Tag Archives: Zionism

Posted on by

Bernard-Henry Levy; the Ugly Jew.

Sami Jamil Jadallah
Sami Jamil Jadallah

Sami Jamil Jadallah

There are hundreds if not thousands of “Jews” who enriched our lives and that of humanity with their talented contributions to the arts, to the literature, to music, to cinema, to science, to medicine, to physics, to sociology and psychology, to freedoms, to civil rights and liberties and law, Bernard-Henry Levy is not one of them. he is full of it.

At the recent Cannes Film Festival, Bernard –Henry Levy who thinks of himself as modern day Voltaire and was able to get the French media to proclaim him as the “philosopher” of France, was on one his many ego trips, presented his own documentary about the Libyan revolution “ Le Serment de Tobrouk” or “ The Oath of Tobruk” narrated, directed by himself and of course were he was the central figure of the documentary, dashing in the desert with his crisp summer suit, a modern day Lawrence. Continue reading →

Posted on by

Günter the Terrible

Uri Avnery

Uri Avnery

STOP ME if I have told you this joke before:

Somewhere in the US, a demonstration takes place. The police arrive and beat the protesters mercilessly.

“Don’t hit me,” someone shouts, “I am an anti-communist!”

“I couldn’t give a damn what kind of a communist you are!” a policeman answers as he raises his baton.

THE FIRST time I told this joke was when a German group visited the Knesset and met with German-born members, including me.

They went out of their way to praise Israel, lauding everything we had been doing, condemning every bit of criticism, however harmless it might be. It became downright embarrassing, since some of us in the Knesset were very critical of our government’s policy in the occupied territories. Continue reading →

Posted on by

The Zionist cuckoos in Christianity’s nest

Stuart Littlewood
Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

If you are as puzzled as I am how a true Christian could possibly be taken in by Zionism, a short paper on the phenomenon is available from Sadaka.

“The destiny of the Jewish people is to return to the land of Israel and reclaim their inheritance promised to Abraham and his descendants forever. This inheritance extends from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. Within their land, Jerusalem is recognised to be their exclusive, undivided and eternal capital, and therefore it cannot be shared or divided.


At the heart of Jerusalem will be the rebuilt Jewish temple, to which all the nations will come to worship God. Just prior to the return of Jesus, there will be seven years of calamities and war known as the tribulation, which will culminate in a great battle called Armageddon, during which the godless forces opposed to both God and Israel will be defeated.


Jesus will then return as the Jewish Messiah and king to reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years, and the Jewish people will enjoy a privileged status and role in the world.” Continue reading →

Posted on by

Two Front International Struggle For Palestine

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Part I – Two Fronts

In January 2011, I wrote an analysis in support of a one-state solution to the on-going Israeli-Palestinian struggle. It is the Israelis themselves who have made the one-state solution the only practicable approach, because their incessant and illegal colonization of the West Bank has simply eliminated all possibility of a viable and truly independentPalestinian state. Israeli behavior has not changed in the past year and so I still stand by the position.
Continue reading →

Posted on by

Minister listens

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

Playground bullying of Palestine and Iran must stop…

Stuart Littlewood

Last Friday I had a 2-hour meeting with my MP Henry Bellingham, who is a minister in the Foreign Office. We spent much of the time discussing the Palestinian statehood question and the absurd sabre-rattling against Iran.

Mr Bellingham listened politely, saying he was more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than some within the Government. He also agreed that the best way to influence Iran was to resume trade. Continue reading →

Posted on by

Murky Anti-Semitism (Zionist Style)

Israeli Pirate Flag Silwan - (June 26 2010, Rebecca Fudala)

Israeli Pirate Flag Silwan - (June 26 2010, Rebecca Fudala)An Analysis-  by Lawrence Davidson

Part I – Stretching the Definition of Anti-Semitism

Can criticism of Israel, particularly a) criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people and b) criticism of the state ideology of Zionism that justifies that treatment, be labeled anti-Semitic? This is not a hypothetical query. An affirmative answer to this question is being advocated by influential Zionist lobbies in the United States. The question is of particular importance on the nation’s college and university campuses. In places like the University of California at Berkeley and Santa Cruz, and also at Rutgers University in New Jersey, Zionist students are now threatening to sue these institutions for failing to prevent an “atmosphere of anti-Semitic bigotry” allegedly created by the presence of pro-Palestinian student groups and faculty.

One might ask if it isn’t a stretch to assert that protesting Israeli and Zionist behavior is the same as anti-Semitism? Common sense certainly tells us this is so. Unfortunately, we are not dealing with situations that are ruled by common sense. What we are facing here is the issue of ideologues bred to a specific perceptual paradigm and their insistence that others conform to it.

Here is an example: Take an American kid from a self-conscious Jewish home. This kid does not represent all American Jewish youth, but does typify say 20% of them. He or she is taught about the religion and also taught about recent history and the near annihilation of the Jews of Europe. He or she is sent to Hebrew school, and maybe a yeshiva school as well. Most of our hypothetical student’s friends will be Jewish and of similar background. Between home, friends and school the student might well find him or herself in something of a closed universe. Throughout this educational process Judaism and its fate in the modern world is connected with Israel and its survival. The Arabs, and particularly the Palestinians, are transformed into latter day Nazis. In addition, Israel’s state ideology of Zionism becomes assimilated into the credos of the religion. Soon our hypothetical student cannot tell the difference between the two. Then, having come of age, our student goes off to college or university. Now he or she is no longer in a closed world. The result can be culture shock and an uncomfortable feeling that the student is on a campus where vocal and assertive debate about Israel and its behavior sounds like an attack on the Jewish religion. Our student complains to the ZOA, Hillel, AIPAC, or some similar organization and we are off down a road toward censorship and/or litigation. Lawsuits are lodged (particularly if the ZOA is involved), donors swear that they will no longer support the institution, legislators bang on desks at the state capital, and boards of directors want to know what is going on and what the institution’s president is going to do about it?

Part II – Sweet Reason

There have been a number of efforts to try to use sweet reason to work out some of these problems before they get too explosive. For instance, in 2006 there was concern over the efforts of various pro-Palestinian campus groups to promote an academic boycott of Israel. Is this being anti-Semitic? Should campuses allow this to be advocated? After all those who espouse academic boycott have a good deal of evidence of criminal activities on the part of the Israeli Universities. At that time the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) sought to clarify the issues by arranging a roundtable discussion on academic boycott by those who stood pro and con. This sounded like a good idea. But no, the Zionist side did not like the list of discussants on the pro side and tried to censor the list. The AAUP resisted that move, so the Zionist side pressured the donors subsidizing the proposed roundtable to pull their support. The whole thing collapsed. It seemed the Zionists were not going to discuss the topic except on their own terms.

Just recently there has been similar attempt at sweet reason. A heated debate is now taking place over whether Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which bars federal funds from institutions that discriminate) can be applied to schools that allow criticism of Israel which the Zionists claim is anti-Semitic. If so, those same Zionists, whose influence is strong in Congress, can use Title VI as a club to threaten colleges and universities with the loss of financial support unless they shut down the criticism. This, of course, equates to censorship and an attack on free speech.

Once more the AAUP, which opposes the use of Title VI in such situations, approached the American Zionists in an effort to find a compromise position. Professor Cary Nelson, head of the AAUP, managed to enter into negotiations with Kenneth Stern, the “anti-Semitism expert” of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). The two of them worked out a common position which, after consultation with others in each organization, was signed and released to the public. What did this document say? For our needs, here are its most important points:

1. Title VI is not an appropriate instrument to use when trying to “protect” Jewish students from “anti-Israel events, statements and speakers.” To use Title VI this way amounts to censorship.

2. Question: How do we know what is going on at a college or university campus is anti-Semitism? Answer: “Six years ago the European monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) created a working definition of anti-Semitism….while clearly stating that criticism of Israel in the main is not anti-Semitic, [it] gives some examples of when anti-Semitism may come into play, such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the acts of the Israeli state, comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, or denying to Jews the right of self-determination (such as by claiming that Zionism is racism). In recent years the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have embraced this definition too. It is entirely proper for university administrators, scholars and students to reference the working definition in identifying definite or possible instances of anti-Semitism on campus.”
3. Conclusion: Censorship should be avoided, Title VI should be avoided, but the “working definition” should be used to make judgments as to how best to “wrestle with ideas” while at the same time “combating bigotry.”

This letter was signed by both Cary Nelson as President of the AAUP and Kenneth Stern as the Director of the anti-Semitism and extremism sub-division of the AJC. Released in early August 2011, it took only a few days before it was repudiated by the AJC. On 9 August David Harris, President of the American Jewish Committee, “apologized” for the joint declaration, said it was “ill advised” and blamed a breakdown in the AJC’s “system of checks and balances” for the slip up. Kenneth Stern is now on an unscheduled sabbatical and can not be reached for comment.

This is, of course, a replay of the 2006 situation and just goes to show that, it is the hard right ideologues who are in charge on the Zionist side. These people have a worldview that allows for no compromise. Censorship is exactly what they want and Title VI is as good a weapon to wield as any. What could Kenneth Stern possibly have been thinking? There is no room for sweet reason here.

Part III – The AAUP Makes a Mistake

This is not the end of the story. There is something wrong with the fact that the AAUP was so quick to endorse the EUMC working definition of anti-Semitism (a definition, by the way, that Kenneth Stern had a hand in writing). Consider these two statements from the above AAUP-AJC declaration each of which, according to the “working definition,” can be seen as anti-Semitic: 1) “holding Jews collectively responsible for the acts of the Israeli state” and 2) “denying to Jews the right of self-determination (such as by claiming that Zionism is racism).” As we are about to see the first statement has hidden facets to it and the second defies historical reality.

Statement 1:

It is absolutely the case that the Jews should not be held collectively responsible for the actions of Israel. But it should be pointed out that it is just such collective responsibility that Zionists insist upon. Zionist ideology demands that Israel be recognized as representing world Jewry. Zionists expect that, in return, all Jews will identify with and actively support Israel–feel one with the “Jewish state.” They classify those Jews who do not recognize their collective responsibility to Israel as somehow deficient or perhaps “self-hating” Jews. So let us get this straight, if holding Jews collectively responsible for the acts of Israel is anti-Semitic, what does that make the Zionists?

Statement 2:

a. That Jews have some sort of natural right to political self-determination is highly questionable. How about Protestants, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, ad infinitum? Just how far do we want to push this claim of political self-determination for religious faiths? Oh, but the Zionists insist that Jews are not just adherents to a particular faith–they are a “people.” Well, for sure that is an opinion. It just doesn’t happen to be the opinion of millions of other Jews who see Judaism as a religion pure and simple. Of course, if the latter are vocal about this they run the risk of being labeled “self-hating.”

b. And who, except of course the Zionists, says that Zionism is a desirable vehicle for the expression of this alleged right of self-determination? Let us face it. Israel and its Zionist ideology were born of the will of a small minority of Jews, almost exclusively from Central and Eastern Europe, most of whom were secularists, and almost all of whom carried within their heads the poisoned perceptions of European imperialist bigotry – an outlook which still characterizes the state they set up. That is why, in practice, Zionism has resulted in a prima facie racist environment in Israel. And now we are told that, according to the “working definition,” pointing out the link between Zionism and racism is an act of anti-Semitism!

Given this close reading of parts of the “working definition,” the AAUP really ought to rethink its apparent support of the document. It is a position that can only give impetus to the very censorship the AAUP dreads.

Part IV – Conclusion

One has come to expect twisted logic from the Zionists. Actually, one can expect this sort of thinking from any band of ideologues. Their blinkered vision, incapable of seeing around the corners of their prejudices, guarantees that most of what comes out of their mouths and their pens is sophistry.

However, what is one to do when folks you count on as rational and careful thinkers, like the leadership of the AAUP, get caught short this way? What is one to do when flawed reasoning and spurious assumptions start to be translated into criteria for government administrative decisions? What can you do when a fifth of the Congress decides to take a break and visit one of the most racist places on the planet and you risk being labeled an anti-Semite for decrying this fact? Well, you have a good laugh, have a good cry, and then go post your assessment of the situation on your website. Then you get a bit drunk. Finally, you repeat ten times “I will never to stay silent.”

 

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

 

Dr. Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

The author is a regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com.More articles can be found on RamallahOnline.com, Logos Journal, and Dr. Davidson also maintains an online blog, you can find it at http://www.tothepointanalyses.com

Posted on by

The struggle continues in and out of “detention facilities”

Mazin Qumsiyeh

Mazin Qumsiyeh, 13 July, 2011

Below is the press release we issued today and below it is a letter from a Palestinian woman to the solidarity activists.  We have been up with little sleep over the past 4 days.  Each day required dealing with hundreds of issues and overcoming many obstacles.  Today for example with three events (Beit Sahour, Aida then Checkpoint 300, and Al-Walaja) required dealing with a lot of obstacles including a number of friction points with the Israeli army and attempting to get around their blocks.  But the one image that sticks in my mind is the sight of the children at Aida Refugee Camp playing in front of Al-Rowwad center with the international volunteers.  The sight was priceless.

 

As Israel tried to keep people apart and disconnected, our human bonds grew amazingly stronger and Israel was exposed for what it really is.  Humanity won, Zionism lost.  Tomorrow (Monday), the family of Rachel Corrie (a young solidarity activist who was murdered by Israeli troops will hold a press conference in Jerusalem.  See http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/blog/2011/07/10/corrie-family-and-legal-team-to-hold-press-conference-monday-july-11-at-american-colony-hotel-jerusalem I hope a lot of people attend it and highlight the issues of Israel harassing, jailing,  attacking and killing solidarity activists.

 

The words of Vittorio kept flashing through my mind all day: stay human.  The last few days, humanity shone and had to rise-up to the challenge of facing inhumanity, repression, and fascism.  Stay human indeed.

Mazin

———-

“Welcome to Palestine” Press Release #5

Israeli authorities set stringent conditions for release of “Welcome to Palestine” prisoners. The large majority of international visitors are still incarcerated under brutal conditions, begin a hunger strike in Israeli jail

 

Bethlehem, July 10, 2011.  Over 120 internationals attempting to visit Palestine were arrested and are still being illegally detained in two Israeli detention centers, in Ramle and in Beer Al-Saba’ (Beersheva). These friends of Palestine, among which there are minors and elderly persons with medical conditions, have been and are being mistreated and subjected to unnecessary brutality.

 

For example, Dr. Hikmat Al-Sabty, 57, of Rostock, Germany, is being denied needed medication that is in his suitcase; this was reported to his wife by the German Embassy in Tel Aviv, but his wife has not been allowed to speak with him directly.  All of those detained have stated repeatedly that they are non-violent and want only to accept the invitation to visit together with Palestinian friends in the program “Welcome to Palestine.”

 

The Israeli authorities released two older German men from prison yesterday, but only on condition that they sign an Israeli legal document that was presented to them only in Hebrew and English. One of the two men came to Bethlehem.  He is uncertain of the full contents of the Israeli paper he signed because his English is not good, and he was unable to first consult with his attorney in Israel before signing the paper: the Israeli authorities yesterday made attorney access to prisoners very difficult, and large number of those detained can only be seen by their attorneys today and tomorrow.

 

The German man now in Palestine believes that he has agreed in writing not to go to Ramallah, Jenin, and certain other Palestinian cities, but that the Israeli authorities have allowed that he to go to “tourist” areas in the West Bank.  Because he is still uncertain of the full content of the Israeli document he signed, he prefers not to give his name at this time.  The Israeli authorities refused, in violation of international law, to give him a copy of the paper he signed.  His attorney is seeking to obtain a copy of the document he signed from the Israeli authorities.

 

We received a letter from the Belgian group in Bersheeva prison, who state that they began a hunger strike last night.  In the letter, the Belgians demand, on behalf of all the prisoners, to have contact their families and with their attorneys.  They demand an international investigation into the behavior of airline companies and Israeli officials.  They also demand to be able to have contact with each other in the Israeli prison.  For example, because the French and Belgian men and women are separated in the prison, the men do not know whether the women are also aware of the hunger strike.  It is believed that the French men have joined the hunger strike.  According to the Germans who were released, the German men and women there are also participating in the hunger strike, but the men and women are not allowed to speak with each other.

 

Those few international guests who were able to reach Bethlehem on Friday were invited by their Palestinian hosts to go to either to a demonstration in Qalandia at noon or else to attend a gathering in Bilin at 11 am, from which they then joined Palestinian friends in Nebi Saleh. There Israeli soldiers prevented the bus-loads of passengers and local Palestinians and Israeli supporters from holding a peaceful demonstration.  The Israeli forces shot stun grenades and at least two kinds of tear gas canisters at them. The nearby agricultural fields were set ablaze by these tear-gas canisters.   The Israeli forces illegally detained — kidnapped — four peace activists, including three Israeli citizens and one Brazilian.   Several participants were injured.

 

Events planned continued.  Today, there was a gathering in Beit Sahour in front of the Greek Orthodox Church, an event at Aida Refugee Camp and an event in Al-Walaja.
Media Contacts:

GENERAL: info@palestinejn.org

JERUSALEM: Sergio Yahni, sergioyahni@gmail.com, +972(0)526375032

BETHLEHEM: Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, mazin@qumsiyeh.org, +972(0)598939532

FRANCE:  Nicolas Shahshahani, bienvenuepalestine@orange.fr

GERMANY: Sophia Deeg,  sophia_deeg@yahoo.de, +49(0)88 007761,

+49(0)1799878414

UK: Sofiah MacLeod, secretary@scottishpsc.org.uk,+44(0)7931 200 36100,

+44(0)131 620 0052

USA: Karin Pally, myizzy@gmail.com or kpally@earthlink.net, +1 310-399-1921

International Media Coordination: Elsa Rassbach +49 (0) 30 326 01540 or +49 (0) 170 738 1450 Skype: elsarassbach

 

Please stay informed through our websites:

- http://palestinianspring.palestinejn.org
- http://welcometopalestinenews.blogspot.com/
- http://ahlanfefalasteen.blogspot.com/
- http://bienvenueenpalestinepresse.blogspot.com/

 

Netanyahu Panics When Folks Like Kathy Kelly Come to Visit Palestine by Sea or By Air

http://wallwritings.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/netanyahu-panics-when-folks-like-kathy-kelly-come-to-visit-palestine-by-sea-or-by-air/

 

A letter from a Palestinian woman to the supporters of Palestine.

 

I would like to talk to you as the voice of the thousands of Palestinians who appreciate what you are doing. You who have a great commitment to human rights and who actually act upon your beliefs. You risk your life to both witness and tell the truth of what you see. You are a group of people who understand what is happening in the holy land and have decided to dedicate your time, money and energy to the issue. You demonstrate that religion nor race is important when it comes to standing up for the rights human beings. And every step you take justice and humanity wins.

 

I want you to trust that your actions are making a difference and changing the violence we see here in our land. Your solidarity is helping fuel our non violent fight. Palestinians face many kinds of violence and torture, however, being ignored is the worst punishment of all. Those who refuse to hear and see us are just as bad as those who occupy us. Those who stand in solidarity with us send a strong message of humanity and are helping us to overcome our suffering. In the middle of all this crisis, your help puts a smile on our face. From this smile you will always be welcome in our hearts even if you are unable to enter our land.

 

Your solidarity reminds the world that we are all one human family and that we Palestinians are still part of it. Please do not give up. Even if your boats do not make it to the shores of Gaza or if your planes refuse to fly, the unseen effects are still huge.

 

I want to say thank you for all that your work involves. Thank you for booking your tickets, taking time off from work, leaving your loved ones, and for all of the other small things, I am truly grateful.

 

Please continue to be with us, hand in hand, in our non-violent struggle. We need to reach the end of the path of occupation and your presence on this journey is crucial, we cannot make it alone.

 

I hope one day to share a coffee with you in my home or in yours, for when this day comes we will have reached our freedom.

 

Hekmat Bessiso

Gazan living in Ramallah

 

Mazin Qumsiyeh

A bedouin in cyberspace, a villager at home

http://qumsiyeh.org

http://palestinejn.org

http://pcr.ps

http://IMEMC.or

http://www.alrowwad-acts.ps

Posted on by

Obama is the wrong target

May 18, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

May 18, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

May 18, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Alan Hart, 31 May 2011

When I was reflecting on Netanyahu’s domination and control of the Congress of the United States of America, the first headline that came into my mind for this article was Goodbye to peace. I’ll now explain why I think the headline above is more appropriate.

Because of its flirtation with the proposition that peace between an Israeli and Palestinian state must be based on pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps, President Obama’s speech on Middle East policy principles did one useful thing. And it was Ha-aretz’s Gideon Levy, the conscience of Israeli journalism, who put his finger most firmly on it. We should be grateful to Obama, he wrote, because his speech “exposed the naked truth – that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not want peace.”

The Gentile me almost always agrees with Gideon but on this occasion, and leaving aside the fact that it was Netanyahu’s rejection of what Obama said initially that exposed the naked truth, I think Gideon’s version of it needs two clarifications.

One is that the truth was exposed like never before only to those who have not been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda – only a minority of Americans, for example.

The other boils down to this. What Netanyahu does want, and only because of his concern about Israel’s growing isolation in the world, is peace on Zionism’s terms, which means the Palestinians giving up their struggle for an acceptable minimum of justice and accepting crumbs from Zionism’s table in the shape of three or four Bantustatans on about 40% of the West Bank, and which they could call a state if they wished. That’s what Netanyahu meant but did not say when, at his arrogant, insufferably self-righteous and devious best, he assured both houses of the U.S. Congress that “We’ll be generous about the size of the Palestinian state.” Put another way, what Netanyahu doesn’t want is peace on terms the vast majority of Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims could accept – a complete end to Israel’s 1967 occupation and a contiguous and viable Palestinian mini state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem an open city and the capital of two states.

The only question of interest about Netanyahu is this. Does he really believe the nonsense he speaks about the alleged threats to Israel’s security or is he a smooth-talking but diabolical salesman, selling what he knows to be Zionist propaganda lies as truth?

Obama’s speech also exposed (again) the weakness of his own position on policy matters for Israel/Palestine when he said: “Ultimately it is up to the Israelis and the Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them – not by the United States, not by anybody else.”

As things are that means Israel remains free to continue its criminal ways:

- defying UN Security Council resolutions and international law;

- pushing ahead with more and more illegal settlements to consolidate its hold on those parts of occupied West Bank it intends to keep for ever;

- oppressing the occupied Palestinians in the hope that, out of complete despair, they will either give up their struggle for an acceptable minimum amount of justice and be prepared to accept crumbs from Zionism’s table or, better still from Zionism’s perspective, will abandon their homeland and seek a new life elsewhere in the Arab world and beyond; and

- resorting to state terrorism (attacks on neighbouring Arab countries and possibly Iran) whenever its leaders feel the need to impose their will on the region.

Because of Israel’s dependence on the U.S. in a number of ways, not the least of them being the American veto of Security Council resolutions not to Israel’s liking, Obama does have the leverage to impose a Middle East peace on terms that would provide the Palestinians with an acceptable amount of justice without any risk to Israel’s security. And there’s a very compelling case for saying he ought to do so if only to best protect America’s own interests. I believe Obama knows this, so the question of real interest about him is this. Why won’t he act?

The answer of almost all of his critics who call and campaign in various ways for justice for the Palestinians is that he’s a willing tool of the Zionist lobby. I don’t believe this to be the case. I think the reality of Obama’s position was best summed up by Professor John J. Mearsheimer. To Al Jazeera recently he said this:

“ The sad fact is that Obama has remarkably little manoeuvre room on the foreign policy front. The most important item on his agenda is settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and there he knows what has to be done: Push both sides toward a two-state solution, which is the best outcome for all the parties, including the United States. Indeed, he has been trying to do just that since he took office in January 2009. But the remarkably powerful Israel lobby makes it virtually impossible for him to put meaningful pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is committed to creating a Greater Israel in which the Palestinians are restricted to a handful of disconnected and impoverished enclaves. And Obama is certainly not going to buck the lobby – with the 2012 presidential election looming larger every day… The bottom line is that the US is in deep trouble in the Middle East and needs new policies for that region. But regrettably there is little prospect of that happening anytime soon. All of this is to say that there was no way that Obama could do anything but disappoint with Thursday’s speech, because he is trapped in an iron cage.”

This cage is, of course, the Zionist lobby’s control through its many stooges in Congress of policy for Israel-Palestine. It’s the cage in which post Eisenhower every American president has been trapped. As former ambassador Chas Freeman put it in a recent interview with Russia Today, Israeli leaders don’t have to listen to the president because they know their lobby can block him in Congress.

And that’s why, despite the fact that like Ilan Pappe I am sick and tired of Obama’s rhetoric, I’ve come to the conclusion that no useful purpose is served by supporters of justice for the Palestinians attacking him. He’s the wrong target. The right target is America’s pork-barrel system of politics which puts what passes for democracy up for sale to the highest bidders. In this context I say, have always said, that I don’t blame the Zionist lobby for playing the game the way it does. It is only playing by the rules. It’s the rules that need to be changed if Obama in a second term, or any future American president, is going to be able to escape from the cage and use the leverage he has to oblige Israel to be serious about peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept.

Some members of Congress who applauded Netanyahu in a scene that reminded me of the enthusiasm for Hitler at Nazi rallies accused Obama of betraying Israel. There has indeed been a betrayal, but what has been betrayed is democracy in America. The many members of Congress who read from Zionism’s script and dance to its tune in order to secure election campaign funds and organized Jewish votes in tight races are not merely stooges. Because they are putting the interests of a foreign power above those of their own country, it’s time to call them what they really are – traitors.

In my view exposing them as such should be given the highest priority by all who campaign in various ways for justice for the Palestinians and peace for all.

Footnote:

Memo to all concerned in Congress and the White House.

Israel is not a “Jewish state”. How could it be when about a quarter of its citizens are Arabs and mainly Muslim? Israel is a Zionist state. It will only be a Jewish state when it has completed its ethnic cleansing program.

 

 

Alan Hart

Alan Hart

Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications – the possibility of a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews – for nearly 40 years…

Alan maintains an online blog with a wealth of articles that can be found here http://www.alanhart.net/

More Articles on RamallahOnline can be found here

Posted on by

Why does Israel have a veto over the peace process?

Israeli Pirate Flag Silwan - (June 26 2010, Rebecca Fudala)

Israeli Pirate Flag Silwan - (June 26 2010, Rebecca Fudala)

Alan Hart, 12 April 2011

As I explained on a lecture tour of South Africa (Goldstone Land) from which I have just returned, the answer is in what happened behind closed doors at the Security Council in New York in the weeks and months following the 1967 war. But complete understanding requires knowledge of the fact that it was a war of Israeli aggression and not, as Zionism’s spin doctors continue to assert, self-defense.
More than four decades on, most people everywhere still believe that Israel went to war either because the Arabs attacked (that was Israel’s first claim), or because the Arabs were intending to attack (thus requiring Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike). The truth about that war only begins with the statement that the Arabs did not attack and were notintending to attack. The complete truth, documented in detail in Volume Three of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews(www.claritypress.com), includes the following facts.

Israel’s prime minister of the time, the much maligned Levi Eshkol who was also defense minister, did not want to take his country to war. And nor did his chief of staff, Yitzhak Rabin. They wanted only very limited military action, an operation far short of war, to put pressure on the international community to cause Eygpt’s President Nasser to re-open the Straits of Tiran.

Israel went to war because its military and political hawks wanted war and insisted that the Arabs were about to attack. They, Israel’s hawks, knew that was nonsense, but they promoted it to undermine Eshkol by portraying him to the country as weak. The climax to the campaign to rubbish Eshkol was a demand by the hawks that he surrender the defense portfolio and give it to Moshe Dayan, Zionism’s one-eyed warlord and master of deception. Four days after Dayan got the portfolio he wanted, and the hawks had secured the green light from the Johnson administration to smash Eygpt’s air and ground forces, Israel went to war.

What actually happened in Israel in the final countdown to that war was something very close to a military coup, executed quietly behind closed doors without a shot being fired. For Israel’s hawks the war of 1967 was the unfinished business of 1948/49 – to create a Greater Israel with all of Jerusalem its capital. (In reality Israel’s hawks set a trap for Nasser by threatening Syria and, for reasons of face, he was daft enough to walk, eyes open, into the trap). On the second day of the war, General Chaim Herzog, one of the founding fathers of Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence, said to me in private: “If Nasser had not been stupid enough to give us a pretext for war, we would have created one in a year to 18 months.”

As I say in my book, if the statement that the Arabs were not intending to attack and that Israel’s existence was not in any danger was only that of a goy, me, it could be dismissed by Zionists and other supporters of Israel right or wrong as anti-Semitic conjecture. In fact the truth has been admitted, confessed, by a number of Israeli leaders. Here are just three of many examples.

In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar containined the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”

In an unguarded public moment in 1982, Prime Minister Begin said this: “In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

The single most catastrophic happening of 1967 was not however the war itself and the creation of a Greater Israel. At America’s insistence, and with the eventual complicity of the Soviet Union, it (the single most catastrophic happening) was the refusal of the Security Council of the United Nations to condemn Israel as the aggressor. If it had done so, the history of the region and the world might well have taken a very different course. (There might well have been a negotiated end to the Arab-Israeli conflict and a comprehensive peace within a year or two. To those who think that’s a far-fetched notion of what could have been, I say read my book, which includes a chapter headed Goodbye to the Security Council’s Integrity)

Question: Why, really, was it so important from Zionism’s point of view that Israel not be branded the aggressor when actually it was? The short answer of it comes down to this.

Aggressors are not allowed to keep the territory they take in war, they have to withdraw from it unconditionally. This is the requirement of international law and, also, a fundamental principle which the UN is committed to uphold, as it did, for example, when President Eisenhower read the riot act to Israel after it invaded Eygpt in collusion with Britain and France in 1956. That is on the one hand.
On the other is the generally accepted view that when a state is attacked, is the victim of aggression, and then goes to war in genuine self-defense and ends up occupying some (or even all) of the aggressor’s territory, the occupier has the right, in negotiations, to attach conditions to its withdrawal.

In summary it can be said that although Security Council Resolution 242 of 23 November 1967 did pay lip-service to “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, it effectively put Zionism in the diplomatic driving seat. By giving Israel the scope to attach conditions to its withdrawal, Resolution 242 effectively gave Israel’s leaders and the Zionist lobby in America a veto over any peace process.
In 1957 President Eisenhower said that if a nation which attacked and occupied foreign territory was allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal, “this would be tantamount to turning back the clock of international order.” That’s what happened in 1967. President Johnson, pre-occupied with the war in Vietnam, and mainly on the advice of those in his inner circle who were hardcore Zionists, turned back the clock of international order. And that effectively created two sets of rules for the behaviour of nations – one set for all the nations of the world excluding only Israel, which were expected to behave in accordance with international law and their obligations of members of the United Nations; and one set for Israel, which was not expected to behave, and would not be required to behave, as a normal nation.

At the Johnson administration’s Zionist-driven insistence, the refusal of the Security Council to brand Israel as the aggressor was the birth of the double-standard in the interpretation and enforcement of the rules for judging and if necessary punishing the behaviour of nations. This double-standard is the reason why from 1967 to the present a real peace process has not been possible.

In my view there is not a snowball’s chance in hell of a real peace process unless the double-standard is abandoned. Unless, in other words, the governments of the major powers, led by America, say something like the following to Israel: “Enough is enough. It is now in all of our interests that you end your defiance of international law. If you don’t we will be obliged to brand you as a rogue state and subject you to boycott, divestment and sanctions.”

 

Alan Hart

Alan Hart

Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications – the possibility of a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews – for nearly 40 years…

Alan maintains an online blog with a wealth of articles that can be found here http://www.alanhart.net/

More Articles on RamallahOnline can be found here

Posted on by

Zionist tales of ‘passionate longing’ for Palestinian lands

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood, 17 March 2011

The Board of Deputies of British Jews (BDBJ) is targeting unsympathetic Christians with a new booklet called Zionism: A Jewish Communal Response.

It answers a growing concern amongst Jews that Christians are too ready to dismiss Zionism as a political movement rather than a central facet of Jewish identity.

And in a news release the Board says a survey found that over half of respondents believed that Christians are “becoming less sympathetic to Israel” and fewer than one in five would describe themselves as “Zionist”. Over a quarter see Zionism as “colonialist” and “resulting in racial discrimination”.

Clearly the Zionists’ influence is fading.

The 30-page pamphlet also takes a desperate swipe at the recent Kairos Palestine document issued by Christian leaders. The Board complains that it didn’t acknowledge Jewish connections with the land of Israel. They were not best pleased either that British Methodists quoted Kairos in their decision to support a boycott of Israeli goods.

President of the Board of Deputies Vivian Wiseman, in his introduction, calls the BDBJ booklet “an eloquent defence of Zionism”. The common perception that Zionism was a creation of 19th century European Jewry fails to do it justice, he says. “The connection with the land and the passionate longing for it go right back to Biblical times.”

First rabbi

The BDBJ booklet brings together a group of liberal rabbis who write in terms far removed from the hateful language and policies of the regime occupying the West Bank and Jerusalem and still blockading Gaza.

Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg explains why the land has remained central to Judaism until modern Zionism created a political process that culminated in the UN Partition of Palestine in 1947. But, he says, none of this justifies the oppression or dispossession of others. According to him:

The aspiration of the overwhelming majority of Jews is still best expressed in the words of the Declaration of Independence: “[Israel] will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace … it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights.” He adds:

Where these ideals have been betrayed, there is cause for anguish, outcry and urgent action, not only among Palestinians, but among Israelis, as well as Jews throughout the world. The great majority realize that Israel cannot become the country it aspires to be while ruling over another people.

He argues that a two-state solution is “morally imperative”, as is an end to the building of settlements, the agreement of acceptable borders and “a complete cessation of attacks, both military and rhetorical, against Israeli territory and Israel’s right to exist”.

What Israel must do to achieve such a solution, he says, is justified by the ethical ideals of Judaism and the long rabbinic tradition of “down-to-earth pragmatism regarding the borders of the country”. What exactly does he mean by that? Israel gets to keep what it has stolen and unlawfully colonized? Pragmatism replaces international law?

May no-one speak against Israel’s right to exist? Rabbi Wittenberg surely knows that while the Zionist regime keeps expanding its borders at the expense of its neighbours that right will be challenged.

And I don’t hear him calling for a cessation of Israeli attacks against Palestinian territory or an end to the illegal occupation.

The rabbi then lays into Kairos:

Kairos is unhelpful. It fails to mention the violence unleashed towards Israel from before its very inception… It does not acknowledge the effect of acts of terror carried out in the heart of civic life, on buses, in shops, on the streets and by thousands of rocket attacks from Gaza.

Why should it? Does the rabbi acknowledge the evil work of Jewish terror gangs in the run-up to independence? The land on which Sderot stands was once the Palestinian village of Najd, ethnically cleansed and its population put to flight in May 1948 before the state of Israel was declared. Many of them ended up in refugee camps in Gaza.

Hundreds more Palestinian villages were similarly seized to enlarge Israel’s already generous share of the cake. The land-grab was under way before the ink on the partition was dry.

Have Zionists acknowledged the acts of terror their own forces inflict daily in the heart of Palestinian civic life? They complain about thousands of makeshift rockets from Gaza. Do they never count the state-of-the-art bombs, rockets and shells fired INTO Gaza by their own tanks, jets, helicopter gunship, armed drones and warships? And the resulting mega-deaths and wholesale destruction of key infrastructure in many cases funded by Western Christian taxpayers like me?

Rabbi Wittenberg says their long history of suffering and persecution has given the Jewish people “reason to believe that those who declare they want to destroy us mean what they say. Hence these actions and threats have fed those very fears in Israeli and Jewish minds which help to maintain the political stalemate under which the Palestinian people, indeed both peoples, now suffer.”

No occupation, no need for resistance, no problem. What helps to keep political trouble brewing is disinformation and fear-mongering. Tel Aviv has recruited and trained hundreds of social media “warriors” to spread the torrent of propaganda.

The Kairos document’s message

Let’s remember that Kairos was essentially a demand for an end to Israel’s brutal occupation and a challenge to the international community to act. It was released in December 2009 by Christian leaders exasperated at having “reached a dead end in the tragedy of the Palestinian people”, because decision-makers contented themselves with managing the crisis instead of resolving it.

As for the land, Kairos had this to say:

We believe that our land has a universal mission… God sent the patriarchs, the prophets and the apostles to this land so that they might carry forth a universal mission to the world. Today we constitute three religions in this land, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Our land is God’s land, as is the case with all countries in the world… It is the duty of those of us who live here, to respect the will of God for this land. It is our duty to liberate it from the evil of injustice and war. It is God’s land and therefore it must be a land of reconciliation, peace and love…

The document emphasized that the presence of Christian and Muslim Palestinians is deeply rooted in the land’s history and geography, and they have a natural right to it.

It also contained some hard-hitting stuff that must have raised Zionist hackles:

We declare that any use of the Bible to legitimize or support political options and positions that are based upon injustice, imposed by one person on another, or by one people on another, transform religion into human ideology and strip the Word of God of its holiness, its universality and truth.

We also declare that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity because it deprives the Palestinians of their basic human rights, bestowed by God…

We declare that any theology, seemingly based on the Bible or on faith or on history, that legitimizes the occupation, is far from Christian teachings, because it calls for violence and holy war in the name of God Almighty, subordinating God to temporary human interests…

And to round off…

Jerusalem is the heart of our reality… Jerusalem continues to be emptied of its Palestinian citizens, Christians and Muslims. Their identity cards are confiscated, which means the loss of their right to reside in Jerusalem. Their homes are demolished or expropriated. Jerusalem, city of reconciliation, has become a city of discrimination and exclusion, a source of struggle rather than peace.

Also part of this reality is the Israeli disregard of international law and international resolutions, as well as the paralysis of the Arab world and the international community in the face of this contempt.

Second rabbi

Rabbi Tony Bayfield begins by saying: “It is clear that Jews and Judaism would not have survived and could not survive today without the Land of Israel. It is clear that the treatment of Jews both in Christian and Muslim lands creates an undeniable practical and moral entitlement.”

Does it? Jews and Judaism survived 1,800 years without the land of Israel, and most of today’s Jews, I’m told, have no ancestral links to that land at all. And Jews seem to like it here in the UK. They are allowed to occupy the highest positions and even make our laws. They are not leaving in droves for a squatter home on stolen Palestinian land.

In any case, why should Palestinians have to make huge sacrifices to atone for some Europeans’ crimes nearly 70 years ago?

Rabbi Bayfield nevertheless deserves credit for what he says next:

I am horrified by some strands of Zionism which treat the Bible as an exclusive title deed written by God. I do not regard the Torah as an extra-historical document written by the Divine hand… It is wonderful beyond measure. But it is also limited and flawed… It is not Judaism’s title deed to the land. Nor is it secular history…

The newly re-established State of Israel stands at the very meeting point of two of the largest and most powerful tectonic plates – the Western world and the Islamic world… Israel could, by virtue of its position in relationship to Christianity and Islam, by virtue of its position “at the centre”, become a bridge.

Yes indeed. But the State of Palestine too stands at the meeting point and, thanks to its more reasonable relationship with the two tectonic plates, could make a better bridge.

Third rabbi

Rabbi Danny Rich reminds us that Judaism has its origins in that part of the Near East bordered by the Mediterranean Sea, the Jordan River, the Negev Desert and the Carmel Mountains. “It is the geographical features of this area which formed the backdrop to the Hebrew foundation myths…”

After expulsion from their ancestral lands, he says, the centre of Jewish life for 1,700 years was to be found in Babylon, in Spain, in France, in the German and Polish lands, and in a number of places that were to come under Muslim influence and/or Arab rule. “It is in this context that the Jewish claim to its ancestral homeland is made out, and its power should not be denied by any persons who consider themselves fair-minded.”

However, he goes on to say:

The Jewish claim is not the only or an exclusive claim. For millennia the Jews in the land had lived alongside non-Jewish neighbours and for some centuries under, until its defeat during World War I, the Ottoman Empire. The arrival of large numbers of Jewish immigrants and the creation of the State of Israel led inevitably to the displacement of some of the contemporary inhabitants… It is certainly fair to say that the Palestinian Arab claim to the land, though different in substance from the Jewish one, has much to commend it…

The Jews were expelled by the Roman occupation in 70AD and again in 135. These days the right of return is regarded as an inalienable right, but it must be exercised as soon as the reason for expulsion (for example, foreign occupation) ceases. An opportunity for the Jews would have occurred in the 4th century AD as the Roman Empire collapsed. They didn’t take it.

The rabbi talks about being fair-minded. What is fair or reasonable about laying claim to the land 17 centuries later, at gun-point?

The Palestinians’ right of return to their homeland is unquestionable because the occupation has not yet ended and the UN endorsed their right.

Rabbi Rich lists Ten Hebrew Biblical Principles, which are instructive to us all regardless of faith. “There is little evidence of these principles being applied on either side of the divide,” he observes, adding:

Any just solution will inevitably require a sharing of the land… At one time a binational state might have been a possibility, but in the absence of support for it from the mainstream of either side partition seems to be the only viable option… The borders of the two entities will need to be negotiated to give territorial contiguity…

Is he saying we bin the first partition and start again?

…And a leading educator

Dan Rickman explains how the secular Zionist movement has converted Judaism’s religious ideals into political ones. He says:

It adopted a view that Jews had to return to history in response to what became known as anti-Semitism… Through this process, it was hoped, Jews would become “normalised”. Zionism depends on the fact that Jewish identity is as people, i.e. based on the “People of Israel” and is not an identity based on religious belief…

He mentions the differences between some ultra-orthodox groups who reject Zionism, the majority who have accommodated to it, and the religious Zionist movement which has adopted it within its own religious framework. “Whilst all these strands are sharply divided, they are in agreement on the ultimate goal which is the restoration of the Temple, and the coming of a Messianic age of peace and harmony for all the peoples of the world.”

The concept of Jews as the Chosen People, he says, should be understood as the mission of Judaism to create social justice for the world, a “repairing of the world”.

Mr Rickman ends by saying he has tried to focus on “what can and must unite Israelis, Palestinians and people of all faiths in our mission to “repair the world” through a shared recognition of Israel as the Holy Land…”

Zionist, forget “repairing the world”. Repair thyself

There is much in the BDBJ booklet that Christians might find appealing. But the fine words of these good rabbis have little to do with how the Zionist regime actually conducts itself in the Holy Land. And the notion that we should all unite under the Zionists’ mission to “repair the world”, given their track record, is too much to swallow.

Zionists complain that the Kairos document contained no acknowledgement of Jewish national aspirations or the ties between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel.

Do we know what Jewish national aspirations really are? No-one, it seems, is prepared to discuss the true extent of the Zionist project for a Greater Israel and its impact. No-one, it seems, is prepared to admit that the Israeli regime doesn‘t want peace until it has seized all the land and resources it needs to fulfill that ambition.

What room will then be left for the Palestinians’ national aspirations?

Rabbi Rich asks how the Hebrew Principles – “these Prophetic ideals” – might be applied in the 21st century to find a just solution. “First, it is to appreciate that there are two narratives, one Jewish/Israeli and the other Palestinian/Arab, and, while they may differ both in ‘fact’ and in interpretation of events, each story must be recognized in any proposed resolution.”

Alan Wiseman’s notes that all contributors to the booklet call for an understanding of other people’s narratives.

The two sides can carry on swapping narratives until the cows come home – theological chit-chat hasn’t brought a solution nearer. Calling for more sounds like another ploy to buy time for the Zionists to establish more irreversible “facts on the ground” and advance their borders still further.

The rabbis surely have urgent work to do elsewhere, like putting Israel’s own house in order. They could start on its political parties, such as Kadima, which claims a national and historic right to the Land of Israel “in its entirety” and pledges to keep Jerusalem and the settlements, and the ruling Likud Party (mission statement: “the Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state” and “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel”). Any future Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized, without an army or control of its airspace.

That is the uncompromising reality of Zionist ambition, and it is not the path to peace.

They could also address the moral sickness that grips the Israeli military and leads to incidents like this:

An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday…

and many others before and since.

A few days ago the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office announced 500 more Jews-only housing units on Palestinian land in a deliberate expansion of illegal settlements, giving yet another middle-finger salute to the international community.

Whatever mission Mr Netanyahu and his ministers are on, it’s not to make peace or “repair the world”. It would seem, therefore, that the BDBJ booklet we’re discussing is little more than a propaganda exercise to soft-soap Christians into coming on-side for the continuing land-grab and the making of Israel’s occupation permanent.

A taste of “social justice for all”

Since the Zionists arrived in the Holy Land with their “Greater Israel” programme and started bulldozing homes and thieving the land, the Christian population has plummeted from 20 per cent to less than 2 per cent. Many who could afford to, have left due to the military occupation and its mindless restrictions on education and business, and the blocking of access to the holy places.

The Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem’s residency permit has been revoked by the Zionist regime for the last six months, making it impossible for him to carry out his duties properly. The UK Foreign Office, the British ambassador and the US State Department all intervened to no avail. The Archbishop of Canterbury on his last visit was allowed only two hours in Gaza. Priests of other denominations are seriously hampered by a minefield of administrative obstacles and so are worshippers.

For our Muslim brothers and sisters it is far worse.

Is this Mr Rickman’s idea of mutual understanding and respect, the Zionist mission to create social justice for all?

And the Church of England’s response? Norwich Cathedral gave the Zionist booklet a platform by advertising a seminar. I went along. And I came away wondering why the Church seems so accepting of the evil that stalks the Holy Land. Is it to appease its partners in the much hyped interfaith relations programme whose activities, as far as I can tell, haven’t made a scrap of difference and may even have cut enough slack, in the name of Jewish-Christian understanding, for the escalation of atrocities committed recently?

Surely the Church understands that, in the pursuit of justice, interfaith dialogue is no substitute for the enforcement of international law and the long-overdue implementation of UN resolutions.

A more useful response to Zionistic overtures, one would have thought, is The Jerusalem Declaration of 2006 by the Latin Patriarch and Local Heads of Churches in Jerusalem:

We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation… We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ.

These are the conclusions of churchmen who have to confront the every-day shock and horror.

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood is an industrial marketing specialist turned writer-photographer. In 2005 he was invited to write and shoot pictures for a book about the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. ‘Radio Free Palestine’ was published in 2007. For details please see www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

  • The Author is a regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. Find more Articles by Stuart Littlewood on RamallahOnline.