signing off for the weekend

I hope to prepare some articles which will try to answer the lies about Israel, especially the 1948 and 1967 period


These 2 articles are worth stating for their relevance re Islam

article one  from Jihadwatch

The Egyptian government “clearly acted under pressure from Islamists” when it ordered the mass cull of pigs

“Pigs being beaten with iron bars, piglets being stabbed and animals being kicked alive into bulldozer buckets”

An update on this story. “Cairo accused of conspiring with Islamists to cull ‘unholy’ pigs: Egypt’s pig killing spree causes sectarian tension,” by Mustafa Suleiman and Mona Moussly for Al Arabiyya, May 28:


As an Egyptian church refused to hand over its pigs to the authorities without compensation and an online video showing pigs being tortured surfaced, tensions over the government’s anti-swine flu measures continued to prompt allegations of discrimination by the Christian community.

For most countries swine flu is simply a health issue. But in Egypt the virus has raised concerns over government discrimination against the Coptic Christian population – who make up 10-12 percent of the population — who accuse the authorities of threatening their livelihood and purposely attacking them.

Although no cases of swine flu have been reported in Egypt, since the news of the virus broke, Cairo has ordered a mass culling of the country’s 250,000 pigs, which are found in the city slums and which pose a serious risk to a nation already suffering from an outbreak of bird flu.

Al-Soryan Monastery said it would not give up its remaining 330 pigs to Egypt’s national committee for swine flu unless the government compensated them for the huge financial loss.

“Pigs and other animals represent the economic independence of the monasteries in which they are raised,” Bishop Abdul-Maseeh, professor of theology at the Egyptian church, told Al Arabiya.

“We have agreements with the biggest hotels in Egypt,” he said. “There’s no way the government will just kill them and the monasteries bear such huge financial losses.”

Conspiring with Islamists

Thousands of swine breeders, nearly all Copts, have protested, rioted and slammed the government’s decision to slaughter all pigs, a measure the World Health Organization (WHO) criticized as “unnecessary” and that several right groups slammed as an attack on the minority population.

They were not so radical against the birds [during the bird flu scare] as they are now against the pigs,” Inspire, a U.K.-based Christian monthly magazine, quoted the president of the Society for the Protection of Animal Rights Egypt as saying. “We would like to ask them, ‘Why?’ Is there a special reason?”

Egypt’s minister of agriculture and land reclamation, Amin Abaza, denied accusations of discrimination and said health conditions at pig farms, which are located in city dumps, were unbearable.

Arab intellectuals, both Christian and Muslim, have accused President Hosni Mubarak’s government of conspiring with the Islamist opposition Muslim Brotherhood, which opposes rearing pigs “on Islamic land.”

“The Copts are victims of the flu without ever having been contaminated,” said Moroccan writer Tahar Ben Jelloun, adding that the government “clearly acted under pressure from Islamists” when it ordered the mass cull.[…]

Earlier this month a video of pigs being culled surfaced on YouTube and caused outrage at the way the animals were slaughtered.

The clip posted by Egypt’s independent newspaper al-Masry al-Youm showed gory images of pigs being beaten with iron bars, piglets being stabbed and animals being kicked alive into bulldozer buckets…

article 2 from DEBKAfile

Yousouf Fofana, leader of the self-styled Parisian “Gang of Barbarians,” has confessed at his trial to the brutal murder of Ilan Halimi, a 23-year old Jew, three years ago, after torturing him for 24 days. The anti-Semitic crime appalled the 600,000-strong French Jewish community, which accuses the government of still neglecting to curb the rising tide of anti-Semitism sweeping in France.

The trial is proceeding behind closed doors because two of the 26 accused were juveniles at the time.

Halimi’s body was found in February 2006 at a Paris suburban railway station, naked, handcuffed and covered in burn marks from cigarettes. He died of stab wounds to his neck on the way to hospital.

A girl was used by the kidnappers to lure Halimi. They held him captive and tortured while demanding a 450,000 euros ransom because, Fofana told his accomplices, Halimi was a Jew and the Jewish community was rich. Fofana who made gang members call him “Osama,” fled to the Ivory Coast after the murder and was extradited to France for trial.

The victim’s mother Ruth Halimi has published a book about her son’s ordeal, comparing it to the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl, the American-Jewish journalist beheaded by Muslim terrorists in Pakistan in 2002. She arranged to bring his body to Israel for burial in view of the systematic desecration of Jewish graves in France.

Heads of the French Jewish community fear that Halimi’s murder was not the last.

Three years later, the situation has gone from bad to worse. Anti-Semitic insults and violence occur daily in Paris, where Jews avoid the Metro, stay home at night and hide their skullcaps. Many have decided the community has no future in France and made arrangements to relocate in Israel.


by Felix Quigley

May 28, 2009

Stephen Ritson the man with a posh Oxford accent who fronts the bitterly anti Israel radio station called Radio Talk Europe has complained that if Israel attacks Iran then all hell will break loose in the world.

But what if Iran gets the Nuclear Bomb. What will be the result of that and if you are a Jew living in Israel which Ahmadinejad hates so how comfortable would that be.

For some reason Ritson and his sidekicks on the BBC connected Radio Talk Europe cannot bring himself to see that. I wonder why that should be!

However, that is the reality of the political world we live in.

By the way the radio station which Ritson heads up with his anti Israel political shows is owned and run by a Jewish man from Dublin, Ireland.

And Irish academic called Dr Rory Miller has said that the Irish Jewish fraternity are notorious for “not sticking their necks out”.

For very definite reasons which I will sometime explain I feel that Maurice Boland is cuddling up to Islam, to the Jihadist “palestinians”, as part of this not sticking your neck out principle.

It could be that Boland is thinking of the commercial success of his radio station.

However I have a little word as reminder to Boland. The war between Israel and Iran is now inevitable and he seems to have left rabid Israel hater Ritson in charge of the shop.

Either the Jews of Israel will become slaves of the Jihadist Arabs and Iranian Mullahs or else they will win in a war effort.

There really very unfortunately and quite sadly is no middle course.

A top American General spelt out these realities and note how this General seems to take it as a given that Israel will be fighting against Iran.

[start quote from top American General here]

Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued his most serious warning yet about the approach of a nuclear-armed Iran: “Most of us believe that Iran is one to three years” from developing a nuclear weapon… depending on where they are right now. But they are moving closer, clearly, and they continue to do that,” he told ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, May 24. He indicated that an Iran could develop a nuke at any time from one to three years hence.

“That’s why this engagement in dialogue is so important. I think we should do that with all options on the table…” although a “pretty narrow space” is left for a successful outcome meaning Ira does not end up with nuclear weapons.

At the same time, Mullen said a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities could have grave consequences – but so too would a nuclear-armed Iran.

In talks with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu on May 18, US president Barack Obama said the talks with Iran he is seeking cannot “go on forever” and agreed that at the end of the year, progress would be evaluated.

Israel defense minister Ehud Barak visits Washington in the next few days.

[end quote from American general here]

So what have we here!

A Jewish man from Dublin has created an influential radio station.

But the political content of this radio station is headed by Ritson who seems awfully like a supporter of Arab and Iranian Israel hatred to me, for example referring to Hamas as the “Resistance”.

Well I expect some tension to develop between Boland and his point man Ritson.

Ritson seems to me to be seething continually with hatred for Israel.

Boland takes another course. Boland seeks to dumb down the political content of the station.

I really do think Talk Radio Europe is going to get crazier and crazier.


To the readers of this blog


I have noticed the number of absolute howling lies that are put about by Ritson and his ilk especially on the history.

Of course the Arab Nazis have sought to actually rewrite this history.

But an Irish caller to the station told Ritson that she (Noreen) thought that in future there should be no discussion of history at all. Look forward she cried. Never look back. Get those Jews out of the West Bank she screeched.

Well yes that will do it. After the rewriting of history. Why not claim that there is no history at all.

Let us on 4international try to explain carefully the facts of this history. What do you think of the situation. Make your contribution below and mark it Private if you do not wish to be published.


by Felix Quigley

May 28, 2009

What a situation! The President of the US Obama and his flunkey Hilary Clinton today roll out the red carpet for Holocaust Denier Abbas, long time sidekick to terrorist Arafat, nephew of the Nazi and a main organizer of the Holocaust Hajj Amin el Husseini. Abbas got his doctorate by writing an essay denying the Holocaust. It will be all smiles because these people, the US elite and the Arab Nazis are very much made of hte same cloth.

This is not a democrat republican thing because the republicans as well as the democrats were allies of that other Nazi Izetbegovic (Izetbegovic and el Husseini both worked together in the Balkan Holocaust as joint members of the Muslim Brotherhood). For example nominal Jew but rather more US Imperialist Joseph Lieberman and buddy John McCain were bosom buddies of Izetbegovic and through him of course to the Nazi El Husseini. So stop thinking it is just Obama rather than a systemic thing.

And who was the main supporter of Nazi Izetbegovic of Holocaust el Husseini infamy…none other than Paddy Ashdown.

Who recently did the most fawning and embarrassingly arse licking interview with Ashdown than Irish Jewish man Maurice Boland who runs dumbed down radio station Radio Talk Europe!

The situation today was brilliantly put however by a commenter on Jihadwatch, which is a truly fantastic and brilliant blog

[Start quote from Jihadwatch here]

Tale of the tape:

Netanyahu: Democratically elected PM with a broad coalition of parties represented in his government; a man who shares Western values and culture; a man who leads the modern incarnation of an ancient nation with thousands of years of history and its own religion and language

Abbas: Has spent his life inciting, funding and honoring terrorist murderers; has amassed a fortune stealing foreign aid for himself and his family and building up his armed gangs that run an organized crime ring throughout the “territories;” denies the Holocaust, Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State and the historical Jewish connection to Jerusalem; a man who leads a “people” that have existed for about 40 years and whose entire “national” calendar is built on opposition to, and hatred of, a Jewish self-determination in the Jews’ ancient homeland, and are indistinguishable in ethnicity, religion and language from the neighboring Arab communities.

Of course Obama will prefer Abbas!

[end comment from Jihadwatch here]


Note at the centre of the piece on Abbas above the commenter (4infidels) places Holocaust Denial right there. This is about right.

The Arabs in the period of the 30s and 40s were not just standing by, they were madly participating in the Holocaust, and they were aiming to kill every Jew in the Middle East and Islamist countries as well.

Of course people like the Oxford trained journalist speaking on RadioTalkEurope a Mr Stephen Ritson will deny this as will the BBC Israel haters.

Ritson should take a look at the following and come up with some answers for his knowledge starved listeners.

(By the way the sidekick of Ritson, a University has been called Ms Kate Ferry, thinks that Ireland got its independence in 1916. No, you silly woman, that was the Rising…think Easter and GPO you ignoramus)

[start quote on Arab Nazis here]

The most important book to read on the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Nazis has, unfortunately, not yet been translated into English. Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers’ Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das “Dritte Reich”, die Araber und Palästina, translated Crescent Moon and Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine was published September, 2006.

Dr. Klaus-Michael Mallman, the author of many books on Germany and the Holocaust, is Privatdozent für Neuere Geschichte at the University of Essen. Martin Cuppers is a researcher at the Forschungsstelle Ludwigsburg, and has published an important book on the command staff and office of the Reichsfuhrer SS, the Head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler.

Here is a summary of the argument of the book, translated from a long summary in German:

The Nazis prepared to extend the Holocaust into Palestine and in preparation for doing so they infected the Arabs with their ideology, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, and the forces around Amin al-Husseini, in order to have allies.

“The Jew is the enemy and to kill him pleases Allah.” This statement, which is formulated a bit more rhetorically in the Charter of the Palestinian government party Hamas and which appears in publications of the Iranian state publishing house, and is daily broadcast by Hezbollah TV al-Manar to all world, actually originates neither from Islamic extremists nor from recent events. It was the common coin of Nazi radio broadcasts to the Arabs between 1939 and 1945 in order to win Arab hearts and minds to the German cause. Meanwhile German Middle East experts endeavored in Germany to convince the Nazi government of “the natural alliance” between National Socialism and Islam. Experts such as the former German Ambassador in Cairo, Eberhard von Stohrer, reported to Hitler in 1941 that “the Fuhrer already held an outstanding position among the Arabs because of his fight against the Jews.”

It continues

Despite the initial Nazi tolerance of Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine, the Nazi government eventually expanded their Holocaust plans to include the destruction of the Jews in the Near East. Studies undertaken by SS Einsatzgruppe [Special Taskforce] F already were listing Jewish dwellings in Palestine to be confiscated as accommodations for German troops once the Afrika Korps arrived in Palestine. Starting from the summer of 1942, an “SS Einsatz Gruppe Egypt” was established after the model of the mass-murder Einsatzgruppen active on the East Front, which had already murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews. The one established in Egypt was led by SS-Obersturmbannführer Walter Rauff and he had a whole staff with him, experienced in the murder of Jews, experts from the RSHA, the Head Office for Reich Reich Security. Their order: To continue “the destruction of the Jews begun in Europe with the energetic assistance of Arab collaborators” in the Near East.

According to Mallmann and Cuppers, the main Nazi ally locally was the Arab National Movement, and especially the Palestinian national movement, under the guidance of the exiled Amin al-Husseini Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and uncle of the later Palestinian president Yassir Arafat.

[end quote on Arab Nazis  and Holocaust here]

That was the reality in 1942, the fate of every Jew in the Middle East hung on whether Rommell would win or be beaten.

The Desert Rats did the business and the Jews went on by great good fortune (some Jews call it a miracle but many Desert Rats died in this “miracle”) to create a wonderful country, which is Israel.

I will leave you with this other comment on Jihad Watch (Damm, those guys are witty) which manages to express just what a jittery position Obama is actually in.

But Ted Belman of Israpundit I regret to say is not thinking entirely straight on this. Ted thinks because since Obama is in such shit straits then he should join with Israel America´s only real friend.

Ted it is a matter of ideology and the ideology gripping Obama is of a very strong kind.

Obama is a Jew Hater, which is the same as being an Israel hater.

The ideology drives Obama, Clinton and really the whole US elite.

The Holocaust did not do Hitler much good. But he Eichmann and el Husseini stuck to the Jew murdering to the very end.

[start second quote from Jihadwatch comments here]

Lower than Carter by a mile…Raulullahhaha’s ‘gift’ does not seem to working well…Every time he ‘opens his clenched fist’ to Islam, he gets btch slapped….North Korea and Iran have his number.Israel has it too, but they don’t want to call him. Bibi is already tired of endless talk with emphasis put on the last word of every sentence. Israel will do what it deems necessary without Rasool… Teleprompter logic is not working…Rasools weaknesses and the weaknesses of those around him is showing itself…China see the re-emergence of the ‘paper tiger’, while Putin laughs.
The US is not inherently weak, but the new ‘saviors’ have given the entire nation a debilitating case of the swine flu. We are wobbling and may require bed rest.
The liars, the socialists, the communists, marxist, and Islamic usurpers, are now in charge.
They are really good at facing down domestic ‘right wing extremists’ like Michael Savage, but not so good with North Korea, Iran, Hamas and Fatah…Expect Rasool Obama to kiss Abu Mazens ring…Lets see if he bows again to the King…He did it the last time, it will be an insult to the King if he does not bow this time…

[end second comment on Jihadwatch here]

But I leave one question for the above commenter on Jihadwatch.

How can a real communist or socialist be in support either of Abbas the Holocaust Denier, or of the PLO/PA outfit that descends straight from Hajj Amin el Husseini and his role in the Holocaust.

Carried on by Abbas Holocaust Denial, and by the Jew Haters of Hamas, Hizbullah and Ahmadinejad

To Jihadwatch:

Think straight guys! Then you will be not only funny but smart!


by Felix Quigley

May 28, 2009

The following is an extract from a piece by Daniel Greenfield.

We print it precisely because it is a part answer to the Obama Clinton call of today that Israel stop all settlements in Judea and Samaria.

Note that we do not use the terminology “West Bank”. The real name for this area is Judea and Samaria. You know, Judea, the Home of the Jews.

We live in the era of The Big Lie.

It is very like the 1930s. what the poet WH Auden referred to as the decade of low reason.

Hence the name West Bank is not at all accidental. It was chosen when Arabs attacked Israel genocidally in 1967, when they were defeated by the Jews, in order to hide the name Judea.

So let us call things by their proper name. Judea, also Samaria, also Gaza which is a name which figures in the Hebrew Bible…

Clinton has made the call on behalf of Obama that no settlements are to exist in this area. Now this is about the most antisemitic call or demand that there has ever been.

This is the step along the way to the US elite joining with Nazis in clearing the area of Judea and Samaria with Gaza (the latter already cleared thanks to Sharon) of Jews. The Nazi term for this is Judenfrei.

It is also unjust. Israel is expected to keep within its state with full rights at least a million Arabs.

We can thus say that the Clinton Obama call is Nazi and Antisemitic. It is full of Jew Hatred.

The aim is to carve out of Jewish land a Palestine State sitting right at the heart of Israel. Look at the map and you will see that this state planned by Obama and Arab Holocaust deniers like Abbas almost cuts Israel in two, since it creates a situation where Israel will be 9 miles wide at its centre, while a little bit further south Israel is cut again by a planned connector from Gaza

[Begin Greenfield analysis here]

Daniel Greenfield – May 18, 2009

Everyone, and by “everyone” I mean the denizens of Washington D.C.’s and Brussel’s government buildings, agrees that we need a Palestinian state.

Chiming in with their “Yes” votes are the dictator of a dozen Arab states who agree that the only thing that will fix the region is adding another Arab dictatorship to the place, and subtracting the region’s one democracy.

 But who actually needs a Palestinian state? Or rather a second Palestinian state.

The first Palestinian state, commonly called Jordan, was carved out of the Palestine Mandate and equipped with a refugee Saudi royal family.

Today Jordan exists mainly under the protection of the US and Israel, and its population of Palestinian Arabs is a seething mass of Muslim extremists currently enjoying a 30 percent unemployment rate, where the majority of the population supports Osama Bin Laden, at a higher percentage rate than even Pakistan.

But Jordan is practically heaven on earth compared to the Second Palestinian State that the Obama Administration is to determined to inflict on Israel.

 Currently ruled by mutually hostile armed gangs loyal to either the Fatah or Hamas terrorist groups, Palestine 2.0 has already been a failed state for over a decade. Every attempt at foreign investment has failed.

The ruins of industrial zones, greenhouses and even a casino, dot the landscape.

Palestinian Arab Christians from overseas who returned to build up the economy fled quickly in the face of relentless shakedowns, kidnappings and militia gangs masquerading as law enforcement.

The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs work for two employers.

The UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority… which in turn is funded by foreign donors.

Work for the Palestinian Authority usually means belonging to a militia gang which is loyal to a particular figure in the PA leadership, who in turn passes that loyalty on to the current “government”.

With little to do, the gangs spend their free time dealing drugs, carrying out terrorist attacks and collecting protection money from their town’s remaining stores.

For 17 years, Israel, America and just about every interested party has tried to build a Palestinian state.

They provided weapons and training to build a modern Palestinian police force. They sent advisers and fortunes in economic aid, thousands per Palestinian Arab. They created industrial zones and transferred greenhouses. Billions in funds from the EU, America and various do-gooders were swallowed up to fund the lavish lifestyles of Arafat and his henchmen

[End extract from Greenfeld here]


The very first task is to create the Trotskyist leadership. That is Number 1.

The second is that there must be created a wider organization in Europe and especially in America which will be based on opposition to this horrific Nazi Jew hating type state, which they are calling “Palestine”.

This will rule out groups like AIPAC which has a policy of supporting this Palestine.

In other words there must be agreement on principles.

But this will not mean ignoring AIPAC or taking an abstentionist or sectarian attitude to AIPAC, to use just one example.

Our new organization must campaign among the ordinary jews and gentiles in groups like AIPAC and win their support on a principled basis, exposing the politics of the leaders of course.

In other words the struggle now and ahead is propagandistic, but with that it is also highly practical

(Please make your comment belo2w or if you want your comment to be private write private at the top and it will not be published)


by Felix Quigley

May 25, 2009


Obama came into power as President of the United States, strongest power on earth, most important individual on earth, and the first thing he did was say to Islam, “I love you; I respect you; I am listening to you; what do you want us the United States to do…

And without waiting a single second for an answer Obama told the forces of Islam that



But the world is not just made up of Israel and the Palestinians.

Almost immediately, certainly inside those 100 Obamaesque days so lauded by the Media, the Taliban in Pakistan had been given a gift of Sharia Law in a large province of that totally Islamic country.

The Islamists of the Taliban predictably did not recognize the gift but went on the rampage and hey…nearly immediately in the Obama presidency the Islamofascists had their finger almost on the nuclear button of Pakistan.

Meanwhile Obama said really nice things to the Iranian Mullahs and waited for a reply, and waited and waited!

Obama still waits on that score and the Iranians continue their mad fiendish rush to get Nuclear.

Now the mad Stalinists who run North Korea have given another decisive answer to Obama.

But this answer is not what it seems or as it is being portrayed. The nuclear test and specialist rocketry just let off by the North Koreans is actually very closely tied in with the antisemitism of Iran and the Arabs.

It seems to most people following the anti Israel BBC reports that Iran is one entity, the North Koreans are quite a separate entity, Chavez in South America something separate again, and so on.

But it is not at all like that. In reality all of these forces are driving together against Israel, the Israeli Jewish state, and against the best traditions of the American people as well.

[begin report from DEBKAfile here]

The US president Barack Obama said North Korea’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons was a threat to international peace and security and a matter of grave concern to all nations. This was his first response to North Korea’s second nuclear test Monday, May 25.

The former head of Israel’s nuclear commission, Yigal Eylam estimated it was in the 20-kiloton range, roughly equal to the US atom bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII.

Russia announced a UN Security Council meeting on the crisis later Monday after confirming a 4.7 magnitude disturbance first detected by seismologists was in fact a subterranean nuclear test. Pyongyang thereupon threatened to meet any world measures with another nuclear test. Immediately after the nuclear test, North Korea test-fired three short-range missiles, the South Korean army reported.

Tokyo and other regional capitals are tensely watching to see how Washington handles the second crisis precipitated by Pyongyang less than a month after it tested a ballistic missile. Tehran is just as agog. DEBKAfile‘s military sources note that North Korea and Iran are closely and secretly coordinated on their military nuclear programs.

For instance, most of the missile guidance technology which gave the long-range Seijl 2 surface missile tested by Iran Wednesday, May 20, its bull’s-eye accuracy came from Pyongyang. Iran’s long-range missile test was carried out less than a month after North Korea’s own internationally condemned missile test launch on April 5. The Security Council chairman rebuked this test, for which the North Korean government demanded an apology and reopened its plutonium reactors in reprisal.

Tehran may therefore be expected to be not far behind its nuclear partner in conducting its own first nuclear test. Iranian nuclear and missile scientists are regularly invited to attend North Korea’s missile and nuclear systems experiments and performance in recent years.

(What if Mullen is wrong and they build it before one year is out which given the gist of this article is more than likely)

The US army chief, Adm. Mike Mullen warned Sunday, May 24, that Iran may attain a nuclear weapon any time between one and three years from now.

(And it is hard to get a capitalist rally going in conditions where the world physically is in danger of going into small radioactive bits!)

Asian stock markets fell after North Korea said it conducted a nuclear test, erasing an earlier rally that was fueled by gains in mining and shipping companies.

Pyongyang claims its second test Monday was more powerful than its first in October 2006.

[end of Debka report on Korean nuclear threats here]

The key aspect in the above report is the link made by Debka between the Iranian drive to destroy Israel and the actions of these crazy North Korean Stalinists.

The North Korean Stalinists are a wierd lot indeed, a kind of creation of the stalinist theory of building socialism in one country.

It remains a poor backward country but of course even from poverty can come concentrated efforts on a project like this. These North Korean Stalinists and their absurd programme of creating socialism through Nuclear War (!!!) brings to mind the forced collectivization of Pol Pot, another Stalinist creation.

In fact the Obama declaration of war on Netanyahu and on Israel has opened the door to possible dreadful ramifications to the people of the world from such crazies.


by Felix Quigley

May 19, 2009

The following analysis by DEBKAfile is vital reading and concerns the life or death of every Jew on the planet.

OK if you just see the smiles at the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu you would think things were not so bad.

That would be a big mistake. There is a huge breach between these two people.

Obama has the interests of the US Imperialists at heart. Obama is seeking an alliance with Islam.

This is not just Obama as an individual. Otherwise how explain Bush standing in the ashes of the Twin Towers and talking about Islam being a religion of peace!!!

Why do the Imperialists seek an alliance with Islam? We have on many occasions dealt with this so just now let us say is located in the world capitalist crisis.

In short Obama is out of the Khalidi school of Israel hatred and it is a pivotal position for Obama to support the “Palestinians”

This is a construct and is code word for Jew hatred in our modern epoch. Under cover of this word all the urges of antisemitism make themselves felt and eventually makes their voice heard.

Netanyahu like many Jewish men and women come from patriotic Jewish heritage. OK they find it difficult to know how to fight. Hence cave-ins along the line by the likes of Netanyahu as in the Hebron fiasco some years back.

But the chips are now down with Israel faced with destruction, massively outnumbered, and as we speak betrayed by the US and EU elites.

To fight and possibly prevail or not to fight and to certainly go down. That is the eternal dilemma.

But the Jews have been there before. The Holocaust IS at the centre of so much of what goes on in politics in the world today. NO WONDER AHMADINEJAD WAS A HOLOCAUST DENIER AS A MATTER OF STRATEGIC PRINCIPLE.

[start excellent DEBKAfile analysis of meeting here]

DEBKAfile‘s Washington sources report that the gap between US president Barack Obama and Israel prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Iran was wider even than on the Palestinian issue. Overshadowing their outwardly easy conversation was the US president’s growing inclination to meet Iran halfway on uranium enrichment and call off UN and American sanctions if Tehran allows international monitoring of the process.

Our intelligence sources report that Obama is seriously considering taking up the Anglo-German proposal for an international monitoring mechanism strict enough to preclude Iran’s attainment of weapons-grade enriched uranium.

The president was convinced by American intelligence and nuclear experts that this can be done. He also believes that nothing will persuade Tehran to cede its right to enrichment activity on its soil.

Israeli intelligence and military experts take the opposite view. They believe the Anglo-German plan gives Iran the perfect cover for concealing its race for a nuclear bomb, a misgiving shared by the political and military establishments of the moderate Arab governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

It is their view that if Obama adopts this plan, Iran can be sure of arriving at a nuclear weapon capability by the end of 2010.

This dispute did not come up in the Obama-Netanyahu conversation. Both skated around the Iranian nuclear threat separately without touching on options outside diplomacy. The US president said he was in the process of “reaching out” to Iran and was confident he could persuade Tehran’s rulers that a nuclear weapon was not in their best interest if they wanted to be fully accepted as part of the international community. He did not mention uranium enrichment or a military option against Iran. Neither would he accept a deadline for negotiations with Tehran, except to say that at the end of the year, “we will see where we stand.”

But asked later to comment, Netanyahu said: “We will defend ourselves.”

Seen from outside Washington, by Iran’s neighbors, Israeli and Arab alike, President Obama has made Iran the gift of seven clear months for developing its nuclear capabilities and enrichment undisturbed.

The only thing left to the Israeli prime minister was to commend “the president’s firm commitment that Iran will not attain a nuclear weapon.”

[end debkafile report here]


by Felix Quigley

May 19, 2009

There is an intense crisis within the ranks of the Jewish and Israeli world.

Let me take the reader through the latest thinking of an Israeli a member of the Israeli elite and I am certain that this will be shown clearly. His name is Yuval Diskin.

Diskin is the leading light in Shin Bet which is the very top of Israeli Intelligence. It is reported in the excellent DEBKAfile:

[start report on Diskin statement here]

US president Barack Obama’s plan to launch a fresh Middle East initiative is a non-starter as long as the extremist Hamas rules the Gaza Strip, said Shin Bet (internal security agency) director Yuval Diskin Tuesday, May 19. He was commenting to the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee on the extensive talks the US president held with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House Monday.



Israel’s policy-makers must decide once and for all whether to topple the Hamas regime which in his view can be done without reoccupying the Gaza Strip.


Hamas will not let go of the Gaza Strip or its fundamentalist ideology, Diskin warned, while the Palestinian Authority is equally determined to hold on to the West Bank. But if elections were held on the West Bank today, Hamas would win.


He confirmed DEBKAfile‘s disclosure on May 18 (Egypt acts – finally – to block Hamas arms smuggling) that Egyptian forces in Sinai and the Philadelphi Corridor of the Gaza Strip have now clamped down in earnest on Hamas’ gunrunning gunnels through Sinai. For article click HERE

Until its special forces went into action, Hamas used the four months since Israel’s Gaza operation ended in January to smuggle in 46 anti-air missiles, 330 mortars, 37 short-range ground missiles and 17 tons of explosives.

Hamas, said Diskin, is aiming to upgrade its arsenal with missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv and its satellite towns in central Israel. He said there is no evidence that the Palestinian organization has succeeded. Rumors reached DEBKAfile‘s military sources during the Gaza offensive that Hamas had got hold of three or four Fajr-5 rockets which would have brought southern Tel Aviv 63 kilometers to the north of the Gaza Strip within range, but they were never confirmed.


After meeting Netanyahu, Obama reaffirmed his belief in a Palestinian state alongside Israel as the solution for the Middle East conflict. Netanyahu said the Palestinians should govern themselves but warned that the West Bank could easily deteriorate into a “Hamastan.”





In Gaza City, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum, in a statement denouncing the Obama-Netanyahu summit, accused the US president of failing to bring change to US policy or counter the prime minister’s demand for Israel’s recognition as a Jewish state. Hamas forbids the PA to resume negotiations with the “Zionist enemy” because of “the great danger they would pose for the Palestinian people.”








Hamas and Fatah delegates wound up the sixth round of their power-sharing talks in Cairo Monday without breaking their impasse.









Netanyahu is faced by the unrelentling antisemitism of the whole world.

This antisemitism takes the form of “Palestinianism”. No matter how much these antisemites show that they are just that, that they hate Jews, that they will not accept Jews in the Middle East. NO MATTER HOW MUCH STILL THEY ARE SUPPORTED IN THE WEST!

And then when you have people such as upper class British people rabbiting on about the Jews giving up their state and living inside a unitary state, in which the Arabs above have the power, and the Jews apparently hoping for the best.

Now after having removed themseves from Gaza, then seeing that very place being used as an attack base by the antisemites, they expect Israelis to ignore that.

There is something particularly dense about these modern day western haters of our only Jewish state.


The article by Israel National News has put its finger on the truth of the situation. Obama came across in the interview after the meeting with Netanyahu as a man who has got little ideas in his head of value, but in any case is totally hostile to the Jews and to the Israel state, and is in fact to all intents and purposes a palestinian supporter and die hard. Eltad in the following is correct.

MK Eldad:

U.S. Selling Us Down the River

by Gil Ronen


( MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union party) said following the meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that Israel has true cause for concern, because the U.S. is shaking off its historic commitment to vouch for Israel’s security.

“Defining a deadline-free negotiating process vis-à-vis Iran means, in practice, that the U.S. is willing to accept a nuclear Iran and that Israel remains alone facing Iran,” Eldad said.

Actually the above assessment contains a misunderstanding of a very deep nature


This was proved completely by the reseach of Jared israel and Francisco Gil White.

It is on this vital point that the questions of the day do have to be fought out.

Let us return to the INN report

“Israel will have no choice but to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities with all the means at its disposal, be the price what it may be,” Eldad concluded.

MK Ophir Akunis, head of the Likud’s Media Responses Team, said that the predictions of a tense meeting between Obama and Netannyahu have proven untrue. “The Obama-Netanyahu meeting proved again the power of the deep bond between the U.S. and Israel,” he said. 

MK Danny Danon (Likud) said that the Prime Minister deserves praise for standing firm in the face of pressures exerted upon him in the past weeks.

Danon is indeed correct. Netanyahu did stand firm against Obama and the whole of the Media Machine.

Netanyahu did not lose sight of the main aim, and the main reason for his election, nd that is to save the Jes of Israel from a ne Holocaust of the Jews.

But you understand that the Jewish people are very divided and that there are real traitors inside the Israeli population.

As the following shows:

MK Ze’ev Boim (Kadima) said after the meeting, “It is too bad that the Number One expert in Israel on understanding American political culture stumbled when he tried to lure President Obama with meaningless verbiage.”

 Netanyahu “missed an opportunity to create real relations of trust, just as he is about to miss the historic opportunity mentioned by the President,” Boim added.

“Bibi should have known that verbal acrobatics will not persuade the President and it would have been better if he had arrived with a thought-out plan for dealing with the Palestinian issue in order to achieve American support for Israel’s approach on Iran,” Boim said.

Boim appears not to give tuppence about the Iranian Bomb threat and he appears to support the Jihadist Palestine state.

And Boim is from Kadima which is responsible through Sharon for the evacuation of every Jew from Gaza which as taken over by Hamas which has waged war on Israel since that event.


by Felix Quigley

May 19, 2009

I continue to look at the radio station “Radio Talk Europe” which broadcasts in Spain.

Yesterday, May 18, its chief “politico” Stephen Ritson made a reference to AIPAC as a “Trojan Horse”.

What this is usually taken to mean is that there are Jewish Americans who are loyal to Israel and are traitors to America. The obvious meaning also is that this AIPAC as part of the “Jewish Lobby” control the US foreign agenda.

This control is in particular towards the Middle Eastern US policy, and the added nuance is that Israel is oppressing the “Palestinians”.

Ritson has also made a reference to Hamas as a “Resistance”.

Also in yesterday´s programme on Ritson´s hour long show a Kate Hoey called for a one state solution. She means a state with an Arab majority. The implication is that Jews could be safe in that state.

A week ago we reported that a Howard Brereton had run a BBC report the essence of which was that Israel was driving Muslims and Christians out of Bethlehem (time of Pope visit)

To complete the picture a Barry Norman called for a Palestine state on the Ritson show. Norman calls himself pro Israel!!!

Ritson is extremely favourably disposed to a “Barbara”, an American who rings each week, and who has the same politics as the terrorist supporting ISM.

When I rang once Ritson was heckling me before I even got started. Why the difference in treatment Ritson!!!

And to top it all the station is owned and run by a Jewish man Maurice Boland.

As we reported Boland (on his folksy show) seemed to call an Arab called Saleem who has broken from the PLO a fake. We also reported on this.


The big issue at the moment is the position of the US towards Iran and the Iranian Bomb.

It is on that issue that there needs to start a discussion as to what is the essence of the Iranian regime. This can focus on the meaning of the various statements which Ahmadinejad has made towards Israel.

(Can we take it as certain that the Iranian Mullahs wish to make a Nuclear Bomb and that that is the reason for their enrichment process)

Let us examine the statement of Ahmadinejad. Actually he has made many but let us focus on the statement made at one specific conference


I turn to the entry in Wikipedia because those who are pro Iranian Mullah and anti Israel have a fair shout in this entry. I focus on that part which deals with the “World Without Zionism” meeting or conference where Ahmadinejad made that disputed call.

Inside this there is a Canadian reference to this call by Ahmadinejad and teh Canadians claim that Iranian translators of the highest calibre were sure that he as calling literally for wiping Israel off the map.

But before we go into this lengthy quote from Wikipedia which the reader may decide to skim or read quickly, please do not miss the context


I will return to the significance of that later

[begin Wikipedia extract on the disputed Ahmadinejad speech]

2005 “World Without Zionism” speech


On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, filed a story on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s recent speech to the “World Without Zionism” conference in Asia. The story was entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map.[1] The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying:

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.[2]

Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over “the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power”,[3] and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as “acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.”

The speech also indicated that the Iranian President considered Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to be a trick, designed to gain acknowledgement from Islamic states. In a rally held two days later, Ahmadinejad declared that his words reflected the views of the Iranian people, adding that Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid.[4]


[edit] “Wiped off the map” or “Vanish from the pages of time” translation

Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) statement that Ahmadinejad had demanded that “Israel must be wiped off the map”,[5][6] an English idiom which means to “cause a place to stop existing”,[7] or to “obliterate totally”,[8] or “destroy completely”.[9]

Ahmadinejad’s phrase was ” بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود ” according to the text published on the President’s Office’s website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[10]

According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad’s statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[11]

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as “be eliminated from the pages of history.”[12]

According to Cole, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ because no such idiom exists in Persian”. Instead, “He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”[13]

On June 2, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.[14]

Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.[15][16][17] On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. “Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned,” Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. “How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime,” he said.[18][19][20]

Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada who presented a paper at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust conference in Iran, believes the text is a mistranslation.[21]

Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—”wipe Israel off the map”—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can “wipe out” U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[22][23][24]

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor and Israeli resident Ethan Bronner argued that Ahmadinejad had called for Israel to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner stated:

But translators in Tehran who work for the president’s office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than “vanish” because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

Bronner continued: “ is hard to argue that, from Israel’s point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran’s president call for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.”[13] This elicited a further response from Jonathan Steele, who took issue with the use of the word “map” instead of the phrase “wipe out” and criticized this Wikipedia entry (as it was on June 14, 2006) for misrepresenting Ethan Bronner.[25]

[edit] Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad

President Ahmadinejad has been asked to explain his comments at subsequent press conferences. At a later news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[26] “There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want.”

Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being “no need for any measures by the Iranian people”. Instead he claimed that “the Zionist regime” in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. “I assure you… there won’t be any war in the future,” both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.[27][28]

And asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that “creating an objection against the Zionists doesn’t mean that there are objections against the Jewish”. He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country’s parliament.[27]

In a September 2008 interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman on the radio and television program Democracy Now!, Ahmadinejad was asked: “If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?” and replied

If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay … Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it’s very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[29]

Interviewer Juan Gonzalez called the reply “a tiny opening”.[29] Another observer however dubbed it an “astonishing” admission “that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel,” and a “softening” of Ahmadinejad’s “long-standing, point-blank anti-Israeli stance”. Australian-born British human rights activist Peter Tatchell also asked whether the statement reflected opportunism on Ahmadinejad’s part, or an openness by Iran “to options more moderate than his reported remarks about wiping the Israeli state off the map.”[30]


[edit] Interpretation of speech as call for genocide

The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. For example, Canada‘s then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, “this threat to Israel’s existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran’s obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore.”[31]

In 2007, more than one hundred members of the United States House of Representatives co-sponsored a bill,[32] “Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.”[33]

Cole interprets the speech as a call for the end of Jewish rule of Israel, but not necessarily for the removal of Jewish people:

His statements were morally outrageous and historically ignorant, but he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the “occupation regime” in Gaza “vanish” last summer [sic]) or for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews to Europe.[34]

However, the Iranian government IRIB News in English published a story reporting on the Ahmadinejad speech on ‘Qods Day’ on Oct 5 2007, stating that the president ‘repeated an earlier suggestion to Europe on settlement of the Zionists in Europe or big lands such as Canada and Alaska so they would be able to own their own land.’[35]

Gawdat Bahgat, Director of Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, commenting on this saying of Ahmadinejad and Iran’s nuclear program states: “The fiery calls to destroy Israel are meant to mobilize domestic and regional constituencies. Iran has no plan to attack Israel with its nuclear arsenal and powerful conventional military capabilities. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni summed up his country’s stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict by stressing, ‘[The] Palestine issue is not Iran’s jihad.'” In fact, Bahgat says that according to most analysts a military confrontation between Iran and Israel is unlikely.[36]

In the speech, Ahmadinejad gave the examples of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein‘s regime in Iraq as examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist. Ahmadinejad used these examples to justify his belief that the United States and the State of Israel can also be defeated claiming, “they say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan.”[2]

In April 2006, Iran’s ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad’s position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?

SOLTANIEH: I think I’ve already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no. But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.[37]


[end of lengthy extract from Wikipedia on interpretations of Ahmadinejad speech]

The above is taken from the Wikipedia entry under the url



Cole is a strong critic of Israel‘s foreign and military policy and its treatment of Palestinians. He criticizes the nature of America’s support for Israel and the activities of the “Israel Lobby”,[59] and claims that some senior US officials such as Doug Feith have dual loyalties to America and the Israeli Likud Party.[60]



Remember that we said that we would not forget that the Ahmadinejad disputed comment was made at a “World without Zionism” conference.


As an Irish person let me say that Zionism is Jewish nationalism, it is the wish of the Jews to have a Homeland which they can call their own.

Well the Irish have this. So why not the Jewish people as well!

Or is the world going to deny the right of the Jewish people to have a Homeland?

So let us call that sentiment by its very precise and proper name. To do that is indeed the action of an antisemitic person.

So the conference in total “World without Zionism” was indeed antisemitic.

Now that is the essence of the position of the Iranian Mullah Government as expressed by its President Ahmadinejad.


So then have we established that the Iranian Mullah regime is based on antisemitism. If so what must be the action of the Jews of Israel if they have got knowledge that these antisemites are producing Nuclear Bomb capability.

That is the question which has to be addressed by these people, in no particular order

1. Obama

2. Barry Norman

3. Ritson, who seems to have a hatred for Israel

4. Hoey, who wants the Jewish state ended

5. Boland, the Jewish owner of that radio station, who hosts all of these people, and who condemns asa fake an Arab who opposes the PLO

And of course many others.

We do live in interesting, and if you are Jewish, very dangerous times.


by Felix Quigley

May 18, 2009

(later in this article we deal with a discussion on Radio Talk Europe, a weekly programme, and I listened to it today)

Today Netanyahu Prime Minister of Israel is in Washington to talk to Obama. This whole series of events and meetings has got life and death implications for the 6 million of Jews who live in Israel and for the Jews also in the Diaspora, whose future also depends totally on Israel.

The central issue is Iran and the attitude which the American Governments have had towards Iran. It is not simply Obama although this present Democratic Government run by Obama and Hilary Clinton is the most dangerous for Israel.

We also noted in recent weeks the role of the Papacy and the machinery of the Catholic Church and the great danger to Israel from the Pope.

The planned Palestine state which all of these, especially the Obama antisemitic team in Washington, is pushing for is the other side of the coin to the plans of Iran to get their hands on a Nuclear Bomb.

And behind this whole scenario, the threat to Israel from Iran, the atttacks on Israel by the Washington elite, the EU attacks also, lies the danger to Israel and Jews from antisemitism.

Consider this

1. A Palestine state lodged on the border of Israel will be dominated by Hamas

2. Hamas denies the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis

3. Hamas and Fatah, the whole Palestinian movement, was founded by the Nazi Hajj Amin el Husseini, who played a central role in the Holocaust

4. The whole of the Arab world was directly supporting the Nazis in the Holocaust. At the centre of operations in Germany with direct responsibility for the Balkans was the Arab from Palestine el Husseini

5. Recent vital research by 2 German academics, Mallman and Cuppers, has showed that the Nazis cum Arabs were intent on speading the Holocaust to Palestine, and that a team of killers were standing by in Egypt behind the Nazis Army which was fighting a life and death struggle in the Egyptian Desert to kill all Jews in Palestine

6. That in short is the history of the “Palestine” movement. Arafat was a relative of el Husseini. Abbas gained his doctorate in denial of the Holocaust.

That historical episode is what is posed today.


The great crisis in the leadership of the Jews is shown in that AIPAC, the group which canvasses support in America for Israel, has decided to campaign for a Palestine state, that is for a Nazi type state, which will be controlled by these Nazis and descendents of Nazis.

Another sign of the great crisis in leadership among Jews is suggestions that Jordan can be encouraged to take over the West Bank, that is Judea and Samaria. This is being suggested by Jewish bloggers like Ted Belman of Israpundit and I will show why this is totally bankrupt.

Inside Jordan there is already a population made up of at least 75 per cent Arab Palestinians. Consider then what these Jewish pundits are saying. That these 75 per cent be joined by all those Nazis and Jew haters from the West Bank and from Gaza. Who are directed and backed by Iran!

What then would happen?

Surely with Hamas in control this would mean total Jihadism in the Middle East.

Another sign of the great crisis in the ranks of the Jews was on a programme I listened to today on Radio Talk Europe.

Consider the panel of four on that who are Stephen Ritson, Norman Thomas, Barry Norman and a Kate Ferry.

Ritson today referred to AIPAC as a “Trojan Horse”, by which is usually meant that the Jews through AIPAC control the politics of the US Government. This is of course a lie.

Kate Ferry called for a single state, not a 2 state solution, which is whether Ferry knows it or not the position also of the terrorist supporting Palestine Solidarity Campaign. A single state would indeed be an Arab state with NO Jews except dead Jews. If you apply the logic of the Hamas Constitution.

Barry Thomas sees the problem as “extremists” on both sides who will not let it rest…so Israel is the same as the PLO etc

And Barry Norman supposed to be pro Israel (!!!) is now supporting Obama and the creation of a Palestine Jihadist state.

These positions are interesting only in so far as they express the whole of the EU elite and hatred of Israel.

And on top of this radio station, employing these 4 pundits, is Maurice Boland who is a Jewish man  from Dublin.

Can Maurice Boland, owner of Talk Radio Europe, now tell the world which of these 4 people that he agrees with?

Talk Radio Europe is in English and both Spanish and Europeans both listen to this. What then is the message that the Jihadists of the Palestine state will be good for Jews?

Is that really what Boland as the owner of this radio station really thinks? How does he get over the issue that it will be controled by Hamas. That when the Jews pulled out of Gaza and made it Judenfrei that Hamas used it as a base to attack Israel and to do what they only know, kill Jews.

What is the real lesson of the Gaza pull out by Israel? Did it bring peace? And why not?

Is Boland aware that Ritson referred to Hamas as a “resistance”. And should Boland not ask Ritson resistance to what and whom?

Why is Ferry allowed to call for a one state solution which means the obliteration of the state FOR the Jews, which was the very centre of the meaning of the Holocaust was it not?

And so on. The questions are endless.

What then is the alternative.

The first step in progress is to understand that the opposition to Israel is closely tied in with the politics and philosophy of Islam, that they simply do not want to have Jews living not only in their lands, but anywhere. They want a new Holocaust.

Remember Boland that Jews in the 1930s did not say anything and the result was the Holocaust.

Already Ritson has thrown a Holocaust Survivor, Naomi, off your station. How many other Jews are living in Spain who were in Palestine in the mid 1940s as Naomi tried to explain to Ritson but was thrown off Ritson´s station. That is over 60 approaching 70 years ago. Naomi was a child she told listeners. But there cannot be many, if any.

In short Boland I can find nobody on your station who is fighting for Israel and fighting for Jews. Yet you are Jewish.


We shall continue to monitor this weekly discussion programme led by Ritson and essentially hosted by Jewish man Boland.


by Felix Quigley

May 15, 2009

We have been dealing with the interview which Maurice Boland did with  Kamal Saleem.

The basic point of difference between Saleem and Boland was this.

Boland has in his mind a rigid idea of Islam, probably of religion in general.

Boland probably argues to himself that all religions are good, all alike, all want peace, and it is just a minority of “bad” people who set out to use and abuse these religions for their own nefarious ends.

But Boland has not bothered to study the subject.

So how does he know that all religions are the same, or like Ritson claim that all religions are equally bad. There may after all be differences between these religions and you will not know until you do the leg work.

Those who have taken the time and effort to study Islam have reached their own conclusions. These are the really interesting and enterprising people.

The reality is this. We are living in a period of great crisis and great change in the capitalist system, possibly great dangers from unstable environmental issues are going to be thrown into the mix.

It is a period where ideas are being challenged as never before.

So someone in a country like England or Spain gets up and challenges Islam. Racist! Reactioanry! hiss those folk who have these rigid ideas in their head. The following story shows very well the way in which ordinary people are moving, and I would say the ordinary poor people in countries especially crisis ridden Asia, and in this case the Arab world, to challenge Islam and the dogmas of Islam.

[begin story of Zakaria Botros here]


National Review Online

March 25, 2008

Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1’
Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire.

By Raymond Ibrahim

Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy No 1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadidhas been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (I.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.

Botros is an unusual figure onscreen: robed, with a huge cross around his neck, he sits with both the Koran and the Bible in easy reach. Egypt’s Copts — members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East — have in many respects come to personify the demeaning Islamic institution of “dhimmitude” (which demands submissiveness from non-Muslims, in accordance with Koran 9:29). But the fiery Botros does not submit, and minces no words. He has famously made of Islam  “ten demands” whose radical nature he uses to highlight Islam’s own radical demands on non-Muslims.

The result? Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry. More recently, al-Jazeera noted Life TV’s “unprecedented evangelical raid” on the Muslim world.

Several factors account for the Botros phenomenon.

First, the new media — particularly satellite TV and the Internet (the main conduits for Life TV) — have made it possible for questions about Islam to be made public without fear of reprisal. It is unprecedented to hear Muslims from around the Islamic world — even from Saudi Arabia, where imported Bibles are confiscated and burned — call into the show to argue with Botros and his colleagues, and sometimes, to accept Christ.

Secondly, Botros’s broadcasts are in Arabic — the language of some 200 million people, most of them Muslim. While several Western writers have published persuasive critiques of Islam, their arguments go largely unnoticed in the Islamic world. Botros’s mastery of classical Arabic not only allows him to reach a broader audience, it enables him to delve deeply into the voluminous Arabic literature — much of it untapped by Western writers who rely on translations — and so report to the average Muslim on the discrepancies and affronts to moral common sense found within this vast corpus.

A third reason for Botros’s success is that his polemical technique has proven irrefutable. Each of his episodes has a theme — from the pressing to the esoteric — often expressed as a question (e.g., “Is jihad an obligation for all Muslims?”; “Are women inferior to men in Islam?”; “Did Mohammed say that adulterous female monkeys should be stoned?” “Is drinking the urine of prophets salutary according to sharia?”). To answer the question, Botros meticulously quotes — always careful to give sources and reference numbers — from authoritative Islamic texts on the subject, starting from the Koran; then from the canonical sayings of the prophet — the Hadith; and finally from the words of prominent Muslim theologians past and present — the illustrious ulema.

Typically, Botros’s presentation of the Islamic material is sufficiently detailed that the controversial topic is shown to be an airtight aspect of Islam. Yet, however convincing his proofs, Botros does not flatly conclude that, say, universal jihad or female inferiority are basic tenets of Islam. He treats the question as still open — and humbly invites the ulema, the revered articulators of sharia law, to respond and show the error in his methodology. He does demand, however, that their response be based on “al-dalil we al-burhan,” — “evidence and proof,” one of his frequent refrains — not shout-downs or sophistry.

More often than not, the response from the ulema is deafening silence — which has only made Botros and Life TV more enticing to Muslim viewers. The ulema who have publicly addressed Botros’s conclusions often find themselves forced to agree with him — which has led to some amusing (and embarrassing) moments on live Arabic TV.

Botros spent three years bringing to broad public attention a scandalous — and authentic — hadith stating that women should “breastfeed” strange men with whom they must spend any amount of time. A leading hadith scholar, And al-Muhdi, was confronted with this issue on the live talk show of popular Arabic host Hala Sirhan. Opting to be truthful, al-Muhdi confirmed that going through the motions of breastfeeding adult males is, according to sharia, a legitimate way of making married women “forbidden” to the men with whom they are forced into contact — the logic being that, by being “breastfed,” the men become like “sons” to the women and therefore can no longer have sexual designs on them.

To make matters worse, Ezzat Atiyya, head of the Hadith department at al-Azhar University — Sunni Islam’s most authoritative institution — went so far as to issue a fatwa legitimatizing “Rida’ al-Kibir” (sharia’s term for “breastfeeding the adult”), which prompted such outrage in the Islamic world that it was subsequently recanted.

Botros played the key role in exposing this obscure and embarrassing issue and forcing the ulema to respond. Another guest on Hala Sirhan’s show, Abd al-Fatah, slyly indicated that the entire controversy was instigated by Botros: “I know you all [fellow panelists] watch that channel and that priest and that none of you [pointing at Abd al-Muhdi] can ever respond to him, since he always documents his sources!”

Incapable of rebutting Botros, the only strategy left to the ulema (aside from a rumored $5-million bounty on his head) is to ignore him. When his name is brought up, they dismiss him as a troublemaking liar who is backed by — who else? — international “Jewry.” They could easily refute his points, they insist, but will not deign to do so. That strategy may satisfy some Muslims, but others are demanding straightforward responses from the ulema.

The most dramatic example of this occurred on another famous show on the international station, Iqra. The host, Basma — a conservative Muslim woman in full hijab — asked two prominent ulema, including Sheikh Gamal Qutb, one-time grand mufti of al-Azhar University, to explain the legality of the Koranic verse (4:24) that permits men to freely copulate with captive women. She repeatedly asked: “According to sharia, is slave-sex still applicable?” The two ulema would give no clear answer — dissembling here, going off on tangents there. Basma remained adamant: Muslim youth were confused, and needed a response, since “there is a certain channel and a certain man who has discussed this issue over twenty times and has received no response from you.”

The flustered Sheikh Qutb roared, “low-life people like that must be totally ignored!” and stormed off the set. He later returned, but refused to admit that Islam indeed permits sex-slaves, spending his time attacking Botros instead. When Basma said “Ninety percent of Muslims, including myself, do not understand the issue of concubinage in Islam and are having a hard time swallowing it,” the sheikh responded, “You don’t need to understand.” As for Muslims who watch and are influenced by Botros, he barked, “Too bad for them! If my son is sick and chooses to visit a mechanic, not a doctor — that’s his problem!”

But the ultimate reason for Botros’s success is that — unlike his Western counterparts who criticize Islam from a political standpoint — his primary interest is the salvation of souls. He often begins and concludes his programs by stating that he loves all Muslims as fellow humans and wants to steer them away from falsehood to Truth. To that end, he doesn’t just expose troubling aspects of Islam. Before concluding every program, he quotes pertinent biblical verses and invites all his viewers to come to Christ.

Botros’s motive is not to incite the West against Islam, promote “Israeli interests,” or “demonize” Muslims, but to draw Muslims away from the dead legalism of sharia to the spirituality of Christianity. Many Western critics fail to appreciate that, to disempower radical Islam, something theocentric and spiritually satisfying — not secularism, democracy, capitalism, materialism, feminism, etc. — must be offered in its place. The truths of one religion can only be challenged and supplanted by the truths of another. And so Father Zakaria Botros has been fighting fire with fire.

Raymond Ibrahim is the editor of The Al-Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.


by Felix Quigley

May 15, 2009

The Irish Jewish man Maurice Boland who resides in the South of Spain and there runs a radio station in his interview with Kamal Saleem is of the opinion that the Koran and Islam is good, just that there is a minority who have distorted it.

This caused in the interview with Saleem an inordinate amount of hostility to this excellent Arab man, who has broken with the Fascist PLO and who actually fears for his life on that score.

I think Boland gave Saleem scant respect.

This was very strange. Boland claims to be a supporter of Israel so why was he not rolling out the welcome mat to Saleem.

Maybe he is just scared, scared of what the Islamofascists might and could do to his station etc. If so that is understandable anyways but it only serves to hightlight the problem, not make it go away.

So then how to resolve the problem and unanswered difference between Saleem and Boland?

Boland has probably never read a word of the Koran but still somehow thinks it is a religion of peace, just a minority distorting its message.

I would say that this is a leap into the dark by Boland. I think he is being a little adventurous in this. I doubt he has done the research. Boland therefore is in danger of lapsing from opinion to prejudice.

Actually the issue was admirably stated and answered by John Spencer on Front Page magazine some time ago.

We could do worse than have a good look at what Spencer wrote since Spencer is in my opinion the authority on the subject and really has put in the hours in studying this phenomenon, at the centre of which is the Koran.

I think that this publication of Spencer´s thoughts is the best answer to Boland who after Saleem had jumped on his bike to ride home was slandering Saleem as a phoney.

[begin extract from the John Spencer analysis of Islam here]

Killing for Allah

by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch

March 29, 2006

Robert Spencer | March 29, 2006

Before he drove a rented SUV onto the campus of the University of North Carolina and tried to run down and kill as many people as he could on March 3, Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar left a letter of explanation in his apartment. It is chillingly detached, almost clinical: “In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate. To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter to inform you of my reasons for premeditating and attempting to murder citizens and residents of the United States of America on Friday, March 3, 2006 in the city of Chapel Hill, North Carolina by running them over with my automobile and stabbing them with a knife if the opportunities are presented to me by Allah.”


In the letter, Taheri-azar identifies himself simply as “a servant of Allah.” He declares that “in the Qur’an, Allah states that the believing men and women have permission to murder anyone responsible for the killing of other believing men and women.…After extensive contemplation and reflection, I have made the decision to exercise the right of violent retaliation that Allah has given me to the fullest extent to which I am capable at present.” And further, “Allah’s commandments are never to be questioned and all of Allah’s commandments must be obeyed. Those who violate Allah’s commandments and purposefully follow human fabrication and falsehood as their religion will burn in fire for eternity in accordance with Allah’s will.”

In a letter written a week later, Taheri-azar asserted: “I live with the holy Koran as my constitution for right and wrong and definition of justice…. Allah gives permission in the Koran for the followers of Allah to attack those who have raged [sic] war against them, with the expectation of eternal paradise in case of martyrdom and/or living one’s life in obedience of all of Allah’s commandments found throughout the Koran’s 114 chapters. I’ve read all 114 chapters approximately 15 times since June of 2003 when I started reading the Koran.” And he did not try to murder UNC students “out of hatred for Americans, but out of love for Allah instead. I live only to serve Allah, by obeying all of Allah’s commandments of which I am aware by reading and learning the contents of the Koran.”

Taheri-azar may have been referring to passages such as Qur’an 2:190 (“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you…”) and 9:111: “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain…” There are numerous other passages enjoining violence against unbelievers (2:216; 9:5; 9:29; 47:4; etc.). But in response, according to a local news report, “several leaders of the Triangle Muslim community say Taheri-azar’s personal interpretation of the Quran is wrong and it goes against the true belief of Muslims across the world — which is peace.”

Such a response was predictable both in its content and lack of specificity. Every day brings more evidence that Muslims believe the Qur’an enjoins anything but peace: Monday saw hundreds of Muslim clerics demonstrating in Afghanistan against the release of Christian convert Abdul Rahman. They chanted “Death to Christians!” and called for the killing of Abdul Rahman in accord with Islam’s traditional prohibition of apostasy. One cleric, Faiez Mohammed of Kunduz, was succinct: “Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it.”

It is abundantly clear that even if Mohammed Taheri-azar acted alone on March 3 in Chapel Hill, his view of the Qur’an is not eccentric among Muslims worldwide. Yet three and a half years after Muhammad Atta and his crew flew a plane into the World Trade Center out of love for Allah, we still don’t see any sustained or concerted effort by self-proclaimed peaceful Muslims in the United States or anywhere else to disabuse their coreligionists of this jihad ideology, and its globalist, supremacist, totalitarian political agenda. Such an effort should not be seen as optional or incidental; without it, the very commitment of these self-proclaimed moderates to the United States and its Constitution can and should be called into question.

Also, analysts keep focusing on the question of whether or not Taheri-azar was a “terrorist.” I don’t care if you call him a canteloupe. The real problem here is that anyone anywhere at any time can read the Qur’an and come to the same conclusion that he did. If American officials were really serious about preventing a future attack, they would address that. If American Muslim advocacy groups were really serious about being loyal, patriotic Americans, they would address that.

Am I saying that the Qur’an should be outlawed, as was attempted long ago in Calcutta and about which there have been some rumblings recently in Germany?

No, I would prefer to deal more in the realm of what is realistically possible. I’d like to see an honest public discussion of the elements of the Qur’an and Sunnah that give impetus to violence and fanaticism. I’d like to see American Muslim spokesmen explain how they will specifically address these elements, and teach Muslims to reject them in favor of the principles of the equality of dignity and rights of all people, women as well as men, non-Muslims as well as Muslims. And I’d like to see them follow through on these explanations with real action.

Only then might we be getting somewhere against the phenomenon represented by Mohammed Taheri-azar. I am not holding my breath.

[end analysis here]

In conclusion, in fact that is what Kamal Saleem in his interview with Maurice Boland was doing.

He was calling for an honest look at the Koran and at the teachings of Mohammed and those who came after him. Also for an objective look at the role of Islam in history.

A debate! To his great shame Boland did the opposite in this interview on his radio station.

Every question which Boland posed to Saleem he answered in a comprehensive and cool manner.

For example when Saleem pointed to the effects of the hate filled passages in the Koran on Muslims in this day and age Boland asked for the evidence. Saleem directed Boland to the Pew website which is the recognized expert on statistics.

Boland was silent.

Yet when Saleem was gone Boland went on to slander Saleem to claim that he was a phoney.

Today Stephen Ritson on Boland´s station opened up a new front against Israel. Ritson was opposing the right of Israel to defend itself against the Iranian Fascists and their Jew hatred, at the centre of which surely is their H Bomb plan. Ritson by the way in practice lines up with Obama and against Netanyahu and Israel, thus Ritson the “Leftist” is on the side of Imperialism in the shape of Obama and the US State Department.

Under the influence of Ritson, and unable to cope with events, I can see Boland ending up attacking Israel. Hope not but we shall see.


by Felix Quigley

15 May, 2009

As stated last night Maurice Boland the Irish Jewish man who resides in the south of Spain and runs a radio station (called Talk Radio Europe)interviewed Kamal Saleem.

Much information about Arafat´s PLO was put out by Saleem and it was strange that Boland seemed to me to be uneasy with Saleem.

After all Boland is Jewish and is I would have thought a supporter of Israel. So when Saleem was exposing the real terrorist nature of the Palestinians and the Palestinian movement then why not be supportive.

Even before Saleem came on Boland had stated that Saleem´s views were not those of the station. Is Boland afraid of upsetting Islamists? Understandable if he is. But not good!

Saleem gave many leads that Boland did not follow up very hard.

He made heavy work of Saleem being recruited as a child, 7 year old, and used in a specific action, hence the name of the book “Blood of Lambs”.

We have pictures on our site which shows this is a common thing in the PLO.

Saleem stated he heard Arafat say that the Arabs above all must capture Jerusalem. Very apt as the interview took place in the Pope´s visit! But not followed up by Boland.

By the way the Pope´s visit was actually pretty well ignored by Boland´s station, except for one notorious BBC extract used by Howard Brereton which claimed that the Jews were driving the Christians out of Jerusalem (along with Muslims!)

Boland ever since the Gaza War has been on a dumbing down mission on his station, he refuses to confront the extremely biased against Israel reporter Stephen Ritson, and in his morning show from 8 to 10 Boland has employed a man called Jeremy who must qualify as not so much the King of Trivia but the Emperor of Trivia. His programmes are idiotic and a total insult to human intelligence! That in my opinion IS Boland and the direction Boland gives to HIS station.

In any case there was barely concealed hostility from Boland to Saleem.

I was not imagining this because when Saleem waved goodbye at the end of his interview Boland continued talking to his listeners. Then a strange, but actually disgustingly strange thing happened.

Boland claimed that the interview made him uneasy and that he believed that Saleem was a phoney, and in summing up at the end never a terrorist at all.

But he did not say it to Saleem´s face!

This was reminiscent of 2 things


1. When Stephen Ritson threw a Jewish woman called Naomi off his programme and Boland did not defend Naomi… I do not know Naomi but she told listeners before that she was present in 1947 in Israel and that things were so bad she had to flee to Cyprus. So Ritson threw a Holocaust Survivor off his programme because all present in Israel in 1947 to 49 were indeed fleeing from the Holocaust.

2. During the Gaza War a few months back Boland wanted to put the commercial interests of his station first. So he sought to close down the debate on Gaza. This however gave the green light to Ritson who is very biased against Israel. I realized Boland was doing this when he did an interview with Ian O´Doherty but then refused to broadcast the interview. O´Doherty was an opponent of Hamas.

Though many things came out last night in the interview which Boland did with Saleem it all centred on this question

Saleem insisted that present Muslim violence and hatred of Christians and Jews comes from the prophet Mohammed and from the Koran itself. Saleem referred to the part where the Jews are hiding behind trees and the trees are shouting out etc etc. But he was insistent that the Koran itself was the problem

Boland took the opposite view totally. He said the Koran was good just that a minority was misinterpreting it. He seemed to have it in his mind that there is no difference in this regard between the Torah, Bible and Koran, thus between Jews, Christians and Muslims. So Boland was echoing the line of Bush when he appeared morning after 9.11 and amid the cinders referred to Islam as the “Religion of Peace”.

And that is where the issue was left.

So we can see now that there is little difference between Boland, who is Jewish and nominally pro Israel, and Ritson who appears (actually to me quite obvious) to be full of hatred for Israel.

But re the Koran that is Boland´s opinion, and nothing more. In order to test this opinion, that Islam is a Religion of Peace, just as much as is the New Testament with its main figure head Jesus for example, we have to actually test the Koran.

Rather than take Boland´s word for it, actually a prejudice and just his opinion, we  have to do some research on the Koran itself.

Is Saleem right, or is Maurice Boland who echoes Bush right? We will see.

What gets me re Boland is this. Boland obviously was hostile in the interview to Saleem. That is fine. But when the interview was over Boland had no right to say he thought Saleem was phoney in some way. Saleem had answered every question, notably one on statistics, when he referred Boland to the Pew website. Boland actually owes Saleem an apology and probably owes Ian O´Doherty an apology as well.

But let us not deflect from the central issue. What about the Koran and Islam. Is it really a religion of peace?


Last night on Talk Radio Europe Maurice Boland interviewed Kamal Saleem. The interview by Boland was a total disgrace.

In next articles on 4international we shall look at the “Boland Method” of interviewing and we shall show just what he did to this courageous Arab who has broken witht he Fascist PLO

For the moment readers can go onto the site of this courageous Arab man and can read something for themselves.

On the site there is an acknowledgement from another very courageous Arab who is not prepared to toe the Arab Fascist line of Jew hatred. This is Walid Shoebat.

[begin quote here from the Saleem site]
“The Blood of Lambs is a book that all Americans who love truth and freedom should read. Using guile, patience, intimidation, and violence, Islamic fundamentalists are trying to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Islamic law. Kamal is one of the few brave former terrorists telling the truths that most wish to close their eyes and ears to. I commend Kamal in his work to wake up America.”

[end quote from the Saleem site here]


by Felix Quigley

May 13, 2009

We on 4international advise all of our readers not to miss the wonderful and truthful reports of the Popes visit on

This is one such report with our comment at the end

[Begin INN report here on Pope´s visit]

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas welcomed Pope Benedict XVI in Bethlehem in Wednesday morning, where his gift to the Catholic leader was a part of the cement separation-security barrier that Israel built to stop suicide bombers from blowing up soldiers and civilians.

Foreign media enthusiastically reported the visit, repeating Israeli leaders’ criticism of the Pope’s address at the Yad VaShem Holocaust Center but omitting reference to Monday night’s anti-Israeli outburst by a Muslim cleric in the pope’s presence.

“We have been suffering since the Nakba 61 years ago,” Abbas told the pope, using the Arabic word for the “catastrophe” of the re-establishment of the Jewish state and implying that the Palestinian Authority was a “people” for six decades. “On this holy land, there are people who continue to build separation walls instead of building bridges for connection,” he added.

The areas currently under partial or complete rule by the PA were occupied by Jordan and Egypt between 1947 and 1967, when the land was restored to Israel in the Six-Day War.

The pope specifically called for the establishment of a PA state after having implied as much in his speech when he landed in Israel on Monday at Ben Gurion Airport. “The Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your forefathers, secure and at peace with its neighbors, within internationally recognized borders,” the pope said.

His visit to Bethlehem Wednesday morning included a meeting with Arabs whose families were residents of Israel before the Arab attempt to annihilate the fledgling Jewish state in 1948.

He referred to them as “homeless.” A basic point of contention between Israel and the PA is the Arab demand that approximately five million descendants of former Israeli Arab residents be allowed to immigrate to the country.

Pope Benedict tempered his support for a PA state with a plea to Arab youth to “have the courage to resist any temptation you may feel to resort to acts of violence or terrorism.” However, he said he understood their violence, which he implied was Israel’s fault. “Do not allow the loss of life and the destruction that you have witnessed to arouse bitterness or resentment in your hearts,” he advised.

Most of his words included warm support for the PA. “I know how much you have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the turmoil that has afflicted this land for decades,” he stated in Bethlehem.

The Christian population in the city has dwindled significantly, particularly following Muslim harassment. However, Abbas told the pope, “Israel uses the power of occupation to force both Christians and Muslims in this country to migrate, and thus our holy places become antiquities for tourism.”

Following Abbas’s welcome, the pope drove to the Nativity Church to preside over a mass at Manger Square, where Arab terrorists several years ago used the church as a refuge for terrorism.

The PA deployed 3,000 guards to ensure order and to prevent a repeat of the embarrassing incident during the 2000 visit by Pope John Paul, when Arabs called out in Arabic, “Allah is great.” Terrorists often use the same slogan when attacking Jews.

[end report from INN here]



On the BBC World Service there was a report on the visit of the Pope to Bethlehem which was clearly antisemitic and was clearly designed to grow Jew Hatred.

The centre of the report was that the Jews and Israel was responsible for Christian Arabs leaving Bethlehem and other areas.

This is the biggest lie. There was no mention of the Jihad against both Jews AND Christians.

But some of the very worst antisemites int he Arab world have emerged out of the Arab Christian fraternity.

As I remember the BBC report this morning it made a reference to the Defensive Wall and Fence that Israel created, they talked in the most derogatory fashion.

It used the term “The Israelis claim” it was created as a defence against suicide bombings.

This is extremely insulting to Jews. It is not at all a claim, it is a fact, that Arabs were entering Israel during the Intifadas and were killing thousands of Jews of all ages, that is, it was a continuation of the Jew killing of the Holocaust.


This report was picked up by a Howard Brereton of Talk Radio Europe on his radio show this morning from 10 to 12 oclock.

This BBC slur against the Jews and Israelis was run by Brereton without one comment

Meanwhile in a reply on the morning show on the same station 2 days ago Steven Ritson lined up in support of Syria and Iran to a caller called “Barbara”. Ritson did not deal with their hatred of Israel.

All of this is going on in a radio station in Spain which is owned and run by a Jewish man from Dublin, Ireland called Maurice Boland.

The station run by this Jewish man from Ireland is becoming totally biased against Israel. There is not one person on the station who is actually supportive of Israel.


by Felix Quigley

May 13, 2009

The Vatican has always been at the centre of antisemitism and war on the Jews. It was thus down through the centuries when pogrom after pogrom in the name of Christianity was launched against Jews in the most far flung places on the planet

It was thus during the ascent to power of the Nazis who could not have taken power without the support of the Catholic “Central” Party.

No sooner was the war over than the Vatican was joining with the US in helping the Nazis to escape (see Christopher Simmons Blowback)

The Vatican has been opposed to the creation of Israel right from the word go in 1948.

The Vatican has been at the centre of all reaction and was especially in league with Reagan in his crusade against Communism and Socialism, being the main instigator of all reaction against the Stalinised Soviets.

So then, how could the journey which the ageing Benedict has made to Israel be anything but along these lines.

So what lines precisely?

It is our contention on 4international that the crisis in capitalism is deeper even than is let on by the various governments. What happens if there is no “recovery”

Then what is on the cards is Fascist dictatorship.

In those conditions of developing crisis, which is dialectical, the US and EU Governments will turn towards Islam as a rigid and Fascist ideology. At least Islam as a reactionary ideology will be one component.

Just read our recent interpretation of the Pope´s controversy with Islam over the issue of reason. Then while you are at it investigate how Islam treats women.

The Pope in his visit is both using Islam for Papal reasons and in turn is being used by Islam.

Both are being used by the main power centres, that is the US and EU Empires.

In a sense the visit of Benedict to Israel, his cavorting with the Islamist Jihad against the Jews, is one bludgeon blow against Netanyahu as he prepares to visit Obama on May 18.

The Pope and the Catholics hate the Jews. Of course they do not always say so but old antagonisms never die.

The Pope and the Catholics think that the Jews were responsible for the killing of Christ which was shown most clearly in the Mel Gibson film of a few years ago.

Just as the Pope visits the Holocaust Museum, he and his whole Church are silent on the role of the Arab Palestinian Nazi Hajj Amin el Husseini.

In this regard the Pope is part of the vast conspiracy to hide the role of this Arab Palestinian phenomenon in history. In this the Pope is in alliance with the whole of the modern so called “Left”.

It was the same branches of “Leftism” such as that of Oliver Kamm who hid the historical Nazi roots of Izetbegovic and his alliance in Bosnia with Hajj Amin el Husseini in the Holocaust period.

The real nature of the Pope must be drawn out and I believe there is a way to do this.

It involves not so much the Pope solely but the role of Obama towards Israel.

It is very clear that the Catholics of the Vatican are working closely with Obama in the determination of Obama to assist the Jihad of the Arabs and Ahmadinejad against Israel.

This is what has to be focussed upon.

It is necessary that every American worker (ordinary person) become knowledgable about the great dangers to Israel from Islam.

And of course to themselves!

That is the real meaning of the recent history of America when the Islamofascists murdered thousands in the Twin Towers.

While the next day Bush appeared and talked about Islam as a religion of peace.

It was as if the whole elite, including the trade union elite, closed ranks in order to protect Islam. Why!

We on 4international are now beginning a detailed examination of the visit of the People to the “Holy Land” and will draw out the meaning of this for the ordinary peoples of the world.


by Felix Quigley

May 13, 2009

The great danger to Israel comes from the Obama Government and its aim to force Israel to accept a Jihadist Palestinian state on its border.

The aim of the “Palestinians” has always been to set up a Jihadist state on Israeli soil and from there having weakended Israel to wear Israel down by Jihadist attacks.

The decision of the Israeli Government to withdraw from Gaza, to hand the area over to the Arabs, to make the area of Gaza Judenfrei, was both a betrayal and act of treachery as well as great foolishness.

The big question which the Jewish people of Israel ask themselves every day is:

Having agreed to hand over the land of Gaza to the Arabs and having seen that land used as a base for Jihad against Israel


Judea and Samaria are the Jewish names for what has rather recently become known as the West Bank.

The Arabs never really talked about Judea and Samaria becoming a Palestinian state until after the Arab genocide of 1967 was defeated.

The genocide attacks of 1948 and 1967 were not defeated by words but by military struggle. So will the present plans of the Arabs and the Iranian Fascist Mullahs to destroy Israel.

Everybody understands that the Arabs following the strict interpretation of Islam do not want to live with a Jewish state in their midst.

And understanding that the Jews of Israel can pretty well handle that, not by pacifist fooling around, but by arming themselves against the Arabs.

It is the role of the US Imperialists towards Israel that is the most dangerous. The US are determined to impose this Palestinian state onto Israel.

The legacy of the US being a “friend” of Israel is the biggest trap today for Israel and for Jews.

This legacy of being a “friend” is the very vital point that has to become clarified and urgently so in the next weeks and months.

How determined the US is in forcing Israel to accept a Palestine state is seen in this vital piece of journalism and interpretation of facts by DEBKAfile.

This report shows just what a treacherous Government and what a treacherous leader of the US is Obama towards Israel.

[Begin analysis of DEBKAfile towards the role of Obama]

Israeli president Shimon Peres’ task in Washington on May 4-5 is to blunt the sharp edge the White House is honing to force Israel to toe the new Washington line on the Palestinians, Syria and Iran.

Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu can expect the full force of a bludgeon to be wielded in his White House talks on May 18.

DEBKAfile‘s Washington sources report that their host is fired up to be the first US president in decades of close friendship and cooperation to clash openly with Israel and the bulk of US Jewry. Oblivious to Israel’s claim of US support for its security in a hostile regional environment, Barack Obama is expected to squeeze the Netanyahu government hard for immediate engagement on the Middle East conflict without further delay.

According to our sources, the White House staff is working at top speed on options for imposing its will.

Peres and Netanyahu will be informed that Washington is setting up two trilateral peace commissions to hammer out peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel with the Syrians.

US officials in both chairs will intercede with their own ideas to prevent them running into deadlock on disputed issues. DEBKAfile‘s sources confirm that the Obama administration will not spare the whip to force the parties into line.

The US president and his top advisers are convinced that the Palestinian problem is the main obstacle to accommodations for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran. Defense secretary Robert Gates and national security adviser Gen. James Jones are the leading advocates of this proposition, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton more skeptical but ready to back the president’s Middle East determination to place Israel in the first line of fire.

Some of DEBKAfile‘s US sources admit that President Obama is himself under pressure because, despite the high approval rating he gained for his first 100 days in office, his myriad policy initiatives have yet to show results.

His economic remedies have steadied the banking system but not yet filtered down to the general public, he faces a hard slog in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan before making headway, and Tehran is playing hardball at every turn on the road to dialogue.

The only arena where the White House can hope for quick results is the Israel-Palestinian-Syrian track.

The two peace conferences in preparation recall Bill Clinton’s success in forcing the Serbs, Bosnians and Croats to sign the Dayton Accord of 1995, so terminating a war of three-and-a-half years.

The presidential envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, was the architect of Dayton. George Mitchell, Obama’s Middle East envoy, is in line for a similar role today. During his two rounds of talks in Middle East capitals, Mitchell has shown a smiling, genial face, but said little, while in Washington, a State Department team is working overtime on a new American “road map.”

It starts out with pressure on Israel to freeze settlement activity on the West Bank and construction in East Jerusalem. At a later stage, Israel would be pushed to abandon large sections of the West Bank, remove authorized communities as well as unauthorized outposts and hand over the historic nucleus of Jerusalem.

Finally, the Israeli government would be required to accept an independent Palestinian state, even if its government is dominated by the rejectionist terrorist group Hamas.

Peres and Netanyahu will find administration officials deaf not only on Israel’s arguments on the Palestinian issue but on a nuclear-armed Iran too. They will see the US president no longer prioritizing the suspension of Iran’s nuclear aspirations, but bent on establishing a new Persian Gulf order that formalizes Iran’s rising power. Washington’s objective now is negotiations for setting the boundaries of Iran’s Middle East expansion and limits for its nuclear program.

Israel will have no say in this process. In fact, by elevating Iran to premier regional power, America is sidelining its longstanding friends, Israel and Egypt, and setting aside their security and strategic interests for the sake of deals with Iran.

Dennis Ross, US envoy for Iran, carried this message to the capitals of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, last week.

But Obama’s new Middle East design is not without powerful opponents:

1. Tehran itself will not let Washington dictate the limits of its expanding influence but insists on dialogue taking place amid “equality and mutual respect.” This attitude also governs its nuclear aspirations. US diplomats will have to make the running to temper the ayatollahs rather than the other way round.

2. Cairo and Riyadh will resist with all their might the US bid to anoint Iran the crowning Middle East-Gulf power. Both perceive Iran’s nuclearization as the inevitable outcome of this policy.

They are also extremely concerned by Oabana’s public endorsement of Turkey as the senior Muslim power in the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia, a boost for Ankara’s aspirations to resuscitate the Ottoman Empire.

3. Jerusalem will resist being cast into a peripheral role in the strategic and military processes going forward with regard to Iran, the Palestinians, Syria and their terrorist arms, Hizballah and Hamas, all of which bear pivotally on Israel’s future existence. Like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the Netanyahu government may not accept being crushed between two hostile regional powers, Iran and Turkey, whose aggressive pretensions Washington is promoting.

– Netanyahu is marshalling all Israel’s resources, including an active role for President Peres, to avoid dropping into the role of second- or third-rate Middle East power whom no one consults.

Peres, whose rich diplomatic experience and international reputation make him a prime asset, has been pressed into service to become the first Israeli president to step out of his ceremonial role into active-policy-making.

– The Israeli prime minister will also take advantage of the interests Jerusalem shares with Cairo and Riyadh in frustrating the new Washington orientation – and not only with regard to Iran.

Netanyahu and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak have arranged to put their heads together and are meeting before their separate trips to Washington.

– Israel has not abandoned its option of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its economic infrastructure. US officials, led by the defense secretary, are accordingly pouring contempt on the extent of the damage Israel is capable of inflicting. Next, they will try and tie Israel’s hands by discrediting Netanyahu and his administration.

– A final arrow in Netanyahu’s quiver is the ability to enlist American public opinion, which is traditionally supportive and sympathetic to Israel, against Obama’s Grand Middle East Design. He will seek to canvass support among friends in the US Congress and the Jewish community.

[end of DEBKAfile analysis here]

Obama in fact expresses the sheer weakness of the US Government and the US Capitalist class and system.

Obama and McCain spent the election skirting around the issues, spending millions but always saying very little.

Obama made all kinds of empty promises, to Muslims, to Jews, to workers fearful of losing their jobs.

Obama has had no answer whatsoever to the economic banking crisis except to borrow and print massive moneys to keep the system afloat.

Meanwhile over in Afghanistand and Pakistan the Islamist Jihad roars right ahead where for all his love of Islam Obama will be unable to make the Pakistani Islamist Government and military from fighting, never mind defeating, the enemy hatchet men of the Taliban.

It is going to take just a few defeats, such as happened to the US in the notorious helicopter helter skelter pull out from Vietnam AND OBAMA WILL BE STRIPPED BARE AS THE BANKRUPT POLITICIAN HE REALLY IS.

And this is why Obama and his team of Israel haters are aiming to make Israel toe the line in the face of the Jihad.

In the primitive minds of Obama and his team of Israel haters like Power and Mitchell they think that if the Jihad receives Palestine then they will settle down and generally ameliorate their demands across the board.

Obama thinks also that given a Palestine state that the Iranian Fascists will also setle down and live quietly.

But that has never been the aim of Islam. The aim is to destroy the Jewish presence in the Middle East

And Obama and his team of Israel haters, which includes many Jews, can be defeated but this can only happen if the great American public, the ordinary people, can come to understand quite seriously and in detail just what their own Government is doing.

The DEBKA report shows the evil pressure that the US is going to use against Netanyahu when he visits the US.

Netanyahu must use the visit to reach the ordinary American people. But it must not be left to him alone to do this.

That is why every Jewish and progressive socialist movement must rally behind Netanyahu and must work to waken the eyes of the great American ordinary people to the evil ways of their government.

The Obama evil plans, in alliance with Islam, definitely can be defeated but only in that way.

Please, if you agree with 4international, do not leave it until it is too late. You can write a comment below. This comment can also be private in that if you mark private first word then we will not publish.


by Felix Quigley

13 May, 2009

We on 4international are of course dialectical materialists. A recent controversy on Israpundit affirmed however that being dialectical and materialist we are intensely interested in the green shoots of living reality. One of these is certainly the outrage and hatred which was and is showed towards the lecture of the present Pope when he visited his old university to give a lecture. This was at the University of Regensburg back in 2006.

The Pope´s lecture was in essence dealing with Jihad.

We can dispense with the first small talk paragraph which goes back to 1959 when the Pope was a teacher there.

The rest is what is directly relevant

[Start remained of Pope´s lecture here]

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the λόγος”. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word – a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” (cf. Acts 16:6-10) – this vision can be interpreted as a “distillation” of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply asserts being, “I am”, already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates’ attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy.[8] Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: “I am”. This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria – the Septuagint – is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.[9] A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God’s nature.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which – as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated – unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).[10]

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history – it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity – a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.[11]

Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.

The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue,[12] and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack’s goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s “Critiques”, but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield decisive certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be “scientific” would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by “science”, so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective “conscience” becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was an initial inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not simply false, but it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is – as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector – the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought – to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being – but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”.[13] The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

[1] Of the total number of 26 conversations (διάλεξις – Khoury translates this as “controversy”) in the dialogue (“Entretien”), T. Khoury published the 7th “controversy” with footnotes and an extensive introduction on the origin of the text, on the manuscript tradition and on the structure of the dialogue, together with brief summaries of the “controversies” not included in the edition;  the Greek text is accompanied by a French translation:  “Manuel II Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Musulman.  7e Controverse”,  Sources Chrétiennes n. 115, Paris 1966.  In the meantime, Karl Förstel published in Corpus Islamico-Christianum (Series Graeca  ed. A. T. Khoury and R. Glei) an edition of the text in Greek and German with commentary:  “Manuel II. Palaiologus, Dialoge mit einem Muslim”, 3 vols., Würzburg-Altenberge 1993-1996.  As early as 1966, E. Trapp had published the Greek text with an introduction as vol. II of Wiener byzantinische Studien.  I shall be quoting from Khoury’s edition.

[2] On the origin and redaction of the dialogue, cf. Khoury, pp. 22-29;  extensive comments in this regard can also be found in the editions of Förstel and Trapp.

[3] Controversy VII, 2 c:  Khoury, pp. 142-143;  Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241.  In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation.  I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion.  In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason.  On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.

[4] Controversy VII, 3 b–c:  Khoury, pp. 144-145;  Förstel vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.

[5] It was purely for the sake of this statement that I quoted the dialogue between Manuel and his Persian interlocutor.  In this statement the theme of my subsequent reflections emerges.

[6] Cf. Khoury, p. 144, n. 1.

[7] R. Arnaldez, Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13;  cf. Khoury, p. 144.  The fact that comparable positions exist in the theology of the late Middle Ages will appear later in my discourse.

[8] Regarding the widely discussed interpretation of the episode of the burning bush, I refer to my book Introduction to Christianity, London 1969, pp. 77-93  (originally published in German as Einführung in das Christentum, Munich 1968;  N.B. the pages quoted refer to the entire chapter entitled “The Biblical Belief in God”).  I think that my statements in that book, despite later developments in the discussion, remain valid today.

[9] Cf. A. Schenker, “L’Écriture sainte subsiste en plusieurs formes canoniques simultanées”, in L’Interpretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa.  Atti del Simposio promosso dalla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Vatican City 2001, pp. 178-186.

[10] On this matter I expressed myself in greater detail in my book The Spirit of the Liturgy, San Francisco 2000, pp. 44-50.

[11] Of the vast literature on the theme of dehellenization, I would like to mention above all:  A. Grillmeier, “Hellenisierung-Judaisierung des Christentums als Deuteprinzipien der Geschichte des kirchlichen Dogmas”, in idem, Mit ihm und in ihm.  Christologische Forschungen und Perspektiven,  Freiburg 1975, pp. 423-488.

[12] Newly published with commentary by Heino Sonnemans (ed.):  Joseph Ratzinger-Benedikt XVI, Der Gott des Glaubens und der Gott der Philosophen.  Ein Beitrag zum Problem der theologia naturalis, Johannes-Verlag Leutesdorf, 2nd revised edition, 2005.

[13] Cf. 90 c-d.  For this text, cf. also R. Guardini, Der Tod des Sokrates, 5th edition, Mainz-Paderborn 1987, pp. 218-221.

[End the Pope´s Regensburg lecture here]


The key issues in the above was explained to us by another Catholic writer and it makes interesting reading indeed

This is by a Fr Joseph Fessio, S.J.

(Is Dialogue with Islam Possible? Some Reflections on Pope Benedict XVI’s Address at the University of Regensburg | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. | September 18, 2006 )

[Start quote by Fr Fession here]


as the starting point of his lecture, Benedict takes a 14th century dialogue between the Byzantine Emperor and a learned Muslim to focus on the central question of the entire lecture: whether God is Logos. The Emperor’s objection to Islam is Mohammed’s “command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The emperor asserts that this is not in accordance with right reason, and “not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature”. Benedict points to this as “the decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion”.


It is at this point in the lecture that Benedict makes a statement which cannot be avoided or evaded if there is ever to be any dialogue between Christianity and Islam that is more than empty words and diplomatic gestures. For the Emperor, God’s rationality is “self-evident”. But for Muslim teaching, according to the editor of the book from which Benedict has been quoting, “God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality”.

Benedict has struck bedrock. This is the challenge to Islam. This is the issue that lies beneath all the rest. If God is above reason in this way, then it is useless to employ rational arguments against (or for) forced conversion, terrorism, or Sharia law, which calls for the execution of Muslim converts to Christianity. If God wills it, it is beyond discussion.

The key words from Fessio are “If God is above reason in this way, then it is useless to employ rational arguments against (or for)”

And Fessio has emphasised int he strongest possible terms that if this is not confronted then they can talk to Islam till the cows come home but they will get nowhere.

Fessio seems to me as a materialist to bog himself down in a few paragraphs which follow the above so I will skip those. But he comes back to earth with the following:

[Begin second quote from Fessio here]


 It’s worth noting, however, that while consistent Christians and Muslims in fact hold the position of the other to be erroneous in important ways, the Christian is not obliged by his faith to subject the Muslim to dhimmitude nor to deny him his religious freedom. There is a serious asymmetry here, which Benedict has criticized before. The Saudis can build a multi-million dollar mosque in Rome; but Christians can be arrested in Saudi Arabia for possessing a Bible.


Certainly, it may sound provocative to make the claim the Emperor did. But why (since Christians believe that God’s full and definitive revelation has come with Christ, who brings all prophecy to an end) isn’t it just as provocative for a Muslim to proclaim that Mohammed is a new prophet, bringing new revelation that corrects and supplements that of Christ?

Is it really offensive to say that Christians and Muslims disagree profoundly about this? Is not this the necessary starting point that must be recognized before any religious dialogue can even begin?

And if the response from Islam is violence, then must we not ask precisely the question raised by Benedict: Is this violence an aberration that is inconsistent with genuine Islam (as similar violence by Christians would be an aberration inconsistent with genuine Christianity)? Or is it justifiable on the basis of Islam’s image of God as absolutely transcending all human categories, even that of rationality? And if the response to this question is violence, then the question has been answered existentially, and rational dialogue has been repudiated.

[end second quote from Fessio here]

So the whole forces of the Muslim world were suddenly breathing fire and thunder against poor old Benedict.

Fessio in the above is not overly optimistic at there being a “reasonable” discussion.


And he concludes with a few more gems in this: “Byzantium was increasingly threatened in the 14th century by an aggressive Islamic force, the growing Ottoman Empire. The Byzantine Emperor seems to have committed the dialogue to writing while his imperial capital, Constantinople, was under siege by the Ottoman Turks. It would fall definitively in 1453. Muslims were military enemies, engaged in a war of aggression against Byzantium. Yet even in these circumstances the Christian Emperor and the learned Persian Muslim could be utterly candid with one another and discuss civilly their fundamental religious differences. As Benedict described the dialogue, the subject was “Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both”.


The West is once again under siege. Doubly so because in addition to terrorist attacks there is a new form of conquest: immigration coupled with high fertility. Let us hope that, following the Holy Father’s courageous example in these troubled times, there can be a dialogue whose subject is the truth claims of Christianity and Islam.”

The fact that Benedict scuttled back into his Vatican shell at something approaching speed of light is neither here nor there.

The main point that he had made could not be so easily withdrawn. OK so Benedict proves to an absolute weasel. He appears yesterday in Bethlehem and uses all of the antisemitic emotion of his church, and attacks Jews openly by giving his support to the Jihad against Israel in the form of “his” beloved Palestinians, who merely wish to have a Palestinian state in order to ensure that the Jews will have no state, the Palestinians seeing this as a step towards the destruction of Israel, this vital step of forming a Jihadist state old Benedict pops up and advocates.

So he is a weasel. He cannot carry though on any of the logic he employed in his Regensburg Lecture.


That will be for a new leadership in the world, a Trotskyist leadership, a leadership which will not flinch from reasoning and from Reason. 





by Felix Quigley

May 11, 2009


The following report which we glean from DEBKAfile is an outstanding refutation of the present American Government of Obama, and of the EU which is tail ending behind the American elite.

What this report highlights is that there are many areas of extreme menace for Israel but by far the most serious menace resides right there in Washington.

Obama is in alliance with the very worst “Islamofascists” on the planet.

Got that. Everything is now out in the open. The US Government (that is in Marxist terms the US ruling class) are on the very opposite side of the trench and are menacing Israel along with the Iranian Nuclear intending Fascists.

Meanwhile the Fascist, and actually extreme Right, “Left” in all the countries in the world are behind Obama and the Iranian Nazis.

All of Islam is reactionary. All of the Arab states hate Israel and want to see Israel destroyed.

Mubarak for example has refused always to visit Israel.

But within the Arab world there are levels and one of these has just been brought into the glare of  present publicity.

It is now certain that the Saudis and the Egyptians view the Iran Nuclear Bomb as a serious threat to themselves as well as to Israel and this is making them take action to ally themselves with Israel.

But guess where Obama and the US is. Very clearly on the side of the very worst Islamofascists.

This is the DEBKAfile report:

Netanyahu-Mubarak Talks Aim to produce Arab-Israeli Front versus Iran

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis

May 11, 2009

Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak open to ideas for resisting Iran

Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak open to ideas for resisting Iran

If successful, Binyamin Netanyahu’s first meeting as Israeli prime minister with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak at Sharm el Sheikh Monday, May 11, may well mark an epic turning-point in Middle East history recalling the 1979 peace breakthrough with Egypt. Their common goals – and Mubarak speaks for the Saudi king Abdullah on this issue – are the formation of an Arab-Israeli front against Iran and putting a spoke in US president Barack Obama’s planned détente with Tehran.

Most of all, the Netanyahu government utterly rejects the Palestinian-Iran tradeoff proposed by the Obama administration – and reaffirmed by US National adviser Gen. James Jones Sunday – that a two state-solution would diminish Iran’s existential threat to Israel.

Israel points out that no guarantees are offered for the latter. Therefore, Netanyahu prefers to put the Iranian menace on a different, regional footing. Last Monday, May 4, in a message to the Israeli lobby in Washington, he said pointedly: “For the first time in my lifetime,” Arabs and Jews see a common danger. There is a great challenge afoot. But that challenge also presents great opportunities.”

This was no idle talk. DEBKAfile‘s military and intelligence sources report that the groundwork for the Mubarak-Netanyahu tête-à-tête was laid by Egypt’s intelligence minister Gen. Omar Suleiman in the two days he spent in Jerusalem on April 22-23.

Officially, the Palestinians were the purpose of his talks – Suleiman has long acted as middleman between feuding Palestinian factions. In fact, Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas were the subjects of his intense discussions with Israel’s government heads and his opposite numbers in Mossad, military intelligence and the General Security Service (Shin Bet). They covered the Radical Four’s next moves and their potential military responses to a possible Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear and strategic and infrastructure.

From Jerusalem, the Egyptian official headed for Riyadh to bring the Saudis into the planning picture.

He went straight into conference with King Abdullah and the Saudi chief of general intelligence, Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz, after which Muqrin secretly visited Cairo for a long session with Mubarak attended only by the Egyptian intelligence chief.

This diplomatic flurry, according to DEBKAfile‘s sources, aimed at establishing an informal Israel-Egyptian-Saudi framework for working together – this time on the Iranian issue, but not for the first time. The outcome of the culminating Mubarak-Netanyahu talks Monday will bear strongly on their meetings with President Obama later this month. When he arrives in Washington on May 18, the Israeli prime minister will no doubt have new ideas in his briefcase.

Before the outbreak of Israel’s 2006 war with the Lebanese Hizballah, the then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and his intelligence chiefs met with Saudi national security adviser, Prince Bandar bin Sultan in the Jordanian capital of Amman several times to coordinate Saudi-Egyptian-Israeli moves against the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah front.

When Israeli launched its Gaza offensive against Hamas on Dec. 27, 2008, Jerusalem and Cairo were closely aligned on the various phases of warfare. For the duration of the 22-day conflict, Israel kept Egypt abreast of the action and Cairo updated Riyadh.

This was Israel’s first operation against an Arab target to be backed by an Egyptian-Saudi consensus.

The difference between the two Israeli military ventures was that its collaboration with Egypt won the approval of the US president, then George W, Bush. For the Gaza operation, US approval was withdrawn by the new man in the White House.

But the setback in Washington only served to spur the three silent partners’ motives for working together when their interests converge, this time against Iran’s rise as a nuclear and regional power.

The Obama administration’s outreach to Tehran and rehabilitation of Damascus served as a catalyst, accelerated by broad hints of US willingness to approve engagement with Hizballah and Hamas.

Israeli, Egyptian and Saudi rulers presume Washington has abdicated its commitment to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and a lead-position in the Middle East. They take this retreat as a step toward America’s reconciliation with the Islamic Republic. All three oppose this policy and resent being cast to the political and military sidelines of the region in the US president’s consciousness.

His emissaries failed to allay these concerns when they circulated around Arab capitals in the last fortnight. It was pointed out to them that the new US administration had not lifted a finger to slow Iran’s nuclear development in its first 100 days. If the issue was dropped to the bottom of Washington’s agenda with Tehran, it would be too late.

Israel was ready to pay a steep price for Egypt’s tacit and practical support by halting its Gaza operation last January short of the goals of crushing Hamas and overthrowing its government. Netanyahu has bought the proposition that he will have to pay Mubarak again in the coin of concessions to the Palestinians when they meet in Sharm el-Sheikh Monday. But the Israeli leader believes it is worth paying for the sake of a working partnership with Egypt and Saudi Arabia against Iran.

In strategic-historic terms, he believes that would be a more advantageous deal than succumbing to American arm-twisting. After all, Cairo and Riyadh are willing to stand up shoulder to shoulder with Israel against Iran – unlike the Obama administration.

[End of DEBKAfile report]

So it is most clar that a great confidence trick has been played during past decades on all of the peoples of the world.

There most people were believing that the US was backing Israel. This has been at the very centre of the propaganda by the Fascist Antisemitic Left for a long time.

Now everything is so clear. The US Government are really the backers and promoters of reactionary Islam in the world.

By the way Netanyahu is not wrong to seek alliances where he can find them.

But Netanyahu has no right to make any concessions to either Mubarak or to the Saudis.

To have a Jihadist Nazi state on the border called Palestine devoted to the destruction of Israel, run necessarily by Hamas, is just as serious a danger as is the Iran nuclear bomb. Just 2 sides of the one coin.

Netanyahu must make absolutely no concessions to these killers.

In a real sense the issue is out of the hands of Netanyahu. What is needed now is a massive movement of support inside the American ordinary people, because the most outstanding issue in all of this is the role of the US Government of Obama as the most reactionary and evil force that the world has ever seen.

The minds of all activists must turn now to how to arouse this American mass movement against this utterly evil thing called the Obama Government.

A very serious word of warning. Our researches based on the work of outstanding Dr Rory Miller, Irish academic, has proved that the Irish Jewish fraternity are in the main mere “dhimmis” to the Irish Free State antisemites.

There is something very similar afoot among America´s Jews. Many of these Jews in America have become totally Americanized. It is exactly the very opposite of what all these American antisemites have been claiming. These American Jews are going to stab Israel in the back big time.

This is the real meaning of the traitorous and treacherous call of AIPAC for Jews in America to campaign for a “Palestine” State (which would have to be controlled by Hamas)


On these issues there can be no compromise!

The key issue for all is to turn to the American ordinary people, the American working class in fact, and against the American Government and American Imperialism IN SUPPORT OF THE JEWS.

Show your support by writing a comment below, and if you wish it to be private mark “Private” at the top.

We wish to hear what you think.



by Felix Quigley

May 11, 2009

This is a story about a woman called Caoimhe Butterly.

Butterly leaves the fair land of Ireland and journeys out to the Gaza WHERE SHE SENDS A LYING REPORT TO THE OPENLY ANTISEMITIC COUNTERPUNCH.

Butterly is billed in this way by Counterpunch.

Caoimhe Butterly is an Irish human rights activist working in Jabaliya and Gaza City as a volunteer with ambulance services and as co-coordinator for the Free Gaza Movement

Butterly is from the pacifist section of Irish society and she demonstrates in the following everything that is neurotic in Irish society concerning the Palestinians

Some years ago Butterly and Eamon McCann dragged a collection of boneheads down from Derry to visit Qana, never mind that a very ordinary little English website with no stake in the affair except a principled desire to get at the truth showed convincingly that the whole Qana Massacre was a gigantic hoax. Butterly and McCann never bothered to answer the EU Referendum because quite simply that is not what they do, not how they operate. To McCann and especially to Butterly facts have got nothing whatsoever to do with it, Butterly makes up her facts as she goes along. I guess you could say that McCann and Butterly are cultists, they have their little or biggish cult followings, and that keeps their egos ticking over.


The following report of Butterly published in the right fascist organ of Cockburn bears no relation whatsoever to the Gaza war.. it is a tissue of lies and is blatantly so. Butterly does not once mention the context, that the Jews left gaza en toto, that the Jews hoped for peace, that they got war instead, that Jewish areas of Israel were pummelled for 8 years, that the Jews delayed and delayed for years doing anything, that the Hamas terrorists wish to destroy Israel not live in peace, that all the time Hamas was being supplied with weapons by Iran and Hizbullah, that Shalit is still held without Red Cross visits, that Hamas fought from within civilians, that they loosed rockets from the midst of civilians onto civilians, that the Israeli army made phone calls to civilians telling them to get out as a strike was on the cards, that a person who is fighting aged 17 going on 18 is not really a child but a dangerous terrorist Jew hating killer, and so on

Not one of those items is mentioned by Butterly once. Count in the following how often Butterly mentions the Hamas rockets on Israeli civilians of Sderot


[Start notorious rant by Butterly here]


Weekend Edition
January 16-18, 2009

A Report From Gaza

Terribly Bloodied, Still Breathing



The morgues of Gaza’s hospitals are over-flowing. The bodies in their blood-soaked white shrouds cover the entire floor space of the Shifa hospital morgue. Some are intact, most horribly deformed, limbs twisted into unnatural positions, chest cavities exposed, heads blown off, skulls crushed in. Family members wait outside to identify and claim a brother, husband, father, mother, wife, child. Many of those who wait their turn have lost numerous family members and loved ones.

Blood is everywhere. Hospital orderlies hose down the floors of operating rooms, bloodied bandages lie discarded in corners, and the injured continue to pour in: bodies lacerated by shrapnel, burns, bullet wounds. Medical workers, exhausted and under siege, work day and night and each life saved is seen as a victory over the predominance of death.

The streets of Gaza are eerily silent- the pulsing life and rhythm of markets, children, fishermen walking down to the sea at dawn brutally stilled and replaced by an atmosphere of uncertainty, isolation and fear. The ever-present sounds of surveillance drones, F16s, tanks and Apaches are listened to acutely as residents try to guess where the next deadly strike will be- which house, school, clinic, mosque, governmental building or community centre will be hit next and how to move before it does. That there are no safe places- no refuge for vulnerable human bodies- is felt acutely. It is a devastating awareness for parents- that there is no way to keep their children safe.

In this paragraph Butterly ges carried Hawai in her total Israel hatred. Here she creates a totally nasty concept that Israel was actino like the IRA did in Bloody Friday, where second bombs were set off to blog up those fleeing from the first.

As we continue to accompany the ambulances, joining Palestinian paramedics as they risk their lives, daily, to respond to calls from those with no other life-line, our existence becomes temporarily narrowed down and focused on the few precious minutes that make the difference between life and death. With each new call received as we ride in ambulances that careen down broken, silent roads, sirens and lights blaring, there exists a battle of life over death. We have learned the language of the war that the Israelis are waging on the collective captive population of Gaza- to distinguish between the sounds of the weaponry used, the timing between the first missile strikes and the inevitable second- targeting those that rush to tend to and evacuate the wounded, to recognize the signs of the different chemical weapons being used in this onslaught, to overcome the initial vulnerability of recognizing our own mortality.

Note in the following paragraph how Butterly throws out unsubstantiated “facts” without bothering to source anything. It is more than posible that Butterly picks up these facts from the sink hople of antisemitism in Indymedia where no lie against Israel is too big to use.

Though many of the calls received are to pick up bodies, not the wounded, the necessity of affording the dead a dignified burial drives the paramedics to face the deliberate targeting of their colleagues and comrades- thirteen killed while evacuating the wounded, fourteen ambulances destroyed- and to continue to search for the shattered bodies of the dead to bring home to their families.

Last night, while sitting with paramedics in Jabaliya refugee camp, drinking tea and listening to their stories, we received a call to respond to the aftermath of a missile strike. When we arrived at the outskirts of the camp where the attack had taken place the area was filled with clouds of dust, torn electricity lines, slabs of concrete and open water pipes gushing water into the street. Amongst the carnage of severed limbs and blood we pulled out the body of a young man, his chest and face lacerated by shrapnel wounds, but alive- conscious and moaning.

As the ambulance sped him through the cold night we applied pressure to his wounds, the warmth of his blood seeping through the bandages reminder of the life still in him. He opened his eyes in answer to my questions and closed them again as Muhammud, a volunteer paramedic, murmured “ayeesh, nufuss”- live, breathe- over and over to him. He lost consciousness as we arrived at the hospital, received into the arms of friends who carried him into the emergency room. He, Majid, lived and is recovering.

This could be a totally made up store by Butterly, I mean how many “Muhammuds” are there in Gaza! And how likely is it that somebody would return to ruins to pick up clothes if things were as bad as painted by Butterly. And if the age she gives is correct, 17, that means he is terrorist age.

A few minutes later there was another missile strike, this time on a residential house. As we arrived a crowd had rushed to the ruins of the four story home in an attempt to drag survivors out from under the rubble. The family the house belonged to had evacuated the area the day before and the only person in it at the time of the strike was 17 year old Muhammud who had gone back to collect clothes for his family. He was dragged out from under the rubble still breathing- his legs twisted in unnatural directions and with a head wound, but alive. There was no choice but to move him, with the imminence of a possible second strike, and he lay in the ambulance moaning with pain and calling for his mother. We thought he would live, he was conscious though in intense pain and with the rest of the night consumed with call after call to pick up the wounded and the dead, I forgot to check on him. This morning we were called to pick up a body from Shifa hospital to take back to Jabaliya. We carried a body wrapped in a blood-soaked white shroud into the ambulance, and it wasn’t until we were on the road that we realized that it was Muhammud’s body. His brother rode with us, opening the shroud to tenderly kiss Muhammud’s forehead.

This morning we received news that Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City was under siege. We tried unsuccessfully for hours to gain access to the hospital, trying to organize co-ordination to get the ambulances past Israeli tanks and snipers to evacuate the wounded and dead. Hours of unsuccessful attempts later we received a call from the Shujahiya neighborhood, describing a house where there were both dead and wounded patients to pick up. The area was deserted, many families having fled as Israeli tanks and snipers took up position amongst their homes, other silent in the dark, cold confines of their homes, crawling from room to room to avoid sniper fire through their windows.

As we drove slowly around the area, we heard women’s cries for help. We approached their house on foot, followed by the ambulances and as we came to the threshold of their home, they rushed towards us with their children, shaking and crying with shock. At the door of the house the ambulance lights exposed the bodies of four men, lacerated by shrapnel wounds- the skull and brains of one exposed, others whose limbs had been severed off. The four were the husbands and brothers of the women, who had ventured out to search for bread and food for their families. Their bodies were still warm as we struggled to carry them on stretchers over the uneven ground, their blood staining the earth and our clothes. As we prepared to leave the area our torches illuminated the slumped figure of another man, his abdomen and chest shredded by shrapnel. With no space in the other ambulances, and the imminent possibility of sniper fire, we were forced to take his body in the back of the ambulance carrying the women and children. One of the little girls stared at me before coming into my arms and telling me her name- Fidaa’, which means to sacrifice. She stared at the body bag, asking when he would wake up.

Once back at the hospital we received word that the Israeli army had shelled Al Quds hospital, that the ensuing fire risked spreading and that there had been a 20-minute time-frame negotiated to evacuate patients, doctors and residents in the surrounding houses. By the time we got up there in a convoy of ambulances, hundreds of people had gathered. With the shelling of the UNRWA compound and the hospital there was a deep awareness that nowhere in Gaza is safe, or sacred.

We helped evacuate those assembled to near-by hospitals and schools that have been opened to receive the displaced. The scenes were deeply saddening- families, desperate and carrying their children, blankets and bags of their possessions venturing out in the cold night to try to find a corner of a school or hospital to shelter in. The paramedic we were with referred to the displacement of the over 46,000 Gazan Palestinians now on the move as a continuation of the ongoing Nakba of dispossession and exile seen through generation after generation enduring massacre after massacre.

Today’s death toll was over 75, one of the bloodiest days since the start of this carnage. Over 1,110 Palestinians have been killed in the past 21 days. 367 of those have been children. The humanitarian infrastructure of Gaza is on its knees- already devastated by years of comprehensive siege. There has been a deliberate, systematic destruction of all places of refuge. There are no safe places here, for anyone.

And yet, in the face of so much desecration, this community has remained intact. The social solidarity and support between people is inspiring, and the steadfastness of Gaza continues to humble and inspire all those who witness it. Their level of sacrifice demands our collective response- and recognition that demonstrations are not enough. Gaza, Palestine and its people continue to live, breathe, resist and remain intact and this refusal to be broken is a call and challenge to us all.

Caoimhe Butterly is an Irish human rights activist working in Jabaliya and Gaza City as a volunteer with ambulance services and as co-coordinator for the Free Gaza Movement, She can be contacted at

[End the notorious rant by Butterly here]