Countless books and articles have been written about the life of the great physicist and thinker Albert Einstein, and since his death in 1955, a near consensus has existed that Einstein was a staunch supporter of the state of Israel.

Veteran journalist Fred Jerome uses hundreds of pages of Einstein’s own letters, articles and interviews — many published for the first time — to refute this thesis.

It is well known that Einstein, a German Jew, witnessed European anti-Semitism firsthand and spoke out against both prejudice and Nazism. These experiences convinced Einstein to support Zionism and a Jewish homeland. After gaining immense fame for his scientific breakthroughs, he was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 after the death of the country’s first president, Chaim Weizmann.

In reality, while Einstein was sympathetic to the Zionist cause, he repeatedly warned that a “narrow nationalism” may arise if a Jewish-only state was founded and peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians was not achieved. Instead, Einstein advocated Cultural Zionism — the creation of Jewish cultural and educational centers within a bi-national state with equal rights for both Arabs and Jews.

When Einstein was offered the Israeli presidency, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion stated, “I’ve had to offer him the post because it was impossible not to, but if he accepts we are in for trouble.” In a letter written in the same year, Einstein compared the Zionists’ project with that of the Pilgrims, noting, “how tyrannical, intolerant and aggressive [they] became after a short while.” And in Einstein’s last media interview, which ran in the New York Post a month before his death, he stated “We had great hopes for Israel at first. We thought it might be better than other nations, but it is no better.”

Jerome has authored two previous books about Einstein; The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret War Against the World’s Most Famous Scientist and Einstein on Race and Racism, co-authored with Rodger Taylor. These books are essential to understanding Einstein, a self-described “revolutionary,” who publicly stated that he would use his fame and celebrity status to bring attention to the causes important to him. For example, Einstein on Race and Racism details for the first time Einstein’s 20-year friendship with Paul Robeson. While the first two books were aimed at filling a large gap in the knowledge about Einstein’s radical beliefs and political activism, Einstein on Zionism and Israel seeks to debunk the myth that Einstein was a supporter of Israel.

In the process, Jerome reveals much about the nature of mainstream propaganda. Einstein’s opposition to Israel was widely known and reported on during his life. In fact, the myth of Einstein’s support of Israel was born the day after Einstein’s death in his obituary in The New York Times, which shamelessly wrote that he “championed” the establishment of the Jewish state. This contradicted decades of reporting from the “Paper of Record.” Jerome provides some examples, including a 1930 article headlined “Einstein attacks British Zion Policy,” a 1938 article stating Einstein was “Against Palestine State” and a 1946 article stating Einstein “Bars Jewish State.”

The book ends with a quote from author and intellectual Gore Vidal, “The only question that really matters: Why?” Jerome follows with, “Why have we not known?”

The New York Society of Ethical Culture will host a reception to celebrate the release of Einstein on Zionism and Israel May 28, 6:30 p.m. 2 West 64th Street in Manhattan. The event is free.

The Indypendent’s Jaisal Noor sat down with author Fred Jerome to discuss why Albert Einstein is remembered for his physics and not his politics.

Jaisal Noor: Why did you decide to write this book on Einstein and his views on Israel and Zionism?
Fred Jerome: When Einstein met Paul Robeson in 1952, Einstein had just turned down the offer to be president of Israel. According to Lloyd Brown [who was present at that meeting] Einstein told Robeson why he had turned down the invitation: He didn’t agree with Israel, with the nationalism, the establishment of the state of Israel, and so on. In both my previous books, there was a brief discussion about Israel. In addition, it is so clearly one of the central issues of today’s world. We cannot ignore this issue and pretend to be concerned about the world or people in the world. It seemed logical to me that if I was going to be concerned about what was happening in Israel, particularly the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians … it would be a logical step to write more on what Einstein had to say. I contacted the Einstein Archives in Jerusalem, and they actually thought it would be a good idea and encouraged me and said that they could provide information that probably had never been published before.

JN: You started with the Einstein Archive in Jerusalem — where else did you go?
FJ: Einstein gave all his papers to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem because he actually helped to found the Hebrew University. As a Cultural Zionist, he was in favor of cultural centers, like universities, but opposed to a Jewish state or nation. I also tried to talk to as many people as possible who talked to Einstein, knew Einstein, who remember Einstein. The most important was [eminent Egyptian journalist] Mohammed Heikel in Cairo. I included this interview, which was certainly never mentioned in any of the more than 100 books on Einstein.

JN: Could you describe the reaction the press had to your previous works on Einstein and the reaction you expect from this one?
FJ: The press’s reaction to the first book, The Einstein File [2002], was one of very significant interest, maybe because J. Edgar Hoover had fallen out of favor with the media in the past 20 years. And so you have a bad guy versus a good guy, Einstein being the good guy. He had just been named Person of the Century by Time Magazine in the year 2000 when I was working on the first book, and I had come up with this file that no one else had — the entire file. So it was a combination of new information and kind of a sexy theme. Then The New York Times devoted a full page of its science section when the book first came out — that helped get the book covered by lots of other media outlets.

When the book Einstein on Race and Racism [2006] came out, there was virtually no coverage in the mainstream media. There was some coverage in the Black press, including the Amsterdam News, some of the websites and so on. Publisher’s Weekly did a review in which they said that it was a good book, was well written, well researched, no complaints, no criticisms. Einstein was a race man, but so what? Six months after the book came out The New York Times finally did do a review of the book, a very favorable review of the book, and published it only in the New Jersey edition, which has very few readers compared to their other editions.

So the contrast was striking. I think primarily because the mainstream media in America really don’t want to write about racism in America and certainly don’t want to identify Einstein with an anti racist position. The other reason the media have ignored this book is that part of the book is Einstein’s friendship with Paul Robeson and while they finally did put Paul Robeson on a postage stamp, after much struggle and protest, clearly the mainstream media and the corporate interests they represent are still afraid of Paul Robeson’s leftism, his socialism, activism, the resistance to them he represented. Outside of the mainstream media it has gotten a very positive reaction. [Co-author] Rodger Taylor and I are still getting invited to speak, five years after the book was published, by students and other groups around the country. But the media reaction was clearly “don’t touch it.”

And my anticipation for this book is that most of the mainstream media will have the same reaction to this book, because I think that their attitude on Israel-Palestine for the most part is well over 150 percent support for Washington’s total backing of the Israeli government. They have been saying in the mainstream media that Einstein was a big supporter of Israel, and they have been saying that since the day he died, over 60 years ago. They never said it while he was alive

By BOUTHAINA SHAABAN

When you read a news story saying that “the United Nations called on Israel to stop demolishing Palestinian homes and put an end to the policy of forced evictions in East Jerusalem, warning that there are 60,000 Palestinians threatened of becoming homeless,” you cannot but wonder about the role of the international organization today and about the goal for which it was created on the eve of the victory of the forces of freedom against Nazism and Fascism and whether it is the same organization authorized by history and the world’s peoples to guarantee the right to ‘self determination’? Is it the same organization charged with “putting an end to colonialism”? Is it the same organization which believes in the right of all peoples to freedom without discrimination in terms of race or religion? If it is the same organization, why does it allow Palestinian civilians suffer from the brutality of armed settlers?

The evasive and shameful language of the UN’s call comes in the context of the submission of the Security Council to the Zionist will, and consequently commits a historic disgrace in the form of ignoring the legitimate political, civil and human rights of the Palestinian people including their right to life and freedom. For the UN not to take any initiative or measure which leads to giving the Palestinian people the right to self determination will remain a disgrace in the history of the organization which will never be removed.

The Palestinians have been under a racist settler form of colonialism for over sixty years; and they are targeted with a campaign of ethnic cleansing launched by armed gangs of settlers supported by Israel’s police and army.

This is unparalleled in the 21st century in terms of the crimes which include siege, murder, food poisoning, starvation, assassination, demolishing houses, scorching crops, destroying farms, raping prisoners, trafficking in the organs of captives and preventing Palestinians from moving between their villages, farms and schools.

All this happens under the full gaze and silence of the ‘civilized’ world which fully supports the Israeli government and fully ignores the savage crimes committed each day by Jewish settlers and Israeli soldiers. This silence is also a crime against the Palestinian people, because it allows Israeli politicians and generals and their allies to carry on with their crimes against civilians and violate the Geneva conventions and international humanitarian law.

The UN call on Israel to “stop removing [demolishing] Palestinian houses” comes on the backdrop of demolishing the houses of the Hanoun and Ghawi families in al-Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem, and even removing the tent they built on the street near their house and confiscating its contents which consisted of covers to ward off the cold, and some utensils. The tent housed fifty persons of the two families who, up until a few months ago used to live in their home demolished by Israeli occupation soldiers in their policy of Judaizing Jerusalem.

Every now and then, the UN or the EU acknowledge that “destroying the homes of Palestinians is a violation of international law”. But if this and the other crimes referred to above are violations of international law, why do not they move their conscience to protect the security of Palestinians? The question is: what will the United Nations or Europe do? Will they limit themselves to acknowledging that Israeli acts are in sharp contrast with the UN Charter and international humanitarian law, while armed Jewish settler gangs continue to murder, demolish and set fires in Jerusalem, Nablus, Hebron and other places without any deterrent and without being brought to account?

If all these crimes committed daily against Palestinians do not amount to ethnic cleansing and genocide, what does? In America White settlers, centuries ago, used to throw contaminated blankets on Indians to kill them. Today, Israel’s rulers deprive Palestinians of food and medicine, burn crops and poison drinking water in order to kill the Palestinians or force them to leave. The UN calls this crime “forced eviction”. So, is there voluntary evection? After all the crimes committed by Israeli occupation forces and armed gangs of settlers, the UN only “calls on Israel to stop demolishing houses”. Maybe, it forgot to add, “please!”What Palestinian civilians urgently need now is an investigation into Israeli crimes to be reported to an international organization which still retains some self respect and concern for what remains of its credibility.

The crimes committed by Israeli occupation forces, the terrorization of unarmed Palestinian civilians by armed settlers have become a shame for humanity which should not be tolerated. The acts of these settlers and their supporters in the Israeli government and financiers in the Western pressure groups return the world to the law of the jungle. Considering the shameful incapacity of the United Nations and president Obama’s reiteration of his commitment to “Israel’s security” on the 14th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish settler – while he should have expressed an equal commitment to Palestinians’ security – makes it incumbent on the free people of the world and its intellectuals, including Jewish intellectuals, to raise their voice against Israel’s war criminals so that Jews are not eternally shamed for committing war crimes and genocides. They should not keep silence concerning these crimes and should not be satisfied with preventing Israeli criminals from travel. They should be brought to justice in the same way the world has brought to justice other criminals responsible for killing and occupation before them.

Jewish intellectuals in particular should ask themselves why should their government be built on the ruins of the lives and freedom of another people; Why their government should commit crimes of killing children, massacres, home demolition and assassination and then try to justify these crimes and blame all those who want to bring it to account? Why do not Jewish intellectuals face this historical moral dilemma in the Zionist entity?

When Nazi Germany committed massacres against the Jews and other peoples, the Germans faced this dilemma and passed laws banning anti-Semitism. When the world paid the price of Japanese wars and ambitions, Japan took a historical and final decision against war. Why would Jewish intellectuals think they should justify all the acts of Israeli politicians and generals? How can they justify the fact that Ehud Olmert is prosecuted for financial corruption and not for his and others’ crimes against Palestinian and Lebanese children and civilians? Why do they even consider these criminals heroes who should be secured and defended? Why do they form governments consisting of criminals competing with their records in assassination, murder and massacres against Palestinian civilians? These crimes are crimes against humanity by any standard. Why do not they criticize, in their culture, their rulers who have the blood of children on their hands? Silent Jewish intellectuals are responsible for the continuation of crimes which bring them all eternal shame as a result of their silence concerning these crimes.

The United Nations and the European Union, and all those who use evasive language in describing crimes which should prompt the world’s indignation and anger share the responsibility. History will condemn those who remain silent towards these crimes and will remember and thank only those who defend Palestinian children and the right of the Palestinian people to live in dignity, freedom, security and safety on their national soil.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23891.htm

Bouthaina Shaaban is Political and Media Advisor at the Syrian Presidency, and former Minister of Expatriates. She is also a writer and professor at Damascus University since 1985. She has been the spokesperson for Syria and was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. She can be reached through nizar_kabibo@yahoo.com

Netanyahu again called on this leadership to agree to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, saying this was, and remains, the key to peace. And he went on and on and on about it.

“For 62 years the Palestinians have been saying ‘No’ to the Jewish state. I am once again calling upon our Palestinian neighbours – say ‘Yes’ to the Jewish state. Without recognition of the Israel as the state of the Jews we shall not be able to attain peace… Such recognition is a step which requires courage and the Palestinian leadership should tell its people the truth – that without this recognition there can be no peace… There is no alternative to Palestinian leaders showing courage by recognising the Jewish state. This has been and remains the true key to peace.”

As Ha’aretz noted in its report, Netanyahu’s demand for Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state is for him “a way on ensuring recognition of Israel’s right to exist as opposed to merely recognising Israel” (my emphasis). This, as Ha’aretz added, is the recognition which Netanyahu and many other Israelis see as the real core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the name of pragmatism, willingness to “merely to recognise” Israel – meaning to accept and live in peace with an Israel inside its pre-June ‘67 borders – has long been the formal Palestinian and all-Arab position. Why does it stop short of recognising Israel’s “right to exist”, and why, really, does it matter so much to Zionism that Palestinians recognise this right?

The answer is in the following.

According to history as written by the winner, Zionism, Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. This is propaganda nonsense.

* In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
* Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.
* The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
* So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

And that legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not and cannot take from the Palestinians by force.

No wonder Prime Minister Netanyahu is more than a little concerned on this account.

Israel’s leaders have always known the truth summarised above. It’s time for the rest of the world to know it.

http://www.alanhart.net/israel%E2%80%99s-right-or-not-to-exist-the-facts-and-truth/#more-1001
Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews: The False Messiah (Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews). He blogs on www.alanhart.net

“The academicians and experts invited to your university to speak on this issue know first hand the victimization at the hands of Pro-Israel forces. They have risked much for the truth and are honorable men and women.”

“Right and wrong are the same in Palestine as anywhere else. What is peculiar about the Palestine conflict is that the world has listened to the party that has committed the offence and has turned a deaf ear to the victims.”

– Famed British Historian Professor Arnold Toynbee

“In the name of justice there cannot be subjection and in the name of peace
there cannot be impunity.

– President Alvaro Uribe Velez of Columba

“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

– Elie Wiesel

The Honorable Marit Arnstad, Chairman of the board

The Honorable Rector Torbjern Digernes

Rarely in history do individuals, minority groups, or institutions have an opportunity to courageously adopt a principled unpopular stand that could be transformative in world affairs.

For sometime during the genocide of Gaza it was two extraordinary Norwegian physicians and humanitarians who risked their lives to save the lives of Gazans.

‘This is what hell must look like’

Two Norwegian doctors witnessed first-hand the nightmare scenes inside Gaza

– Guardian, January 16, 2009

Norway has always been known for its worldwide humanitarian efforts and generous foreign aid. It is no coincidence that Norway is always ranked first in the world by the United Nations.

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) has just such a historic opportunity tomorrow when it considers voting for an academic boycott of Israel, a nation that for too long has lived by violence, ethnic cleansing, military expansionism, illegal occupations, subjugation of millions of innocent Palestinians, defied all divine and international laws that respect and value human life, and that since its establishment has committed countless terrorist acts and war crimes, lately documented by the Goldstone Report, all with impunity, never accountable for its actions in courts of justice, the U.N., or to all of humanity. The West, especially the U.S., has constantly protected Israel’s interests at the expense of its own interests.

You may remember this headline in Aftenposten, 12/1/06:

“USA threats after boycott support”

“US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice threatened Norway with “serious political consequences” after Finance Minister and Socialist Left Party leader Kristin Halvorsen admitted to supporting a boycott of Israeli goods.”

A quote by the Nobel Prize Winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn encompasses both Israel’s non stop violence against innocent Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian, and Jordanian civilians and its brilliant intimidating propaganda that established the persecutor as the persecuted.

“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”

As a former academician I plead and urge you to take the only righteous stand possible against Israel and that is for your esteemed University to vote yes on an academic boycott of Israel. Your courage will open the door for Universities and other institutions around the world to follow your example.

As a senior medical student at the American University of Beirut Hospital in 1982 I survived Sharon’s genocide of Beirut, unlike the 20,000 innocent Lebanese and Palestinian civilians killed along with the 1,700 Palestinians massacred in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Chatila under Sharon’s protection, encouragement, and direction. Sharon gave the Christian Phalangists the green light to enter the camps and lit the night sky over the camps to give the Christian Phalangists the light to slaughter the innocent.

I experienced first hand the utter and callous disregard for all human, animal, and plant life in Beirut where hundreds of thousands of refugees fled the south of Lebanon in front of the scorched earth policy of Sharon, a man with a long bloody history of massacres and called the “butcher” and “liar” by his own people.

From the air, sea, and land Sharon unleashed his murderous campaign upon a crowded urban city bombing churches, mosques, hospitals, orphanages, retirement homes, electrical and water plants, roads, bridges, the airport and sea port, not even ambulances and medics were spared. He would bomb bakeries where men, women, and children stood in long lines for scarce bread. Planes would bomb an area and await the gathering of ambulances, medics, and citizens to pull persons out of the wreckage only to bomb it again to inflict more casualties.

Ambassador Phil Habib, Reagan’s personal envoy to stop the genocide in Beirut worked hard to reach a peace agreement between Sharon and Lebanon while promising the safety of the Palestinian civilians upon the departure of Yasser Arafat and the PLO from Lebanon. However, he discovered that Israel could never be trusted to keep its word.

In John Boykin’s book, “Cursed is the Peacemaker” (2002, Applegate Press) he quotes Ambassador Habib as saying.

“I had signed this paper which guaranteed that these people in west Beirut would not be harmed. I got specific guarantees on this from Bashir (President of Lebanon) and from the Israelis–from Sharon’. He said he ‘had been given assurances… that no action would be taken against the Palestinians remaining in the camps…. On the basis of those assurances we (Americans) had given our word. We had been deceived…. Sharon was a killer, obsessed by hatred of the Palestinians,’ Habib said. ‘I had given Arafat an undertaking that his people would not be harmed, but this was totally disregarded by Sharon whose word was worth nothing.’”

As is customary with Israel and U.N. Resolutions, Israel defied and rejected over a dozen UN Security Council Resolutions asking Israel to at least allow humanitarian aid into Beirut.

Forgive my lengthy letter but it’s important that you have the facts from my own personal experience as one who experienced first hand what Israel is capable of and how meager and insignificant are the lives of Palestinians and Arabs in general. They die in silence absent from the western conscience due to the blanket support of most western media outlets, none more so than in America the nation exporting democracy and freedom through smart bombs and biased politicians who if dare to criticize Israel jeopardize their ambitions and become the recipients of the worst media smears. In the U.S. no debate or action is allowed against Israel neither by our own “never challenge” government or by our staunchly Pro Israel media.

The academicians and experts invited to your university to speak on this issue know first hand the victimization at the hands of Pro-Israel forces. They have risked much for the truth and are honorable men and women.

Please, do the right thing and vote for an academic boycott of Israel, a nation that is neither civilized nor democratic, by setting an educational precedent for your university, faculty, alumni, but most importantly for your students, that standing up for principle is the foundation for all laws and human rights for all peoples and not just the powerful few.

Teach them to adopt “freedom from fear” as their guiding principle in life while facing all challenges, especially challenges that discriminate between the powerful and the weak, the haves and have nots, that no people should be victimized by the power of money and weapons.

“Freedom from fear” could be said to sum up the whole philosophy of human rights”

– The late Honorable Dag Hammarskjold

“Giving Flight To Dreams”….Yes, we dare to dream, we dare to act.

With My deepest respect and gratitude for your kind attention and patience. I remain.

Peace be with you, your faculty, alumni, and students.

Mohamed Khodr, M.D., M.P.H.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/67894

The apparent inability of Israeli leaders to see their actions as others see them – that is to say, to put themselves in other people’s shoes – may partly explain the depth of the outrage with which they greeted the Goldstone report on last January’s Gaza conflict. Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu seems to have been genuinely taken aback by the UN inquiry’s hard-hitting conclusions, in particular its recommendations about the investigation of individual Israeli responsibility for possible war crimes.

What Netanyahu, former prime minister Ehud Olmert, opposition leader Tzipi Livni, defence minister Ehud Barak and rightwingers such as foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman viewed as a fully justified act of self-defence in the face of relentless Palestinian rocket attacks was seen by much of the world, despite Israel’s ban on media access, as an appalling, disproportionate assault on a defenceless civilian population. Gaza did enormous damage to Israel’s reputation and interests – but it is unclear, even now, whether this is fully understood in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Radically differing perceptions, running exclusively in parallel lines, also exacerbate touchy issues such as Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal and the apparent contradiction of denying Iran its nuclear “rights”. But sometimes, worlds collide.

An unexpected move by Turkey last week to postpone military exercises with Israel suddenly channelled conflicting versions of reality into a direct, head-on crash. Ankara’s decision was its way of expressing its continuing displeasure over Gaza. Prime minister Tayyip Erdogan fell out publicly with Shimon Peres, Israel’s president, over the issue at Davos in January. The row has been simmering ever since. But by dramatically wrecking the flagship exercises, which also involved the US and other Nato members, Turkey effectively forced Israel’s leadership to look at things from the other side’s perspective.

The picture thus produced is both instructive and discouraging. Secular Muslim Turkey is (or was) Israel’s best friend in the Middle East. Bilateral trade between the two countries is worth about $3bn a year; military co-operation, including Israeli arms sales, is long-established. Before Gaza, Turkey acted as mediator in talks between Israel and its old foe, Syria. Ankara also offered a link to sympathetic Arab states of the Gulf. Turkey’s economy is growing overall, as is its importance as an energy and commercial hub. In short, it was clear that Turkey was a uniquely important and influential ally.

Recognising the value of the link, some Israeli politicians tried to play down the rift, apparently hoping to patch things up. But others, including commentator Amir Oren, looked for different reasons to explain Turkey’s behaviour, refusing to believe Gaza could be the cause. “Erdogan is aiming for a large-scale reconciliation with old enemies: the Armenians, the Syrians, the Greek Cypriots and the Kurds. Israel is a burden for him, not an asset,” Oren said.

Other explanations included the assertion that Erdogan had imposed his will on Turkey’s weakened military, which in the past would have resisted his order to cancel the exercises. Meanwhile, Ofra Bangio, a Turkey expert at Tel Aviv University, told the Christian Science Monitor that Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy calculations were shifting as it strengthened its ties with Iraq, Syria and other leading Arab world countries and turned away from an unwelcoming European Union. “In Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s ideological framework, Israel doesn’t play a central role,” Bengio said.

A senior Israeli foreign ministry official, speaking to the Haaretz newspaper after an emergency meeting to discuss the crisis with Turkey, was even more pessimistic. “It may be that the reality has changed and that the strategic ties we thought existed have simply ended,” the official said. “Maybe we need to be the ones who initiate renewed thinking regarding our ties and must adopt response measures.”

On this analysis, Israel’s relationship with Turkey, valuable for so many reasons, may soon be a thing of the past – an avoidable outcome since the analysis looks fundamentally flawed. They’re not pretending; Turks really are upset about Gaza, as indicated by a much-watched Turkish television drama series depicting clashes between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians that has further inflamed relations. The Turkish public was scandalised by January’s events and Turkey’s politicians have reacted accordingly, as politicians do.

But among Israeli leaders, the perception is different. Gaza, a justifiable action, cannot be accepted as the real reason for the row; so ulterior motives and complicated explanations are sought. Inhabiting a parallel world, they just don’t get it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/22/israel-turkey-goldstone-gaza

Time and again, US backs Israel

by Linda Heard

20th October, 2009

Imagine that heavily-armed neighbourhood thieves break into your house, steal your property and shoot a family member. Naturally, you would call law enforcement. You know the names of the criminals and expect the police to arrest them. But what if the police hear the murderers’ names, look embarrassed, shrug their shoulders, say ‘sorry, can’t help you,’ and simply walk away?

Imagine that you complain to the chief of police, who is sympathetic at first, but quickly shoos you away when you told him who the perpetrators are. Imagine that the courts, government and international bodies were all determined to protect your attackers even if this meant throwing you to the wolves. You would think the world had gone howling mad, wouldn’t you?

Surely, nobody on earth has immunity from justice. Encouraged by the lack of come-back, imagine that the villains return again and again while all purported defenders of justice continue to turn a blind eye. What would you do? What could you do?

The above scenario may sound outrageous but this has been the essential plight of the Palestinian people for over six decades. They have been forced to remain silent while their lands have been robbed, their olive groves destroyed, their dignity trampled on, their homes demolished or bombed, their freedom to travel denied, their children locked-up and their lives imperiled.

Yet each time they have sought justice or recompense through recognised international legal channels, the door has been firmly barred. And when in utter frustration they have attempted to take justice into their own hands — which, by the way, international law deems their right as a people under occupation — they have been labelled ‘terrorist’.

Time and again, they have cried out to the international community for help to no avail. That isn’t to say that the majority of the world’s nations approve of Israel’s actions. If it was up to the UN General Assembly Israel would have received its come-uppance a long time ago and there would be a state called Palestine in existence today.

But, unfortunately, the UN’s power rests in the hands of a few major powers that hold a power of veto. Shamefully, one veto-holder in particular, the US, is committed to protecting Israel’s interests unconditionally, irrespective of the rights or wrongs, and bludgeons its allies to support its stance.

I’m sure you already know about the dozens of non-binding UN Resolutions upholding Palestinian rights that Israel has studiously ignored along with the judgment of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which characterised Israel’s apartheid ‘fence’ illegal. And you are probably aware that Britain has been tipping-off alleged Israeli war criminals concerning their imminent arrest should they land on British soil.

It seems to me shocking that the very countries that place themselves on a pedestal of human rights and wag their fingers at others for not coming up to scratch, behave like the three not-so-wise monkeys when Israel is involved.

Still not convinced? Last Friday, the UN Human Rights Council voted to affirm a Gaza war crimes report compiled by their own investigators, led by a self-ascribed Zionist and Israel-supporter South African judge Richard Goldstone. The resolution was overwhelmingly approved with 25 in favour, six against and 11 abstentions.

Only two permanent members of the UN Security Council voted ‘yes’ — China and Russia. It goes without saying that the US voted against, while Britain and France chose the road of cowardice by not registering any vote only to be condemned by Israel for not voting against.

By logical progression, the draft resolution calling upon “all concerned parties including United Nations bodies” to ensure the implementation of recommendations in the report, should now be endorsed by the Security Council. Those recommendations include the referral of Israel and Hamas to the International Criminal Court in The Hague in the event the parties fail to conduct open and credible investigation within a six-month period.

To the ears of any fair-minded person, this procedure will surely sound fair and reasonable. Both the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas have welcomed the endorsement, but, predictably, Israel once again cries foul. It calls the resolution terrorist-supporting and threatens to bury the peace process. And we thought it was already dead and buried!

Tragically, the Goldstone report is destined to be buried too. Washington will attempt to keep the resolution out of the Security Council, failing which, if push comes to shove, the US will use its veto.

But all is not lost. The report has placed Israel’s crimes under a magnifying glass and Israelis are debating on the worldwide wind of change that is slowly eroding their de facto immunity status. Moreover, if the US is forced to wave its power of veto, thus negating the value of a serious investigation, it will face the loss of any smidgeon of credibility it still retains as an honest broker in the conflict.

Such a move would also embarrass Nobel’s latest peace prize recipient President Barack Obama. Indeed, following America’s ‘nay’ vote on Friday, the President of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights Michael Ratner called the peace prize winner’s “protection of a state that has committed war crimes” an “abomination”. Bravo to that!

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/time-and-again-us-backs-israel-1.516709

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com. Some comments may be considered for publication. ]]> http://completemalaysia.com/wp/time-and-again-us-backs-israel/feed/ 0 http://completemalaysia.com/wp/tide-is-turning-against-israel/ http://completemalaysia.com/wp/tide-is-turning-against-israel/#comments Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:00:49 +0000 azrabanu http://completemalaysia.com/wp/?p=760 Tide is turning against Israel
Linda Heard

Tuesday 20 October 2009

Now even the United Nations Human Rights Council is “anti-Semitic.” Well, that’s the view of Israel’s Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, who is outraged that the body rubber-stamped the Goldstone Report on war crimes committed in Gaza. Some years ago, that accusation would have had enormous shock-value, whereas, nowadays, the label has been so propagandized the only thing it elicits is a yawn.

Anti-Semitism is a genuine scourge on humankind in the same that racism and bigotry are and should be eradicated, but Israel is in danger of devaluing the term by attaching it to anyone who doesn’t agree with its policies. Moreover, when used loosely as an insult, it doesn’t help Israel’s cause or standing in the world.

On the contrary, terming “anti-Semitic” the 25 member states that voted to back the report’s recommendations, last Friday, will make them even more determined to see Israel before the International Criminal Court. And it is worth remembering that two, Russia and China, hold veto-power in the UN Security Council.

When Israeli officials have to resort to name-calling and evocation of the Holocaust as Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently did during an address to the UN General Assembly, it signifies that they are losing the argument.

It seems that Ha’aretz columnist Gideon Levy is of like mind. Netanyahu “cheapened the memory of the Holocaust in his speech to the UN General Assembly…” he wrote. “He did so twice. Once, when he brandished proof of the very existence of the Holocaust, as if it needed any, and again when he compared Hamas to the Nazis.”

According to the Israelis, anti-Semites are lurking everywhere. In 2002, Netanyahu — then Israel’s foreign minister — accused Belgium of “anti-Semitism” and “blood-libel” when the Belgian Supreme Court ruled that members of Israel’s military were open to prosecution for the 1982 Sabra and Shatilla massacres.

Netanyahu called this “an outrageous decision” that “reminds us of ‘Old Europe’ and all its sicknesses,” even though an Israeli commission found then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible.

In 2004, the Israeli government wrote to the BBC accusing its Middle East correspondent Orla Guerin of “anti-Semitism” and “total identification with the goals and methods of Palestinian terror groups” following a boycott of the BBC for broadcasting a documentary on Israel’s weapons of mass destruction. That same year, Israel handed British news outlets dossiers it had compiled on the anti-Semitic leanings of various reporters.

More recently, Sweden was accused of “blood-libel” for refusing to condemn a newspaper story concerning the theft of Palestinian organs by Israeli soldiers. Up popped Yuval Steinitz again to announce that “the Swedish government cannot keep silent any longer. In the Middle Ages, slander was spread accusing Jews of preparing Passover matza (unleavened loaves) with the blood of Christian children.”

Last September, Israel’s ambassador to Spain Raphael Schutz urged the Spanish government to control “anti-Semitic attacks” from Spanish leftists and intellectuals. Anti-Semitism in Spain has reached intolerable levels and was “rampant” among the general public, he said, but was ‘kind’ enough to add ‘the Spanish government is not always anti-Semitic.”

Even US presidents haven’t escaped Israel’s regular “anti-Semitic” lashings. In June this year, head of Israel’s National Union Party Yaakov Katz blasted “the Obama-Clinton ‘no natural growth policy’ for 650,000 Jews in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem,” as “nothing less than anti-Semitism.”

Israel’s Science and Technology Minister Daniel Herschkowitz also rejects President Obama’s settlement freeze, and characterizes his decision to grant the Presidential Medal of Freedom to former UN Rights Commissioner and President of Ireland Mary Robinson as “borderline anti-Semitic”; a ridiculous view that was heartily echoed by AIPAC.

Earlier, former US President Jimmy Carter was branded with the “anti-Semitic” slur for his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” Ironic, when, arguably he did more than any US leader to broker regional peace.

It’s time that the international community got together to tell Israel to quit such undeserved attacks on its leaders and institutions. The Israeli government and press need to be told “that dog will no longer hunt.”

If Israel wants its arguments to be heard it needs to make them without such knee-jerk abuse, based on the long-time illusion of Israel’s victim status. The fact is that Israel is far from being a victim today.

Unconditionally protected by the superpower, it is the only state on earth that is allowed to get away with a policy of so-called nuclear ambiguity and given a free pass to snub international court rulings, UN Security Council resolutions, international law and the Geneva Conventions without fear of repercussions.

Poor little Israel surrounded by hostile Arab nations that do not want peace no longer exists. Every Arab country — along with all-important Palestinian factions — is more than ready to take a place at the negotiating table. It is Israel that is reluctant to trade land for peace and normalization of relations with its neighbors, and now threatens the Palestinian National Authority with an end to the peace process due to its support of the Goldstone Report and UNHRC vote. What peace process? Exactly!

Instead of flaying around with accusations, insults and threats, Israel would be far better served answering the report’s allegations. Did its military use Palestinian civilians as human shields? Were Palestinian infrastructure, factories and homes wantonly destroyed? Were weapons such as white phosphorous or DIME bombs used illegally in heavily populated areas? Were UN facilities and ambulances wrongly targeted under the pretext they harbored militants?

These and more are the questions that need answering, not because the world illogically detests the Jewish state but because it is a militarily powerful occupier and aggressor that is holding 4.5 million Palestinians hostage.

The resolution, which is now set to be debated in the UN Security Council, merely calls upon Israel and Hamas to conduct open and credible investigations into the report’s allegations within six months, else be referred to the International Criminal Court. It applies to both sides. But, whereas, Israel vehemently rejects it, both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas welcome it.

In reality, the resolution will not be passed by the UN Security Council because Washington will use its veto, but it does shine a spotlight on Israel’s crimes. When former Israeli prime minister gave a speech at the University of Chicago, last Thursday, he was interrupted by calls of “war criminal.”

At the same time, six Norwegian lawyers are petitioning the chief prosecutor to extradite and arrest Ehud Olmert, former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and seven senior IDF officers for war crimes. Are those lawyers anti-Semitic or simply human beings with hearts and a moral conscience sick of seeing images of dead Palestinian babies on their screens? You decide.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=127579&d=20&m=10&y=2009

By JOHN V. WHITBECK

In a commentary published in the Arab News (Jeddah) on October 17, the British journalist Neil Berry focuses on a reality which is rarely mentioned in polite society: that Zionism is, and has always been, an anti-Semite’s dream come true, offering the hope that one’s own country’s Jews can be induced to leave and move elsewhere.

Berry writes: “The imperious British statesman, A.J. Balfour, who gave his name to the declaration, was an earnest supporter of the 1905 Alien Act, which was specifically designed to stem the inflow into Britain of Jews who were fleeing from persecution in czarist Russia. A century ago, immigrant Jews were seen by many, much as Muslims are now, as subversive intruders menacing the British way of life…. Zionism and anti-Semitism became inextricably bound up with one another.”

Citing a better-known cause for the enduring shame of Western states, Berry continues: “In the aftermath of the liquidation by the Nazis of some 6 million Jews during World War II, the United States, Australia and Canada, brushing aside Arab pleas to treat displaced Jews as a challenge for the whole world, refused to relax their immigration restrictions, thereby ensuring that the great majority of them poured into Palestine, even though many would have preferred to settle elsewhere…. It was with shrewd foresight that Herzl predicted that anti-Semitism would become Zionism’s greatest ally.”

Western governments which, today, are not anti-Semitic should, rather than feeding justice, human decency and international law into a shredder through blind subservience to a racial-supremicist, settler-colonial experiment (and thereby earning themselves the hatred of much of mankind), be opening their doors wide to any and all Israeli Jews who might be tempted to build a new and better life for themselves and their children, with less injustice and less insecurity, by returning to their countries of origin or emigrating to other countries of their choice, offering them immediate residency rights, generous resettlement assistance and a rapid road to citizenship (if they do not already have it).

Such “Laws of Return” would be profoundly philo-Semitic, pro-Jewish and, yes, anti-Zionist. They would reflect a moral, ethical and self-interested recognition that Zionism, like certain other prominent 20th century “isms” which once captured the imaginations of millions, was a tragically bad idea — not simply for those innocents caught and trampled in its path but also for those who embraced it — which is unsustainable, which does not deserve to be sustained and which has already caused (and, if perpetuated, will continue to cause) profound problems for the Western world and the Western world’s relations with the rest of the world.

Democracy and equal rights in a unitary state in the land which, until 1948, was called Palestine, coupled with freedom of choice (with attractive choices for resettlement being generously provided) for those who would prefer not to live in such a state, would offer a far greater hope for eventual peace in the Middle East than continued cyncical recycling of a partition-based “peace process” which is now widely recognized to be both a fraud and a farce and which, even if “successful”, would simply legitimize, reward and perpetuate ethnic cleansing, racism and apartheid — scarcely a recipe for lasting peace, let alone for any measure of justice.

If Western politicians cared more about the welfare and happiness of individual Jewish human beings than they do about the money and ability to hurt them of a few wealthy and powerful Zionists, most of whom live comfortably and safely far from the Middle East, democracy, equal rights and freedom of choice, all principles to which Western states profess devotion, might actually come to the “Holy Land”.

Politicians being what they are, civil society will have to take the lead in delegitimizing Zionism and pointing the way toward a better future for all concerned — and, like it or not, everyone on this planet is concerned.

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitbeck10192009.html

John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel, is author of “The World According to Whitbeck”.

(Beberapa noktah penting dan pengajaran)

Bulan ini genaplah ulang tahun Perang Oktober 1973 yang ke 36. Peperangan yang bermula pada 6 hingga 24 Oktober ini mempunyai implikasi yang sangat besar. Perang yang juga dikenali sebagai perang Ramadhan kerana bermula pada 10 Ramadhan dan Perang Yom Kippur kerana jatuh pada hari kebesaran orang Yahudi ini telah merubah lanskap politik timur tengah seperti hari ini.

Peperangan ini adalah sebahagian dari usaha Mesir dan Syria untuk merebut kembali wilayah mereka yang dijajah oleh Israel dalam Perang enam hari pada tahun 1967 iaitu Semenanjung Sinai dan Tanah Tinggi Golan. Perang 6 hari juga menyebabkan Jalur Gaza, Baitul Makdis timur dan Tebing Barat di kuasai oleh Israel sepenuhnya. Mengambil peluang dari Hari kebesaran orang Yahudi iaitu Yom Kippur, di mana sebahagian besar tentera Israel sedang bercuti, Mesir telah mengatur serangan mengejut. Keupayaan tentera Mesir untuk menembusi garisan Barlev yang dianggap kebal oleh pertahanan Israel benar-benar menjadi kejutan. Di masa yang sama tentera Syria megambil semula sebahagian dari Tanah tinggi Golan yang dikuasai Israel. Kejayaan tentera Mesir dan Syria tidak kekal lama kerana mereka terpaksa berundur ekoran serangan balas oleh Israel. Bahkan ketumbukan tentera ke tiga Mesir terkepung sepenuhnya dan bakal menghadapi kemusnahan. Israel juga mengalami kemusnahan yang besar dengan hampir 3,000 tenteranya terbunuh dan 9,000 mengalami kecederaan. Buat pertama kalinya di dalam sejarah Israel menerima hakikat bahawa ia sedang menghadapi satu peperangan yang sebenar, sedangkan konflik yang berlaku dengan negara-negara Arab sebelumnya hanyalah sebuah pertempuran. Di samping itu hampir 500 kereta kebal dan 200 pesawat udara tentera Israel berjaya dimusnahkan oleh tentera Mesir dan Syria. Mesir dan Syria menerima kemusnahan yang jauh lebih besar, namun kejayaan pada peringkat awal peperangan memberi satu suntikan kepada seluruh dunia Arab dan negara Islam terhadap kemampuan berhadapan dengan regim Zionis di medan peperangan.

Amerika Syarikat telah bersetuju sepenuhnya di dalam Majlis Keselamatan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu supaya resolusi 338 dilaksanakan iaitu gencatan senjata di antara kedua pihak. Ini adalah suatu yang jarang berlaku kerana Amerika telah terbukti sepanjang konflik timur tengah tidak akan memihak kepada keputusan Majlis Keselamatan atau Persidangan Agung PBB jika ia dilihat merugikan Israel. Bahkan acapkali AS akan menggunakan kuasa vetonya untuk membatalkan mana-mana resolusi yang diputuskan jika dianggap tidak memenuhi kepentingan strategik Israel. Dalam Perang Oktober 1973, AS mengambil pendirian yang sebaliknya. Ini ada berdasarkan kepada congakan bahawa Israel mungkin mengalami kekalahan dan terpaksa membuat beberapa konsesi yang menjejas kelangsungan negara zionis tersebut. Gencatan senjata ini bagaimanapun dicabuli oleh Israel yang terus mara sehingga ke Terusan Suez. Ini memaksa Majlis Keselamatan bersidang sehari selepas Resolusi 338 diluluskan. Resolusi 339 diluluskan untuk menguatkuasakan Resolusi 338. Motif sebenar Amerika terbongkar apabila pada 18 Oktober Presiden Nixon meluluskan peruntukan senjata tambahan kepada Israel disamping bantuan kewangan sebanyak USD 2.2 bilion. Keadaan ini telah menyebabkan Arab Saudi melakukan reaksi balas dengan mengurangkan pengeluaran petroluem sebanyak 5% sebulan kepada AS. Embargo ini kemudiannya di lanjutkan ke atas Netherland dan negara-negara lain mencetuskan krisis tenaga pada tahun 1973 yang menyaksikan ekonomi Amerika terjejas teruk. Ini adalah satu contoh bahawa negara-negara Arab mampu untuk menggunakan kuasa petrodollar untuk mencabar hegemoni politik AS di timur tengah.

Di masa yang sama AS telah menggunakan sitiasi perang Oktober untuk menghapuskan ancaman Mesir ke atas Israel. Oleh kerana objektif Mesir ialah untuk mendapatkan semula Semenanjung Sinai yang dikuasai oleh Israel, AS telah menjadikan ia sebagai umpan supaya Mesir bersetuju untuk berdamai dengan Israel. Presiden Sadat telah menyatakan persetujuannya untuk datang ke Baitul Maqdis dan mencari jalan perdamaian. Kehadiran Presiden Sadat ke Baitul Maqdis yang dikuasai Israel adalah satu isyarat pengiktirafan ke atas negara haram Israel. Perdana Menteri Israel, Menachem Begin telah mengambil peluang ini untuk memalukan Sadat dengan menyebut di dalam ucapannya mengalu-alukan kedatangan Sadat ke Baitul Makdis, ibu negara Israel ’yang abadi’. Ucapan ini adalah merupakan satu tamparan kepada perjuangan pembebasan Masjid al-Aqsa dan bumi Palestin. Ia adalah sesuatu yang mencalar maruah dunia Islam seluruhnya. Hasil dari rundingan diplomatik di antara Mesir dan Israel yang di’broker’ oleh AS akhirnya membuahkan Perjanjian Camp David pada tahun 1978. Perjanjian ini telah mengeluarkan Mesir dari persamaan (equation) yang menentukan hala tuju konflik di Timur Tengah khususnya yang berkaitan dengan pembebasan Bumi Palestin. Sehingga hari ini Mesir adalah terikat dengan perjanjian untuk tidak menjejaskan keselamatan Israel. Tindakan Mesir pada hari ini yang menutup sempadan di Rafah dan tidak membenarkan bantuan menyeberang ke Gaza yang dikepung Israel, bahkan menghalang rakyat Gaza masuk ke Mesir untuk mendapat rawatan adalah sebahagian dari memenuhi syarat Perjanjian Camp David tersebut.

6 Oktober adalah satu tarikh penting sehingga Mesir dan Syria memilihnya sebagai tarikh untuk menyambut hari kebangsaan kedua negara. Mesir turut memilih 6 Oktober sebagai hari angkatan Tentera Mesir. Pada 6 Oktober 1981, dalam perbarisan tentera sempena ulang tahun perang Oktober, Presiden Sadat mati ditembak kerana tindakannya berdamai dengan Israel dan mengiktiraf entiti haram tersebut dianggap suatu pengkhianatan kepada umat Islam dan agamanya.

Prof Madya Dr Hafidzi Mohd Noor

Pengarah

PACE (Palestine Centre of Excellence)

Israel Kidnaps Peace Boat Crew

On June 30, the government of Israel committed an act of piracy when the Israeli Navy in international waters illegally boarded the “Spirit of Humanity,” kidnapped its 21-person crew from 11 countries, including former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and Nobel Laureate Mairead MaGuire, and confiscated the cargo of medical supplies, olive trees, reconstruction materials, and children’s toys that were on the way to the Mediterranean coast of Gaza. The “Spirit of Humanity,” along with the kidnapped 21 persons, is being towed to Israel as I write.

Gaza has been described as the “world’s largest concentration camp.” It is home to 1.5 million Palestinians who were driven by force of American-supplied Israeli arms out of their homes, off their farms, and out of their villages so that Israel could steal their land and make the Palestinian land available to Israeli settlers.

What we have been witnessing for 60 years is a replay in modern times, despite the United Nations and laws strictly preventing Israel’s theft of Palestine, of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century theft of American Indian lands by US settlers. An Israeli government spokesman recently rebuked the President of the United States, a country, the Israeli said, who stole all of its land from Indians, for complaining about Israel’s theft of Palestine.

I knew the “Spirit of Humanity” would fall to Israeli piracy the minute I received on June 25 from an official of an Israeli peace organization a “public advisory” that the government of Cyprus had withheld permission for the “Spirit of Humanity” to leave for Gaza. The US State Department had advised that “The Israeli Foreign Ministry informed U.S. officials at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israel still considers Gaza an area of conflict and that any boats attempting to sail to Gaza will not be permitted to reach its destination.” The “Spirit of Humanity” obtained permission to leave Cyprus when all aboard signed a waiver absolving Cyprus of all responsibility for the crew’s safety at the hands of the Israelis.

As President Obama has called for humanitarian aid to be sent to Gaza, and as the International Red Cross has damned the inhumanity of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the question that immediately comes to mind is why did not the United States send sufficient US Navy escort to see the “Spirit of Humanity” safely through international waters to Gaza? We send ships against Somalian pirates, why not against Israeli ones?

We all know the answer. The US talks a good “human rights” game, but never delivers–especially if the human rights abuser is Israel. After all, Israel owns the US Congress and President Obama. Israel even has an Israeli citizen and former member of the Israeli Defense Forces as the Chief-of-Staff in Obama’s White House. Israel owns millions of American “Christian Zionists” and “rapture evangelicans.” When it comes to Israel, the American government is a puppet state. It does what it is told.

Macho Americans might stand tall, but not when Israel snaps its fingers.

Israel, of course, will get away with a mere act of piracy. After all, Israel has been getting away with its war crimes and violations of international law for 60 years. If the UN tries to do anything, the US will veto it, as the US has done for decades.

What will happen to the kidnapped foreign nationals? Most likely they will be released and sent back to their respective countries. Israel, of course, will keep the stolen “Spirit of Humanity” to foreclose any further attempts by human rights activists to run Israel’s inhumane blockade of Gaza.

On the other hand, Israel might declare its captives to be terrorists on the ground that the Gazans elected in a free election Hamas as their government. Hamas, unlike Israel, is declared to be a terrorist organization by the puppet American State Department in Washington. Thus the human rights activists onboard the “Spirit of Humanity” are aiding and abetting terrorists by delivering goods to them. The US Department of Justice (sic) prosecutes American citizens and charities for sending aid to Palestinians on the grounds that Palestinians, if not everyone a terrorist, are governed by terrorists.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a Nobel Laureate and a former member of the US House of Representatives, along with the rest of the crew, are handed over to the Americans for indefinite detention and for torturing and waterboarding in the American torture facility at Bagram. I am certain that “Homeland Security” and the US Government are desperate to be rid of all of critics, and knocking off a Nobel Laureate and a member of the House sets a precedent for getting rid of the rest of us.

Meanwhile, California, which has become a failed state, has been denied bailout money from Washington. Israel, which has been a failed state for 60 years, can, unlike the American state of California, always count of Washington to deliver the money and the weapons to keep Israel going.

The same week that “our” government in Washington told the Governor of California “not one red cent,” President Barak Obama handed over $2.775 billion to Israel.

Online Journal (June 29) reported that the handover to Israel of the unemployed Americans’ tax dollars took place in a “tiny Capitol room” to which members of the press were denied access. I mean, really, who wants the media writing about US taxpayer dollars for Israel’s nuclear weapons while Americans are being kicked out of their homes. Not that, of course, the “Christian” supporters of Israel would mind.

Unlike every other recipient of US military largesse, Israel is permitted to bypass the Pentagon and to deal directly with US suppliers. Consequently, the Israel Lobby’s influence multiplies, because military suppliers fight for Israel in congressional committees in order to get Israel’s business. This lets Israel turn the screws on Iran. According to Grant F. Smith writing in Online Journal, Republican US Representative Mark Steven from Illinois has received $221,000 in campaign contributions from Israel political action committees (PACs). Therefore, it was a sure thing that he would introduce legislation preventing the Import-Export bank from providing loan guarantees to countries doing business with Iran.

Americans think that they are a superpower, but in fact they are a stupor-power. A puppet state if truth be known.

There is a great deal of evidence (see Jonathan Cook’s excellent piece on the CounterPunch site yesterday) that Israel is a child abuser. “God’s Chosen People” routinely abuses captured Palestinian children. The Israelis also abuse Palestinian children by shooting them down in the streets.

Don’t take my word for it. The Geneva-based Defense for Children International says, according to Time Magazine, that “the ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian child prisoners appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized, suggesting complicity at all levels of the political and military chain of command.”

According to Time Magazine, “Often, children suffer lasting traumas from jail. Says Saleh Nazzal from the Palestinian Ministry of Prisoner Affairs, ‘When soldiers burst into a house and drag away a child, he loses his feeling of being protected by his family. He comes back from prison alienated from his family, his friends. They don’t like going back to school or even leaving the house. They start wetting their beds.’ Says Mona Zaghrout, a YMCA counselor who helps kids returning from prison: ‘They come out of prison thinking and acting like they are men. Their childhood is gone.’ And they often turn to another father figure–the armed militant groups fighting the Israeli occupation.’”

And so it goes. There’s no money for California, or for Americans’ health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it. Israel needs Americans’ taxpayers money so that it can create even more enemies, and, therefore, needs more American money to spend with the American armament industries to oppress more Palestinians and to make more enemies, requiring more American money to protect Israel from its folly and its evil.

And the brainwashed American public goes along year after year.

Paul Craig Roberts is an economist who served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the “Father of Reaganomics”. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy: The Collapse of the Socialist Era and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.