Did you know that Israel allows Gaza residents to enter the West Bank to attend their relatives' weddings but not to get betrothed themselves? You don't believe it? Ehab is the proof.

Ehab, who did not want to be identified by his full name, is a man of 26. Ah, you will say, he is dangerous - young and single. A person like that, who knows what will go through his head if he is allowed to pass through Israel?

Palestinian students wear traditional clothing during a cultural event at the Bethlehem University, in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Thursday, March 22, 2007. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)

Secondly, now that he wants to enter the West Bank to ask the parents of the woman he loves for her hand in marriage, as tradition requires, he will not even set foot in sovereign Israeli territory.

Ehab is not only studying; he is also working as a teaching assistant at his university, and planned his trip so his betrothal would take place during the semester break. And if you say it is his own fault, for choosing to marry someone who lives in the West Bank (which could endanger the demographic balance there, heaven help us ), we have no answer to that, no "thirdly" or "fourthly."

Like every Gazan, Ehab knows he needs an Israeli permit to enter the West Bank from Jordan. And so well in advance, even before he landed in Amman on December 10 of this year, he contacted Gisha so the legal advocacy group for freedom of movement could submit the application on his behalf. Here are the steps that followed suit:

1. On November 22, Gisha applied in writing to the army's Coordination and Liaison Office for Gaza and requested a permit for Ehab. For this is one of the bureaucratic rules of the closure and the separation between Gaza and the West Bank: Everyone who has a Gaza address in his identity card and needs any kind of Israeli permit must apply to the liaison office, even if he resides in Ramallah - or New York. Days passed and no answer came.

2. On December 6 Gisha wrote to the Justice Ministry's department of petitions to the High Court of Justice, a procedure called a "pre-petition" that sometimes gets the authorities to move more quickly. The pre-petition did indeed get something moving.

3. On the very same day the answer came back: Ehab must direct his request to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee in the Gaza Strip, and only after the committee forwards the request to the Israeli side will the Israel authorities consider it. (The civil affairs committee serves as the postman between Palestinians and the Israeli liaison office, which makes the decisions. ) Logical? Not very.

4. The Coordination and Liaison Office knows that the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee does not accept requests to enter the West Bank from Gazans who are not physically in Gaza. Why not? Because according to the Palestinian committee, the army's liaison office usually declines to even process them.

5. Nevertheless, on December 8, Ehab's mother filed a request with the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee in Gaza (which is subordinate to the Civil Affairs Ministry in the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah ), asking for permission for him to enter the West Bank via the Allenby Bridge in order to become engaged to marry. The civil affairs committee acceded to the pleas of Gisha and sent the request to the military liaison office. Days went by and no answer came.

6. On December 14 Gisha petitioned the High Court of Justice with a request to allow Ehab to enter the West Bank for a defined period, to ask for the hand of the woman he wants to marry, who is slated to join him in the United States.

7. On the same day Gisha received a reply from the liaison office's center for public applications. It was dated December 13. The name of the person who wrote it was not noted, but that person's superior officers are Col. Khatib Mansour, the head of the Coordination and Liaison Administration for Gaza, and Maj. Gen. Eitan Dangot, coordinator of government activities in the territories.

The reply states: "Firstly, we will note that in accordance with the working procedures agreed upon with the Palestinian Authority, all applications concerning entry of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip into Israeli territory must be addressed to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee, which constitutes the body responsible for coordination, prioritization and transfer to the Israeli side of applications from Palestinian inhabitants of the Judea and Samaria District and the Gaza Strip. Moreover, it should be noted that at the present time, in light of the current political and security situation, entry of Gaza Strip residents into Israel is not allowed apart from exceptional humanitarian cases with emphasis on urgent medical cases.

"For details of all the criteria ... you are invited to enter the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories site on the Internet... Specifically, let it be made clear immediately that after looking into your client's matter is has been decided to refuse his request [emphasis added]."

8. A look at the criteria finds that the terminally ill are not the only privileged few allowed entry; so are those who seek "entry for purposes of attending the wedding or the funeral of a first-degree relative."

You will say, and rightly, that betrothal is not among the criteria, nor is a person's own wedding. Tomorrow the High Court of Justice will hold a hearing on the petition filed by Gisha on Ehab's behalf.

The ban preventing Palestinians officially registered in Gaza from using the Allenby Bridge crossing into the West Bank came well before Hamas' rise to power in 2006 and 2007. Back in 1991, Israeli authorities introduced a sweeping closure policy for the first time, requiring all Palestinians to obtain a permit if they wanted to travel between the West Bank and Gaza.

The more stingy the Israeli authorities were in granting travel permits, the more that Gazans, particularly university students but also others, sought out creative solutions. They traveled through Egypt, flew to Jordan and entered the West Bank from there.

After all, under the Oslo Accords, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank constitute a single territorial unit. Israel saw the "leak" at the Allenby Bridge and got scared. In 1997, as part of the gradual, quiet steps designed to cut Gaza off from the West Bank, Israel decided that Gazans taking the Allenby Bridge route would also require a permit, the kind of permit that is almost never granted.

The logical steps in the process of cutting off Gaza were to follow. A Gazan without Israeli permission to stay in the West Bank was eventually classified as "an illegal sojourner." And now, that illegal sojourner is classified as an infiltrator, to be deported any minute.

* Amira Hass is a prominent Israeli journalist and author, mostly known for her columns in the daily newspaper Ha'aretz. She is particularly recognized for her reporting on Palestinian affairs in the West Bank and Gaza, where she has also lived for a number of years.
The daughter of two Holocaust survivors, and was educated at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. On Oct. 20, the International Women's Media Network reward Hass the 2009 Lifetime Achievement Award. Hass was the recipient of the Press Freedom Hero award from the International Press Institute in 2000, the Bruno Kreisky Human Rights Award in 2002, the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize in 2003, the inaugural award from the Anna Lindh Memorial Fund in 2004 and Hrant Dink Memorial Award in 2009.

While Israel keeps urging the Palestinian Authority (PA) to resume largely discredited peace talks, Tel Aviv is continuing unabated the expansion of Jewish colonies throughout the West Bank.

Disingenuous as they are, Israeli calls for resuming peace talks are apparently aimed at giving the impression that the Palestinians, not Israel, is the party impeding efforts to revive the stalled process.

However, for Palestinians at least, facts on the ground speak louder than public relations.

In recent weeks, the Israeli government, arguably the most extremist since the creation of the Israeli state, decided to build thousands of additional settler units in the central West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In Jerusalem, the so-called Planning and Building Committee has been considering a plan to build a "park" in the heart of the Palestinian neighbourhood of Jabal Al-Mukaber in East Jerusalem.

Palestinian officials as well as peace-minded Israelis insist the planned park is nothing but a ruse to set up a new settlement designed to besiege Arab demographic growth in the occupied city.

"The plan is aimed at strangulating Arab presence in Jerusalem," says Khalil Tufakji, a prominent Jerusalemite cartographer. "They hope this will kill any possibility for building a viable Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital."

Israel is also planning to build some 4000 settler units in the Silwan neighbourhood south of the occupied Arab city.

US Vice President Joe Biden protested the plan last year. However, the Israeli government waited a few months until the issue was forgotten before reviving the plan.

Israeli pundits seemed convinced that US officials critical of Israeli settlement activities don't really mean what they say and that in any case they are not capable of acting on statements critical of Israel given Israeli clout and influence on domestic American politics.

Israel also calculates, seeming correctly, that the Obama administration will not undermine its own re-election chances at home by pressuring Israel to rethink its settlement expansion plans.

The intensive expansion of settlements in the West Bank has coincided with a serious escalation of Jewish terrorist activities against Palestinians and their property. The wave of terror and vandalism included, among other things, kidnapping Palestinian villagers and shepherds, torching Palestinian olive groves, and denying access to Palestinian traffic.

This week, Jewish settlers kidnapped a Palestinian shepherd near the northern West Bank city of Nablus. Eyewitnesses said the settlers also seized 50 of the man's sheep. Normally, the Israeli occupation army, which controls the area, doesn't take meaningful action against settlers who attack Palestinians and vandalise their property with impunity.

As for the Israeli justice system, it deals quite lightly with settlers as many of the judges in Israeli courts are ideologically affiliated with the religious Zionist camp, or the settler camp.

This week, Israel decided to transfer to the PA the sum of $100 million dollars, which the Israeli government withheld earlier this month in an effort to bully the PA leadership into reconsidering efforts to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by international organisations such as the UN.

According to the Israeli media, Israel released the money after German Chancellor Angela Merkel threatened Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with halting a German plan to deliver a submarine to Israel if the latter refused to resume the transfer of tax revenues to the PA.

According to a report published in the right-wing Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post, Israel yielded to pressure from Berlin and unfroze the Palestinian funds.

Germany reportedly announced it would build and pay up to one-third of the cost of a sixth Dolphin-class submarine to be delivered to the Israeli navy.

The agreement stipulated that Germany would pay the sum of 135 million Euros in partial financing of the deal.

The submarine will cost between 372 million and 520 million Euros. Defense experts believe the submarine will enhance Israel's second-strike capability since it can carry nuclear weapons.

Merkel has repeatedly appealed to Netanyahu to unlock the peace process, only to be met with prevarication from the Israeli premier.

Meanwhile, some Israeli officials have been voicing their anxiety over the initial results of the Egyptian elections; with the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak admitting that Israel didn't like the ostensible victory of Islamists in the first round of the parliamentary poll.

Barak said he hoped that Israel's partners and friends in Cairo would retain significant influence that would keep the cold peace between Israel and the largest Arab country "as warm as possible".

Some Israeli commentators are already referring to the Egyptian elections results as a "nightmare coming true," bringing to the fore Israel's worst fears.

David Buki, a pro-settler commentator, lashed out at those Western powers that advocated and pressed for democracy in the Arab world. "When you give a Muslim a free voice in electing his leaders, he will pick an Islamist leadership every time because that is what he knows and appreciates."

"Israel's worst fears regarding its relationship with the Arab world -- and with Egypt in particular -- are coming true before our eyes. The rise of the Islamists in Egypt means the end of the peace treaty with Egypt and the rise of a government committed to the ideological Islamist goal of the destruction of Israel."

The Israeli commentator ignored the fact that Israel is made up of several fascist parties advocating discrimination and apartheid and even genocide against non-Jews.

Earlier this year, the spiritual mentor of Shas, a main coalition partner in the current Israeli government, was quoted as saying during a Sabbath homily in West Jerusalem that all non-Jews were very much like donkeys who were created by the Almighty on two legs so that they will serve the master race, the chosen people -- Jews.

Some http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/tag/rabbis/ have gone so far as permitting a Jew to murder a non-Jew in order to extract his organs if the Jew needs them.

* Khalid Amayreh a journalist based in the Occupied Palestinian town of Dura. He obtained his MA in journalism from the University of Southern Illinois in 1983.

Palestinian workers put the finishing touches on a chair covered with embroidered blue upholstery featuring a Palestinian flag and the word "Palestine". Palestinian activists would take the chair on an international tour to dramatize the Palestinian Authority's quest for U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state. (AP Photo/Mohammed Ballas)

By Stephen Lendman* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Ahead of the General Assembly's likely granting Palestine statehood recognition and full de jure UN membership in September or early October, Israel is preparing its army and arming settlers for disruptive protests.

Law Professor and former PLO legal counsel Francis Boyle explains that a simple two-thirds majority of states present and voting are needed. Abstentions and no-shows don't count. "Palestine has those votes for admission," he says! "The Israelis and the Americans know it."

Aside from Washington's illegal planned veto, if a Security Council resolution is introduced, Netanyahu apparently abandoned plan A, replacing it with a disruptive plan B.

On August 30, Haaretz writer Chaim Levinson headlined, "IDF training Israeli settlers ahead of 'mass disorder' expected in September," saying:

Settlement-by-settlement "red line(s)" were determined for "when soldiers will be ordered to shoot at the feet of Palestinian protesters if the line is crossed."

Arming settlers with tear gas, stun grenades, and perhaps other weapons is also planned, allegedly "as part of the defense operation."

Called Operation Summer Seeds, its "purpose is to ready the army (and settlers) for September and the possibility of confrontations with Palestinians following the expected" General Assembly granting them statehood and full de jure membership.

A document leaked to Haaretz stated a "working assumption" that "a public uprising" will follow Palestinian independence "which will mainly include mass disorder."

In fact, celebratory demonstrations are likely, not disturbances unless Israel and settlers incite them. Apparently, that's what's planned, again blaming victims of Israeli violence to maintain hardline occupation.

This time, however, it will be against a sovereign internationally recognized independent state, able to file a formal State to State complaint against Israeli officials.

In addition, as Boyle explains, it "can ratify the Genocide Convention and sue Israel for Genocide at the World Court, pursuant to" previous advice he gave Arafat and Abbas.

Moreover, it can "get a temporary restraining order" against Israel, requiring either Security Council enforcement approval, or if Washington vetoes it, to the General Assembly under the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution overriding it.

In addition, it can use this procedure to halt settlement construction once and for all and perhaps regain lost land.

These prospects frighten Israel and its Washington paymaster/partner. So they're are pulling out all the stops to prevent Palestinian statehood or at least disrupt it if achieved to maintain hardline policies, claiming they're in self-defense.

The Israeli document contends disorder will include "marches toward main junctions, Israeli communities, and education centers; efforts at damaging (Israeli) symbols of government."

"Also, there may be more extreme cases like shooting from within the demonstrations or even terrorist incidents. In all these scenarios, there is readiness to deal with incidents near the fences and the borders of the State of Israel."

In fact, Israel is the only nation without fixed borders, because of its longstanding plan to seize Palestinian land, as well as more from neighboring states for a Greater Israel. It's indeterminate in size depending on how much it can steal.

Israel's army has been holding training sessions near its Shiloh military installation. It's also trained settlement squads at its Lachish base, used as a command training center for that purpose.

In addition, two virtual defense lines for each settlement were established. If Palestinians cross the first one, they'll face settlers using tear gas and other disruptive measures.

If line two is breached, soldiers will use live fire at their legs.

In other words, Israel plans disruptions. Rules of engagement were established to unleash them. A heightened state of readiness exists. Palestinians will be blamed like always. Injuries and perhaps deaths may result.

Instead of recognizing the UN's new member, Israel plans hostile acts short of war, perhaps planned later as more naked aggression.

As a result, Peace Now's Hagit Ofran expressed alarm, saying:

"We hope the army is making clear that nonviolent protests (and celebratory marches are) legitimate, and no settlers (or IDF personnel) should use any violence against unarmed demonstrators."

Rabbis for Human Rights' Arik Ascherman raised "serious questions and problems" with regard to settlers acting illegally, saying:

"We're very concerned that (Israeli forces) will not reduce conflict but increase it."

In fact, more at issue is instigating it as Israel commonly does, blaming its violence on Palestinian to shift responsibility.

Notably in early August, Israeli Foreign Minister/Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman outrageously claimed Palestinians are preparing for "bloodshed the likes of which we've never seen before," so when Israel sheds it they can be blamed.

Palestinian spokesman Ghassan Khatib accurately said Israel's "trying to fuel a fake picture of what will happen in September. These Israeli predictions of violence aren't true."

Palestinian Statehood and De Jure UN Membership Issues

A previous article explained Francis Boyle's work as PLO legal advisor to assure all Palestinians worldwide automatically become citizens of the State of Palestine if granted by the upcoming General Assembly vote.

On August 30, Ma'an News published his assessment and International and Comparative Law Professor John Quigley's concurring, saying:

The Palestinians' "initiative" to be introduced in the General Assembly "is no threat" to their rights, and "will only improve their standing. This is because as a matter of international law, states must ensure that human rights are not being violated."

As a sovereign state, Palestine will be "interacting" with others, "and this is a much stronger position. It can pursue remedies at the diplomatic level in its capacity as a state. It will do favors for other states. It can demand (them) in return. It can also pursue prosecutions of Israeli officials for war crimes," including illegal settlements, applying greater pressure available to sovereign states.

Moreover, "(r)ather than posing a threat to the refugees, (they'll), in fact, be in a much stronger position. Legally, while people might leave states, if the refugees are nationals then the state cannot refuse to allow them to return."

In 1988, the General Assembly accepted the PLO "as the sole representative of the Palestinian people." It's precisely what it's likely to do "in September if asked to accept Palestine as a state."

A Final Comment

The Virtual Jerusalem web site headlined, "Let Your Voice Be Heard," stating:

"Say No to Palestinian Statehood."

The pro-Israeli group accuses the PA of including "terrorist(s)....whose stated mission is 'the elimination of Israel," no matter that saying so is a bald-faced lie.

Nonetheless, it accused Hamas of hundreds of terrorists attacks, calling self-defense against Israeli violence "terrorism," what scoundrels always say.

It falsely said the PA lacks "vital aspects of modern statehood, such as freedom, respect for human rights, and a functioning democracy. Palestinian statehood," it adds, "will make peace negotiations with Israel impossible."

In fact, they've been stillborn for decades because Israel and Washington promote violence, not peace, a notion they find intolerable.

Virtual Jerusalem doesn't even lie well, adding that Palestinian statehood "will be gravely detrimental to Israel's security and the safety of the Israeli people."

"Stand with Israel and make your voice heard," it says. Tell Obama to support Israel against Palestine. Of course, he, like past presidents since Lyndon Johnson, have done it throughout their tenure.

It's time more responsible world leaders recognized rule of law responsibilities by voting to grant Palestinian statehood and full de jure UN membership.

Why? Because it's the right thing to do!

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

By Lawrence Davidson * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Part I - Stretching the Definition of Anti-Semitism
　
Can criticism of Israel, particularly a) criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people and b) criticism of the state ideology of Zionism that justifies that treatment, be labeled anti-Semitic? This is not a hypothetical query. An affirmative answer to this question is being advocated by influential Zionist lobbies in the United States. The question is of particular importance on the nation’s college and university campuses. In places like the University of California at Berkeley and Santa Cruz, and also at Rutgers University in New Jersey, Zionist students are now threatening to sue these institutions for failing to prevent an "atmosphere of anti-Semitic bigotry" allegedly created by the presence of pro-Palestinian student groups and faculty.
　
One might ask if it isn’t a stretch to assert that protesting Israeli and Zionist behavior is the same as anti-Semitism? Common sense certainly tells us this is so. Unfortunately, we are not dealing with situations that are ruled by common sense. What we are facing here is the issue of ideologues bred to a specific perceptual paradigm and their insistence that others conform to it.
　
Here is an example: Take an American kid from a self-conscious Jewish home. This kid does not represent all American Jewish youth, but does typify say 20% of them. He or she is taught about the religion and also taught about recent history and the near annihilation of the Jews of Europe. He or she is sent to Hebrew school, and maybe a yeshiva school as well. Most of our hypothetical student’s friends will be Jewish and of similar background. Between home, friends and school the student might well find him or herself in something of a closed universe. Throughout this educational process Judaism and its fate in the modern world is connected with Israel and its survival. The Arabs, and particularly the Palestinians, are transformed into latter day Nazis. In addition, Israel’s state ideology of Zionism becomes assimilated into the credos of the religion. Soon our hypothetical student cannot tell the difference between the two. Then, having come of age, our student goes off to college or university. Now he or she is no longer in a closed world. The result can be culture shock and an uncomfortable feeling that the student is on a campus where vocal and assertive debate about Israel and its behavior sounds like an attack on the Jewish religion. Our student complains to the ZOA, Hillel, AIPAC, or some similar organization and we are off down a road toward censorship and/or litigation. Lawsuits are lodged (particularly if the ZOA is involved), donors swear that they will no longer support the institution, legislators bang on desks at the state capital, and boards of directors want to know what is going on and what the institution’s president is going to do about it?
　
Part II - Sweet Reason
　
There have been a number of efforts to try to use sweet reason to work out some of these problems before they get too explosive. For instance, in 2006 there was concern over the efforts of various pro-Palestinian campus groups to promote an academic boycott of Israel. Is this being anti-Semitic? Should campuses allow this to be advocated? After all those who espouse academic boycott have a good deal of evidence of criminal activities on the part of the Israeli Universities. At that time the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) sought to clarify the issues by arranging a roundtable discussion on academic boycott by those who stood pro and con. This sounded like a good idea. But no, the Zionist side did not like the list of discussants on the pro side and tried to censor the list. The AAUP resisted that move, so the Zionist side pressured the donors subsidizing the proposed roundtable to pull their support. The whole thing collapsed. It seemed the Zionists were not going to discuss the topic except on their own terms.
　
Just recently there has been similar attempt at sweet reason. A heated debate is now taking place over whether Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which bars federal funds from institutions that discriminate) can be applied to schools that allow criticism of Israel which the Zionists claim is anti-Semitic. If so, those same Zionists, whose influence is strong in Congress, can use Title VI as a club to threaten colleges and universities with the loss of financial support unless they shut down the criticism. This, of course, equates to censorship and an attack on free speech.
　
Once more the AAUP, which opposes the use of Title VI in such situations, approached the American Zionists in an effort to find a compromise position. Professor Cary Nelson, head of the AAUP, managed to enter into negotiations with Kenneth Stern, the "anti-Semitism expert" of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). The two of them worked out a common position which, after consultation with others in each organization, was signed and released to the public. What did this document say? For our needs, here are its most important points:
　
1. Title VI is not an appropriate instrument to use when trying to "protect" Jewish students from "anti-Israel events, statements and speakers." To use Title VI this way amounts to censorship.
　
2. Question: How do we know what is going on at a college or university campus is anti-Semitism? Answer: "Six years ago the European monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) created a working definition of anti-Semitism....while clearly stating that criticism of Israel in the main is not anti-Semitic, [it] gives some examples of when anti-Semitism may come into play, such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the acts of the Israeli state, comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, or denying to Jews the right of self-determination (such as by claiming that Zionism is racism). In recent years the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have embraced this definition too. It is entirely proper for university administrators, scholars and students to reference the working definition in identifying definite or possible instances of anti-Semitism on campus."
3. Conclusion: Censorship should be avoided, Title VI should be avoided, but the "working definition" should be used to make judgments as to how best to "wrestle with ideas" while at the same time "combating bigotry."
　
This letter was signed by both Cary Nelson as President of the AAUP and Kenneth Stern as the Director of the anti-Semitism and extremism sub-division of the AJC. Released in early August 2011, it took only a few days before it was repudiated by the AJC. On 9 August David Harris, President of the American Jewish Committee, "apologized" for the joint declaration, said it was "ill advised" and blamed a breakdown in the AJC’s "system of checks and balances" for the slip up. Kenneth Stern is now on an unscheduled sabbatical and can not be reached for comment.
　
This is, of course, a replay of the 2006 situation and just goes to show that, it is the hard right ideologues who are in charge on the Zionist side. These people have a worldview that allows for no compromise. Censorship is exactly what they want and Title VI is as good a weapon to wield as any. What could Kenneth Stern possibly have been thinking? There is no room for sweet reason here.
　
Part III - The AAUP Makes a Mistake
　
This is not the end of the story. There is something wrong with the fact that the AAUP was so quick to endorse the EUMC working definition of anti-Semitism (a definition, by the way, that Kenneth Stern had a hand in writing). Consider these two statements from the above AAUP-AJC declaration each of which, according to the "working definition," can be seen as anti-Semitic: 1) "holding Jews collectively responsible for the acts of the Israeli state" and 2) "denying to Jews the right of self-determination (such as by claiming that Zionism is racism)." As we are about to see the first statement has hidden facets to it and the second defies historical reality.
　
Statement 1:

It is absolutely the case that the Jews should not be held collectively responsible for the actions of Israel. But it should be pointed out that it is just such collective responsibility that Zionists insist upon. Zionist ideology demands that Israel be recognized as representing world Jewry. Zionists expect that, in return, all Jews will identify with and actively support Israel–feel one with the "Jewish state." They classify those Jews who do not recognize their collective responsibility to Israel as somehow deficient or perhaps "self-hating" Jews. So let us get this straight, if holding Jews collectively responsible for the acts of Israel is anti-Semitic, what does that make the Zionists?
　
Statement 2:
　
a. That Jews have some sort of natural right to political self-determination is highly questionable. How about Protestants, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, ad infinitum? Just how far do we want to push this claim of political self-determination for religious faiths? Oh, but the Zionists insist that Jews are not just adherents to a particular faith–they are a "people." Well, for sure that is an opinion. It just doesn’t happen to be the opinion of millions of other Jews who see Judaism as a religion pure and simple. Of course, if the latter are vocal about this they run the risk of being labeled "self-hating."
　
b. And who, except of course the Zionists, says that Zionism is a desirable vehicle for the expression of this alleged right of self-determination? Let us face it. Israel and its Zionist ideology were born of the will of a small minority of Jews, almost exclusively from Central and Eastern Europe, most of whom were secularists, and almost all of whom carried within their heads the poisoned perceptions of European imperialist bigotry – an outlook which still characterizes the state they set up. That is why, in practice, Zionism has resulted in a prima facie racist environment in Israel. And now we are told that, according to the "working definition," pointing out the link between Zionism and racism is an act of anti-Semitism!
　
Given this close reading of parts of the "working definition," the AAUP really ought to rethink its apparent support of the document. It is a position that can only give impetus to the very censorship the AAUP dreads.
　
Part IV - Conclusion
　
One has come to expect twisted logic from the Zionists. Actually, one can expect this sort of thinking from any band of ideologues. Their blinkered vision, incapable of seeing around the corners of their prejudices, guarantees that most of what comes out of their mouths and their pens is sophistry.
　
However, what is one to do when folks you count on as rational and careful thinkers, like the leadership of the AAUP, get caught short this way? What is one to do when flawed reasoning and spurious assumptions start to be translated into criteria for government administrative decisions? What can you do when a fifth of the Congress decides to take a break and visit one of the most racist places on the planet and you risk being labeled an anti-Semite for decrying this fact? Well, you have a good laugh, have a good cry, and then go post your assessment of the situation on your website. Then you get a bit drunk. Finally, you repeat ten times "I will never to stay silent."

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

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Britain and NATO were keen as mustard to establish a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians but too cowardly to do the same for the Palestinians, who are constantly on the receiving end of Israel's vicious air strikes and armed incursions. Muslims and Christians alike have been slaughtered or maimed in their thousands and had their homes, farms and water resources stolen while waiting 63 years for the international community to deliver them from Israel's brutal occupation.

And Israel now plans to steal Palestine's offshore gas.

Not surprisingly, after decades of fruitless peace talks with a gun to their heads the Palestinians are about to apply to the United Nations for recognition of their own state based on the 1949 armistice lines that are universally regarded as the border with Israel.

But I was taken by surprise on 24 August by an email from Avaaz, those energetic organizers of global petitions, saying that "in 48 hours, the UN Security Council will meet again to discuss Palestine's bid to become the 194th country". They want one million signatures to a petition to ramp up public pressure and get governments off the fence and supporting this long-overdue bid for freedom.

I thought the Palestinian application was going to be made on 20 September or soon afterwards, under Lebanon's UN presidency. Meanwhile, the US and Israel have been conducting a huge diplomatic campaign to sabotage the Palestinian move. Perhaps somebody behind the scenes has calculated that their ridiculous propaganda will have worn thin by the time 20 September arrives.

Most of the world already supports the Palestinian cause. The trouble is, the will of the people in the US, Britain and most of Europe is downright ignored by political leaders who have allowed themselves to be suckered into the Zionist cause. That's Western-style democracy for you. Freedom fighters, beware.

It remains to be seen whether Britain, whose prime minister is a self-proclaimed Zionist and has pledged "indestructible" support for the Israeli regime and whose foreign secretary has been an adoring Friend of Israel since he was in short trousers, will join in blocking the bid for freedom.

The other day David Cameron said of the successful Libyan uprising:

Our task now is to do all we can to support the will of the Libyan people which is for an effective transition to a free, democratic and inclusive Libya. This will be and must be and should be Libyan-led and a Libyan-owned process with broad international support coordinated by the United Nations.

He's keen as mustard – again – to do all this for the Libyans, but will he do the same for the Palestinians? When they held free and fair elections in 2006 democracy-preaching Britain didn't like the result and joined the US and Israel in trashing the Palestinians' fledgling democracy and strangling their economy.

It's not difficult to imagine Cameron and Hague snapping to attention when Tel Aviv speaks, the mantra-like instructions amplified as usual by Washington: "Let there be no doubt ... blah, blah ... symbolic action to isolate Israel will not create an independent Palestinian state ... blah, blah ... no shortcut to statehood ... blah, blah ... must return to the negotiating table..."

The famous trade-mark white dog "Nipper", listening intently to his master's voice from the gramophone trumpet, comes instantly to mind.

Of course, fluffy American bitches have had their coiffed heads wedged so firmly up Tel Aviv's trumpet for such a long time that it's worn like a permanent fashion statement over there.

The question is, can "Nipper" Cameron extract his head from that trumpet long enough to put his money where his mouth is with regard to democracy and freedom in the Middle East, and do the decent thing in tune with the British people's wishes?

Of course, getting international support is only half the battle. I read with alarm that Saeb Erekat, Mahmoud Abbas's sidekick, heads the team responsible for preparing the Palestinian submission to the UN. I thought Erekat resigned as chief negotiator following revelations published by AlJazeera that his team, during peace talks with the Israelis, was willing to make suicidal concessions and couldn't negotiate its way out of a paper bag. A few months ago he was reported to be in Washington talking with US officials about reviving that same pointless peace process. How counter-productive can he get?

And such is the legal and constitutional tangle surrounding the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the Palestinian National Council (PNC) and the Palestinian Authority (PA), and their relationship to each other, that legal advisers now warn that a move towards statehood might adversely affect the rights of the refugees, who account for more than half of all Palestinians. If the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, is replaced by a state the change in legal status could mean that core rights, such as the right of return, are lost forever unless the whole deal is very cleverly handled.

Are these really the right people to be in charge of Palestine's fate?

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

By Uri Avnery* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" asked the prophet Amos (3:3). Well, seems they can.

This was proved again this week.

AT THE beginning of the week, Binyamin Netanyahu was desperately looking for a way out of an escalating internal crisis. The social protest movement was gathering momentum and posing a growing danger to his government.

The struggle was going on, but the protest had already made a huge difference. The whole content of the public discourse had changed beyond recognition.

Social ideas were taking over, pushing aside the hackneyed talk about "security". TV talk show panels, previously full of used generals, were now packed with social workers and professors of economics. One of the consequences was that women were also much more prominent.

And then it happened. A small extremist Islamist group in the Gaza Strip sent a detachment into the Egyptian Sinai desert, from where it easily crossed the undefended Israeli border and created havoc. Several fighters (or terrorists, depends who is talking) succeeded in killing eight Israeli soldiers and civilians, before some of them were killed. Another four of their comrades were killed on the Egyptian side of the border. The aim seems to have been to capture another Israeli soldier, to strengthen the case for a prisoner exchange on their terms.

In a jiffy, the economics professors vanished from the TV screens, and their place was taken by the old gang of exes – ex-generals, ex-secret-service chiefs, ex-policemen, all male, of course, accompanied by their entourage of obsequious military correspondents and far-right politicians.

With a sigh of relief, Netanyahu returned to his usual stance. Here he was, surrounded by generals, the he-man, the resolute fighter, the Defender of Israel.

IT WAS, for him and his government, an incredible stroke of luck.

It can be compared to what happened in 1982. Ariel Sharon, then Minister of Defense, had decided to attack the Palestinians and Syrians in Lebanon, He flew to Washington to obtain the necessary American agreement. Alexander Haig told him that the US could not agree, unless there was a "credible provocation".

A few days later, the most extreme Palestinian group, led by Abu Nidal, Yasser Arafat's mortal enemy, made an attempt on the life of the Israeli ambassador in London, paralyzing him irreversibly. That was certainly a "credible provocation". Lebanon War I was on its way.

This week's attack was also an answer to a prayer. Seems that God loves Netanyahu and the military establishment. The incident not only wiped the protest off the screen, it also put an end to any serious chance of taking billions off the huge military budget in order to strengthen the social services. On the contrary, the event proved that we need a sophisticated electronic fence along the 150 miles of our desert border with Sinai. More, not less, billions for the military.

BEFORE THIS miracle occurred, it looked as if the protest movement was unstoppable.

Whatever Netanyahu did was too little, too late, and just wrong.

In the first days, Netanyahu treated the whole thing as a childish prank, unworthy of the attention of responsible adults. When he realized that this movement was serious, he mumbled some vague proposals for lowering the price of apartments, but by then the protest had already moved far beyond the original demand for "affordable housing". The slogan was now "The People Want Social Justice"

After the huge 250,000-strong demonstration in Tel Aviv, the protest leaders were facing a dilemma: how to proceed? Yet another mass protest in Tel Aviv might mean falling attendance. The solution was sheer genius: not another big demonstration in Tel Aviv, but smaller demonstrations all over the country. This disarmed the reproach that the protesters are spoiled Tel Aviv brats, "sushi eaters and water-pipe smokers" as one minister put it. It also brought the protest to the masses of disadvantaged Oriental Jewish inhabitants of the "periphery", from Afula in the North to Beer Sheva in the South, most of them the traditional voters of Likud. It became a love-fest of fraternization.

So what does a run-of-the-mill politician do in such a situation? Well, of course, he appoints a committee. So Netanyahu told a respectable professor with a good reputation to set up a committee which would, in cooperation with nine ministers, no less, come up with a set of solutions. He even told him that he was ready to completely change his own convictions.

(He did already change one of his convictions when he announced in 2009 that he now advocates the Two-State Solution. But after that momentous about-face, absolutely nothing changed on the ground.)

The youngsters in the tents joked that "Bibi" could not change his opinions, because he has none. But that is a mistake – he does indeed have very definite opinions on both the national and the social levels: "the whole of Eretz Israel" on the one, and Reagan-Thatcher economic orthodoxy on the other.

The young tent leaders countered the appointment of the establishment committee with an unexpected move: they appointed a 60-strong advisory council of their own, composed of some of the most prominent university professors, including an Arab female professor and a moderate rabbi, and headed by a former deputy governor of the Bank of Israel.

The government committee has already made it clear that it will not deal with middle class problems but concentrate on those of the lowest socio-economic groups. Netanyahu has added that he will not automatically adopt their (future) recommendations, but weight them against the economic possibilities. In other words, he does not trust his own nominees to understand the economic facts of life.

AT THAT point, Netanyahu and his aides pinned their hopes on two dates: September and November 2011.

In November, the rainy season usually sets in. No drop of rain before that. But when it starts to rain cats and dogs, it was hoped in Netanyahu's office, the spoiled Tel Aviv kids will run for shelter. End of the Rothschild tent city.

Well, I remember spending some miserable weeks in the winter of the 1948 war in worse tents, in the midst of a sea of mud and water. I don't think that the rain will make the tent-dwellers give up their struggle, even if Netanyahu's religious partners send the most fervent Jewish prayers for rain to the high heavens.

But before that, in September, just a few weeks away, the Palestinians – it was hoped - would start a crisis that will divert attention. This week they already submitted to the UN General Assembly a request to recognize the State of Palestine. The Assembly will most probably accede. Avigdor Lieberman has already enthusiastically assured us that the Palestinians are planning a "bloodbath" at that time. Young Israelis will have to exchange their tents in Tel Aviv for the tents in the West Bank army camps.

It's a nice dream (for the Liebermans), but Palestinians had so far showed no inclination to violence.

All that changed this week.

FROM NOW on, Netanyahu and his colleagues can direct events as they wish.

They have already "liquidated" the chiefs of the group which carried out the attack, called "the Popular Resistance Committees". This happened while the fire-fight along the border was still going on. The army had been forewarned and was ready. The fact that the attackers succeeded nevertheless in crossing the border and shooting at vehicles was ascribed to an operational failure.

What now? The group in Gaza will fire rockets in retaliation. Netanyahu can – if he so wishes – kill more Palestinian leaders, military and civilian. This can easily set off a vicious circle of retaliation and counter-retaliation, leading to a full-scale Molten Lead-style war. Thousands of rockets on Israel, thousands of bombs on the Gaza Strip. One ex-military fool already argued that the entire Gaza Strip will have to be re-occupied.

In other words, Netanyahu has his hand on the tap of violence, and he can raise or lower the flames at will.

His desire to put an end to the social protest movement may well play a role in his decisions.

THIS BRINGS us back to the big question of the protest movement: can one bring about real change, as distinct from forcing some grudging concessions from the government, without becoming a political force?

Can this movement succeed as long as there is a government which has the power to start - or deepen - a "security crisis" at any time?

And the related question: can one talk about social justice without talking about peace?

A few days ago, while strolling among the tents on Rothschild Boulevard, I was asked by an internal radio station to give an interview and address the tent-dwellers. I said: "You don't want to talk about peace, because you want to avoid being branded as 'leftists". I respect that. But social justice and peace are two sides of the same coin, they cannot be separated. Not only because they are based on the same moral principles, but also because in practice they depend on each other."

When I said that, I could not have imagined how clearly this would be demonstrated only two days later.

REAL CHANGE means replacing this government with a new and very different political set up.

Here and there people in the tents are already talking about a new party. But elections are two years away, and for the time being there is no sign of a real crack in the right-wing coalition that might bring the elections closer. Will the protest be able to keep up its momentum for two whole years?

Israeli governments have yielded in the past to mass demonstrations and public uprisings. The formidable Golda Meir resigned in the face of mass demonstrations blaming her for the omissions that led to the fiasco at the start of the Yom Kippur War. The government coalitions of both Netanyahu and Ehud Barak in the 1990s broke under the pressure of an indignant public opinion.

Can this happen now? In view of the military flare-up this week, it does not look likely. But stranger things have happened between heaven and earth, especially in Israel, the land of limited impossibilities.

* Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist. Author of 1948: A Soldier's Tale - The Bloody Road to Jerusalem.

Ethnically cleansed Palestinian village of Lifta, near Jerusalem. Photo/palestineremembered.com

By Jonathan Cook* in Lifta | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

On a rocky slope dropping steeply away from the busy main road at the entrance to West Jerusalem is to be found a scattering of ancient stone houses, empty and clinging precariously to terraces hewn from the hillside centuries ago.

Although most Israeli drivers barely notice the buildings, this small ghost town – neglected for the past six decades – is at the centre of a legal battle fuelling nationalist sentiments on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide.

Picking his way through the cluster of 55 surviving houses, their stone walls invaded by weeds and shrubs, Yacoub Odeh, 71, slipped easily into reminiscences about the halcyon days in Lifta.

He was only eight years old in January 1948 when the advancing Jewish forces put his family and the 3,000 other Palestinian villagers to flight.

Over the coming months, as the Jewish state was born, they would be joined by 750,000 others forced into exile in an event that is known by Palestinians as the nakba, or catastrophe.

Despite the passage of time, Lifta's chief landmarks are still clear to Mr Odeh: the remains of his own family's home, an olive press, the village oven, a spring, the mosque, the cemetery and the courtyard where the villagers once congregated.

"Life was wonderful for a small child here," he said, closing his eyes. "We were like one large family. We played in the spring's waters, we picked the delicious strawberries growing next to the pool.

"I can still remember the taste of the bread freshly baked by my mother and coated with olive oil and thyme."

The village not only occupies a unique place in Mr Odeh's affections. It has also come to symbolize a hope of eventual return for many of the nearly five million Palestinian refugees around the world.

In the words of Ghada Karmi, a British academic whose own family was forced from their home close by, in the Jerusalem suburb of Katamon, Lifta "remains a physical memorial of injustice and survival".

The reason is that Lifta is the last deserted village from 1948 still standing in modern-day Israel.

More than 400 other villages seized by Israel were razed during and after the war of 1948 in what historians have described as a systematic plan to make sure the refugees had no homes to return to.

Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian who examined the 1948 war in his book the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, has termed the villages' destruction an act of "memoricide" – erasing for Israelis all troubling reminders of an earlier Palestinian presence.

The destroyed villages' lands were used by the new state either to build communities for Jewish immigrants or to plant national forests, said Eitan Bronstein, spokesman for Zochrot, an Israeli group dedicated to teaching Israelis about the nakba.

A handful of other Palestinian communities, such as the old city of Jaffa and Ein Hod near Haifa, survived the wave of demolitions but were quickly passed on to new Jewish owners to be reinvented as artists' colonies.

Only Lifta was neither destroyed nor reinhabited, its homes standing as a solitary, silent testament to a vanished way of life, said Mr Bronstein.

But even that small legacy is under imminent threat from the bulldozers.

In January the Israel Lands Authority, a government body responsible for Lifta's lands, announced a plan to build a luxury housing project over the village, including more than 200 apartments, a hotel and shops.

The project, said Meir Margalit, a Jerusalem city councillor, would be targeted at wealthy foreign Jews, mainly from the United States and France, looking for summer holiday homes in Israel.

The developers have promised to incorporate some of the old buildings into the complex, although most observers – including leading architects – say that little of the original Palestinian village will be recognizable after the project is completed.

Instead, according to Mr Bronstein, Lifta will belatedly suffer the same fate as the hundreds of villages destroyed by Israel decades ago. "The message is that we are finishing what we started in 1948," he said.

Esther Zandberg, a commentator on architecture for the Israeli Haaretz daily, agreed: "Although it is termed a preservation effort, it is in effect, paradoxically, an erasure of all memory of the original village."

Critics have been joined by Shmuel Groag, one of the project's original architects, who has accused the developers of failing to respect the basic rules of conservation in their treatment of Lifta.

Lifta's families, backed by several Israeli groups, including Rabbis for Human Rights, petitioned the courts to stop the project, saying the site should be preserved in its existing state.

The Jerusalem district court temporarily froze the development in March, and is expected to issue a ruling in the coming days.

The families have also appealed to UNESCO, the United Nations organization in charge of educational, scientific and cultural matters, to declare Lifta a world heritage site.

The development, however, is backed by the leading conservation bodies in Israel, including the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel and the Council for the Preservation of Historic Sites. The council's director, Isaac Shewky, said the costs of a proper restoration would be "astronomical".

Unlike most of the other 20,000 refugees and their descendants from Lifta, many of whom live in the West Bank and Jordan, Mr Odeh is able to visit his former village because he lives a few kilometres away in East Jerusalem.

He said he would ultimately like to see the families offered a chance to reclaim their former homes. "We will never forget Lifta. Our dream is to come back."

Few observers expect such a scenario in the current political climate. The Palestinian right of return is widely seen by Israeli Jews as spelling doom for Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state.

That fear was only accentuated by the images of refugees in Syria storming border fences in the Golan Heights in May and June, in what was widely seen in Israel as an attempted return to their former homes.

Mr Bronstein said: "Lifta poses such a threat to Israelis because it offers a starting point for imagining how the right of return might be implemented. It offers a model for the refugees."

Mr Odeh, who offers guided tours of Lifta, has to share the site with many Israeli visitors. Young religious boys have turned the still-functioning village pool into a mikveh, or ritual immersion bath. Other Israelis use the site as a favourite hiking spot. And in the evenings, drug-users take shelter in the homes.

Lifta is also facing rapid encroachment from West Jerusalem. It is ringed by major roads linking Jerusalem to the West Bank settlements; on the ridge above, a high-speed rail link to Tel Aviv is being built; and in the valley below a military complex is believed to house the government's underground nuclear bunker.

* Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair".

A version of this article originally appeared in The National, published in Abu Dhabi. The version here is published by permission of Jonathan Cook.

By Alan Hart * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Because Israel's leaders prefer land to peace and there's nothing any American president can do about that so long as the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress call the shots on U.S. policy for Israel/Palestine, it's obvious that the Palestinians have nothing to gain, only more to lose, from politics and diplomacy. So what, really, can they do themselves to press their claim for an acceptable minimum amount of justice? (By definition an acceptable minimum amount of justice requires a complete end to Israel's 1967 occupation with provision for Jerusalem to be an open, undivided city and the capital of two states).

Way back in the early 1980′s, Major General (then retired) Shlomo Gazit, the best and the brightest of Israel's former Directors of Military Intelligence, said the following to me in a private conversation. "If we (Israel's Jews) had been the Palestinians, we'd have had our mini state long ago." He meant that they would have played the terror card. Simply stated (he knew he didn't have to spell it out to me), they would bombed Israeli government offices and commercial centres and properties of all kinds and blasted transport and other communication facilities to cause maximum disruption and destruction.

And they would have done so knowing that their terrorism, provided it was ruthless enough and sustained, would be effective, would eventually cause many Israeli Jews to say to their government, "We've had enough, do a deal with the Palestinians." (They would also have had the evidence of their own experience to go on. In 1947/48, mainly by terrorism, they drove out first the occupying British and then about 800,000 Arabs).

Though all governments deny it, a truth is that terrorism does work provided it is ruthless enough and sustained. And there's no mystery about why. In many countries, especially those in which citizens are free to express their thoughts and feelings (the so-called democracies), there are limits to the amount terror-created disruption and mayhem the soft underbelly of public opinion will tolerate. All politicians know this.

There's a case for saying that the Palestinians might have had some real bargaining power if they had played the terror card effectively at an early point in Israel's occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip (as the Zionists would have done if they had been the Palestinians). Arguably a good time to have played it would have been after the UN Security Council caved in to Zionist-driven American pressure and came up with a resolution, 242, which effectively put Zionism in the diplomatic driving seat. It did so by refusing to condemn Israel as the aggressor, by not demanding its immediate withdrawal from occupied Arab territories and by allowing it to attach conditions to its withdrawal. As I have explained in previous articles and my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the Security Council should have put Israel on notice that it would be subjected to sanctions and diplomatic isolation if it settled occupied territory.

Today, and even if they wanted it, the Palestinians do not have a terror option. And again there's no mystery about why. In addition to the blockade of the Gaza Strip and checkpoints which are in place partly to humiliate the Palestinians who must pass or seek to pass through them, Israel's state-of-the-art surveillance makes it almost impossible for Palestinians on the occupied West Bank and in the Gaza Strip open prison to have conversations which are not electronically bugged or listened to by one means or another. Palestinian organizations and groups are also riddled with informers, mostly Palestinian men who become Israeli intelligence assets in order to protect their women. The proposition often put to those who become informers is that if they don't do what Israel wants, their mothers/wives/sisters will be rapped.

Simply stated there is not an environment in which the occupied and oppressed Palestinians could organize and execute a sustained terror campaign.

So if the Palestinians have nothing to gain from politics and diplomacy and don't have a terror option, what can they do?

In theory their best weapon is their very existence and the demographic time-bomb it represents, but… It's reasonable to assume that Israel will continue to work on defusing it by means which could go all the way to a final round of ethnic cleansing.

It was Sharon as prime minister who started the work of defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation by ordering the withdrawal of Israeli settlers and IDF forces from the Gaza Strip. At the time, and with the assistance of the mainstream Western media which (generally speaking) is terrified of offending Zionism either too much or at all, it was presented as Sharon seeking to advance the peace process. That was Zionist propaganda nonsense.

According to a recent report in Ha'aretz by Barak Ravid, even Netanyahu has now accepted that Israel must make some withdrawals from the occupied West Bank "if it is to preserve a solid Jewish majority inside the State of Israel." After his return from America that's what he told a shocked cabinet meeting when he presented to it a report by the Jewish People Policy Institute on demographic changes among Jews and Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank. The report was based on the demographic data of Prof. Sergio DellaPergola which shows that, in a number of years, the demographic trends will result in a Palestinian majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

So very probably the time is approaching when Netanyahu, if he can overcome the opposition of some of his lunatic cabinet colleagues, will announce Israel's intention to make some limited withdrawals from the occupied West Bank. He will present them as "painful concessions" on Israel's part and proof that it is serious about peace. The truth will be rather different. The withdrawals, if they happen, will be for one purpose and one purpose only – defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation in order to preserve a solid Jewish majority in a somewhat reduced Greater Israel, a Zionist state with borders taking in about 40% of the West Bank including all of Jerusalem.

As things are and look like going, that (about 60% of the West Bank with bits and pieces of pre-1967 Israeli land thrown in under the heading of "swaps") is the best deal the Palestinians are ever likely to be offered by any Zionist leadership; and it is, of course, totally unacceptable. So back to the main question – What, really, can the Palestinians do themselves to get some bargaining power?

The answer I want to float came into my mind when I was reading a recent column by Uri Avnery. He was writing about the "nightmare" that has haunted Israel since 1948. What is it? "The 750,000 refugees and their descendents, some five million by now, will one day get up and march to the borders of Israel from North, East and South, breach the fences and flood the country."

In my view getting up and marching to the borders of pre-1967 Israel is what the Palestinians should now do, and not only the Palestinians of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip prison camp. They should be joined by Palestinian refugees from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. To guarantee peaceful proceedings on their part, the Palestinian marchers should be completely unarmed – not only no guns, but no stones.

Of course Israel would seek to prevent it happening by banning Palestinians assembling in numbers on the West Bank and, also, by threatening the frontline Arab states with reprisal attacks and even war if they allowed Palestinians in numbers to enter I967 Israeli occupied Arab land from their territories. But with effort and commitment on the part of the Palestinians it could be made to happen.

Just imagine it… Several hundred thousand or better still one or two million Palestinians or more marching peacefully to the 1967 borders.

For what purpose? When they got as far as they could go, they would demand that the governments of the world do whatever is necessary to oblige Israel to stop defying international law and end its illegal occupation of the West Bank and its criminal blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Such an event would demand and command the attention of the world's media, and it's by no means impossible that the coverage would light a fire of understanding throughout the Western world; understanding of the fact that the nuclear-armed Zionist state of Israel is the aggressor, the land thief and the oppressor and that the Palestinians are its victims. Such a fire, if it was lit, could trigger a people power response in the Western nations that would make it impossible for Western governments, even the one in Washington D.C., to go on supporting Israel right or wrong.

If Israel's leaders were stupid enough to order the IDF to break up and disperse the Palestinian marchers by shooting to kill, there would be a bloodbath. In that event it's possible, in my view probable, that the fire of understanding the Palestinians had lit in the Western world would become an inferno of anti-Israelism that would force Western governments, including the one in Washington D.C., to call and hold the Zionist state to account for its crimes.

Though it would further isolate Israel and America, I don't think a UN General Assembly resolution recognizing a Palestinian state in 1967 borders would change the facts on the ground. But if a vote in the General Assembly was taken against the background of the demonstration of Palestinian people power as outlined above, that could be a game-changer.

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

By Amira Hass* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Of all places, it is in Azzariyeh, east of Jerusalem, that one can really learn to appreciate the activities of Palestinian law-enforcement authorities in cities like Ramallah and Nablus. In those cities, Palestinian security forces are seen as authority figures who are trying to protect and serve Palestinian citizens, not just as extensions of Fatah or subcontractors of the Israel Defense Forces or the Shin Bet security service.

Unlike Ramallah and Nablus, which are categorized as "A" areas, Azzariyeh and its neighbors Sawahra and Abu Dis are holed up in an enclave of type "B", where the IDF does not allow the Palestinian police to be fully functional. The interim Oslo 2 agreement determines that the Palestinian Authority is responsible for maintaining public order in Area B, but in the same breath it limits the PA's authority and the means by which it can protect the people from disruptions of public order. Almost every action taken by the Palestinian police in Area B requires IDF approval.

And Israel, which has no inhibitions about violating key clauses of the agreement, is particularly meticulous here: The number of police officers is limited, police are prohibited from moving from a makeshift police station in an apartment building to a proper one, they are not allowed to carry weapons or wear uniforms, and they are prohibited from bringing in reinforcements on their own to locate drug or weapons dealers or to deliver subpoenas. Is it any wonder that the Azzariyeh-Abu Dis enclave has become a place of refuge for the outlaws of the West Bank? Not that this enclave has not had its share of troubles. Since it was shut off by the wall in 2005, all its ties with its natural and immediate urban center, East Jerusalem, have been severed. The enclave's isolation, and the impoverishment and despair to which it gave rise, are as painful as a fresh burn.

The artificial division between Areas A, B and C was supposed to be erased from the map, and dropped from the discourse, in 1999. Instead, Israel has sanctified and perpetuated it. The largest share - 60 percent - is designated Area C, meaning it is under full Israeli security and civil control. It is self-evident why Israel perpetuates the Area C classification. After all, it gives Israel a free hand to continue emptying that part of the West Bank of Palestinians and encourage more Jews to violate international law and settle there.

But what about Area B? Why does Israel insist that drug and weapons trafficking should flourish in an area several dozen meters away from Ma'aleh Adumim and some three kilometers from the Judea and Samaria District police headquarters - both of which sites, as is often forgotten, are violating international law due to their location on the land reserves of Palestinian villages? True, there is also unlicensed public transportation, unlicensed construction, environmental pollution - but the drugs and weapons trade dwarfs those violations. A similar situation exists in A-Ram, the hybrid city between Ramallah and Jerusalem that is also cut off from its past, its surroundings and its land by the wall. Just a hop, skip and jump (over a wall and barbed-wire fence ) away from Jerusalem, some 100,000 people have been left to fend for their own personal safety, a situation that can be reversed.

Is there some deliberate intention behind the painstaking adherence to a clause in an agreement that was supposed to be short-lived? That's what many Palestinians have concluded. Some say the drugs and weapons dealers are collaborators, or potential collaborators, with Israel. This is why the Shin Bet and IDF are not allowing the Palestinian police to take action against them and why, according to them, Israeli security forces immediately find out about any Palestinian attempt to capture them. Some find here a strategic goal: The worse this intolerable situation gets in neighborhoods that are so close to the annexed Jerusalem, the greater the likelihood that the residents will leave and head over to Area A. In other words, it's just another expulsion trick.

Listen to the Palestinians. The subjugated excel at analyzing the implications of their ruler's actions. And if the Palestinians are wrong, then why will the IDF not let the Palestinian police operate freely?

* Amira Hass is a prominent Israeli journalist and author, mostly known for her columns in the daily newspaper Ha'aretz. She is particularly recognized for her reporting on Palestinian affairs in the West Bank and Gaza, where she has also lived for a number of years.
The daughter of two Holocaust survivors, and was educated at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. On Oct. 20, the International Women's Media Network reward Hass the 2009 Lifetime Achievement Award. Hass was the recipient of the Press Freedom Hero award from the International Press Institute in 2000, the Bruno Kreisky Human Rights Award in 2002, the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize in 2003, the inaugural award from the Anna Lindh Memorial Fund in 2004 and Hrant Dink Memorial Award in 2009.

By Richard Lightbown* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

After he returned from his ordeal on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, Fiachra O'Luain, the second mate on the Challenger I, was asked if he would go again to break the siege of Gaza. He replied "yes ... and again, and again".

Many of the survivors of the flotilla will be on the next one, due to sail for Gaza towards the end of June. Called Stay Human, it will commemorate Vittorio Arrigoni who gave his life (as did 10 activists on the Mavi Marmara: nine dead and one in a coma) for justice and human rights for the Palestinian people.

In the face of Israeli propaganda, parroted by the BBC and other mainstream media, we should hold fast to the truth that these people are prepared to face. All of the survivors of the previous flotilla were maltreated and humiliated. Many of them were beaten, tasered by electric stun guns, attacked with stun grenades and tear gas, deprived of food and water and subjected, by terrorists in the employ of the state of Israel, to treatment described by a United Nations Fact-Finding Mission [.PDF] as tantamount to torture. Many suffered injury from deliberately over-tightened handcuffs. Several had their passports stolen (for use in who-knows-what future outrage by Mossad criminals), all cameras, mobile phones and computers were illegally seized and many lost large sums of money: plundered in individual acts of piracy by members of one of the world's most criminal and immoral armies. All of the victims experienced first-hand the ruthless contempt for human dignity that the Zionist state considers its right.

On the Mavi Marmara, passengers and crew saw friends and comrades killed, wounded or maltreated by thugs with no more respect for human life than Al Capone's gangsters. Some of these same criminals later appeared on the BBc programme "Panorama". Wary of the daylight they lurked in the night shadows of Haifa docks like wharf rats, referred to their victims as "terrorists", and falsely accused them of shooting at commandos who were indulging a blood bath totally outside of any remit granted by international law. (A terrorist, we should remember, is someone who uses violence against civilians for political ends. The commandos defined the term as someone who comes prepared to commit violence, dressed in military clothing with covered faces. Either definition accurately fitted the commandos themselves, who in any event would never be accorded the protection that internationallaw demands for civilians.)

The blood of men who believed in universal human rights dripped down the stairs of the Mavi Marmara that night as war crimes were committed on the orders of Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak under the guise of defending the state of Israel. Knowing all this, in a few days time an even larger flotilla with even more human rights workers on board will sail for Gaza. Binyamin Netanyahu has tried every trick in the diplomatic book to prevent it. We can be sure that Mossad has been hard at work too, trying to sabotage ships bound for the high seas.

Despite well-publicized claims to the contrary, and despite the recent opening of the Rafah Crossing to many civilians, the sadistic Israeli closure remains firmly locked on Gaza. There has been no confirmation that the 4,500 tons of building materials on the last flotilla ever reached Gaza. Desperately needed sewage pipes from the Malaysian ship the Spirit of Rachel Corrie are in an Egyptian warehouse instead of being delivered to Gaza. (Ironically, this would have helped to reduce pollution in the eastern Mediterranean where the tides presumably wash untreated Gazan sewage onto beaches in Israel and Egypt.) Permitted exports from Gaza amount to around two lorry loads a day in place of the 400 per day that Israel agreed to allow in a deal brokered by Condoleezza Rice in 2005. Meanwhile, the scarcely-reported ceasefire of missiles from Gaza, applied after the successful Palestinian unity talks, attracts no concessions from Israel's continuing occupation of the Gaza Strip.

The heroism and sacrifice of this next flotilla will not be in vain. Despite more brazen lies from Mark Regev and biased portrayals of events by the likes of Jane Corbin, Mr Netanyahu's stubborn, blinkered stupidity will further damage Israel's international image while further advancing the Palestinian cause. No Nobel Peace Laureate will be able to disguise the guilt if more Israeli hoods batter more human rights workers. No selectively edited whitewash report, with of without endorsement from professors of international law, will be able to conceal the truth this time from the people of the world. The flotilla is coming, and just as Mickey Mouse's sorcerer's apprentice merely increased the activities of his animated broom when he attacked it with an axe, Mr Netanyahu only risks further opprobrium in the eyes of the world, further censure for his pariah state and further flotillas if he insists in perpetuating the use of violent crime against lawful protest on the high seas.

* Richard Lightbown - studied the impacts of the Rwandan civil war on four Ugandan forests for his Masters dissertation. He has been a volunteer in Gaza and the West Bank, and assisted with a forestry proposal for the Arab areas of the occupied Golan.

Once the ships sail it will be possible to track them here. Any assault is likely to be before dawn on the night before the anticipated arrival in Gaza.

Video link: http://youtu.be/kEIbUoSSiV4

On the 15th of May of every year, Palestinians and the whole world remember how it all started. How the Israelis' ethnic cleansing of a people and the destruction of a society - the Nakba - was met with global indifference. Many factors made it so, but among them was a Zionist propaganda machine that illustrated the crime committed in Palestine in 1948 as a war of independence against aggressive Arabs and Palestinians.

It is true that the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab people resisted the establishment of a racist regime in Palestine. And they still do. It is only normal. If anyone comprehends the extent of the injustice that has been committed against the Palestinian people, they would not even ask why they are so determined in their pursuit of justice. And if anyone knows the history of the Palestinian struggle, they would realize that this people will continue to resist in every form until they see the justice they have so longed for restored.

On 15 May 2011, the world is invited to express its understanding, solidarity and support to a people that has resisted... and continues to do so, for Justice in Palestine.

WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE

By Mantiq al-Tayr * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

1. Today I just want to do a couple of things quickly. First of all, Skulz Fontaine has been sending me some great stuff and I've been a bit remiss in not sharing some of these with you. I like this one.

But of course the land theft continues, as does the killing – killing Palestinians being the Israeli national pass time. Plus it just seems that attacking, harrasing and shooting at Palestinians is as Israeli as assaulting the USS Liberty.

2. But I want to address something else as the main topic today. What some people like to call Islamophobia – I call it what it is – Anti-Muslim Bigotry – in the United States is getting out of hand. Our country is sick and we need to understand the source of this sickness and do something about it. One good place for you to go as you begin searching for the source is an article I've linked to before by Max Blumenthal. It is here. And here's another real interesting one. And you should read all about David Horowitz – who pays Robert Spencer something like 132k a year to write his bullshit. I strongly recommend you go to Loonwatch and do a search on David Horowitz. Oh hell, I'll do it for you.

And this brings me to:

3. But I also want to draw your attention to something else. Islamphobia is being actively supported by local, state and federal governments and law enforcement. Anti-Muslim hatemongers routinely train local, state and federal officials to hate Islam and Muslims and it looks like they get good money for it. I tell you, I am in the wrong business, but I digress.

It is very possible that these hate mongers have trained people in your community and your state and for sure some of them have been saying some real interesting bullshit to people in the federal government. I mean real wackos like Nonie Darwish and Walid Phares and Steve Coughlin.

I can hear you know, "Okay, Mantiq, prove this. How come you haven't provided one single link under this topic whereas you are always linking everything to everything else and we can't even finish your goddamn posts because we are running of all over hell's half acre reading your links?

Never, fear. Your link is here. It is to a new 80-page study of this phenomenon done by Thomas Cincotta of Political Research Associates. It is entitled:

Manufacturing the Muslim Menace: Private Firms, Public Servants and the Threat to Rights and Security. It's a nice PDF file and you can download the whole thing for free.

Here is an excerpt from the preface to the report about how effectively your public officials are being trained:

"Kill them, including the children."

That's how to solve the threat of violent militant Muslims?

The above quote is from what one official involved in homeland security said was how she understood the underlying theme of a speech by Walid Shoebat at an anti-terrorism training in Las Vegas in October 2010. Our investigator had turned around after Shoebat's speech and asked the woman seated one row back what she thought was the solution offered by Shoebat.

The report focuses on three private training outfits and the loons who work for them. They are:

A. the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association (ICTOA)
B. Security Solutions International, LLC (SSI)
C. The Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies (CI Centre)

I like how the CI Centre (where Walid Phares plies his trade) spells centre the British way. Makes them look cool.

And the report has a section on each of the following people who work for one of the three firms mentioned above:

Mark A. Gabriel – ICTOA guest speaker
David Gaubatz – SSI guest speaker
Walid Phares – CI Centre Faculty
Clare M. Lopez – CI Centre Faculty
Tawfik Hamid – CI Centre Faculty
Stephen Coughlin – CI Centre Faculty
Nonie Darwish – CI Centre Faculty
Detective Ebrahim Ashabi – SSI Expert
Walid Shoebat – ICTOA Guest Speaker

This report is a must read and it is free. Send it to your congressmen and your state representatives and demand that your state, local and federal governments stop funding these modern-day equivalents of the Ku Klux Klan.

4. There are five million decoy Muslims in the US. They are here to trick you and then to kill you.

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drQETQ2iprU
(I bet Shas Party members won't get this.)

5. Shakira law spreads to MUST (Missouri University for Science and Technology)

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=626Z2wmieUo

* Mantiq al-Tayr is a blogger who is attempting to wake up other American citizens to the true dangers and challenges which face their country and is devoted to justice for the Palestinian people. Truth is his objective, satire is his tool. He also enjoys reading the Qur'an from time to time. See his website.

By Franklin Lamb * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Lebanese opponents of civil rights for Palestinian refugees often use less objective and more crude wording to define "tawtin" ("settlement") than is normally employed in civil society discussions. During last summer's debate in parliament, which failed to enact laws that would allow the world's oldest and largest refugee community the basic civil right to work and to own a home, the "tawtin or return" discussion took on strident and dark meanings, which were largely effective in frightening much of the Lebanese public from supporting even these modest humanitarian measures. Right-wing opponents of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon often define tawtin during public discussions as "implantation" (as in inserting a foreign malignant object or virus into Lebanon's body politic), or "grafting," "insertion," "impalement," "forced integration," "embedding" "impregnation", or "patriation".

The concept's varied meanings among a largely uninformed Lebanese public have by and large prevented a balanced consideration of the provision in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative that includes "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UNGAR 194."

The discussion in Lebanon has centered on presumed Palestinian desires to stay in Lebanon at all costs, as opposed to returning to their country Palestine. The large anti-Palestinian political community has kept the discussion focused on the API's language: "the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation [tawtin] which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries."

The concept, indeed the very word, was used in the summer of 2010 as an emotional bludgeon, embodying all manner of dire social predictions from the political parties representing the Phalange, Liberal, Lebanese Forces, and Free Patriotic Movement's leader General Michel Aoun. Virtually all opponents of Palestinian civil rights frequently claimed that tawtin would ruin Lebanon. This was arguably the main reason that there was a broad-based consensus in support of the parliamentary decision of August 17, 2011 to do essentially nothing to enact relief for Lebanon's quarter million Palestinian refugees.

It was a spurious argument because very few in Lebanon, and even fewer in the Palestinian community, have any desire to see tawtin actually implemented. One remarkable aspect of last year's tawtin "debate" was that, in private discussions, few politicians publicly decrying its dangers really thought tawtin was a realistic threat to Lebanon. Nonetheless, the chimera was used to maintain a power base in their own sect or community. These political leaders assumed that their supporters wanted no rights for Palestinians in Lebanon; tawtin was a useful political boogie man. This view was not only common in various Christian sects but also among many Druze and Muslims. Numerous politicians have explained in private that their supporters by and large still believed that the Palestinian refugees were the cause of Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war and many of Lebanon's current woes and wanted them out of Lebanon as soon as possible.

Another political factor contributing to the false depiction of tawtin were widely-rumored American and Israeli plans to use tawtin to permanently settle thousands of Lebanon's Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and thus take pressure off of Israel to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 194's right of return mandate. These suggestions by US officials during last summer's parliamentary examination of tawtin and return riled segments of the Lebanese public and provided grist for right-wing elements to politically, socially and economically squeeze Palestinian refugees yet again.

Palestinian refugees' views regarding tawtin were unfortunately rather muted or not credited during 2010 discussions in Lebanon and parliament. Occasional statements by Palestine Liberation Organization leaders that Palestinian refugees were grateful for Lebanon's hospitality and realized that they had overstayed their welcome, but that they had every desire and determination to return to Palestine, were largely ignored.

The fears of certain elements of Lebanese society about tawtin are unwarranted. The oft-expressed view that Palestinians secretly want to stay in Lebanon and abandon their right to return has been consistently refuted by Palestinian public opinion surveys, academic studies, and most compellingly by the statements of Lebanon's camp residents themselves.

According to a recent survey, fully 96 percent of Lebanon's Palestinian refugees living in 12 camps and more than 24 communities, insist on their full right of return to Palestine, eschew tawtin, and agree with the language of the API regarding 194.

Over the past few years, and one imagines even more since the events in Tunisia and Egypt, the demand for the full right of return has increased. The events at Tahrir Square raise hopes among Palestinians in Lebanon that return to Palestine may come sooner rather than later. Tahrir Square reinforces the view that Palestine's occupation could crumble faster than many have believed possible given the military and political power granted by the American and European governments.

Meanwhile, there exists in Lebanon near unanimity among the 18 sects and various Palestinian factions. Tawtin is not a desirable option. Only justice for Palestine, including the right of return as restated in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative will resolve the dilemma of tawtin or return for Lebanon and her Palestinian refugees.

* Franklin Lamb is Director, Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Beirut-Washington DC, Board Member of The Sabra Shatila Foundation, and a volunteer with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Lebanon. He is the author of The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel's Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon and is doing research in Lebanon for his next book. He can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com

Richard Falk

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Mention Richard Falk and you think of an honourable man who cares deeply about injustice, particularly the trampled rights of Palestinians under the evil jackboot.

Mention Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations, and what comes to mind?

The BBC reported in December 2008: "During her stint in the Clinton White House, she was described as 'brilliant' but also 'authoritarian' and 'brash'. According to the New York Times, she acknowledges 'a certain impatience at times'."

She is also said to be "unwilling to consider opinions that differ from her own".

Ambassador Rice has just demanded that Falk, the UN Human Rights Council's special rapporteur in the Palestinian territories, step down from his UN position. "In my view, Mr. Falk's latest commentary [an entry in his blog about the media and 9/11] is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position on behalf of the UN."

Falk's crime was saying that the US administration's reluctance to address the awkward gaps and contradictions identified by several scholars in the official explanations of 9/11, only fuels suspicions of a conspiracy. And he suggested that "what may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials".

Fair comment, you might think. And carefully worded to cause no offence.

But Reuters reported that UN Watch, an advocacy group affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, had written to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon similarly demanding that he "strongly condemn Mr. Falk's offensive remarks -- and ... immediately remove him from his post".

The report added that UN Watch had targeted Falk in the past and frequently criticised the Human Rights Council for berating Israel while ignoring rights violations by developing countries.

The American Jewish Committee also called on the UN to immediately dismiss Falk for publicly endorsing "the slander of conspiracy theorists". Executive Director David Harris said: "We agree wholeheartedly with the US Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Susan Rice, who stated that Mr Falk's comments are 'despicable and offensive' and, like her, urge the UN to remove him from his position. Falk has long been a conspiracy-ridden and harmful figure who surely does not serve the best interests of the UN."

UN Watch claims to have won "global condemnation" of Falk. Its website trumpets: "After UN Watch exposes noxious remarks, UN official Richard Falk [is] roundly condemned by UN Chief, US Gov't, and media worldwide."

"Noxious"... that's Rice's word. Could they be sharing the same scriptwriter?

UN Watch diligently sets down who said what...

Thursday, Jan. 20: UN Watch takes action and files complaint with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, demanding he condemn Richard Falk, the U.N Human Rights Council's permanent investigator on "Israel's violations of the principles of international law," for his latest remarks suggesting that the US government -- and not Al Qaeda terrorists -- destroyed the World Trade Center. The protest came as part of UN Watch's 3-year campaign to expose and combat Falk's denial and justification of Hamas and Al Qaeda terrorism, and his material support for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. At the daily U.N. press briefing, when Matthew Lee of Inner City Press asks for a response, the Secretary-General's spokesman says they don't comment on independent experts.

Friday, Jan. 21: The New York Daily News picks up the story and publishes editorial: "When will the lunacy reach such heights that UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon realizes his so-called Human Rights Council is wrecking what little reputation the world body has left? ... Ignore those jetliners crashing into the towers, is Falk's advice. Who are you going to believe, your own eyes or him and his friends? Ban should ring down the curtain on this grotesque buffoonery. He should force out Falk forthwith..."

Monday, Jan. 24: The United Nations sends letter to UN Watch with unprecedented condemnation of a UN Human Rights Council official: "The Secretary-General condemns [Falk's] remarks. He has repeatedly stated his view that any such suggestion is preposterous - and an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack." UN Watch immediately releases the letter to the public, and calls for the UN to fire Falk.

Tuesday, Jan. 25: US Ambassador Susan Rice condemns Falk and echoes UN Watch's call for him to be fired: "Mr. Falk's comments are despicable and deeply offensive, and I condemn them in the strongest terms... The United States is deeply committed to the cause of human rights and believes that cause will be better advanced without Mr. Falk and the distasteful sideshow he has chosen to create." Ambassador Eileen C. Donahoe, the US envoy to the Human Rights Council, also speaks out.

On the same day, in a Geneva address to the member and observer states of the Human Rights Council, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon repeats his condemnation of Falk: "Recently, there was a Special Rapporteur who suggested there was an 'apparent cover-up' in the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. I want to tell you, clearly and directly. I condemn this sort of inflammatory rhetoric. It is preposterous – an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack." Click for Video

SUCCESS: UN Watch's campaign led to the unprecedented international condemation of Richard Falk, who exploits his UN position to justify and deny Hamas and Al Qaeda terrorism. It sparked dozens of news stories worldwide, as shown in the sample below. All of this succeeded in finally puncturing Falk's undeserved halo as a "human rights expert." For the first time ever, the UN itself had condemned Falk, and in the strongest terms. As a result, Falk's credibility in the international arena is now at zero.

What's remarkable is how twitchy these people get at the slightest possibility that someone will lift the lid on 9/11, their hysterical protests serving only to deepen already serious suspicions.

Incidentally UN Watch's founder, chairman and executive director are all Jewish, the latter having worked at Israel's Supreme Court.

Let's go back to July 14 last year and remarks made by Ambassador Rice during a reception for Israeli Ambassadors Gabriela Shalev and Daniel Carmon held by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

"Today, I mostly want to talk about my very dear friend, Ambassador Gabriela Shalev," said Rice. "She's truly one of my favorite people...

"Gabi and I had the opportunity to work closely together on a series of important issues, from dealing with the deeply flawed Goldstone Report to seeing through the passage by the Security Council of the toughest sanctions resolution to date against Iran. She has been a lioness in defense of Israel's security and its legitimacy - working tirelessly to ensure that Israel has the same rights and enjoys the same responsibilities as any other UN member state.

"We will continue to work together to seek a lasting and comprehensive peace that meets Israel's security needs and creates a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. We will continue to strengthen Israel's qualitative military advantage so that Israel can always defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats. And, as the President pledged, we will continue US efforts to combat all international attempts to challenge the legitimacy of Israel - including and especially at the United Nations."

Having revealed herself as another handmaiden to the Zionist cause, Rice's attack on Falk for breaking the ridiculous taboo and questioning the US administration's refusal to hold a proper independent inquiry into 9/11 only raises questions about her own suitability for an important position at the UN.

Meanwhile, there are millions of us out here who are right behind Richard Falk because he stands for justice. We are not amused by growing indications that the official story of 9/11 doesn't add up. Nor are we too pleased by the realisation that it was used to prod our own governments into sacrificing troops and treasure to a couple of unlawful, unwinnable wars that have caused mega-deaths and endless suffering to innocent civilians, trashed our good name abroad and made us vulnerable to reprisals at home... just to advance the crazed ambitions of the US-Israeli axis.

In short, if there's the slightest doubt we want to know the truth.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

"We need only one thing, to be protected by the world against the crimes of 
Israel"

Outside the Irish Parliament. Left to Right: Alan Lonergan (SADAKA), Constantine Dabbagh, Fr Manuel Musallam, John Ging, Archbishop Theodosius Hanna

We are not here as politicians, they said. We come as representatives of the various churches in Jerusalem.

But the trio from the Holy Land showed they were more than a match for Western politicians who fancy they know all about the Middle East.

Archbishop Theodosius Hanna (Greek Orthodox Church), Monsignor Manuel Musallam (Latin Catholic) and Mr Constantine Dabbagh (Executive Director of the Middle East Council of Churches) are courageous human rights defenders and spiritual leaders from Palestine. They have just completed a tour of Ireland to raise awareness of the situation in their homeland under Israeli military occupation and the plight of the dwindling Christian community there.

"We need only one thing, to be protected by the world against the crimes of Israel," was their central message.

The week-long visit was arranged by SADAKA, the Ireland Palestine Alliance, and part funded by Trócaire, the overseas development agency of the Catholic Church in Ireland, and Christian Aid.

After delivering a special Christmas greeting from the Holy Land to the president and the people of Ireland, the Palestinian church leaders were able to establish a mutual understanding with President Mary McAleese that peace is more than an absence of violence – "the only lasting peace is a just peace".

During their visit the churchmen described the Israeli occupation as the "crucifixion of the nation of Palestine", and made a plea to all of Ireland's leaders to "act and intervene, or nothing will change".

They met with other Irish government ministers and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs, whom they briefed on the reality of life in the Holy Land, where the Israeli occupation denies even freedom of religion. A transcript of the meeting can be found at here.

Archbishop Hanna began by reminding the committee:

Palestine is the place from where Christianity comes. Jerusalem, Bethlehem and the Holy Land in general are very important for Christians... Everything that has happened to the Palestinians between 1948 and today has happened to all Palestinians, including Christian Palestinians.

What we are after is freedom and dignity just as freedom and dignity have been bestowed on so many nations in the world. We want that too. When we speak about peace, we also speak about justice because it is impossible to have peace without justice. Peace is part of justice. Unfortunately, in the Holy Land there is no such thing as justice.

He explained that in Gaza 1.5 million live in an open air prison. "Christian or Muslim, we all are Palestinians and we all experience the same."

He said Jerusalem also was under siege. A Canadian could visit the city but Monsignor Musallam, who lives 20 minutes away in Birzeit, cannot. "What happens to him happens to all Palestinians in the West Bank. I was very happy to see Mr Dabbagh [who lives in Gaza] over here because I cannot see him in Palestine. I had to come to Ireland to see him."

The archbishop spoke briefly about the Kairos Palestine Document, the Christian Palestinians' message to the world requesting the international community to stand by the Palestinian people who have faced oppression, displacement and apartheid for more than six decades. The suffering continues while the international community silently looks on. It asks Christians all over the world to stand against injustice and apartheid and to work for a just peace in the Holy Land.

The document declares that the military occupation of Palestine "is a sin against God and humanity, and that any theology that legitimizes the occupation is far from Christian teachings".

"We are not terrorists. We have not occupied Israel. Peace is possible if justice is possible."

Fr Manuel Musallam told the committee:

I was in Gaza during the war [Operation Cast Lead] and suffered with my people for 22 days. I saw with my own eyes a phosphoric bomb in the school yard. I saw people injured by these phosphoric bombs, although these bombs are forbidden. These crimes against us were ignored by all the people of the world. No-one was courageous enough until now to say "No" to Israel or "No" to America or to say "Stop killing" and "Stop making war".

What happened in Gaza was not a war. A war is a clash between soldiers, aircraft and weapons. We were victims, just victims. They destroyed Gaza. I was there and saw with my own eyes what happened. We in Gaza were treated like animals... We are not terrorists. We have not occupied Israel.

We do not want to die to liberate Palestine. We want to live to build Palestine... We are asking the world to give the Palestinian people their rights. The question is whether peace is possible. Despite all the difficulties, the crimes and the war, we as Palestinians say peace is possible if justice is possible.

Fr Manuel believes a religious war is brewing in the Middle East. "This war will not stop at the Middle East," he warned. "It will also happen here."

At some point a state should be recognized, he says.

From 1948 to the present, our state has no borders. It is the only country state without borders... They refused to discuss borders. They refused to end the state of war. Europe and America were partners in this war and all the crimes committed against us, because they set up Israel in Palestine. People were gathered from more than 20 countries...

What Constantine Dabbagh said to the committee was clear and simple. "We want to live as Palestinians and for the two-state recognition to be applied in accordance with UN resolutions. This would mean that the Palestinian state would have the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, lands which were occupied in 1967." He expressed appreciation for the worldwide support for justice but, he said, it evaporates when it comes to the rights of the Palestinians and the vetoes which are imposed by the United States and other governments.

The occupation within Gaza has ceased but we are cordoned off and are living in a big prison... A population of 1.5 million people includes 2,000 Christians but we are part and parcel of this community. We have no problem with our Muslim compatriots but it is true that the extremists are growing and I repeat the warning on this point from Monsignor Musallam. This is as a result of the occupation, the oppression and humiliation and the poverty. These factors are making more people side with the extremists and this is what we want to stop. This will only happen with the support and help of the international community and the United States in particular.

The Irish government's "Zionist Tendency"

At question time it emerged that even the Irish government has its "Zionist Tendency". Deputy Alan Shatter argued:

I find it extraordinary that a group such as this should make a presentation to the committee on the plight confronting Christians on the West Bank and Gaza and on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without any particular mention or emphasis on the substantial difficulties that fundamentalism in the Muslim world has created, of the major difficulties in Gaza created by Hamas and of the significant problems for the Christian community posed by extremists within Gaza...

It is my understanding that there have been a number of incidents in Gaza. When I met President Abbas he detailed many deaths that occurred in Gaza in the context of the Christian community. Fr Musallam commented on one of the events, which was an attack and looting on the Latin Catholic church in Gaza and a nearby school run by nuns in 2007. From my knowledge of having visited Gaza, pressure has been put on the Christian community. There has been a series of attempts to impose a fundamentalist Muslim perspective on the workings in Gaza.

Archbishop Hanna was able to quickly put the deputy in his place."Deputy Shatter's speech was full of inaccuracies and non-factual statements," he said. "We are not here as politicians; we are men of spirituality and are talking about peace. At one point, I believed the deputy speaking was the Israeli ambassador, not an Irish parliamentarian.

Archbishop Hanna added: "I urge the deputy to check his facts. With regard to religious extremism and segregation, we are absolutely against any kind of religious fundamentalism, be it Jewish, Muslim or Christian. I and others from the Christian community and Muslim mosques, and even some Jewish people, work together against fundamentalism..."
"We do not need cookies from Israel"

The archbishop continued:

The problem in Palestine has nothing to do with religion – it is not a religious issue. It is not a conflict of Christians, Muslims and Jewish people. It is a conflict between those who are the holders of a rightful cause and those who took away that right by military might. Palestinian people as a whole, including Christians and Muslims, have said repeatedly that what they want is peace. We want two states that live together in peace. However, the reality on the ground is that we are extremely far away from that goal because Israel does not want peace.

He admitted there may be some Palestinian extremists who use religion in the wrong way, but he emphasized that the Church and its community stood against terrorism or violence wherever it comes from. Israel, he pointed out, has a violent attitude towards the Palestinians as a matter of state policy.

Fr Manuel added that Palestinians are not terrorists.

All we ask of Israel is to respect us and not treat us like animals. We also ask parliamentarians and governments across the world not to give us food aid. We do not need cookies from Israel. We do not even need to trade with Israel. All we need is to be protected. We are suffering a war that we have endured for more than 60 years.

If we have Hamas, then Israel has Sharon, Avigdor Lieberman, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and others. We do not agree with any of these fanatic persons on either side. Does Deputy Shatter expect us as Palestinians to protect those who occupy us?

"Be assured that Hamas will protect Christians in Gaza" – Haniyeh
Fr Manuel continued: "As for the church, Christianity in the region has been destroyed not by Muslims but by Israel. Israel destroyed the church of Palestine and the church of Jerusalem beginning in 1948. It, not Muslims, has sent Christians in the region into a diaspora."

He told his listeners how he had seen the Israeli army target the Christian school in Gaza.

Five Hamas ministers visited the school after it was attacked and promised they would repair the damage. Someone intended to create havoc in the area, particularly when Hamas and Fatah were clashing. When I visited the school, a Hamas minister, a Muslim, picked up the Holy Bible thrown on the ground, kissed it and put it back on the altar. He said Muslims were forbidden to do such things to the Bible. Hamas paid more than 122,000 dollars to repair all the damage caused.

Afterwards I met the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh. When he embraced me he said this, and we believed it. He said: "Go to your family, but be assured that Hamas will employ weapons against Muslims to protect Christians in Gaza." This is the reality. Christians in Palestine are not suffering persecution, because we are not considered to be a religious community, but rather the people of Palestine. We have the same rights and the same obligations.

Islamic fundamentalism ... came about because of the occupation of Palestine and the different wars we have suffered. It is a fact that there is fundamentalism in Palestine, yet if the occupation continues it will explode and destroy the world, not just us.

He finished by telling them what it's really like:

We have spoken to Israel for more than 18 years and the result has been zero. We have signed agreements here and there at various times and then when there is a change in the government of Israel we have to start again from the beginning. We ask for our life and to be given back our Jerusalem, to be given our state and for enough water to drink. We want to be given more opportunity to reach Jerusalem. I have not seen Jerusalem since 1990.

He described the nightmarish system of entry and exit permits, which Israel invariably refused. "We want to see an end to this occupation, and please do not ask us to protect those who are occupying our territory.
"They shoot at any farmer who tends to his land"
Mr Dabbagh rounded off the churchmen's contribution:

We are not just a community but part and parcel of the whole society. This does not mean that we have not encountered any difficulties. Such difficulties come from those extremists who derive their raison d'être, unfortunately, from the policies of the West. They are even very dangerous to Hamas, which is giving protection to the Christians, whenever it is needed.

We hate to see rockets being launched from Gaza, but committee members should consider the state of Israel with its arsenal of weapons and the destruction which is being inflicted on Gaza. I would like them to come to Gaza again and witness the daily incursions over the border... These daily incursions are led by tanks and bulldozers. The Israelis keep a buffer zone of between 300 metres and 500 metres along a 45 km strip of the border with Gaza... They shoot at any farmer who tends to his land.

As regards the two-state solution, he asks what state they want Palestinians to accept:

Do they want us to have cantons here and there and call them viable? The state of Palestine next to the state of Israel should be in compliance with UN resolutions, which means that Israel should evacuate Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem to give Palestinians the opportunity to establish our state, in order to have security for Israel and for us Palestinians as well.

We are suffering from the siege. People cannot travel for medical treatment, for education, for normal business. I could not get into the West Bank or Jerusalem to attend meetings or prayers. A number of Christians in Gaza are given permits to go there at Christmas time and for the New Year, but many others are deprived. My children are under 35 years and they could not go. Are they not allowed to go to church until they are 35 and older? This is unfair.

Muslims are deprived completely and this creates another struggle between Christians and Muslims. Muslims see a few hundred of us getting out at Christmas, but they are not allowed to get out to pray in Jerusalem.

The inhuman conditions imposed by Israel should be stopped but that won't happen, he says, "unless the international community brings a just peace, ends the occupation and allows for the establishment of a Palestinian state next to the Israeli state in accordance with UN resolutions".

Deputy Marie Crawley intervened with a no-nonsense challenge to a suggestion from another deputy that the international community and the negotiations need to be approached with balance.

This is not a balanced situation. This is not a conflict of equals. This is an occupation. We have an occupier and we have an occupied people. We have an oppressor and we have an oppressed people. We have a powerful people and we have a powerless people. To approach that situation with balance is to side with the occupier.

The international community does not need to approach the situation with a sense of balance, but needs to exert pressure on the state of Israel until such time as it complies with international law and ends the occupation.

Earlier, the church leaders met the minister for foreign affairs, Michael Martin, and stressed the need for Ireland and other Western states to put pressure on Israel to comply with international law and UN Security Council resolutions. They urged the Irish government to consider the preferential trade relations Israel has been allowed enjoy with the EU.

Mr Martin also agreed to raise the issue of Palestinian students being prevented by Israel from travelling to Europe to participate in the EU's Erasmus Programme (a scheme for higher education students to spend part of their studies in another European country) while encouraging and allowing Israeli students to do so.

By coincidence, John Ging, Director of Operations in Gaza for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, happened to be in town and bumped into the Holy Land trio at the gates of the Irish parliament. Ging was pleasantly surprise to see familiar Gaza faces in Dublin (see photo).

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.