by Jim Stephens

April 30, 2010

This article by Gal Beckerman raises big issues

When Sarah Palin was asked by Barbara Walters late last year whether she supported a freeze on settlement growth in the West Bank, Palin issued an emphatic no. But her reasoning confounded many: “More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”


Her Moment: Palin at the GOP national convention in 2008. She has garnered plaudits from prominent neo-conservatices, including William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and Seth Lipsky.

Who were these Jews, and why were they “flocking”? Those predisposed to be critical of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee, such as writer and blogger Jeffrey Goldberg, saw Palin’s evangelical Christian roots showing. She was clearly expressing some kind of end-of-days theology, he said, that demands the ingathering of Jews before the Second Coming and its accompanying rapture (an event that doesn’t bode well for the Jews).

But Goldberg’s reading, though certainly the dominant interpretation, was not the only one. Benyamin Korn, a Philadelphia-based activist and former editor of the Jewish Exponent, heard something less apocalyptic in Palin’s words.

“If you work with Nefesh B’Nefesh, then you know exactly what she meant,” Korn said, referring to the Zionist group that facilitates North American immigration to Israel. “She understands that Zionism, which means the Jews should live in the Land of Israel, is a vital force. That’s all.”

Korn is the founder of a new group called Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin, and his efforts are part of some recent Jewish support that has been trickling in the direction of the hockey mom from Wasilla. Even though American Jews have repeatedly disapproved of her in large numbers in poll after poll, giving her abysmally low approval ratings, her recent high-profile jabs at the president have earned her support from some of the most prominent Jewish conservatives today.

Not only does she continue to receive the hearty backing of William Kristol, editor and publisher of The Weekly Standard and contributor to Fox News, but at the end of March, Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary and godfather of the neoconservative movement, took to the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal to offer a “defense of Sarah Palin.” He compared the ridicule that has greeted her arrival on the national scene to the laughter at Ronald Reagan’s expense when Reagan became the Republican presidential nominee. Podhoretz’s argument boiled down to this: “What she does know — and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan — is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn.”

Podhoretz closed by dramatically proclaiming that he would “rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.”

But these are neoconservative intellectuals, most of whom — as an article in the January issue of Commentary by Jennifer Rubin illustrated — are spending their time trying to figure out why Palin “rubs Jews the wrong way.” Is there anyone in the American Jewish community at large willing to wear a Palin 2012 button? Korn thinks there is, and it’s this demand he’s hoping to fulfill.

It should be said that as of yet, Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin has not published a list of the “doctors, lawyers, professors, rabbis” that Korn said support his efforts. At this point, there is little evidence that his constituency is more than one — though Korn has managed to put together a fairly professional-looking website. But with an increasing number of American Jews anxious about what they see as the undue pressure that Obama is applying on Israel, Korn thinks that more of them will come to see Palin’s value.

He doesn’t hide the fact that, in his eyes, her main strength is just how much she irritates those on the left.

“She has the ability to get under the skin of the opponents and particularly this president,” Korn said. “And from the point of view of someone who opposes what this president is doing, particularly on Israel policy, I’m glad that she has that ability.”

Korn himself has an unusual background. Up until the mid-1980s, he was a self-proclaimed “left-wing organizer” who taught pan-African studies, was a Central America solidarity activist and worked at a jazz radio station in Philadelphia with Mumia Abu-Jamal. He even voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980. He then had a radical transformation, switched to Orthodox from Reform Judaism and became a strident pro-Israel activist, an opponent of, as he put it, the “series of concessions that are called the peace process.” Eventually Korn, now 54, even headed the Zionist Organization of America.

His attraction to Palin began when he first saw her speak at the Republican National Convention. He had never even heard of her before then.

“I was captivated — not by her looks, for goodness sake — but by her charisma, her brilliance, her grasp not just of the issues, but of the moment,” Korn said. “Which is a very different thing in politics, to understand the moment. And it is because of my understanding of the moment that we hurried to launch this organization. I have been an admirer of hers since then.”

Korn went live with his website,, earlier than expected in mid-April, a response, he said, to comments by President Obama that appeared in the New York Times on April 14, linking continued conflicts in the Middle East with the danger to American soldiers

in the region. Korn called this a “modern blood libel” and decided that it was the right time to go public with his creation — “our motivation is so strongly in reaction to what is coming out of Obama,” Korn insisted.

It’s not clear though that Korn or any other high-profile Jewish supporter can swing American Jews behind Palin. A recent blog post by Jonathan Chait on The New Republic’s website in mid-April, titled “The Non-Mystery of Why Jews Hate Palin,” pointed to recent comments in which Palin referred to the United States as a “Christian nation” and questioned the separation of church and state. No wonder, he wrote, that Jews find her distasteful.

And yet, as Palin gains acceptance, however small, in certain Jewish quarters, she undoubtedly becomes more credible for a larger American Jewish audience, of which some members are eager to find a fitting opponent to the president.

Seth Lipsky, former editor of the New York Sun and of this publication, is friendly with Kristol and Podhoretz and shares some of their neoconservative views. He doesn’t offer an endorsement of Palin, but he does welcome the formation of Korn’s group and believes that Palin is “staking out a terrific set of positions.”

Like many others, Palin and the current moment remind Lipsky of an earlier era.

“I’ve been telling people that the situation reminds me a little bit of the 1984 presidential campaign, when Vice President Mondale challenged Reagan,” Lipsky wrote in an e-mail to the Forward. “Mondale discovered that Reagan was under the impression that once an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile was fired, it could be recalled in flight and brought back to base. He ridiculed Reagan mercilessly. I said or wrote at the time that this was the difference between Mondale and Reagan — Mondale knew how the missile worked and Reagan knew whom to point it at. And that’s how I feel about Mrs. Palin. She may not know as many details as some of the other candidates, but she comprehends whom we’re up against.”


by Jim Stephens

April 30, 2010

This also is important!

From Israel National News

Palestinian Authority terrorists over the weekend attacked workers building an underground “Iron Curtain” between Egypt and Gaza as Cairo tightens security at the border in an effort to end the weapons and drug smuggling into Gaza.

// <![CDATA[
if (sCountry!='IL'&&aAdSource[2]==1) {var cD=new Date();var cR=(new Date()%8673806982)+Math.random(); var c = ''; document.write('

‘);} else {document.write(‘

‘); sZones+=”,17″;sIDs+=”,InContentAd”}
// ]]>There were no reports of injuries in the attack, the fourth in as many weeks, according to Egyptian and PA officials. 

However, tensions are rising along the Gaza-Egyptian border, as construction of the steel barrier, to be sunk under the border 30 meters deep (100 feet) and 10 kilometers (6 miles) long, continues beneath the border town of Rafiah. 

The area of the border between Gaza and Egypt is honeycombed with a network of at least 100 tunnels, which do a brisk trade in all kinds of goods that are brought in from Egypt, including cars, clothing, foodstuffs and luxury items. In addition, terrorists and contraband such as light weapons, ammunition, drugs and heavier ordnance – including parts to build rockets, mortars and long-range missiles – are also “imported” through the smuggler tunnels.

Aboul Gheit: ‘Egypt’s Right to Protect Itself’
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit has, until this weekend, adroitly sidestepped questions about the barrier. But in an interview Saturday, Aboul Gheit finally discussed it with the al-Ahram al-Arabi daily newspaper, saying, “Whether it is a wall, sensors or tapping devices… what matters is that Egyptian territory must be protected. Whoever says Egypt is imposing its control on the border, we tell them this is Egypt’s full right.”

Commentator Dr. Aaron Lerner of Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA), however, wrote earlier this month that the underground barrier is simply another exercise is ‘much to show about nothing.’ Lerner contends that the barrier will benefit everyone involved except Israel, because many tunnels are built deeper than the wall will extend.

Hamas: We’re Trying to Contain Terror
Following the shootings, the Hamas “Interior Minister” of Gaza’s de facto government, Fathi Hammad, claimed that Hamas is “trying” to control the gunmen. The PA-linked Ma’an news agency quoted Hammad in a phone conversation with Egyptian government officials on Saturday, after a second attack by Gaza snipers aimed at Egyptian construction workers.

Hammad repeated a comment made earlier in the day by Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum, who told the Egyptians they had less to fear from Gaza than from the “Israeli occupation.” The Hamas government, he said, “confirms that it will protect Egypt’s security.”

Both condemned Egypt’s support of what they referred to as Israel’s blockade of the region – and were rebuffed by the Egyptians. “The Palestinian cause is dear to our heart and the Egyptians have paid a heavy price defending this case,” responded Aboul Gheit in the al-Ahram al-Arabi interview. “But Egyptian territory and its security are more important than anything else.”

Israel closed its crossings into the region following its expulsion of all Jews from the region and a unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005. The IDF tightened the seal after the disengagement was followed by the 2006 kidnapping of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas terrorists and increased rocket attacks on the Negev – instead of increased peace with Gaza Arabs. Shalit has remained in captivity in Gaza to this day, his whereabouts unknown and condition not verified by any independent source. (

But Hamas does not threaten to destroy Egypt and since it does this to Israel then Israel must close all borders and contacts with Gaza

What are the forces that make Egypt break contact with Hamas?

Yet Egypt remains full of hatred for Israel as this shows:

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has charged Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with “complicating the situation further” and throwing obstacles in the way of establishing a Palestinian Authority state. Mubarak criticized Netanyahu in interviews with Arab media following Netanyahu’s policy speech at Bar Ilan University on Sunday night.

// <![CDATA[
if (sCountry!='IL'&&aAdSource[2]==1) {var cD=new Date();var cR=(new Date()%8673806982)+Math.random(); var c = ''; document.write('

‘);} else {document.write(‘

‘); sZones+=”,17″;sIDs+=”,InContentAd”}
// ]]>

He flatly stated that Egypt will not support the Israeli position, which repeats the policy of previous governments in rejecting the demand of the 2002 Saudi Arabian Peace Plan for the immigration into Israel of five million Arabs claiming Israeli ancestry.

Mubarak dropped a sharp hint that violence will follow if Israel does not accept the Saudi plan. “The Middle East will be a scene of unrest if there is no comprehensive peace,” he said. 

“The solution to the major problems of the Arab and Islamic worlds is through Jerusalem,” he added, referring to the Arab world’s demand that Israel surrender sovereignty over all of eastern Jerusalem, including several neighborhoods in the capital where more than 250,000 Jews live.

The entire Arab world has lambasted the Prime Minister, who until Sunday night had resisted American pressure to accept the creation of a new Arab state on the land of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Most of the conditions he stated are already incorporated in the American Roadmap plan or have been stated by previous governments. Critics, including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, accused the Prime Minister of adding new terms.

Hamas called the speech “racist” for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s demand that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish State.


PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas called on the major powers throughout the world to isolate the Prime Minister. “They must isolate and confront this policy which Netanyahu is adopting and exert pressure on him so that he adheres to international legitimacy and the Roadmap,” he said.

The wall-to-wall Arab opposition throws the ball into the court of the Western world and places U.S. President Barack Obama into a tight spot. Both the U.S. and the European Union praised the speech as a move in the right direction, but Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that his conditions are red lines that cannot be crossed.


His speech marked a sharp turnaround from statements by previous governments, which generally have agreed to most concessions under pressure by the American government. The PA has been used to Israel’s concessions and therefore could not accept the change in tone by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israeli National Security Adviser Uzi Arad told Voice of Israel government radio.

“They noticed that previous Israeli governments didn’t make any demands or conditions and they had hoped to slowly get more and more concessions from Israel,” said Arad. “However, they found out that this government will stand its ground and defend Israeli vital interests.”

One of the few, if not the only, Arab voice expressing optimism was the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, the largest Arab-American advocacy group in the U.S. “If [Netanyahu] follows up on something positive, that would be significant,” said ADC president Mary Rose Oakar. “But actions speak louder than words.”


Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has charged Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with “complicating the situation further” and throwing obstacles in the way of establishing a Palestinian Authority state. Mubarak criticized Netanyahu in interviews with Arab media following Netanyahu’s policy speech at Bar Ilan University on Sunday night.

He flatly stated that Egypt will not support the Israeli position, which repeats the policy of previous governments in rejecting the demand of the 2002 Saudi Arabian Peace Plan for the immigration into Israel of five million Arabs claiming Israeli ancestry.

Mubarak dropped a sharp hint that violence will follow if Israel does not accept the Saudi plan. “The Middle East will be a scene of unrest if there is no comprehensive peace,” he said. 

“The solution to the major problems of the Arab and Islamic worlds is through Jerusalem,” he added, referring to the Arab world’s demand that Israel surrender sovereignty over all of eastern Jerusalem, including several neighborhoods in the capital where more than 250,000 Jews live.

The entire Arab world has lambasted the Prime Minister, who until Sunday night had resisted American pressure to accept the creation of a new Arab state on the land of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Most of the conditions he stated are already incorporated in the American Roadmap plan or have been stated by previous governments. Critics, including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, accused the Prime Minister of adding new terms.

Hamas called the speech “racist” for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s demand that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish State.


PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas called on the major powers throughout the world to isolate the Prime Minister. “They must isolate and confront this policy which Netanyahu is adopting and exert pressure on him so that he adheres to international legitimacy and the Roadmap,” he said.

The wall-to-wall Arab opposition throws the ball into the court of the Western world and places U.S. President Barack Obama into a tight spot. Both the U.S. and the European Union praised the speech as a move in the right direction, but Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that his conditions are red lines that cannot be crossed.


His speech marked a sharp turnaround from statements by previous governments, which generally have agreed to most concessions under pressure by the American government. The PA has been used to Israel’s concessions and therefore could not accept the change in tone by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israeli National Security Adviser Uzi Arad told Voice of Israel government radio.

“They noticed that previous Israeli governments didn’t make any demands or conditions and they had hoped to slowly get more and more concessions from Israel,” said Arad. “However, they found out that this government will stand its ground and defend Israeli vital interests.”

One of the few, if not the only, Arab voice expressing optimism was the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, the largest Arab-American advocacy group in the U.S. “If [Netanyahu] follows up on something positive, that would be significant,” said ADC president Mary Rose Oakar. “But actions speak louder than words.”




by Jim Stephens

April 30, 2010

The Second War of Independence

By Elyakim HaEtzni

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu avoided attending the international nuclear conference in Washington in order to side step the mine that President Barack Obama had planted there for him and us.

What was the nature of that mine?

At stake is the independence of the State of Israel. We are poised at the edge of a Second War of Independence, in which the Quartet, under America’s leadership, is playing the role of the British High Commissioner.

It’s not just Jerusalem or any particular clause in the document that Obama set before Netanyahu for his signature at their last meeting. At stake is the independence of the State of Israel. We are poised at the edge of a Second War of Independence, in which the Quartet, under America’s leadership, is playing the role of the British High Commissioner. Alex Fishman, in an article in “Yediot Achronot” from April 9th, details what Obama presented to Netanyahu for his

    *The withdrawal of the IDF from all the Arab cities of Judea and Samaria and a large proportion of the countryside, precluding all future Israeli military operations in those areas (pretty much the only way of preventing terrorist attacks against Israeli targets); 

    *Allowing the Palestinian Authority to resume operations unhindered in Jerusalem;

    *Obligating Israel to cease any present or future building in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, amounting to the de facto division of the capitol.

     Changing its status to Area A, which prohibits Israelis from setting foot there.

In addition, Obama demanded that Netanyahu continue the building freeze in Judea and Samaria indefinitely and hand over parts of Area C to the Ramallah authorities, changing its status to Area A, which prohibits Israelis from setting foot there. Obama required Netanyahu to relinquish the northern Dead Sea and parts of the Jordan Valley to enable the PA to develop tourism there.

“What do you mean we won’t receive full answers? Where do you think you’re going from?”

All this must take place immediately, before the beginning of negotiations, while the negotiations themselves will determine the final border and, according to the American timetable, will be signed and sealed within two months.

“What if Israel doesn’t respond to Obama’s plan or only responds partially?,” Fishman asked a senior State Department official. The man replied, “What do you mean we won’t receive full answers? Where do you think you’re going from here?”

Obama breaching previous agreements…what´s new!

The American commentator Barry Rubin listed three substantive breaches of agreement by the Obama administration towards Israel:

    * A breach of the agreement to recognize Israel’s right to maintain settlement blocks. 

    * A breach of the agreement for Israel to continue building in eastern Jerusalem, given in return for Israel’s acceding to the administration’s demand for a 10-month building freeze in Judea and Samaria.

    * The intention to publicize an American peace plan that will be forced on the sides if negotiations can’t get started or fail.

The results are predetermined!

The subject of the third breach completes the process of Israel’s loss of sovereignty. First by forcing Netanyahu to create in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria conditions under which the territory is de facto handed over to the Arabs, and then by giving him a few months to play at the farce of negotiations, with the predetermined result of arriving at the American “peace plan.”



And that’s not all. There’s the Quartet’s declared intent to base the forced “peace” on foreign armies. The Americans and Europeans are offering Israel the services of foreign troops as a beneficence in response to Israel’s complaint that it will no longer be able to defend itself within the borders of the Green Line. Their answer to this is “security guarantees” backed up with a military presence in the Jordan Valley and along the Green Line. They tell us that their intention is to defend us from the Arabs while they tell the Arabs that their intention is to defend them from us. In effect, this military presence will tie our hands and will prevent the Israeli government from taking any independent military action. From then on, Israel will be a sovereign nation in name only. In fact, Israel will
be a protectorate under international control, led by America.

Obama masterfully stage-directed the threat of a forced solution upon us. A meeting was called of past security advisors that all shared a common attribute: hostility to Israel. The chairman was General Jim Jones who served in Israel and became known as favoring a forced solution with foreign military backing. Obama named him as his National Security Advisor. The other participants were Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, and Samuel Berger, men with reputations as fierce opponents of Israel. Colin Powell ­ not a great friend but a bit more neutral ­ also participated. With Powell as the sole dissenter, they all reached the conclusion that America must adopt a policy of forcing a solution. The fact of the meeting as well as its conclusions were leaked by the White House to The New York Times and The Washington Post, who were also told that the President himself had dropped in to listen in on the discussion ­ this to let us know that it wasn’t just another discussion by another committee, but a working meeting sponsored by the President. In this discussion too, the participants agreed on the need to station American or NATO armed forces along the Jordan River.

Another figure in Obama’s circle is Samantha Power, who in 2002, answering the question of how she would advise the President about the Arab-Israeli conflict, replied that instead of giving Israel three billions dollars annually, the money should go towards building a
Palestinian state and to funding “a huge army” with substantial capabilities for “forced outside intervention”. Obama appointed this woman as an advisor, a fact that says it all.

They don’t have to do a thing since the Americans are doing it all for them

The Arabs caught on to the new rules of the game before Netanyahu, and are acting like they don’t have to do a thing since the Americans are doing it all for them. We, the Israelis, don’t count, since we’re not considered as having any independent power of decision. Instead of talking to the puppet, the Arabs prefer to address the one who pulls the strings.

America has a rich past of coercive foreign interventions. She had a hand in the coup in Chile that overthrew and killed Salvador Allende, Chile’s democratically elected president. America orchestrated the revolt of “Solidarity” in Poland that overthrew the communist regime. She was involved in the overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in the Ukraine (since then, the Russians overturned things once again), and helped to overthrow Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze in order to set up a pro-American government there. Her intervention in numerous Latin American countries coined the phrase “banana republic”.

The Americans call their hostile subversion of other countries’ governments “destabilization,” and the press is indeed reporting that the sources close to the prime minister fear that Obama intends to bring down Netanyahu’s government if he doesn’t accept American dictates. In economics, this is known as a hostile takeover.

The hostile Israeli press sides with Obama, of course. Orly Azoulay, Yediot Achronot’s Washington bureau chief, acts as a “court reporter” for Obama, as if she works for him and not for us. And Alex Fishman, quoted above, criticizes “the problematic behavior of the Prime Minister in Washington.” Obama puts Neyanyahu through a hazing in Washington, and instead of defending his prime minister and condemning the one who insulted him ­ and thereby insulted us, one of Israel’s prominent reporters throws mud on the “problematic behavior” of the victim. What was Netanyahu’s sin? That he didn’t immediately sign the decree of surrender?

Another example of the slavish and servile language of the Israeli press is the headline of Yediot Achronot from Sept. 17, 2009, which proclaims “The U.S.: Our Patience With Israel is Ending.” The paper’s editors composed this formulation, as if Israel were a stubborn child getting on the nerves of the teacher.

Israelis aren’t sufficiently cognizant of the threat of foreign military forces entering the country even though the writing has been on the wall for some time now. For example, as far back as October 2008, the newspaper A-Shark al-Aussat citing French sources reported that the European Union had offered to deploy a European “peace force” along a future Israeli-Palestinian border. The Jerusalem Post reported on November 26, 2008 about a recommendation by one of Obama’s most senior advisors to station American or NATO armed forces in the Jordan Valley. Brzezinski also spoke of an “American line” along the Jordan Valley.* Aaron Klein reported on January 12 about secret discussions in which the possibility of placing Jordanian forces in Judea and Samaria was weighed.

Another blow to Israeli sovereignty that Klein publicized (April 8, 2010), is the spy network that George Mitchell has established here. There is detailed American oversight in eastern Jerusalem and the highest echelons become involved in every tiny building or development project. Mitchell set up the operation from within the American consulate in Jerusalem that also oversees building in Judea and Samaria, including every tractor that moves in Ma’ale Adumim. David HaIvri, spokesman of the Samaria Local Council, also noted that the Americans patrol the settlements and stick their noses everywhere. According to HaIvri, they present themselves as advisors to the consul, “but we know that in fact they’re spies for the Obama administration.”

In truth, the deterioration leading to the loss of sovereignty, G-d forbid, started back in 2003, when Ariel Sharon’s government obligated itself to the Road Map. It is the Road Map that the Americans rely on when they accuse Israel of not fulfilling her obligations.

However, during the government vote on the Road Map, Netanyahu agreed to support it only on condition that 14 “reservations” were appended to it. The reservations included dismantling the terror
organizations, including Hamas, stopping the incitement, confiscating unauthorized arms, and an end to arms smuggling and arms manufacture.

These conditions, to say the least, haven’t been met ­ suffice it to mention that the Hamas state in Gaza, whose raison d’etre is to conduct a terror war against Israel until the Jewish State is destroyed, comprises almost half the Palestinian population.

Another reservation stated that as long as the Arabs fail to honor their commitments to put an end to terror and incitement, Israel is also absolved of her commitments (for example, to dismantle outposts and freeze building in the settlements).

Another reservation said that “final status issues, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria and the status of the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem, will not be dealt with.” In another reservation, Israel rejected “any reference to international or other decisions,” (referring to the Saudi-Arab Initiative).

In light of these reservations, Obama’s attack on Israel is groundless since the conditions that would obligate Israel to the Road Map haven’t been met at all. Since May 23, 2003, the date the government obligated itself to these reservations, we’ve heard nothing about them, as if they vanished into a black hole. At the time, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told us: you can decide among yourselves whatever you want, but just as no one consulted you when we formed the Quartet or formulated the Road Map, no one’s cares about your “reservations” now. Today, it appears that she was right: Israel’s reservations aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. The Secretary of State’s position was indeed correct: the Road Map was a dictate and no one heard the Israeli poodle’s whimper of protest in the form of “reservations”.

Here, with the Road Map, was the beginning of our loss of independence: we subjugated ourselves to the Quartet, we agreed to be supervised and judged by their inspectors, we gave them the authority to convene international conventions with the power to declare Palestinian independence, and we accepted the principle that the Arabs have legitimate claims to Jerusalem and regarding the refugees — all under the umbrella of the Saudi Initiative. All this, in addition to the obligation to freeze settlements and destroy outposts.

We waged our first war of independence against the British and the Arab armies when we were very weak ­ we had a population of 650,000, which is the same as the population of Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem today. We had almost no arms, only a nascent army, and no economy — we were like a newborn baby, naked and vulnerable. Those conditions are incomparable with our situation now. And yet, despite our current strength and resources, if we aren’t now willing to undertake the risks and hardships entailed in a second war for our independence, we’re likely to loose everything we achieved in our first war of independence.

*On April 26th, Channel One’s Ehud Yaari interviewed Palestinian Authority head Abu Mazen on Israeli television. There, Abu Mazen asserted that he and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had reached an agreement that Israel’s security concerns would be safeguarded in a final peace accord by stationing NATO troops under American command along the future Israeli-Palestinian border.


by Felix Quigley

30 April, 2010

Basically what we on 4international proposed to Jihadwatch, to Atlas Shrugs, to Israpundit, and of course to anybody else, was the following

  1. That it is not enough to know that the US Governments (as well as all of the EU Governments) are actively siding with Islam and other reactionary dictatorships in the world against especially Jews and the Jewish state of Israel. This is just a recognition of empirical evidence before our eyes.
  2. That it is also necessary to understand why? This entails more than seeing and stating what is before our eyes, this involves a theoretical accounting for this phenomenon.


It is therefore a kick up the teeth for us, but not only for us but also for Jews, that is the Jewish people, that none of the above would print our article, and thereby begin a discussion on the why?, which is the absolutely key and necessary question that needs to be answered.

Why should the US Government be setting up Sharia states? Why on principle? Why now?

4international will shoulder this disappointment that none of the above saw fit to help develop a discussion on the why? 4international may be a small website with a small organization but we and it represents the long tradition of the Trotskyist movement, and there is nobody and nothing else on the planet which does so represent “Trotskyism” at this present point in time. It is not our job to be disappointed or even surprised but to understand the class and national political forces which run through such organizations which make them unable to have a true discussion.

We on 4international are quite unique in the world, and of all the various “left” movements we alone fight in support of the historic state of Israel which is the Homeland of the Jews. We alone out of all of the “left” movements and web sites etc are not in support of what has become known ubiquitously as the “Palestinians”, and even more we insist that the movement for a “Palestine State” was authored by Nazis, specifically by one of the very worst Nazis in the German Nazi Movement organizing the Holocaust. His name was Hajj Amin el Husseini, mentor to Arafat, Abbas and all the rest of those anti-Semitic pieces of human garbage, which have congregated under the term “The Palestinians” and supported by forces anti-Semitic in nature outside of them.

It is precisely this history, the history of this anti-Semitic Palestine Arab fiend Hajj Amin el Husseini, which all of these “Left” movements have carefully hidden. And in order to prick this “Palestinian” myth and edifice it is necessary to give as much propagandist opening up of this knowledge into the political situation in which our cadre operate.

At the same time there is one other item of history which is very carefully hidden, and this is again being hidden by the “left” mentioned above, but also by the capitalist political forces as well. This other item of history is of just as much importance as the hiding of the role of el Husseini

This is, of course, the hiding of the real fight in support of the Jews conducted by Leon Trotsky in the 1930s, up until his murder by a Stalinist thug called Ramon Mercader in Mexico in 1940.

Why is this fact vital? Vital it is because Leon Trotsky was not just an individual with a strong line of analysis against Stalin or against Hitler, creating an understanding of Stalinism and Fascism (Fascism, by the way, is often misstated. It is a modern phenomenon, a product of a specific stage in the terminal decline of once revolutionary capitalism)

Trotsky is also a continuation and a continuator of a specific historical tradition, going back to the Enlightenment, Darwin, Marx, Lenin etc. it is the continuation of that tradition, just as say the continuation of Judaism, or Buddhism, which is so important. History is important. Authenticity is important. Tradition is important.

What has to be clarified in front of millions of young people in this next period is that Leon Trotsky was fighting explicitly for the Jews of the world to create a JEWISH state in historic Palestine; we repeat here not a socialist Jewish state but a Jewish state. In other words it was up to the Jews to decide what way they would live, but what was the main essential was that they be allowed to live, alone, unmolested by anti-Semitism.

Those are the issues involved in the request which we made to answer the basic question which we repeat even one more time: Why are these states like the US and EU, intent on the creation of Sharia Jihadist type states in the world. Why? The key question surely! Obviously some of these states based on Sharia will hate the US and Europe, so what is in it for the latter? That they will soak up the hate, perhaps creating some theatre around this hate, yet still support their creation.

And that is where we on 4international separate from all of the above, Jihadwatch, Israpundit, Atlas Shrugs and so many others.

And to develop that theme and deepen the discussion requires the building of the 4international as a far more significant force than it is at this moment. The more parties like Jihadwatch there are the better, they do a really useful job in exposing what a reactionary ideology is Islam, but the question remains, is the US Government promoting Islam and Sharia, which is the key question. That means developing a leadership which will in theory and practice pose that question.

What are you waiting for? The capitalist crisis is not going to improve because it is a crisis which is historical in nature.

Write a note or a comment below. Mark at the top private if you wish it not to be published, and it will not, because every comment on 4international is moderated.


Tonge has gone and George Galloway takes her place as Patron on Palestine Telegraph, what has been referred to as the London coalition former for Hamas, the terrorist antisemitic movement which has as its aim killing Jews, the whole bit, The Final Solution.
So these goings and comings on the Palestine Telegraph are deadly serious.
The importance of Tonge is that she was not sacked immediately or at all by the Lib Dems when she agreed with the Palestine Telegraph fronting for Hamas claim that Jews in Haiti were harvesting body organs of Haitians.
The further importance is that Brown of the Labour Party did not raise the issue in the recent TV debates.
Nor did Tory Party leader Cameron.
Why is it that the British ruling class elite can not take a position in supporting Israel, in opposing the Hamas front PT, and in defending the integrity and safety of Jews in Israel?
The answer must be that they are all in on this antisemitism together. They are keeping antisemitism up their sleeve for a purpose.
That is why Hamas is excused in London. The pages of the Hamas Front, the Palestine Telegraph, are indeed respectable, made so by this British ruling elite.
Suddenly it is all right now to be a Jew killing organization active on the streets of London.
To see that this is the truth all you have to do is read any part of the Hamas Charter. The following is only a small extract.
The Hamas Charter:


  This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks.

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised.

 Hamas slogan

  Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes. (Article 8)

 Peace process

  Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. (Article 13)

 Duty to fight

  It is necessary to instill the spirit of jihad (holy war) in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.

It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses).

It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis. (Article 15)


What is in this for the British elites? Why are the British elites  organizing in support of the Final Solution, which is of course what they do when they organize in support of Hamas?
The following are the latest developments as reported on Jewish Chronicle
Jessica Elgot, April 22, 2010


Baroness Jenny Tonge has withdrawn her patronage of the Palestine Telegraph after the paper posted a video of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke claiming that Israel is a terrorist threat to America.

The LibDem peer has often been attacked for her patronage of the Palestine Telegraph, which has previously linked IDF doctors to organ theft in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.

Baroness Tonge’s name has been removed from the website. Press TV journalist and sister of Cherie Blair, Lauren Booth, Respect MP George Galloway and Luisa Morgantini, Vice President of European Parliament all remain patrons. The former LibDem MP is believed to have emailed the newspaper to say that she no longer wishes to be a patron.

The video, featuring Mr Duke, an American white nationalist, with the headline “Israel’s terror against America”, was on the front page of the Palestine Telegraph’s website.

Mr Duke has published two antisemitic books, one of which is titled Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question.

Matthew Harris, the Lib Dem candidate for Hendon said: “I have received definitive confirmation that Jenny Tonge has emailed the Palestine Telegraph stressing that she no longer wishes to be a patron.

“I disagree with Jenny Tonge on many issues but I am pleased she has taken this step. I am confident that Jenny Tonge shares my disgust at everything David Duke stands for.”

Baroness Tonge could not be reached for comment.

4international says

It seems that Duke, and the placing of his video on the front page of PT, has been useful to Tonge. It gives Tonge the excuse to get out.

But Tonge has not changed and her politics are the politics also of Galloway.


by Jim Stephens

April 26, 2010

Consider the following from Mr Abbas, who was trained by the arch killer of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust, Hajj Amin el Husseini:

 Speaking to members of his Fatah party, he said: “Mr President and members of the American administration, since you believe in this [an independent Palestinian state], it is your duty to take steps toward a solution and to impose this solution.”

And the solution which Abbas really wants, as he wanted when he worked alongside Arafat, who was a close relative of that master killer of Jews, Hajj Amin el Husseini


Consider also this:

Some high-placed official sources (Of the American Government..FI) are also critical of Netanyahu’s approach to America’s drive for peace talks with the Palestinians. They complain the Israel prime minister insists that every issue is cleared with him in person and holds his closest aides, including his national security adviser Uzi Arad, back from efforts to seek out common ground with their American counterparts.

(…Abbas wants imposed solution)

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear.

The great American Government of Obama, (but was Bush any better? No! )This great and democratic government wishes to have a government in power in Israel that is totally its vassal.

So it is getting all upset here because the Israeli Prime Minister wants to be in charge of his own government.

And that all things concerning his government on the biggest issue facing his Jewish people should pass through him.

That is totally scandalous is it not! That simply could never happen in any other part of the world, could it, that a Prime Minister would be in charge of his or her Government.

But enough of the irony! This is deadly serious! We are talking here about whether those Jews who escaped the last Holocaust will be wasted in the next!

Nothing better explains what is happening in the world than the above comments, which have all the ring of truth about them.

The US Government, and the US Governments down the decades, are absolutely dead keen to create an Islamic state and to place this Islamic state right onto the flank of the Jewish state of Israel.


This is the question which we on 4international implore that Ted Belman answer (Ted is our friend and is the editor of Israpundit)

It is the question which we on 4international implore that Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch, and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs,  answer with great urgency.

All of these (Robert, Pamela, Ted and so many others) are doing great and wonderful work. But they must answer this question.

Why is the US Governments so determined to create this Islamist state which will eat right into the heart of the Jewish state of Israel?

(And why does the US do this in so many parts of the world as well?)

Why does the US government want an Islamist “parliament” within a mile of the Jewish Parliament? All pressed together in that so tiny country, bounded on all sides by Muslim hate filled dictatorships, that is hatred of Jews primarily!

Why does it want a Jihadist Jew Hating state of Palestine looking down from a few miles onto the airport of Ben Gurion?

Answer that question, ladies and gentlemen, before we go ANY further!


Today, April 25, 2010 is 90 years to the day of the crucial San Remo Conference, which was the key International conference which set up the movement towards creating the Jewish Homeland on the historical area of Judea, later renamed Palestine.

It is vital to mark this day because of its huge historical significance.

What will happen inside the next 10 years, before we reach the 100th anniversary of the San Remo Conference? On 4international we do not have the amazing gifts of these people who can study the planets and foretell the future. For us we are mere flesh and blood, we are connected to nature yet separated, we therefore have to rely on the study of class forces, national movements, trends within religions, trends towards anti-Semitism, weaknesses of our allies, sometimes strengths, to be able to see how the ground lies on any question.

With the Jews what dominates is the Holocaust inflicted on the Jews by the Nazis, which can be marked by Hitler taking power in 1933, passing the Enabling Act, thus clearing the way for war and genocide.

Will this be repeated before the 100th Anniversary? This is now a real question to ask because there are evil minds in the world once more, talking about elimination, and these evil minds turn towards the deadly nuclear bomb technology.

People should always study this with a map in front of them, a mental image in which Israel is tiny, therefore always vulnerable. If no map in front, if no mental image in front, if not drawing attention to the physical “smallness” of Israel, then we see signs of anti-Semitism, and we may even be in the presence of anti-Semites





This is why the International Treaty of San Remo on this day exactly 90 years ago awakened the latent anti-Semitism inside Islam.

No sooner was the ink dry than the antisemites inside the Arab world were mobilizing against the Jews.

The role of Hajj Amin el Husseini dates from this time. His strategy was simple

  1. Stir up Jew hatred. Kill Jews
  2. Kill all Arabs who wished to work with the Jews and who supported the Jewish Homeland


The role of the British Government was to adopt Hajj Amin el Husseini and to also attack the Jewish Homeland idea.

But the British had an interest in Palestine for their own imperial reasons. From the very beginning the British were working with antisemites to destroy the Jewish Homeland idea.

The British set the scene on this evil policy by creating Transjordan, which later became the independent state of Jordan, out of “Palestine”, out of the area which the San Remo treaty meant as the Jewish Homeland.

The writing was on the wall even then, at that very early stage.

78 per cent of the original Jewish Homeland idea was gone. San Remo was no more. International Treaties were not worth the paper they were written on. And the main mover in this action against the Jews, and in favour of what really was an early form of Jihad, was somebody known and thought of as a friend of the Jews, Churchill!


During the whole of the British Mandate the policy of the British remained steady

  1. Back up the evil anti-Semite Hajj Amin el Husseini
  2. Back his policy of killing Jews
  3. Back his programme of killing and intimidating all Arabs who would work in sympathy with Jews


There are a number of further points to set down about the San Remo Treaty of 1920

  1. The Jews never recovered from this hatchet job by Churchill WHICH HE CHURCHILL CARRIED THROUGH in the months following San Remo
  2. The Hajj Amin el Husseini who the British adopted in 1920 became the closest of associates with Hitler, Himmler and other top Nazis in carrying out the Holocaust
  3. El Husseini was pardoned totally and adopted by the American Government post 1945, he went on to lead the genocidal attacks on the newly formed Israel of 1947-49, when that failed he adopted his close and young relative Yasser Arafat, trained him up to create the PLO. The PLO was formed out of Nazism. The PLO ARE Nazis!


And Israel degenerated over time in this sense. Israeli leaders came to accept that these PLO Nazis should be given even a further state, but this time carved out of Israeli land, so that these Nazis now riddled by Al Qaida should be set up on the flank of the tiny Israel state, in order to carry on their war from that new advantageous position.

This is the real meaning of this anniversary of San Remo on this very day.

  • If you are a Jewish person where do you stand on this. Do you wish to set the ancestors of the very people, the Nazis, who murdered 6 millions of your people in the Holocaust, in a state based on YOUR land.
  • If you are a person of socialist conviction do you side with the Nazis. The PLO, PA, Hamas, call it whatever, is a Nazi movement


We on 4international are totally clear.

We oppose all the way the Nazis setting up a state on the flank of Israel which they call “Palestine”

That is the great importance of making known the name and history of Hajj Amin el Husseini.

Join us! Join 4international in this great struggle!



by Jim Stephens

April 24, 2010

John Ging has made another Israel hating attack on Israel, saying that Gaza children do not have schools because of the “occupation”, but first of all who is John Ging?

The first thing to say about John Ging is that he is a very slippery customer. During the war between Israel and Hamas over a year ago Ging claimed that Israel had attacked a school with rockets. This was false and Ging found a form of words to cover his ass. But the first statements and claims by Ging which were all directed against Israel, and never mentioning that there was an opposite side to Israel, which was Hamas and the other terror groups, were taken up in bulk by all of especially the foreign media, the Irish Times and so on.

Ging uses words, uses emotion in his voice, and speaks to a political contingency essentially of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, very like the Haaretz newspaper. (Fewer and fewer Israeli Jews buy Haaretz. That does not matter to them. Their constituency is outside Israel, linking up with anti Israel papers such as El Pais in Spain, where anyway all the Media is hostile to Israel.

Ging did that then and he did it last night (or this morning in the early hours) on the BBC world service.

Ging heads the UN in Gaza. Ging never refers in statements to attacks on Israel from Gaza. Certainly the BBC does not cover if he does.

All of Ging´s hatred is directed towards Israel and never against Hamas.

I have never heard Ging making an attack on say the Hamas Charter where it calls for the killing of Jews.

I do not know what Ging earns in a year as head of the UN in Gaza. I would like to know but I bet it is a pretty penny.

If so he is just part of the bigger picture. More international money and aid flows to Hamas and Fatah than any other group in the world

So the latest from Ging is that thousands of children cannot go to school in the Gaza because of the blockade by Israel.

But it is a war Ging. There is a war going on between Israel and Hamas and between Israel and Fatah, or the PA, or the PLO, or whatever the latest label!

To understand the type of psychological war that Israel faces all the time from its enemies the reader could look up the IPSC, just google (Ireland, Palestine) and it is 1st.

This is worth doing and is an education.

The best explanation of all of this special phenomenon of Israel and “Palestine”, the best characterisation, was given by Robert Spencer yesterday- Referring to the “Palestinian” PM plans to boycott Israeli goods Spencer called the gambit:

at bottom this is just another play for victim status by what is in reality a relentless and intransigent jihad group.


I have never seen it better put. I have never seen a better description in print of this phenomenon we have come to know as the “Palestinians”.

I come from Ireland and although I concern myself mostly with the “international” aspect of things, I keep an eye on what is happening there. Ireland provides a perfect example of this “Jihad” in action, but there it is carried on by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, with many interweaving other groups, even well known singers, musicians etc, it is quite remarkable, Irish people, and these people are actually pushing the Jihad, and essentially under the cover of being against Israel. They are hyper active. On their site they even have a map of Ireland, every one of the 32 counties marked, with a centre in each county, all virtual, in reality they do not exist these centres, and the idea is to organize a boycott of Israeli goods. But how many Israeli goods are there in Ireland anyway? It amounts to black propaganda, Nazi type propaganda. It is the Jihad against Israel and Jews carried on by Irish people. It is a world network. Not just Muslims are operating this Jihad. That is where this Jihad has crossed over into the world of anti-Semitism and Israel demonization.

Now the whole point is that Ging is part of this Jihad, a willing part, a conscious part.

And Ging is part of a much wider contingency. Certainly the Fascist Left is involved heavily with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the SWP and a hundred others.

But not solely the Fascist Left. The Haaretz is in on it and the Haaretz has links with El Pais. I think the Irish Times is in on this circle, I think also the New York Times but will write in detail on this again.

So now the BBC takes the Ging statement. Expect these and many others to be following with articles.

That is precisely how the hatred against Israel is built up. Not mysterious! Done by real people and real organizations.

Against this we on 4international fight for organization above all. So please do not just read these articles and do nothing. The comment section below is available, always moderated, so it can be private or public, you say.

But I wonder what can Israel do?

First propaganda:

Get the atlas out, print a map of Gaza (1)

Gaza has a large border with an Arab country, Egypt. There are now NO Jews in Gaza. So the word blockade must not be used or apply.

Israel must close the border totally with these anti-Semites on the basis of a hostile presence in Gaza (Hamas Charter)

With the border closed…the source of hostile propaganda is over…finished!

The Arab world is very rich.Let them build schools and whatever they like, just do not shoot rockets into Israel.

Every attack on Israel from Gaza…report it fully. Photographs! Locations etc!

Monitor all positions constantly of Hamas leaders and personnel. After each attack on Israel hit back within 10 minutes, not at where the attack came from, but at the position of the leaders.

Having advised publicly and continually that “gazans” should stay well clear at all times from these pieces of anti-Semitic shit (yes use those words!) who make up Hamas and Fatah (who are calling for a boycott of Israel)

Something like that! Perhaps others can think up better. I am not a military person.

But it is the spirit that counts.



To make this public it is vital to close down Haaretz, close down the Supremely Reactionary Court of Israel, take over Haaretz, staff it with young Jews, and watch its circulation soar.

The present journalists in Haaretz to apply for work to Hamas. That is right, take them to the border. Push them across. I am at heart a very simple Irishman and I know deep in my heart that the Haaretz journalists whose reports I read will feel right at home reporting right alongside Hamas. I do not wish them harm. But who knows!

PS  Every week we will set an article for our readers to study

This weekend it is:

Next week we will discuss some points on this article.

We will do this regularly, every week if possible


by Jim Stephens

April 23, 2010

We on 4international are fully in support of the French ban on the Islamist face veil. As such we are the ONLY organization on the left which takes this position. The whole of the left we refer to as Fascist Lefts because they are in support of reactionary and Fascist Islam.

The issue is well covered by Jihadwatch. Note the ban will apply to tourists as well. This is very courageous and is principled. France leads the way. France may be the inspiration of Europe but time will tell.

Liberty, equality, fraternity, and sanity: “When you arrive in France, you respect the laws in force …. Everyone will have to respect the laws in France. That’s how it is.” An update on this story. “France veil ban ‘will apply to Muslim tourists too’,” from Agence France-Presse, April 22 (thanks to Dumbledoresarmy):

Muslim tourists in France will be forbidden to wear the full-face veil along with French residents under the Government’s plan to ban the garment in public places, a minister said today.

“When you arrive in France, you respect the laws in force …. Everyone will have to respect the laws in France. That’s how it is,” Nadine Morano, a junior minister for families, told the radio station France Info.

Hundreds of thousands of visitors come to France each year from the Middle East, according to estimates from the tourism ministry, and veiled women are a common sight in the luxury stores on Paris shopping boulevards.

Ms Morano said women breaching the ban would be fined but would not be unveiled “on the spot”.

Ms Morano said the planned ban was in line with France’s secular principles but also aimed to give “a message at international level” and would apply equally to visitors from abroad.


by Jim Stephens

April 23, 2010

Is Islam a religion of peace, as Bush claimed, as he stood inthe ashes of 9-11?

And where did the Jew hatred in Islam come from?

Was Jew hatred placed into Islam by the Nazis?

These are huge questions and very luckily there is one very active expert living today who is an expert on these matters. That is, of course, Robert Spencer of

The following is a very learned article by Spencer with many references to the sources in the Koran

miércoles, 21 de abril de 2010, 17:06:54 | Robert

This is a common species of wishful thinking and willful blindness. Its proponents imagine that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ with no anti-Semitic elements (you know the drill, Islam reveres the “People of the Book,” etc.), but it was corrupted by the Nazis. Thus all one needs to do to solve this problem is to eliminate the Nazi elements and call Muslims back to the true teachings of the Qur’an, and the jihad will end. How wonderful! Except it’s completely fictional, and based on ignorance or denial of the jihad doctrine, Islamic supremacism, and Qur’anic anti-Semitism.

Note also what my estimable and indefatigable colleague and collaborator Pamela Geller has revealed about the Mufti of Jerusalem’s role in the Holocaust, and his own radio broadcasts.

“Roots of Islamic funamentalism [sic] lie in Nazi propaganda for Arab world, book claims,” by Allan Hall in the Telegraph, April 21:

The roots of Islamic fanaticism can be traced to Adolf Hitler’s radio messages broadcast around the Arab world during the Second World War, according to a new book.

“Your only hope for rescue is the destruction of the Jews before they destroy you!” Hitler said in a 1942 message, one of thousands broadcast across the Middle East in an attempt to woo the Arab world.

In a broadcast aimed at provoking an anti-Semitic uprising in Egypt, he said: “A large number of Jews who live in Egypt, along with Poles, Greeks, Armenians and Frenchmen, have guns and ammunition.

“Some Jews in Cairo have even asked the British authorities to set up machine guns on the roofs of their houses,” he claimed.

But the Nazi’s wartime broadcasts had remained a largely hidden chapter in the history of the war until the transmissions were unearthed by a US scholar, who believes they have fuelled continuing unrest in the Middle East.

“The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would have been over long ago were it not for the uncompromising, religiously inspired hatred of the Jews that was articulated and given assistance by Nazi propagandists and continued after the war by Islamists of various sorts,” said Jeffrey Herf, a history professor at the University of Maryland….

Herf is not original with this roseate and fantastic view. Journalist Lawrence Wright writes in this vein in The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11:

Until the end of World War II … Jews lived safely–although submissively–under Muslim rule for 1,200 years, enjoying full religious freedom; but in the 1930s, Nazi propaganda on Arabic-language shortwave radio, coupled with slanders by Christian missionaries in the region, infected the area with this ancient Western prejudice [anti-Semitism]. After the war, Cairo became a sanctuary for Nazis, who advised the military and the government. The rise of the Islamist movement coincided with the decline of fascism, but they overlapped in Egypt, and the germ passed into a new carrier.

This is a common view, but in reality there is a strong native strain of anti-Semitism in Islam, which is rooted in the Qur’an. The Muslim holy book contains a great deal of material that forms the foundation for a hatred of Jews that has perdured throughout Islamic history. It is virulent and hard to eradicate. The Qur’an portrays the Jews as the craftiest, most persistent, and most implacable enemies of the Muslims — and there is no Islamic authority that has moved to mitigate the most destructive interpretations of all this. The Qur’anic material on the Jews remains the prism through which far too many Muslims see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict–and Jews in general–to this day.

A vivid illustration of this came in 2004 from Islam Online, a website founded by, among others, the internationally influential Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi in 1997. Although al-Qaradawi has won praise from Islamic scholar John Esposito for engaging in a “reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism, and human rights,” that “reformist” impulse doesn’t seem to carry over to his view of Jews (he has justified suicide bombings against Israeli civilians), or the view of them he has allowed to be published on Islam Online.

In 2004 the site posted an article titled “Jews as Depicted in the Qur’an,” in which Sheikh ‘Atiyyah Saqr, the former head of the Fatwa Committee at the most respected institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, depicts Jews in a chillingly negative light, illustrated with abundant quotations from the Qur’an. Among other charges he levels at the Jews, Saqr says that they “used to fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah”; they “love to listen to lies”; they disobey Allah and ignore his commands; they wish “evil for people” and try to “mislead them”; and they “feel pain to see others in happiness and are gleeful when others are afflicted with a calamity.” He adds that “it is easy for them to slay people and kill innocents,” for “they are merciless and heartless.” And each charge he follows with Qur’anic citations (including, among others, 3:75; 5:64; 3:181; 5:41; 5:13; 2:109; 3:120; 2:61; 2:74; 2:100; 59:13-14; 2:96; and 2:79).

Though he offers many examples of the alleged evil traits of the Jews supported by the Qur’an, Saqr doesn’t mention the notorious Qur’anic passages that depict an angry Allah transforming Jews into apes and pigs: 2:63-66; 5:59-60; and 7:166. The first of those passages depicts Allah telling the Jews who “profaned the Sabbath”: “Be as apes despicable!” It goes on to say that these accursed ones serve “as a warning example for their time and for all times to come.” The second has Allah directing Muhammad to remind the “People of the Book” about “those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil.” The third essentially repeats this, saying of the Sabbath-breaking Jews that when “in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions,” Allah said to them, “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”

In traditional Islamic theology these passages have not been considered to apply to all Jews. The classic Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir, whose commentary is widely distributed and respected among Muslims today, quotes earlier authorities saying that “those who violated the sanctity of the Sabbath were turned into monkeys, then they perished without offspring,” and that they “only lived on the earth for three days, for no transformed person ever lives more than three days.” While parts of the Qur’an are hostile to the Jews, Muhammad’s curse, in this case, was limited to these Sabbath-breakers, not to all Jews.

However, that hasn’t stopped contemporary jihadists from frequently referring to Jews as the “descendants of apes and swine.” The implication is that today’s Jews are bestial in character and are the enemies of Allah, just as the Sabbath-breakers were. The recently deceased grand sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, who was the most respected cleric in the world among Sunni Muslims, called Jews “the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs.” Saudi sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, imam of the principal mosque in the holiest city in Islam, Mecca, said in a sermon that Jews are “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.”

Another Saudi sheikh, Ba’d bin Abdallah al-Ajameh al-Ghamidi, made the connection explicit: “The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places … is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam–which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam.” A 1996 Hamas publication says that today’s Jews are bestial in spirit, and this is a manifestation of the punishment of their forefathers. In January 2007, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas stated, “The sons of Israel are mentioned as those who are corrupting humanity on earth,” referring to Qur’an 5:64.

All this shows that leading Muslim authorities approach the Qur’an not as a document rooted in history, but as a blueprint for understanding the world today. Likewise, Sheikh ‘Atiyyah Saqr describes the Qur’anic teachings that because Jews “revolted against the Divine ordinances … they found no warm reception in all countries where they tried to reside. Rather, they would either be driven out or live in isolation.” Moreover, “Almighty Allah told us that He’d send to them people who’d pour on them rain of severe punishment that would last till the Day of Resurrection.” Then comes a threat: “All this gives us glad tidings of the coming victory of Muslims over them once Muslims stick to strong faith and belief in Allah and adopt the modern means of technology.”

The classic Qur’anic commentators not do not mitigate the Qur’an’s words against Jews, but only add fuel to the fire. Ibn Kathir explained Qur’an 2:61 (“They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah”) this way: “This Ayah [verse] indicates that the Children of Israel were plagued with humiliation, and that this will continue, meaning that it will never cease. They will continue to suffer humiliation at the hands of all who interact with them, along with the disgrace that they feel inwardly.” Another Middle Ages commentator of lingering influence, ‘Abdallah ibn ‘Umar al-Baidawi, explains the same verse this way: “The Jews are mostly humiliated and wretched either of their own accord, or out of coercion of the fear of having their jizya [punitive tax] doubled.”

Ibn Kathir notes Islamic traditions that predict that at the end of the world, “the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah), and the Muslims, along with ‘Isa [Jesus], son of Mary, will kill the Jews.” The idea in Islam that the end times will be marked by Muslims killing Jews comes from the prophet Muhammad himself, who said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'” This is, not unexpectedly, a favorite motif among contemporary jihadists. On March 30, 2007, a spokesman for Hamas, Dr. Ismail Radwan, said on Palestinian Authority television:

The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: “Oh, Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!”

We must remind our Arab and Muslim nation, its leaders and people, its scholars and students, remind them that Palestine and the Al Aqsa mosque will not be liberated through summits nor by international resolutions, but it will be liberated through the rifle. It will not be liberated through negotiations, but through the rifle, since this occupation knows no language but the language of force…. O Allah, strengthen Islam and Muslims, and bring victory to your Jihad-fighting worshipers, in Palestine and everywhere…. Allah take the oppressor Jews and Americans and their supporters!

The history of Jews who lived under Muslim rule is a more or less unbroken record of theologically sanctioned humiliation and wretchedness. Like the Christians, Jews were allowed to practice their religion within restrictions, but they were seldom allowed to forget their humiliation. Although the strictness with which the laws of dhimmitude (the subservient status of Jews and Christians) were enforced varied, they were never abolished, and during times of relaxation the subject populations always lived in fear that they would be enforced with new stringency. Muslim rulers did not forget that the Qur’an mandates that both Jews and Christians must “feel themselves subdued.” One notable instance is recounted by the Arab historian Phillip Hitti: “The caliph al-Mutawakkil in 850 and 854 decreed that Christians and Jews should affix wooden images of devils to their houses, level their graves even with the ground, wear outer garments of honey color, i.e. yellow, put two honey-colored patches on the clothes of their slaves, … and ride only on mules and asses with wooden saddles marked by two pomegranate-like balls on the cantle.” A millennium later, in 1888, little had changed. A Tunisian Jew noted:

The Jew is prohibited in this country to wear the same clothes as a Muslim and may not wear a red tarbush. He can be seen to bow down with his whole body to a Muslim child and permit him the traditional privilege of striking him in the face, a gesture that can prove to be of the gravest consequence. Indeed, the present writer has received such blows. In such matters the offenders act with complete impunity, for this has been the custom from time immemorial.

In 1291 Isaac ben Samuel, a noted Kabbalist and Palestinian Jew, sought refuge in a Christian-controlled area of Spain after the collapse of the last Crusader kingdom in the Levant. He explained, “For, in the eyes of the Muslims, the children of Israel are as open to abuse as an unprotected field. Even in their law and statutes they rule that the testimony of a Muslim is always to be believed against that of a Jew. For this reason our rabbis of blessed memory have said, ‘Rather beneath the yoke of Edom [Christendom] than that of Ishmael [Islam]. They [the rabbis] plead for mercy before the Holy One, Blessed be He, saying, ‘Master of the World, either let us live beneath Thy shadow or else beneath that of the children of Edom’ (Talmud, Gittin 17a).”

Ben Samuel’s choice of Christian Spain is paradoxical, as Muslim Spain was supposed to have been a famous exception to the oppression of Jews that prevailed elsewhere among both Muslims and Christians. Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong enunciates the common wisdom when she says that “until 1492, Jews and Christians lived peaceably and productively together in Muslim Spain–a coexistence that was impossible elsewhere in Europe.” Even the U.S. State Department has proclaimed that “during the Islamic period in Spain, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in peace and mutual respect, creating a diverse society in which vibrant exchanges of ideas took place.”

Yet the philosopher Maimonides, a Jew who lived for a time in Muslim Spain and then fled that supposedly tolerant and pluralistic land, remarked, “You know, my brethren, that on account of our sins God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us….No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have….We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, and absurdities, which are beyond human power to bear.”

Notably, Maimonides directed that Jews could teach rabbinic law to Christians, but not to Muslims. For Muslims, he said, will interpret what they are taught “according to their erroneous principles and they will oppress us. [F]or this reason … they hate all [non-Muslims] who live among them.” But the Christians, he said, “admit that the text of the Torah, such as we have it, is intact”–as opposed to the Islamic view that the Jews and Christians have corrupted their scriptures. Christians, continued Maimonides, “do not find in their religious law any contradiction with ours.”

Even María Rosa Menocal, in her romantic and fantastic hagiography of Muslim Spain, The Ornament of the World, acknowledges the second-class status to which Jews and Christians were relegated there. “In return for this freedom of religious conscience the Peoples of the Book (pagans had no such privilege) were required to pay a special tax–no Muslims paid taxes–and to observe a number of restrictive regulations: Christians and Jews were prohibited from attempting to proselytize Muslims, from building new places of worship, from displaying crosses or ringing bells. In sum, they were forbidden most public displays of their religious rituals.”

According to historian Richard Fletcher, “Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch.” On December 30, 1066, about four thousand Jews in Granada were murdered by rioting Muslim mobs–more than would be killed in the Crusaders’ infamous Rhineland pogroms of the mid-twelfth century. What enraged the Granadan Muslims was the political power of the Jewish vizier Samuel ibn Naghrila and his son Joseph: the mob resented the fact that these men had authority over Muslims, which they saw as a “breach of sharia.” The mob was incited to kill the Jews by a poem composed by Muslim jurist Abu Ishaq: “I myself arrived in Granada and saw that these Jews were meddling in its affairs. … So hasten to slaughter them as a good work whereby you will earn God’s favor, and offer them up in sacrifice, a well-fattened ram.”

The mob heeded his call. A Muslim chronicler (and later sultan of Granada), ‘Abd Allah, said that “both the common people and the nobles were disgusted by the cunning of the Jews, the notorious changes they had brought in the order of things, and the positions they occupied in violation of their pact [of second-class status].” He recounted that the mob “put every Jew in the city to the sword and took vast quantities of their property.”

“Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews…” — Qur’an 5:82. Hitler didn’t write the Qur’an.

Please make sure you read the comments always on Jihadwatch.

One of the commenters here make a very important point against the “conspiracy theorists” who try to provide a cover for islam:

Why do Muslims kill Buddhists in Thailand and why did they seize and castrate innumerable black boys in Africa, centuries before Europeans had any realistic idea that such places and people existed? Did any external non-Muslim agency force, or persuade, or encourage, or pay the Muslims to blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas? Is anybody external to Islam forcing them or telling them to take and rape child-brides?


by Jim Stephens

April 23, 2010


Palestine Telegraph is a website based in Gaza and London and aims to provide its services as a cover/coalition  for the antisemitic Hamas terror organization

The context: making Hamas acceptable in London.

The content of Hamas propaganda, an example:

2- Jews to face yet another Holocaust

Headline: “Suffering by Fire is Jews’ destiny in this world and next.”
“… you will taste the punishment of Scorching Fire.” [Quran 3:181]
“This [Quran] verse threatens the Jews with the punishment of Fire… the reason for the punishment of Fire is it is fitting retribution for what they have done… but the urgent question is, is it possible that they will have the punishment of Fire in this world, before the great punishment [of Fire in Hell] … many of the [Islamic] religious leaders believe that the [Jews’] punishment of Fire is in this world, before the next world… therefore we are sure that the Holocaust is still to come upon the Jews.” [Sheikh Yunus Al-Astal, Hamas MP, in his regular column in Al-Rissala, (Hamas weekly) March 13, 2008]

It is important to note that the Hamas MP switched words in the last sentence, from the word he used throughout, “harik”, which means “fire”, to “mahraka” a word from the same root, that is used by Arabic speakers to mean “holocaust.”

3 – Muhammad’s promise: Jews will be killed
“Regarding the Jews, our business with them is only through bombs and guns… the prophet [Muhammad] promised that we will fight you, with Allah’s help, until the tree and stone say: “Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
[Nizar Rayan, Hamas religious and military leader, Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), Jan. 1, 2009. Note: Rayan was killed on Jan. 2, 2009]

4 – Extermination of Jews – good for humanity

In an article promoting the continued use of suicide terror in the official Hamas newspaper:
“We find more than one condemnation and denunciation of the resistance operations and bombings [suicide attacks], carried out by Hamas and the Palestinian resistance branches… [Eventually] everyone will know that we did this only because our Lord commanded so: ‘I did it not of my own accord’ [Quran] and so that people will know that the extermination of Jews is good for the inhabitants of the worlds.”

[Al-Rissala, (Hamas weekly) April 23, 2007]

read much more of this on

Another blogger took this from the Hamas Charter:

Then I took a look at the Hamas Charter, just to see what this is all about. It’s somewhat long, but I’ve distilled a few choice parts:

Art. 2: Islam is the comprehensive doctrine for every single aspect of life. (They’re pretty clear – their view of Islam is that it’s a totalitarian doctrine.)

Art. 7: The Islamic resistance movement extends over the entire globe, it applies everywhere, and Jews are to be killed.

Art. 11: Every last bit of Palestine is Islamic, a non-negotiable point.

Art. 13: No peace negotiations, no compromises, ever. Jihad only.

Art. 15: An individual obligation… kill, kill, kill. (Yes, stated three times.)

Art. 17, 22, 28: The Masons, Rotary Clubs, and Lions Clubs are the enemy too. (What the hell?)

So we repeat: that is the purpose of Palestine Telegraph, to make THAT (and more, see the full article listed) acceptable in London.

Now Harry´s Place reports the following change:

Gone is the link ontheir front page to the video by the racist David Duke.

Gone is Jenny Tonge as Patron.

The following explains this admirably





You may remember him from this interview he conducted on Press TV.

So Galloway takes the place as patron of Palestine Telegraph in place of Tonge.

So what is the difference and why the change. Galloway is now on the Palestine Telegraph, which carried the horrific claim against the Israeli team which went to Haiti to help the unfortunate people with Israeli medical help, that these Israelis were there to rob Haitians of body parts.

I cannot see the difference in having Tonge there as patron and having Galloway! What is the difference?

It appears that Tonge left because she is on the team of the Liberal Democrats. She left only for opportunist Lib Dem electioneering issues.

But also the Tories and Labour are implicated with Tonge on the Palestine Telegraph issue because they are all supportive of Hamas, one way or another.


The only significance of this story is that it shows that the whole of the British Establishment are in support of the terrorist and antisemitic organization Hamas (see our initial remarks) and that there is a general rallying behind Tonge and Clegg by all of the parties.

And it is Israel who is being attacked and denigrated by these moves.

These moves spell out that Israel is in great danger.


by Jim Stephens

April 21, 2010o



Oh look, this blog is on someone’s front page.

And guess who else is on the front page? Why, former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, ranting about Israel and Jews in a video.

You can watch the video on Youtube if you like.

Here’s the screenshot of the front page showing both stories. Click to enlarge.

Is Jenny Tonge still a patron of the Duke loving crew at the Palestine Telegraph? Of course she is. So is Lauren Booth.

If you would like to ask Nick Clegg if he thinks Tonge’s patronage of a far right hate publisher is appropriate, his e-mail address is


by Jim Stephens

April 21, 2010

From the Caroline Glick website I am publishing this story and analysis by Glick. We on 4international have a unity with Glick, but also major disagreements because she does not identify American Imperialism as being distinct from the American people. More on that again. I really do think that her politics must be sharply critiqued

But what this article shows is that there is a very definite traitor to Jews class of people who live in Israel.

This is the reason that these antisemites from places like Ireland can travel at will across to Israel, and can link up with these other antisemites who live in Israel and who call themselves Israelis. I always wondered how the Palestine Solidarity Campaign can do that. This article by Glick goes part of the way to explain it for me.

[Begin analysis by Caroline Glick here]

Over the past two weeks Israel has been rocked by a major espionage scandal in which the Haaretz newspaper plays a central role. To understand the significance of the scandal, it is worthwhile to preface a discussion of it with a look at a smaller story Haaretz developed this week.

On Sunday, Haaretz’s Amira Hass reported that in January, the IDF published a new military order that paves the way for the mass expulsion of illegal aliens from Judea and Samaria. The story sported the disturbing headline, “IDF order will enable mass deportation from West Bank.”

In a follow-up on Monday, Hass reported that 10 self-described human rights organizations (all funded by the New Israel Fund) sent a joint letter to Defense Minister Ehud Barak asking him to rescind the order. She noted, too, that, “the international media also has taken great interest in the story.”

And indeed, on Wednesday, a Google news search for “IDF West Bank deportation order” drew nearly 20,000 results.

Also on Monday, Haaretz published an editorial based on Hass’s stories. Titled, “IDF bid to expel West Bank Palestinians is a step too far,” the editorial asserted, “Implementing this new military order is not only likely to spark a new conflagration in the territories, it is liable to give the world clear-cut proof that Israel’s aim is a mass deportation of Palestinians from the West Bank.”

That is, Israel is fomenting a war and Israel deserves to lose that war because it is the villain.

On Wednesday, Haaretz reported that Jordan had joined it in condemning Israel.

That’s quite an accomplishment for an Israeli newspaper with a negligible share of the domestic market.

The only problem is that the order Hass reported on is 41 years old. After creating an international scandal, on Wednesday Haaretz acknowledged that the supposedly new order has been in place since 1969. What changed in January is that the IDF decided to expand the rights of illegal aliens in Judea and Samaria to pre-deportation hearings.

This was not a change for the worse in the status of illegal residents. It was a change for the better.

And still, due to Haaretz‘s misreporting, Israeli diplomats are being called into the chanceries of the world and raked over the coals for the country’s alleged plot to conduct a mass expulsion of Palestinians.

Haaretz accomplished two things with this story. It weakened Israel abroad, which clearly serves its ideological purposes. And it demonstrated its enormous power to damage Israel’s international image at will, which of course puts Israel’s law enforcement and judicial arms on notice as they prosecute and adjudicate the Haaretz spy scandal.

HAARETZ’S MANIPULATION of the deportation story bears a striking similarity to the way it manipulated its own spy scandal. That scandal was under a total court-issued gag order that barred the local media from reporting on it until last Thursday.

That gag order gave Haaretz the opportunity to manipulate the story to its advantage before the state authorities had a chance to explain what it was about. And so, early last week, Haaretz editor Dov Alfon approached credulous foreign journalists and spun a tale. By Alfon’s telling, Israel’s draconian Shin Bet security agency had “disappeared” one reporter – Anat Kamm – and caused another – Uri Blau – to flee the country.

As Judith Miller put it in her write-up of Haaretz‘s version of events in “The Daily Beast” Web site, Blau was on the lam in London, “to avoid answering questions about how and from whom he obtained the confidential defense department documents that are said to have resulted in a spate of stories alleging personal and institutional misconduct on the part of the Israeli Defense Forces, the hallowed IDF, and some of its senior officials.”

As for Kamm, Miller reported that she was suspected of stealing up to 1,000 documents from the IDF during her military service and giving them to Blau. But, Miller claimed, she denied the allegations.

Miller, like other journalists who spoke to Alfon, compared Israel to the likes of Cuba and Iran. Alfon and Haaretz were portrayed as the courageous defenders of freedom of speech and the true watchdogs of Israeli democracy, selflessly paying the expenses of their persecuted reporter hiding away in London.

All of this, of course, was reported abroad, before the actual story was published. And, like the deportation order story, all of it was hogwash.

When the gag order was revoked last Thursday, Israelis – and any foreigners who were interested – learned that Anat Kamm, a reporter hired by the Walla Web portal when it was partly owned by Haaretz, had been under house arrest for four months. She is on trial for acts of espionage with the intent of harming national security that she committed not as a reporter, but during her service in the IDF. Not only did she not disappear, she continued reporting for Walla, while under house arrest until the end of March.

Haaretz staff reporter Uri Blau fled the country not to protect a source, but to evade punishment for possessing classified military documents in breach not only of the law but of a plea bargain agreement with the Shin Bet.

Kamm served in the IDF from 2005 to 2007 as a secretary in the office of the commander of Central Command. In the weeks before her release from service, she copied about 2,000 highly classified IDF documents onto two CDs and uploaded them to her home computer. After her release, she shopped the documents around to various military reporters and eventually gave them to Blau. The documents she stole included top-secret information about IDF orders of battle, units, armaments and operational orders. Such information in the hands of Israel’s enemies could cause the death of thousands of Israeli soldiers and civilians.

Kamm refuses to return one of the CDs to authorities, claiming that she lost it. And since until her arrest her home computer was connected to the Internet, the documents she downloaded to her hard drive were vulnerable to penetration by everyone and anyone.

The Shin Bet launched its investigation of stolen IDF documents, which led it to Blau and then to Kamm after Blau published articles in November 2008 based on the documents he received from Kamm. At the time, the Shin Bet asked that Blau return all the classified documents in his possession. In return for his agreement to do so, the Shin Bet agreed not to prosecute him for illegally possessing classified materials. Blau returned 50 such documents and asserted that he had no more documents in his possession.

But then the Shin Bet found Kamm. And after confessing to stealing the 2,000 documents, she told them that she gave them all to Blau. When Blau found out that the Shin Bet knew he lied, and still illegally possesses thousands of classified documents, he decided not to return to Israel.

The gag order on the case until last Thursday was issued by the court at the Shin Bet’s request, not because it wished to stifle free speech, but because authorities wanted to give Blau more time to agree to return the documents he still holds illegally. That is, publication of the story was barred in order to give Blau another opportunity to come clean and walk free.

And it was with the knowledge that their reporter lied to the Shin Bet and fled the country that Haaretz chose to pay his living expenses in London and his legal expenses in Israel. It was with the knowledge that Kamm committed treason that Haaretz hired her as a reporter for Walla and represented her as a persecuted journalist to the international press.

In her statements during her investigation published in court documents, Kamm revealed that she is a messianic leftist. She came to the army not to serve the country, but to transform it. It was only when she realized that she had failed to bend the IDF to her will that she decided to reveal its secrets.

As she put it, “I didn’t succeed in changing enough things that it was important to me to change during my army service, and I thought that I would bring about that change by exposing them. That’s why it was important to me to inform the public about the IDF’s policies in the territories.”

KAMM’S TREACHERY is a deeply disturbing comment on the mindset of the radical Left in Israel. But her crimes are even more alarming when we realize that Kamm is not a lone renegade. In her treasonous activities, she enjoys the support of a massive organization.

By collaborating with Kamm first by publishing her stolen documents and hiring her as a reporter, and finally by covering up her crimes while suborning Blau’s perjury, Haaretz has demonstrated that leftist traitors have a powerful sponsor capable of exacting painful revenge on the State of Israel for daring to prosecute them.

In facilitating and supporting treason, Haaretz itself can depend on a massive network of supporters in Israel and internationally. Reporters, self-proclaimed human rights groups, and the leftist blogosphere in Israel and throughout the world as well as foreign governments happily swallow whole Haaretz‘s manufactured stories about Israel’s purported venality.

As for the State of Israel, depressingly, what the Haaretz spy scandal demonstrates is that the state is utterly unwilling to deal with this dangerous state of affairs. Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin stated that Israel will not change its screening process of candidates for military service. In the post-Kamm IDF, religious youths will continue to be grilled about their willingness to expel Jewish Israelis from their homes, and radical leftist youths will not be questioned about their loyalty to the state and willingness to keep the IDF’s secrets.

So, too, Diskin admitted that the Shin Bet was loath to aggressively pursue the investigation because its officers didn’t want to be accused of impinging on freedom of the press. Because he was a journalist, Blau was not seriously investigated and was let off the hook even as he lied to investigators. And the Shin Bet gave Haaretz the rope with which to hang it by requesting a gag order in order to give Blau more time to do the right thing – in spite of the fact that he had already demonstrated his bad faith and flagrant contempt for the law.

Ma’ariv and Globes both reported that thousands of Israelis canceled their subscriptions to Haaretz this week. Haaretz denied the reports. But really, it doesn’t care. Haaretz‘s target audience is not Israeli. It is global. And there it remains the champion of those who seek an Israeli affirmation of their anti-Israel attitudes.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

(The Haaretz Spy Scandal)


by Jim Stephens

April 21, 2010


Big changes are happening to the North of Israel that are very definitely going to threaten the lives of many thousands of Jews.

That is in Lebanon, and Spain with its UN troops there are up to their necks in this future massacre of the Jews.

And yet the Spanish, British, Irish and European Media are totally silent on what is happening!

[Begin report from DEBKAfile here]

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report April 18, 2010, 5:24 PM (GMT+02:00)

Syrian M-600 missile converted from Fateh-110

debkafile’s military sources disclose that Syria has expanded the flow of smuggled Syrian and Iranian weaponry across the Lebanese border to Hizballah in line with a master-plan charted in Tehran and Damascus for transforming the 25,000-strong Hizballah terrorist militia into an organized, mobile army with a whole range of sophisticated missiles and other weapons. The new Hizballah is being trained to carry out such offensive operations as capturing parts of Israel’s Galilee and equipped with the hardware for knocking out warplanes, warships and armored strength.
One of their missions will be to defend the Syrian capital, Damascus. Tehran and Damascus calculate that the next time a war erupts on Israel’s borders, its army will try and outflank Syrian forces on the Golan and drive past the units defending Damascus. That is where Hizballah is expected to come in.
Even after the Kuwaiti Al Rai claim that Syria had smuggled Scud ground missiles into Lebanon proved inaccurate and was denied in Washington, regional war tensions remained high – although not for the reason ascribed by Jordan’s King Abdullah during his current visit to Washington.
The king forecast an outbreak of Middle East hostilities in the coming summer because of the Israel-Palestinian diplomatic stalemate. What’s the connection? Our sources ask. Rather than admit he is nervously watching his aggressive Arab neighbor to the north, the Jordanian ruler is pinning the region’s troubles on Israel because it is the right tune to sing in Barack Obama’s Washington.
In actual fact, a Middle East war this summer depends on two actions which have nothing to do with the Palestinians: a decision by the US and/or Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities together or separately, and a decision in Tehran to unleash its allies against Israel – spearheaded by Hizballah – to preempt such an attack.
Ready to step into its new shoes, Hizballah is being armed with five major military capabilities, debkafile reports:
1. Surface-to-surface missiles able to reach as far as the Dimona reactor in southern Israel: They include Fajr-5, which has a range of 33 km, and the M-600, developed by Syria from the Fateh-110, whose range is 250 km. Both are precise, propelled by solid fuel and carry 500-kilo warheads of conventional explosives, as well as being able to deliver chemical, biological and radioactive materials.

This dangerous new arsenal which tops up the 40,000 rockets Hizballah was allowed to pile up since the 2006 Lebanon war.
Saturday, April 17, Israel’s deputy defense minister Mattan Vilnai, warned that Syria and Hizballah between them had ballistic missiles that could reach every millimeter of Israeli territory.
But he did not explain how the national defense leadership, of which he is a senior member, allowed this to happen.  
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has said nothing to account for his 14-month old government’s failure to make good on its pledges for change, and first of all to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.  Instead, he follows his predecessors’ same old passive routines on Iran, Syria and Hizballah, an open invitation to aggression and a recipe for armed conflict. Of late, he is hardly to be seen or heard except for the irrelevant comments he makes at state ceremonies.
2.  Iran has built for Hizballah five expanded commando brigades whose mission in a future conflict will be to capture and hold key northern Israeli towns and villages, including the town of Nahariya or parts thereof. This tactic would force Israeli forces marching into Lebanon to turn back and recover lost land.

On March 28, debkafile revealed this Iranian-Syrian master plan in detail.
3.  Syrian instructors are training Hizballah militiamen at top speed in the operation of ground-to-air weapons, including self-propelled missiles, against warplanes and incoming missiles and cruise missiles. Israel has threatened to destroy these batteries if they cross the border into Lebanon. They are therefore being held back in Syrian bases up against the border until such time as fighting flares. They will then be transferred into the hands of Hizballah units standing by on the Lebanese side of the border.
4.  Syria has set up a Hizballah special unit for attacking warships and fighting off Israeli coastal landings. It is equipped with advanced Chinese SS-26 Yakhont marine cruise missiles, which combine assault features with the ability to intercept attacking missiles or cruise missiles.
5.  Iranian and Syrian military engineers have constructed fortified anti-tank lines in many parts of Lebanon. They are linked by fast highways, to be closed to all traffic barring Hizballah units in an emergency, and by a military-grade communications network.

Now google “Spain in lebanon”. You find nothing but trivia.

Then google “Spain troops in Lebanon”

This comes up, from a paper in Barcelona:

Spanish General Alberto Asarta will shortly take command of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, according to a report released today by the Cadena Ser Asarta, he will have at his command 12,000 military and 1,000 civilians.


Another 200 soldiers to join Spanish troops in Lebanon, if Spain takes overall command.

Spain’s MoD are possibly sending 200 more soldiers to Lebanon, to join the contingent of 1,100 soldiers currently deployed in that country, if Spain takes command of the United Nations Interim Force (UNIFIL).

According to EFE, sources in the defence department have stated that the extra troops would only be sent on three conditions: that the UN give command to Spain, that the Ministry and the General Staff of Defence approved the reinforcement and that it will obtain authorization from Congress. If these three requirements are met, the Spanish mission in Lebanon would comprise 1,300 troops, most of which are located in the Miguel de Cervantes base in Marjayoun.

The rest of the items on page 1 of google refer to 2006, that is the date that Spanish troops went there.

So the troops were sent and then there is silence. What this adds up to is that the Spanish troops and the Zapatero and Popular Front opposition to Zapatero are prediding over, and being deliberately quiet about, this great threat from Lebanon to Israel.

This amounts in my book to antisemitism of a deep order. Do not forget the Spanishexpelled all Jews from Spain in 1492 and everything today shows that the Spanish are dhimmis to Islam.

So then is DEBKAfile making this stuff up? Of course not. It fits right in with the truth about Ahnmadinejad, Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah. But the Spanish are playing a really duplicitous game. They are truly antisemites. Truly they are dhimmies.

This was Livni´s work and what a trap that reactionary Jewess has set for Israel!


by Jim Stephens

Apriol 21, 2010


It is too simple to say that it was the “left” which created the lies around the “Palestinian” movement. It was first of all created by the Arab League.

Then surely Churchill had a big hand in this myth when he sliced off 78 per cent of “Palestine” and changed the name of this “Palestine” to Transjordan.

Then the British had a big hand when they were administering the Mandate, and betraying that trust.

The United States had a big say when they posed as the friend of Israel but were the very opposite, as Francisco Gil White has showed so comprehensively

[Start quote from Gil White here]

Around the world, there is a striking convergence of opinion concerning the relationship between the US and Israel.

Supporters of the PLO – synonymous with “supporters of a Palestinian state”, because the PLO will run any such state – are convinced that the US is an ally of Israel. Some believe the US employs Israel in order to expand the American empire, and others – echoing the claims of that infamous forgery, “The Protocols of Zion” – believe that history’s greatest superpower, the US, is actually the pawn of tiny Israel. Either way, they are agreed that the US and Israel are supposedly ‘a team.’

Supporters of Israel naturally disagree with supporters of the PLO about most things but not on this point, as they also believe that the US is a friend of Israel – perhaps its only real friend. Whereas those who are pro-PLO are especially infuriated by perceived US support for Israel, those who are pro-Israel are deliriously grateful for the same (especially so in the case of Zionist Jews).

Given that across the spectrum of those politically mobilized on this issue, from one pole to the other, everybody appears to have the same opinion on this, casual observers are naturally drawn into agreement as well, creating a crushing consensus all over the world: the US is an ally of Israel.

But is it true?

All our readers should read the above by Gil White very carefully and draw conclusions about the role of ideology in this situation.

We have to understand this myth of “Palestinianism” which has gained such a grip. This is by way of introduction to the fine analysis made many years ago by Abba Eban, which was written at a time when the myth of “Palestinianism” was taking shape.

I will return to this at the end when I will print a comment on Israpundit, which also at this moment is carrying the Abba Eban analysis.

[Begin analysis by Abba Eban here]

The Arab refugee problem was caused by a war of aggression, launched by the Arab states against Israel in 1947 and 1948. Let there be no mistake. If there had been no war against Israel , with its consequent harvest of bloodshed, misery, panic and flight, there would be no problem of Arab refugees today.

Once you determine the responsibility for that war, you have determined the responsibility for the refugee problem. Nothing in the history of our generation is clearer or less controversial than the initiative of Arab governments for the conflict out of which the refugee tragedy emerged.

The origins of that conflict are clearly defined by the confessions of Arab governments themselves:

    “This will be a war of extermination,” declared the secretary-general of the Arab League speaking for the governments of six Arab states, “it will be a momentous massacre to be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades.”

The assault began on the last day of November 1947. From then until the expiration of the British Mandate in May 1948 the Arab states, in concert with Palestine Arab leaders, plunged the land into turmoil and chaos. On the day of Israel ’s Declaration of Independence, the armed forces of Egypt , Jordan , Syria , Lebanon and Iraq , supported by contingents from Saudi Arabia and the Yemen , crossed their frontiers and marched against Israel.

The perils which then confronted our community; the danger which darkened every life and home; and the successful repulse of the assault and the emergence of Israel into the life of the world community are all chapters of past history, gone but not forgotten. But the traces of that conflict still remain deeply inscribed upon our region’s life. Caught up in the havoc and tension of war; demoralized by the flight of their leaders; urged on by irresponsible promises that they would return to inherit the spoils of Israel ’s destruction, hundreds of thousands of Arabs sought the shelter of Arab lands.

A survey by an international body in 1957 described these violent events in the following terms:

    “As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property” (Research Group for European Migration Problems Bulletin, Vol. V, No. 1, 1957).

Contemporary statements by Arab leaders fully confirm this version. On 16 August 1948 Msgr. George Hakini, the Greek Catholic Archbishop of Galilee, recalled:

    “The refugees had been confident that their absence from Palestine would not last long; that they would return within a few days [or] within a week or two; their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the ‘Zionist gangs’ very quickly and that there would be no need for panic or fear of a long exile.”

A month later, on 15 September 1948 , Emile Ghoury, who had been the secretary of the Arab Higher Committee at the time of the Arab invasion of Israel , declared:

    “I do not want to impugn anyone but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem.”

No less compelling than these avowals by Arab leaders are the judgments of United Nations organs. In April 1948, when the flight of the refugees was in full swing, the United Nations Palestine Commission inscribed its verdict on the tablets of history:

    “Arab opposition to the plan of the Assembly of 29 November 1947 has taken the form of organized efforts by strong Arab elements, both inside and outside Palestine, to prevent its implementation and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including repeated armed incursions into Palestine territory. The Commission has had to report to the Security Council that powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of’ the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.”

Even after a full decade it is difficult to sit here with equanimity and listen to Arab representatives disengaging themselves from any responsibility for the travail and anguish which they caused. The claim of the world community on the cooperation of Arab governments is all the more compelling when we reflect that these states, in their vast lands, command all the resources and conditions which would enable them to liberate the refugees from their plight, in full dignity and freedom.

The refugee problem was not created by the General Assembly’s recommendation for the establishment of Israel . It was created by the attempts of Arab governments to destroy that recommendation by force. The crisis arose not, as Arab spokesmen have said, because the United Nations adopted a resolution eleven years ago; it arose because Arab governments attacked that resolution by force. If the United Nations proposal had been peacefully accepted, there would be no refugee problem today hanging as a cloud upon the tense horizons of the Middle East .

Apart from the question of its origin, the perpetuation of this refugee problem is an unnatural event, running against the whole course of experience and precedent. Since the end of the Second World War, problems affecting forty million refugees have confronted governments in various parts of the world. In no case, except that of the Arab refugees – amounting to less than two percent of the whole – has the international community shown constant responsibility and provided lavish aid.

In every other case a solution has been found by the integration of refugees into their host countries. Nine million Koreans; 900,000 refugees from the conflict in Vietnam; 8.5 million Hindus and Sikhs leaving Pakistan for India; 6.5 million Muslims fleeing India to Pakistan; 700,000 Chinese refugees in Hong Kong; 13 million Germans from the Sudetenland, Poland and other East European States reaching West and East Germany; thousands of Turkish refugees from Bulgaria; 440,000 Finns separated from their homeland by a change of frontier; 450,000 refugees from Arab lands arrived destitute in Israel; and an equal number converging on Israel from the remnants of the Jewish holocaust in Europe – these form the tragic procession of the world’s refugee population in the past two decades.

In every case but that of the Arab refugees now in Arab lands, the countries in which the refugees sought shelter have facilitated their integration. In this case alone has integration been obstructed.

The paradox is the more astonishing when we reflect that the kinship of language, religion, social background and national sentiment existing between the Arab refugees and their Arab host countries has been at least as intimate as those existing between any other host countries and any other refugee groups. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the integration of Arab refugees into the life of the Arab world is an objectively feasible process which has been resisted for political reasons.

Recent years have witnessed a great expansion of economic potentialities in the Middle East . The revenues of the oil-bearing countries have opened up great opportunities of work and development, into which the refugees, by virtue of their linguistic and national background, could fit without any sense of dislocation. There cannot be any doubt that if free movement had been granted to the refugees there would have been a spontaneous absorption of thousands of them into these expanded Arab economies.

The failure or refusal of Arab governments to achieve a permanent economic integration of refugees in their huge lands appears all the more remarkable when we contrast it with the achievements of other countries when confronted by the challenge and opportunity of absorbing their kinsmen into their midst.

Israel with her small territory, her meager water resources and her hard-pressed finances, has found homes, work and citizenship in the past ten years for nearly a million newcomers arriving in destitution no less acute than those of Arab refugees.

Refugees [to Israel ] from Arab lands left their homes, property and jobs behind. Their standards of physique and nutrition were in many cases pathetically low. They have had to undergo processes of adaptation to a social, linguistic and national ethos far removed from any that they had known before. Thus, integration in this case has been far more arduous than it would be for Arab refugees in Arab lands, where no such differences exist between the society and culture of the host country and those with which the refugees are already familiar.

This is concisely described in the report published by the Carnegie Endowment:

    “There is another aspect of the Middle East refugee problem that is also frequently ignored. It is necessary to remember that concurrently with the perpetuation of the Arab refugee problem, more than 400,000 Jews have been forced to leave their homes in Iraq , Yemen , and North Africa . They have not been counted as refugees because they were readily and immediately received as new immigrants into Israel . Nevertheless, they were forced to leave their traditional homes against their will and to abandon, in the process, all that they possessed. The latest addition to their number are the 20,000 Jews for whom life has become impossible in Egypt . Fifteen thousand of them have sought asylum in Israel while the remainder are in Europe seeking other solutions to their problem.”

* * * * *

Indeed, compared with other problems, the Arab refugee problem is one of the easiest to solve.

The Research Group for European Migration points out in its report that “The Palestine refugees have the closest possible affinities of national sentiment, language, religion and social organization with the Arab host countries and the standard of living of the majority of the refugee population is little different from those of the inhabitants of the countries that have given them refuge or will do so in the future.”

Any discussion of this problem revolves around the two themes of resettlement and what is called “repatriation.” There is a growing skepticism about the feasibility of repatriation.

These hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees are now in Arab lands on the soil of their kinsmen. They have been nourished for ten years on one single theme – hatred of Israel ; refusal to recognize Israel ’s sovereignty; resentment against Israel ’s existence; the dream of securing Israel ’s extinction.

Repatriation would mean that hundreds of thousands of people would be introduced into a state whose existence they oppose, whose flag they despise and whose destruction they are resolved to seek. The refugees are all Arabs and the countries in which they find themselves are Arab countries. Yet the advocates of repatriation contend that these Arab refugees should be settled in a non-Arab country, in the only social and cultural environment alien to their background and tradition.

The Arab refugees are to be uprooted from the soil of nations to which they are akin and loyal and placed in a state to which they are alien and hostile. Israel , whose sovereignty and safety are already assailed by the states surrounding her, is invited to add to her perils by the influx from hostile territories of masses of people steeped in the hatred of her existence. All this is to happen in a region where the Arab nations possess unlimited opportunities for resettling their kinsmen, and in which Israel has already contributed to a solution of the refugee problems of Asia and Africa by receiving 450,000 refugees from Arab lands among its immigrants.

There are three other considerations which must be placed on the scale against repatriation.

First, the word itself is not accurately used in this context. Transplanting an Arab refugee from an Arab land to a non-Arab land is not really “repatriation.” “Patria” is not a mere geographical concept. Resettlement of a refugee in Israel would be not repatriation, but alienation from Arab society; a true repatriation of an Arab refugee would be a process which brought him into union with people who share his conditions of language and heritage, his impulses of national loyalty and cultural identity.

Secondly, the validity of the “repatriation” concept is further undermined when we examine the structure of the refugee population. More than 50 percent of the Arab refugees are under 15 years of age. This means that at the time of Israel ’s establishment many of those, if born at all at that time, were under 5 years of age. We thus reach the striking fact that a majority of the refugee population can have no conscious memory of Israel at all.

Thirdly, those who speak of repatriation to Israel might not always be aware of the measure of existing integration of refugees into countries of their present residence. In the Kingdom of Jordan , refugees have full citizenship and participate fully in the government of the country. They are entitled to vote and be elected to the Jordanian parliament. Indeed, many of them hold high rank in the government of the kingdom.

Thousands of refugees are enrolled in the Jordanian army and its National Guard. It is, to say the least, eccentric to suggest that people who are citizens of another land and are actually or potentially enrolled in the armed forces of a country at war with Israel are simultaneously endowed with an optional right of Israel citizenship.

Every condition which has ever contributed to a solution of refugee problems by integration is present in this case. With its expanse of territory, its great rivers, its resources of mineral wealth, and its accessibility to international aid, the Arab world is easily capable of absorbing an additional population, not only without danger to itself, but with actual reinforcement of its security and welfare.

Abba Eban was a career Israeli diplomat and politician, serving in a variety of positions including ambassador to the U.S. and the UN; member of Knesset; foreign minister; and deputy prime minister. He passed away at age 87 on November 17, 2002 – 44 years to the day after delivering this address.

This is the comment on Israpundit which I referred to above

A beautiful reminder of the roots of this “conflict.” The Arab/Muslim world wishes to destroy Israel, kill as many Jews as possible outright and leave the remainder at the mercies of host non-Jewish-minority nations (the situation that existed in the 1930s), avoid responsibility and accountability for itsown acts bringing about the “Palestinian refugee” question, and continue its shameful and despicable twin goals of maintaining worldwide anti-Semitism so as to have the convenient scapegoat for all that is wrong in its own garden and of establishing an Islamist caliphate under Salafist/Wahhabist Shari’a law. It is aided and abetted by the shameful and despicable leftist intellectuals of the entire world and their “realist” (Brzezinski, Soros) allies. ‘Twas ever thus, but this does not make it right. Eban, a native of England who spoke with an Oxonian/Cantabridgean high-class English accent until the day he died, was of the Israeli secular left and supported a two-state solution, but he recognized the sociopathy of Israel’s opponents and their beneath-contempt supporters.

Comment by mbrach (on Israpundit above)

My disagreement with this comment is that it is not just those he describes who created the “Palestinian” lie machine. they contributed that is true, but it was the big power elites in the US and Europe of the time who were perhaps the decisive power in this.

So you will notice that MBrach does not include in his thinking any of the research I  noted by Gil White.

Lies are built up not always by direct lying but by one sided arguments, and that is what brach gives above.

Special note must be made of the Stalinist regimes of the 60s and 70s in the Soviet Union who according to Paul Johnson used antisemitic propaganda that was as bad as the Nazis. So the issue of Stalinism comes in there.  (But then Brach would not even deal with Stalinism)

And having understood that the murder of Leon Trotsky by Stalin´s thug Mercader must also be factored in, because Trotsky was in support of the Jews and of the Israel to be. The murder of Trotsky greatly weakened the position of  true socialists.

The position of Trotsky, the real truth on this, is ignored by mBrach also so that is another part of his one sided treatment of the issue, and so the lie is being built up.

So mBrach hides that it is the present likes of SWP, WSWS etc who hide this truthful past of Leon Trotsky.

Brach is aiding these actual renegades from the political positions of Trotsky.

Who then is the worst in the lying department, the Arab league or mBrach above?

The comment above is correct in some points, but it is one sided and shows how essentially lies are built up.


by Jim Stephens

April 19, 2010




A comment on Israpundit is right, the problem is NOT Obama, the problem is what to DO about Obama, in other words the problem is the Israeli Government and the American ordinary people.

The problem is leadership.

The comment on Israpundit was referring to this:

[Begin report here]

Israel must recognize that the world will not put up with decades more of Israeli rule over the Palestinian people, the country’s defense minister said in unusually frank remarks Monday.

Ehud Barak’s comments came against the backdrop of severe friction between the U.S. and Israel’s hawkish government over an impasse in peacemaking.

Last week, President Barack Obama issued a surprisingly pessimistic assessment of peacemaking prospects, saying the U.S. couldn’t force its will on Israelis and Palestinians if they weren’t interested in making the compromises necessary to end their decades-old conflict.

Barak spoke to Israel Radio on the occasion of Israel’s Memorial Day, dedicated to the nearly 23,000 fallen soldiers and civilian victims of terror attacks. The day is observed with a two-minute nationwide siren when people stand at attention, traffic is halted and everyday activities come briefly to a standstill.

At sundown Monday, the somber Memorial Day switches into Israel’s 62nd Independence Day celebrations.

Both dates are traditionally a time for introspection. This year, Israelis are dwelling on issues such as the country’s growing isolation over its policies toward the Palestinians, the growing rift with the U.S. and the failure to relaunch peace talks.

Barak told Israel Radio that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has “done things that didn’t come naturally to it,” such as adopting the vision of two states for two peoples and curtailing settlement construction.

“But we also shouldn’t delude ourselves,” he added. “The growing alienation between us and the United States is not good for the state of Israel.”

The way to narrow that gap is to embark on an Israeli diplomatic initiative “that doesn’t shy from dealing with all the core issues” dividing Israelis and Palestinians, he said. Chief among these are the status of contested Jerusalem, final borders and a solution for Palestinian refugees from the war around Israel’s 1948 independence.

In an interview Monday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Netanyahu said he would not accept Palestinian demands that Israel stop building in the traditionally Arab part of east Jerusalem.

In the interview, Netanyahu sought to minimize differences with President Barack Obama over the Mideast peace process. But he acknowledged that “we have some outstanding issues. We’re trying to resolve them through diplomatic channels in the best way that we can.”

Barak dismissed talk of an imposed U.S. solution — an idea fielded recently in Washington. But he warned that while Israel is militarily strong, it needs international legitimacy as well.

“The world isn’t willing to accept — and we won’t change that in 2010 — the expectation that Israel will rule another people for decades more,” he said. “It’s something that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world.”

Palestinians aspire to a state of their own, he said, and “there is no other way, whether you like it or not, than to let them rule themselves.”

Barak heads the Labor Party, the most moderate member of Netanyahu’s government.

But as defense minister in the country’s past two governments, Barak has not taken down the two dozen settlement satellites that Israel promised the U.S. to dismantle in 2003. Dovish critics have accused him of making Labor a fig leaf for the Netanyahu government’s hawkish policies.

It wasn’t clear whether Barak’s statements reflected government policy, his own personal opinion or a desire to reach out to Labor voters. Netanyahu’s spokesman Mark Regev declined to comment.

Later Monday, Netanyahu told the audience at the national cemetery that Israel is eager for peace, but is ready to confront its enemies.

“We extend one hand in peace to all our neighbors who wish for peace,” Netanyahu said. “Our other hand grasps the sword of David in order to defend our people against those who seek to kill us.”

The Obama administration has been pushing to renew Israeli-Palestinian peace talks but despite shuttle diplomacy and unusual pressure on ally Israel, it hasn’t even been able to launch the indirect talks it had hoped would start last month.

Plans for those talks were put on hold indefinitely after Israel announced plans for a new housing project in east Jerusalem. Palestinians claim that sector of the city as the capital of a future state, and have refused to sit down for talks until Israel agrees to freeze all construction there — something it has refused to do.


by Jim Stephens

April 19, 2010

This is another great analysis by DEBKAfile. Yet we on 4international disagree on a very important point.

But first the Debka analysis:

DEBKAfile Special Report April 18, 2010, 8:24 AM (GMT+02:00)

A wakeup call Israel must heed

The New York Times Sunday, April 18, reveals a secret memo from US Defense Security Robert Gates determining that the White House has no effective policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress towards nuclear capability. This confirms what debkafile has been saying for more than a year, while also exposing the hollowness of the assurances of Israeli leaders – current and past – that it was safe to line up behind US strategy for preventing Iran obtaining nuclear weapons..
Gates confirmed that there was no strategy to line up behind.
Even so, in the last couple of weeks, President Shimon Peres, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, defense ministry Ehud Barak and chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi have still not abandoned their mantra: It is not up to Israel to address the Iranian nuclear issue, but “the free world,” starting with the United States. This is strange, since in all their long conversations with the US defense secretary in recent weeks, they must have discovered that the Obama administration was out of options for Iran. So why have the prime minister and defense minister not switched course and developed an independent position on Israel’s vital security concerns before it is too late – or at least stopped deceiving the public with false comfort?
According to debkafile’s Washington sources, the Gates memo, filed in January to National Security Adviser James Jones, was leaked now, even though it demonstrates the US president’s standard rhetoric on Iran was without substance, in order to bring out the fact that the Obama administration has become reconciled to the reality of an Islamic Republic capable of manufacturing nuclear weapons.

The memo stressed a variety concerns “including the absence of an effective strategy should Iran choose the course that many government and outside analysts consider likely: Iran could assemble all the major parts it needs for a nuclear weapon – fuel, designs and detonators – but just stop short of assembling a fully operational weapon.” Gates also calls for “new thinking about how the United States might contain Iran’s power if it decided to produce a  weapon, and how to deal with the possibility that fuel or weapons could be obtained by one of the terrorist groups Iran supports.”
In the light of the memo, administration officials began issuing ambiguous statements in firm tones.
Friday, April 16, Jones insisted: “the fact that we don’t announce publicly our entire strategy… doesn’t mean we don’t have a strategy… we do.” Another administration official said last week that the US would ensure that Iran would not “acquire a nuclear capability. That includes the ability to have a breakout.”


Regarding this “breakout,” Gates expressed concern in his memo that intelligence agencies might miss signals that Iran was taking the final steps towards producing a weapon. He admitted in an interview that it might not be possible to verify that Iran had gone past the threshold to actually assembly a weapon.

Some sources are quoted by the NYT as calling the US defense secretary’s memo a wakeup call.
Now that Israel’s reliance on Washington has proved badly misplaced, debkafile urges its leaders to treat the memo in the same light and finally get their act together.


1. Believe nothing that comes from the American Government

2. find out the truth, as DEBKAfile tries very hard to do

3. reach the American and Israeli (especially) publics with this truth

4. have great campaigns to push these truths out, SETTING UP PRO ISRAEL COMMITTEES EVERYWHERE WE CAN

5. get behind organizations such as Z street, the Jihadwatch legal case, and the San remo Second Conference



By Jim Stephens

April 19, 2010


Obama has given up on the sanctions plan. Instead he makes some promise to Israel which has no meaning whatsoever. Obama is a very false leader and not one Jew in Israel now believes one word that he or any on his team, especially those Jewish traitors on his team, say

We will reprint this analysis by DEBKAfile and ask our readers to study it carefully

[Begin DEBKAfile analysis here]

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis April 19, 2010, 2:18 PM (GMT+02:00)

US pulls another rug from Israeli security

President Barack Obama has done away with two key elements of US-Israeli strategic relations: His administration has given up on stiff  UN Security Council sanctions on Iran over its nuclear drive, and gone back on the longstanding American commitment assuring Israel of recognized and defensible borders in any future accommodation with its Arab neighbors.

In the administration’s message of congratulations to Israel on its 62nd Day of Independence, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentions “recognized borders” while omitting the traditional “defensible.”

Debkafile’s Washington sources report that following the talks held by Presidents Obama and Hu Jintao in Washington last week, the Administration is apparently engaged in a debate about whether to push for tough sanctions against Iran at the Security Council and run into opposition from China and other countries – or go for a quick UN General Assembly resolution, which would be non-binding.
The view William Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, offered the House foreign affairs committee last week was that a UN resolution would clear the way for the European Union and other countries to “amplify the impact” of whatever sanctions are agreed on. Burns avoided mentioning the Security Council and indicated that the administration had little hope of any effective action on Iran by the world body.

(from above “clear the way for the UN”, we are falling off the stool laughing at that one. The EU antisemites WANT to see Israel destroyed, never mind the damage Iran could do to them … 4int)

It will be recalled that President Obama twice asked Israel to ignore Iran’s missed deadlines and promised to promote effective UN Security Council sanctions if Iran continued to spurn his diplomatic efforts for curbing its nuclear program.
The last deadline was in December, 2009.
Yet on Monday, April 19, clearly lagging behind events in Washington, Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak said: “Now is the time for sanctions (against Iran).”
He was answering questions in a radio interview on Israel’s annual day of mourning for its fallen servicemen
Neither he nor any other Israeli leader commented on an equally serious setback for Israel in Washington, which emerge from a conspicuous omission in Clinton’s message of congratulations for Israel’s Independence Day, which is celebrated Monday night and Tuesday:  

“I have a deep personal commitment to Israel,” she said. “And so does President Obama. Our nation will not waver in protecting Israel’s security and promoting Israel’s future. That is why pursuing peace and recognized borders for Israel is one of our top priorities.”

By omitting “defensible borders” from her message, she spoke for the first US administration to abdicate its guarantee of defensible borders as a fundamental component of Israel’s security, thereby nullifying her and the US president’s pledge not to “waver in protecting Israel’s security.”
This key omission led to another worrying question about Israel’s future borders: By whom must they be recognized in the view of the Obama administration?  

Once again we are all indebted to Debka for being on the ball, actually way ahead of Barak and the Israeli Government who simply cannot keep up, and whose heads must be spinning, ready to explode such is the pressure being exerted by this very powerful American led New World Order or World Empire.


For Jews there is no salvation whatsoever in the help and the forces of American Imperialism, by that we mean the forces of the American elites or ruling class.

But there is help from the American people, if it is known how to seek that help.

First and foremost we need a revolutionary Trotskyist party to be created (built). that is the fundamental. it is impossible to take even one tiny step to develop theory into practice without that party.

But others can do lots. There must be an analysis of the situation made by groups such as ZStreet, Jihadwatch, Israpundit and a host of others.

The San Remo Conference initiative to happen soon is a big big event.

We on 4international think now, and have always thought and stated, that the focus must be on the ordinary American people, at the same time the Israeli Jewish people, and an appeal to others, but those two are central and must be focussed upon.

And we on 4international will work with anybody on that basis.

Every piece of “secret” diplomacy must be made as public as possible and the ordinary people of America and of Israel must urgently see and understand the truth.

We on 4international believe that the Obama Government is antisemitic. They are antisemites in much the same way as is, for example, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Obama and Clinton tell lies in order to hide that reality


by Jim Stephens

April 19, 2010

I received information on an important issue, a conference to take place in historic San Remo in Italy. We on 4international will be following this development with great enthusiasm.

The information that I received was in my pet hate, PDF format, but luckily Ted Belman has also covered it.

The following is at least an introduction:

I urge you to watch this video interview of Dr Jacques Gauthier in Nov ‘09 in which he explains that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. As it happens I know him from Toronto. He gave me a copy of his thesis.

On April 24 and 25th he is participating in the Second San Remo Conference to commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of the decision granting Palestine to the Jews. It is taking place in San Remo.

By Ted Belman (written in Nov 07)

I attended a lecture tonight by Jacques Gauthier, a Canadian Lawyer who just received his PhD after twenty years of research on the legal status of Jerusalem and the writing of a dissertation of some 1300 pages with 3000 footnotes. He had to present his thesis to a panel of two leading international lawyers and one world famous Jewish historian. The reason for so many footnotes was to enable him to defend his thesis from intense attack by one of the lawyers who happened to be Jewish anti-Zionist and who had represented the PA on numerous occasions. Gauthier is not Jewish.

Here’s what he said in point form,

1. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 started the whole process but it didn’t create international legal rights.

2. The San Remo decision made on 25 April 1920, incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917[2] and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It was the basic decision upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed. While the decision made at San Remo created the Palestine Mandate de-facto, the mandate document signed by Great Britain as the Mandatory and the League of Nations made it de-jure. It thus became a binding treaty in international law.

    The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

He pointed out that the Arabs weren’t even mentioned but that civil and religious rights only were accorded other inhabitants . This thereby excludes political rights.

3. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations provides for the creation of mandates.

    To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The legal significance here is that “the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation”. The Mandatory Power was the trustee of that trust.

4 The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations, included the following significant recital,

    “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

This had never happened before in history. Palestine was to be held for the Jewish people wherever they lived. No such recognition had ever been according to anyone else, anywhere, ever.

    ART. 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Thus the operative clause specifically referred to the preamble and reiterated that there were no political rights for other inhabitants.

    ART. 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power. ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

5. The United Nations took over from the failed League of Nations in 1945 and its Charter included

    Article: 80 .. nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

Thus the Palestine Mandate continued without change.

6. In 1947, the General Assembly of the UN passed Res 181 which became known as the Partition Plan pursuant to which both Jews and Arabs could announce their state.

First it must be noted that the Charter of the UN specifically gave no power to the General Assembly because that would infringe on the sovereign power of individual members. So the GA could recommend only. Secondly, this recommendation was in violation of the terms of the Mandate. See Art 5 above.

This resolution also provided for a Special Regime for Jerusalem which had the following defined boundaries,

    A. SPECIAL REGIME The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations. B. BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY The City of Jerusalem shall include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem; the most western, ‘Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern Shu’fat, as indicated on the attached sketch-map (annex B).

But this regime was to be limited in time. It was not to be an “international city ” for all time as we have been lead to believe.

The Statute elaborated by the Trusteeship Council the

    aforementioned principles shall come into force not later than 1 October 1948. It shall remain in force in the first instance for a period of ten years, unless the Trusteeship Council finds it necessary to undertake a re-examination of these provisions at an earlier date. After the expiration of this period the whole scheme shall be subject to examination by the Trusteeship Council in the light of experience acquired with its functioning. The residents the City shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of regime of the City.

This provision for a referendum was of critical importance to the acceptance of Res 181 by Ben Gurion. He knew that the Jews were in a majority within these boundaries and would be in 10 years when the referendum was to be held. Thus he was confidant that Jerusalem would return to Jewish hands.

Keep in mind that the disposition of this area was to be determined not by Israel but by the residents of Jerusalem so defined. Currently the Jews have a 2:1 majority there.

Needless to say that after the Armistice Agreement of ‘49 the Jordanians who were in control of Jerusalem violated every provision of this resolution calling for among other things respect for holy places. The referendum never took place.

After the ‘67 war in which Israel regained the land to the Jordan including Jerusalem, Res 242 of the Security Council was passed authorizing Israel to remain in possession of all the land until they had “secure and recognized boundaries”. It did not require Israel to withdraw from all of the territories and it was silent on Jerusalem.

Also it “Affirms further the necessity for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem”. There was no reference to Res 181 nor was there a distinction made between Jewish and Arab refugees.

Based on this, I suggest that,

Not only should Israel be demanding that the referendum be held now, Jerusalem should be the first order of business. Olmert is sloughing us off by saying “Jerusalem is not on the table yet”.

He should demand that the referendum take place before the balance of the land is negotiated. If the Arabs won’t agree to the referendum there is nothing to talk about.

Obviously, Olmert isn’t going to ask for a referendum or insist that Jerusalem not be divided.

In closing I would like to stress one more thing.

By virtue of this preamble

    “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

in the mandate, the United Nations, the League’s successor, has recognized the Jewish historical rights to reconstitute their national home in Palestine. That’s Zionism. “Zion” is Jerusalem.

Thus the UN has recognized Jerusalem as the home of the Jewish people.

These contact details also may help:

Europe: Tomas Sandell (ECI)


North America: Goldi Steiner (CASILER)


Website: (click on green box on the left)

// <![CDATA[
var OutbrainPermaLink=”;;
} else {
var OB_demoMode = false;

var OBITm = “1213211595”;
var OB_Script = true;
var OB_langJS = “”;
document.write (“”);
// ]]>

Roy Gutman and the “Freedom of Sarajevo”!

by Jim Stephens 

April 19 2010 

The following is a picture of a very important individual in the Yugoslavia story 

Roy Gutman (file photo) 

The picture shows Roy Gutman and is taken from a report by Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, whatever the hell that is! 

I have heard of Mr Gutman before and in my mind I ALWAYS place him alongside a Dublin lady called Maggie O´Kane. In my mind, however, being placed alongside either Mr Gutman or Ms O´Kane is not a good thing! 

Perhaps some future articles in 4international may explain why, little by little we will get there! 

[Start quote from Radio Free Europe here] 

April 08, 2010
SARAJEVO — Journalist Roy Gutman, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1993 for his reporting on ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims and Croats by Bosnian Serb forces, has been made an honorary citizen of Sarajevo, RFE/RL’s Balkan Service reports.

Who the hell are they anyway…The mission statement from the above organization:
An extract:
Regional Expertise: RFE/RL journalists and experts are a unique source of information about many of the world’s political hotspots.
They are a big organization, have hundreds of journalists and many subscribers, I am sure unlike here they get paid and probably well paid.
But the name of Roy Gutman and Maggie O´Kane, and many other such journalists, should be made quite familiar to more people.
We on 4international have covered Gutman before. Edward S.  Herman is a very good writer and does know a lot about this subject, as this shows
[Begin quote from Herman here]

The focus on “justice” as opposed to peace, and the demonizing of the Serbs and making them the unique group needing punishment, was the vehicle used by Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic and his close associates, and Clinton/Albright and Kohl-Genscher and their associates, to prevent a peaceful settlement–most importantly in backing out of the 1992 Lisbon Agreement–and to work incessantly to get NATO to intervene militarily on behalf, first, of  Izetbegovic and the Bosnian Muslims and then the Kosovo Liberation Army and Kosovo Albanians. Brock shows that the media served these pro-violence and anti-peace ends relentlessly and effectively. 

In a recent extensive article on 4international we alluded to this problem with modern journalism. We struggled to describe it and eventually called it “emotive journalism” where the journalist first and always seeks an underdog or victim and then is a campaigner for that victim, not a journalist in the sense of reporting on facts. 

Herman is on the same track in dealing with the Brock book: 

[Begin quote here] 

The pack journalists in Sarajevo (and elsewhere in the Balkans) were thus highly manageable, knowing the broader truth in advance, dispensing with notions of substantive objectivity and balance, and on the hunt for stories that would both confirm the institutionalized bias–and therefore please their editors at home–and advance the cause that they advocated and for which they campaigned. Journalists like David Rieff, Roy Gutman and Ed Vulliamy openly acknowledged that they were campaigners for more aggressive NATO intervention (i.e., war), and they were by no means alone. But this meant that they had ceased to be serious journalists who would check out the facts and claims of all sides and provide a full and fair picture of  the complex events in the struggle. They would instead gravitate to stories that advanced the cause and would treat them with uncritical zeal. As another cynical observer described it, this meant that Izetbegovic “could play them like a Stradivarius,” and in effect use them as agents of Bosnian Muslim propaganda and disinformation. (The more “balanced” Roy Gutman was played like a Stradivarius by the Croatian information service and U.S. Embassy as well as Muslim authorities.) 


The Media towards the Serbs would stop at nothing. One of their continually reported lies was the rape of women, always by the Serbs. The feeling was engendered that the Serb army was an army of rapists, a savage and uncouth thing. 


[Start quote here] 

The bias confused the media—Paul Lewis writing in the New York Times on “Rape Was Weapon of the Serbs” (Oct. 20, 1993) noted that a UN report had identified “800 victims by name,” but Lewis failed to mention that they were Serb women. The estimates of 50,000 or 20,000 rape victims of Serbs were based on no evidence whatsoever, and the belief that rape was a special Serb crime rested strictly on the overwhelming political  bias of the pack and superior public relations and propaganda activity of  the Croats and Bosnian Muslims. (A January 1994 UN report evaluating all the documentation on rapes, excluding evidence from the Serbs, listed 126 confirmed  victims. This finding did not interest the media.) 

The important information above, 126 confirmed, excluding evidence fromthe Serbs. 

And…that those facts did not interest the Media 


 The media role in this hysterical propaganda barrage, with the best of the reports noting that the claims are “unconfirmed” (!), was a scandal,  reflecting a media completely out of control and justifying UN official Aracelly Santana’s comment that “I’ve never seen so much lack of professionalism  and ethics in the press.” Brock also has a very good discussion of the famous photo of Fikret Alic, taken at the Trnopolje transit camp in August 1992, another fine illustration of the quest for denigration of the enemy and the lack of scruple of  Western reporters and media. He shows that the three British reporters, two from Independent Television News (ITN) and one from the Guardian, sought out the uniquely emaciated man among the camp residents, and carefully arranged for a photo that made it look as if  Alic was enclosed in a fenced prison,  the reporters having deliberately placed themselves behind four strands of  rusted and sagging barbed wire, strung haphazardly between two posts, with a thin chicken wire mesh hanging beneath, with Alic on the other side. “The cameramen and layout editors cropped the photos of  Alic so that the three or four strands of barbed wire were emphasized.” There was no barbed wire fence around the camp, which was a transit facility and not even a prison encampment, and  the refugees in the camp were even free to leave. 


But the Fikret Alic picture was quickly seized upon by the Western media, and juxtaposed with pictures of Belsen and Auschwitz, and the media featured this “death camp” with frenzied indignation and thoroughgoing dishonesty. Compelling evidence by Thomas Deichmann that the photo was a propaganda fraud led to a journalistic bloodbath: “The reactionary attacks from pack-journalism’s interventionists commenced with fury and gusto,” and led to a libel suit and bankruptcy of  the British magazine Living Marxism that had published Deichmann’s article. The suit was lost by Living Marxism not on the ground that the facts in the article were wrong but rather that it had not been proved that there was an intent to deceive—the huge deception, which happened to fit both the biases of  the reporters, editors and Western establishment, was inadvertent! 


This deceptive photo worked wonders in advancing the demonization process and war agenda, and though based on serious misrepresentation it  was not correctible in the mainstream and remains alive today


Remember the situation. the Serbs were fighting against Izetbegovic who had a history of at least collaboration with Hajj Amin el Husseini inthe Holocaust.

Jihadwatch, the fine site run to expose the Muslim Jihad, did not then exist.

The Left Fascists were already corrupted by their support for the Palestinians, who the Nazi Hajj Amin el Husseini had created.

So how could the Left Fascists, like the SWP, be in support of the Serbs against Izetbegovic without exposing their own role!

Then there were serious supporters of Izetbegovic int he form of Harry´s Place, and characters like Oliver Kamm,along with the venal British and European Media.

What was really absent was the trotskyist party. That is what has to be now righted by building up 4international.


Gutman, 66, who reported for “Newsday” from the Balkans and published his dispatches in the multiple-award-winning book “Witness to Genocide” in 1993, was handed the keys to Sarajevo by its mayor, Alija Behmen, at a ceremony to mark Sarajevo Liberation Day on April 6.