technical workers, doctors and teachers and others, and they drove the South African aggressors out of Angola, and they compelled them to abandon illegally held Namibia. And more than that, as in fact Nelson Mandela pointed out as soon as he got out of prison, the Cuban soldiers, who incidentally were black soldiers, shattered the myth of invincibility of the white supermen. That had a very significant effect on both black Africa and the white South Africa. It indicated to the South African government and population that they’re not going to be able to impose their hope of a regional support system, at least quiet system, that would allow them to pursue their operations inside South Africa and their terrorist activities beyond. And that was a major factor in the liberation of black Africa.
AMYGOODMAN: Noam, we have to break, and we’re going to come back to this discussion. We’re talking to Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back with Professor Chomsky in a minute.
[break]
AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Our guest is Professor Noam Chomsky. I want to turn to President Obama speaking Wednesday at a news conference in Washington, D.C.
PRESIDENTBARACKOBAMA:
Long term, there has to be a recognition that Gaza cannot sustain
itself permanently closed off from the world and incapable of providing
some opportunity, jobs, economic growth for the population that lives
there, particularly given how dense that population is, how young that
population is. We’re going to have to see a shift in opportunity for the
people of Gaza. I have no sympathy for Hamas. I have great sympathy for
ordinary people who are struggling within Gaza.
AMYGOODMAN: That’s President Obama yesterday. Noam Chomsky, can you respond?
NOAMCHOMSKY: Well, as always, for all states and all political leaderships, we have to distinguish rhetoric from action. Any political leader can produce lovely rhetoric, even Hitler, Stalin, whoever you want. What we ask is: What are they doing? So exactly what does Obama suggest or carry out as a means to achieve the goal of ending the U.S.-backed Israeli siege, blockade of Gaza, which is creating this situation? What has it done in the past? What does it propose to do in the future? There are things that the U.S. could do very easily. Again, don’t want to draw the South African analogy too closely, but it is indicative. And it’s not the only case. The same happened, as you remember, in the Indonesia-East Timor case. When the United States, Clinton, finally told the Indonesian generals, "The game’s over," they pulled out immediately. U.S. power is substantial. And in the case of Israel, it’s critical, because Israel relies on virtually unilateral U.S. support. There are plenty of things the U.S. can do to implement what Obama talked about. And the question is—and, in fact, when the U.S. gives orders, Israel obeys. That’s happened over and over again. That’s completely obvious why, given the power relationships. So things can be done. They were done by Bush two, by Clinton, by Reagan, and the U.S. could do them again. Then we’ll know whether those words were anything other than the usual pleasant rhetoric.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Talking about separating rhetoric from actions, Israel has always claimed that it no longer occupies Gaza. Democracy Now! recently spoke to Joshua Hantman, who’s a senior adviser to the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a former spokesperson for the Israeli Defense Ministry. And Hantman said, quote, "Israel actually left the Gaza Strip in 2005. We removed all of our settlements. We removed the IDF forces. We took out 10,000 Jews from their houses as a step for peace, because Israel wants peace and it extended its hand for peace." Your response?
NOAMCHOMSKY: Well, several points. First of all, the United Nations, every country in the world, even the United States, regards Israel as the occupying power in Gaza—for a very simple reason: They control everything there. They control the borders, the land, sea, air. They determine what goes into Gaza, what comes out. They determine how many calories Gazan children need to stay alive, but not to flourish. That’s occupation, under international law, and no one questions it, outside of Israel. Even the U.S. agrees, their usual backer. That puts—with that, we end the discussion of whether they’re an occupying power or not.
As for wanting peace, look back at that so-called withdrawal. Notice that it left Israel as the occupying power. By 2005, Israeli hawks, led by Ariel Sharon, pragmatic hawk, recognized that it just makes no sense for Israel to keep a few thousand settlers in devastated Gaza and devote a large part of the IDF, the Israeli military, to protecting them, and many expenses breaking up Gaza into separate parts and so on. Made no sense to do that. Made a lot more sense to take those settlers from their subsidized settlements in Gaza, where they were illegally residing, and send them off to subsidized settlements in the West Bank, in areas that Israel intends to keep—illegally, of course. That just made pragmatic sense.
And there was a very easy way to do it. They could have simply informed the settlers in Gaza that on August 1st the IDF is going to withdrawal, and at that point they would have climbed into the lorries that are provided to them and gone off to their illegal settlements in the West Bank and, incidentally, the Golan Heights. But it was decided to construct what’s sometimes called a "national trauma." So a trauma was constructed, a theater. It was just ridiculed by leading specialists in Israel, like the leading sociologist—Baruch Kimmerling just made fun of it. And trauma was created so you could have little boys, pictures of them pleading with the Israeli soldiers, "Don’t destroy my home!" and then background calls of "Never again." That means "Never again make us leave anything," referring to the West Bank primarily. And a staged national trauma. What made it particularly farcical was that it was a repetition of what even the Israeli press called "National Trauma ’82," when they staged a trauma when they had to withdraw from Yamit, the city they illegally built in the Sinai. But they kept the occupation. They moved on.
And I’ll repeat what Weissglas said. Recall, he was the negotiator with the United States, Sharon’s confidant. He said the purpose of the withdrawal is to end negotiations on a Palestinian state and Palestinian rights. This will end it. This will freeze it, with U.S. support. And then comes imposition of the diet on Gaza to keep them barely alive, but not flourishing, and the siege. Within weeks after the so-called withdrawal, Israel escalated the attacks on Gaza and imposed very harsh sanctions, backed by the United States. The reason was that a free election took place in Palestine, and it came out the wrong way. Well, Israel and the United States, of course, love democracy, but only if it comes out the way they want. So, the U.S. and Israel instantly imposed harsh sanctions. Israeli attacks, which really never ended, escalated. Europe, to its shame, went along. Then Israel and the United States immediately began planning for a military coup to overthrow the government. When Hamas pre-empted that coup, there was fury in both countries. The sanctions and military attacks increased. And then we’re on to what we discussed before: periodic episodes of "mowing the lawn."
AMYGOODMAN: We only—Noam, we only have a minute.
NOAMCHOMSKY: Yeah.
AMYGOODMAN: Very quickly, at this point, a lot of the U.S. media is saying the U.S. had been sidelined, it’s now all about Egypt doing this negotiation. What needs to happen right now? The ceasefire will end in a matter of hours, if it isn’t extended. What kind of truce needs to be accomplished here?
NOAMCHOMSKY: Well, for Israel, with U.S. backing, the current situation is a kind of a win-win situation. If Hamas agrees to extend the ceasefire, Israel can continue with its regular policies, which I described before: taking over what they want in the West Bank, separating it from Gaza, keeping the diet and so on. If Hamas doesn’t accept the ceasefire, Netanyahu can make another speech like the one you—the cynical speech you quoted earlier. The only thing that can break this is if the U.S. changes its policies, as has happened in other cases. I mentioned two: South Africa, Timor. There’s others. And that’s decisive. If there’s going to be a change, it will crucially depend on a change in U.S. policy here. For 40 years, the United States has been almost unilaterally backing Israeli rejectionism, refusal to entertain the overwhelming international consensus on a two-state settlement.
AMYGOODMAN: Noam, we have to leave it there, but we’re going to continue our conversation post-show, and we’re going to post it online at democracynow.org. Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
IDF Soldiers having fun and laughing while bombing houses in Gaza
“Instead, they follow their secular, atheistic, and Zionist ways!”
So say some, expressing horror at the recent deliberate slaughter of Gazans, particularly the slaughter of women and children. The BBC article below (1) and many others tell the story.
Some critics, like Michael Hoffman, blame barbaric Jewish behavior on the Talmud (2). Others, like Henry Makow, blame secular Zionism (3).
But haven’t these folks ever read the Bible? Are they unaware of the influence of the Old Testament on Judaism?
Please, dear reader, open your Bible. Turn to the Old Testament. For the moment, focus your attention on the Book of Numbers.
You are about to learn that Moses, the great “law giver,” was a war criminal who ORDERED his followers to commit war crimes. The most heinous were crimes were committed against women and children. Moses ordered:
* The slaughter of non-combatant women prisoners.
* The slaughter of non-combatant young boy prisoners.
* The use of young girl prisoners as Israelite sex slaves.
Some strike at the branches of evil, some at the root. Why strike at secular Zionism, so-called, or the Talmud, and ignore the root of the evil, found in the Old Testament?
Let’s get some specifics on how Moses treated Gentile women and children.
Background: In Exodus Chapter 2, Moses flees Egypt because he has killed an Egyptian. He passes through the land of the Midianites, who befriend him. Moses lived among them for a while and “took to wife” a Midianite* woman, Zipporah. Moses and Zipporah have a son, Gershom.
Sometime later, Moses develops in-law problems. By the time we reach Numbers Chapter 25, we know that the Israelites under Moses’ command are getting too friendly with the Midianites. A significant number of Israelites start cohabiting with Midianite girls and worshipping Midianite gods.
Moses orders the beheading of the Israelites who are encouraging the mix. For good measure, a plague — presumably sent by Jehovah — kills 24,000 of the offending Israelites. Chapter 25 ends with Jehovah urging his people to “vex” and “smite” or “harass” the Midianites. Why? What wrong did the Midianites do? No one forced the God’s Chosen People to party with the Midianite girls and worship their gods. Whatever . . .
Time passes. Jehovah and Moses spend Chapter 26 of Numbers organizing a huge census and Chapters 27, 28, 29 and 30 laying down various laws for the Israelites.
But by Numbers Chapter 31 — for reasons not explained — Jehovah’s attention becomes fastened once more on the Midianites. He orders Moses to kill them. Why? For what happened in Chapter 25.
Thus Jehovah orders an unprovoked attack on Moses’ in-laws. Not a problem. Moses sends off thousands of his troops to slay them.
The Israelites kill the five Midianite kings and all the other Midianite adult males. They loot the cities and burn them, and take the women and children in captivity.
But when they return, Moses is furious. “Have you kept all the women alive? These women caused the children of Israel to trespass against the Lord . . .” (New King James translation, Verses 15, 16).
Moses then orders:
1) all the non-virgin women captives to be killed
2) all the boy children captives to be killed
3) all the virgin girl captives to be saved for the use of the Israelite men.
(13) And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
(14) And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
(15) And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
(16) Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
(17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
( 18 ) But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Here is the URL for Numbers Chapter 31, New Living Translation
(13) Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. (14) But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains [a] who had returned from the battle.
(15) “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.
(16) “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people.
(17) So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man.
( 18 ) Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
The rest of Chapter 31 is concerned with distributing the Midianite plunder.
Thirty-two thousand (32,000) virgin girls were counted in the booty (Verse 35).
Thirty-two of these were given to “the Lord.” That is, 32 of these little girls were set aside for the Levities (heave offerings), to be used as concubines (Verses 40 and 41).
Yes, Numbers 31 says what it says. The Talmud sages used Numbers 31 to justify having sex with children. And since the Talmud sages, along with Christians, regard the Old Testament as “the word of God,” why beat up on the Talmud sages? Why not beat up on Jehovah and Moses, who set the standards?
For further discussion of Jewish teachings on sex with children, see the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b, Soncino 1961 Edition, page 402. Discussion and links at http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_2.html
It’s true. Moses was a war criminal. The Bible tells you so. Should we be surprised at how women and children were treated in Gaza?
Footnotes
1) New Evidence of Gaza Child Deaths, BBC, 22 January, 2009
(2) Michael Hoffman is author of “Judaism Discovered, A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit.” Mr. Hoffman calls Israel’s Gaza war crimes “‘Talmudic’ War Crimes” rather than “Old Testament” or “Mosaic” war crimes. http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=855 .
Et je serai cette terre-là Saignée à blanc Gorgée du sang De mes enfants Que l'on assassine... Palestine...
Et je serai cet enfer-là Créé par l'homme blanc Colon errant Qui détruit en tuant L'histoire philistine... Palestine... Et je serai ce sol trahi Par des gens d'un autre pays Affairistes corrompus U S A... O N U
Et ceux qui prennent notre place Ces mépriseurs de race Qui te font courber l'échine... Palestine... Et je serai ce Peuple debout Jamais à genoux Ce peuple innocent Qui verse son sang Parce qu'un bourreau Le génocide... Oh Palestine... Et je serai ce pays-là Abandonné Du monde entier Aux mains d'un tyran Massacreur d'enfants Et violeurs de racines... Palestine... Et je serai le coeur Brûlé de douleur De tous ces êtres Qui meurent Pour te rendre libre Car il te faut vivre... Palestine... Et enfin je serai cette terre-là Jamais soumise Jamais conquise Portée à bout de bras Par mes fils que l'on assassine... Palestine.
Pal
Palestine
Total : 331 Aujourd'hui : 2 Connecté : 1
Palestine
Total : 331 Aujourd'hui : 2 Connecté : 1
MY POST UNDER MULTIPLE ATTACKS AND PHOTOS REMOVED!
FW: Have a laugh: Famous Jews who changed their names almassari To almassari Aug 7 at 5:44 PM
THANKS TANYA: GOOD CORRECTIONS
From: Tanya Cariina Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2014 17:38 To: almassari Subject: Re: Have a laugh: Famous Jews who changed their names
This stuff spreads doesn't it? I answered a friend of mine a while ago, who was curious.
Most are, but we know they are. Others are stuck it to grab your attention, so:
Cary Grant was not Jewish; Leach is a very typical and old English working class name. Attended Christian schools. Nothing Jewish about his family in any way.
Joan Crawford was French-Swedish; Catholic. No Jewish roots.
Charles Bronson's father was actually Tartar (hence the Russian surname). So quite easily could have been a Muslim, yes? His mother was not Jewish; he was raised as a Christian. Bronson later married a Jewish girl who converted to Christianity.
Leslie Howard's father was Jewish but his mother Christian, and that's how he was brought up. (Jews are considered so only if the mother is Jewish.)
Buddy Hackett - no; his wife was Jewish.
Mary Hart - Danish/Swedish; married a Jewish man (Hart).
Judy Garland - no: Episcopalian, and no Jewish roots.
The others are either well known, or I have no idea who they are!
On 7 August 2014 17:05, almassari wrote:
Have a laugh: Famous Jews who changed their names
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zS7aMGByxY
THIS IS NOT ANTI-SEMITISM:
(1)- My liking of Gary Grant, Lorne Green, Michel Landon and Charles Bronson as actors is the same now like before. I am not bothered, even one bit, that they are Jews!!! I am a bit disappointed that Charles Bronson is not of Native American (Red Indian) origin as I was always thinking!
(2)- Many of the names changed sound more German than Yiddish. I think the change is, at least in part, due to anti-German sentiments around WWII.
(3)- In the 19th century Jews were given some limited rights by European States. They HAD to register as citizens with 'suitable' Christian names. If you could bribe the corrupt official than you may get a nice name: Rosenberg, Goldberg … etc. The poor have-nots have to live with nasty names: Hund (=dog) … etc. No fair minded human being should object that a fellow human may change such ugly, or blasphemous name. The famous German physicist Prof. Dr. Friedrich Hund, a teacher of my teacher Prof. Dr. Janos Hajdu, endured it with dignity!!!
(4)- In some cases the video misses the point: Netanyahu's current name sounds MORE JEWISH than his original Yiddish name. The same applies to Ariel Sharon and Peres. They are NOT from the 12 tribes, but they are just trying to deceive their fellow 'genuine Jews' (if such a thing as 'genuine Jews' exists)!!!
Un garde de sécurité israélien a tué vendredi, apparemment par méprise, un juif au Mur des Lamentations à Jérusalem-Est, site hautement symbolique du judaïsme, le prenant pour un activiste palestinien, selon la police.
« Un homme juif, un Israélien, se trouvait dans le secteur des toilettes » sur le site et « il a, pour une raison inconnue, crié Allah Akbar (Dieu est le plus grand, en arabe)« , a indiqué à l’AFP le porte-parole de la police Micky Rosenfeld. « Un garde de sécurité a dégainé son arme et tiré à plusieurs reprises sur le suspect, qui est décédé de ses blessures« , a-t-il précisé.
Une connaissance de la victime a déclaré à la radio que la victime travaillait comme bénévole dans une soupe populaire organisée par le mouvement hassidique Chabad.
« C’est une figure bien connue » du quartier juif de la Vieille ville, a témoigné David Dahan, ajoutant: « Il vit seul ici, ses parents sont en France« .
Micky Rosenfeld n’a pas été en mesure de confirmer dans l’immédiat l’information selon laquelle l’homme aurait également la nationalité française.
Lire la suite sur RTBF
Note de la rédaction de Croah
On rêverait que le Quai d’Orsay réagisse, voir même que le Président de la République condamne ce crime (ajouté à cela l’attaque sur Gaza) et d’agir en conséquence : Rappel de l’ambassadeur, boycott des produits israéliens, mais ne rêvons pas. Hollande aurait toujours « un chant d’amour pour Israël et pour ses dirigeants (criminels, racialistes, et génocidaires) » même s’il chantait mal. En attendant, c’est la marche funèbre qui se joue.
N.B. I do not share the views that INTERNATIONAL ZIONISM is in any way comparable to German National Socialism because it is contrary to the truth! Just read about the German occupation of France from a REAL HISTORY BOOK and compare it with the Jewish occupation of Palestine from a non Zionist source.
By Gilad Atzmon
Et je serai cette terre-là
Et je serai ce sol trahi
Et ceux qui prennent notre place
Et je serai ce Peuple debout
Et je serai ce pays-là
Total : 331
Aujourd'hui : 2
Connecté : 1
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSHOAHZIE = SHOAH SIONISTE
ReplyDeleteSHOAHAZI = ZIONIST SHOAH
SHOAH = HOLOCAUST
HOLOCAUST = HUMAN OR ANIMAL BURNT OFFERINGS TO THE ISRAELITE GODS!
FW: Have a laugh: Famous Jews who changed their names
ReplyDeletealmassari
To almassari
Aug 7 at 5:44 PM
THANKS TANYA: GOOD CORRECTIONS
From: Tanya Cariina
Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2014 17:38
To: almassari
Subject: Re: Have a laugh: Famous Jews who changed their names
This stuff spreads doesn't it? I answered a friend of mine a while ago, who was curious.
Most are, but we know they are. Others are stuck it to grab your attention, so:
Cary Grant was not Jewish; Leach is a very typical and old English working class name. Attended Christian schools. Nothing Jewish about his family in any way.
Joan Crawford was French-Swedish; Catholic. No Jewish roots.
Charles Bronson's father was actually Tartar (hence the Russian surname). So quite easily could have been a Muslim, yes? His mother was not Jewish; he was raised as a Christian. Bronson later married a Jewish girl who converted to Christianity.
Leslie Howard's father was Jewish but his mother Christian, and that's how he was brought up. (Jews are considered so only if the mother is Jewish.)
Buddy Hackett - no; his wife was Jewish.
Mary Hart - Danish/Swedish; married a Jewish man (Hart).
Judy Garland - no: Episcopalian, and no Jewish roots.
The others are either well known, or I have no idea who they are!
On 7 August 2014 17:05, almassari wrote:
Have a laugh: Famous Jews who changed their names
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zS7aMGByxY
THIS IS NOT ANTI-SEMITISM:
(1)- My liking of Gary Grant, Lorne Green, Michel Landon and Charles Bronson as actors is the same now like before. I am not bothered, even one bit, that they are Jews!!! I am a bit disappointed that Charles Bronson is not of Native American (Red Indian) origin as I was always thinking!
(2)- Many of the names changed sound more German than Yiddish. I think the change is, at least in part, due to anti-German sentiments around WWII.
(3)- In the 19th century Jews were given some limited rights by European States. They HAD to register as citizens with 'suitable' Christian names. If you could bribe the corrupt official than you may get a nice name: Rosenberg, Goldberg … etc. The poor have-nots have to live with nasty names: Hund (=dog) … etc. No fair minded human being should object that a fellow human may change such ugly, or blasphemous name. The famous German physicist Prof. Dr. Friedrich Hund, a teacher of my teacher Prof. Dr. Janos Hajdu, endured it with dignity!!!
(4)- In some cases the video misses the point: Netanyahu's current name sounds MORE JEWISH than his original Yiddish name. The same applies to Ariel Sharon and Peres. They are NOT from the 12 tribes, but they are just trying to deceive their fellow 'genuine Jews' (if such a thing as 'genuine Jews' exists)!!!
Un garde de sécurité israélien a tué vendredi, apparemment par méprise, un juif au Mur des Lamentations à Jérusalem-Est, site hautement symbolique du judaïsme, le prenant pour un activiste palestinien, selon la police.
ReplyDelete« Un homme juif, un Israélien, se trouvait dans le secteur des toilettes » sur le site et « il a, pour une raison inconnue, crié Allah Akbar (Dieu est le plus grand, en arabe)« , a indiqué à l’AFP le porte-parole de la police Micky Rosenfeld. « Un garde de sécurité a dégainé son arme et tiré à plusieurs reprises sur le suspect, qui est décédé de ses blessures« , a-t-il précisé.
Une connaissance de la victime a déclaré à la radio que la victime travaillait comme bénévole dans une soupe populaire organisée par le mouvement hassidique Chabad.
« C’est une figure bien connue » du quartier juif de la Vieille ville, a témoigné David Dahan, ajoutant: « Il vit seul ici, ses parents sont en France« .
Micky Rosenfeld n’a pas été en mesure de confirmer dans l’immédiat l’information selon laquelle l’homme aurait également la nationalité française.
Lire la suite sur RTBF
Note de la rédaction de Croah
On rêverait que le Quai d’Orsay réagisse, voir même que le Président de la République condamne ce crime (ajouté à cela l’attaque sur Gaza) et d’agir en conséquence : Rappel de l’ambassadeur, boycott des produits israéliens, mais ne rêvons pas. Hollande aurait toujours « un chant d’amour pour Israël et pour ses dirigeants (criminels, racialistes, et génocidaires) » même s’il chantait mal. En attendant, c’est la marche funèbre qui se joue.
DEVOIR DE MÉMOIRE
N.B. I do not share the views that INTERNATIONAL ZIONISM is in any way comparable to German National Socialism because it is contrary to the truth!
ReplyDeleteJust read about the German occupation of France from a REAL HISTORY BOOK and compare it with the Jewish occupation of Palestine from a non Zionist source.