What is History? And the party pooper gets serious again

Now, it is difficult to imagine that anyone who lists Andrew J. Bacevich's, 'Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War', Richard McGregor's, 'The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers', Slavoj Žižek's, 'Living in the End Times', Andrew Feinstein's, 'The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade' and Illan Pappe's, 'The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel', as their last five reads, can be the life and soul of the party.

Therefore, actually being quite a sociable chap, the author of this post turned to Julian Barnes's 'The Sense of an Ending' for a light hearted, not so cognitively challenging, read; a something to talk about when a little bit more than the state of English football was required, but, more importantly, a something that might be just a wee bit more fun to read than any of the above.

However, it is not always that easy and there on pages 16, 17 and 18 of Barnes's book, the ever so serious ego was distracted by one particular answer that the history teacher, Joe Hunt, elicited when he asked the question, "What is History"? "History is that certainty produced at the point where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of documentation," Adrian Finn answers. A good answer but with obvious limitations and the temptation is to advise any budding historian to read the dialogue that ensues between Hunt and Finn rather than the 158 pages in E.H.Carr's 'What is History?'

Almost everything we need is in these three pages and when Hunt explains that, "historians need to treat a participant's own explanation of events with a certain scepticism", isn't he only echoing E.H. Carr who wrote, "the facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context"?  Nevertheless, while almost everything we need is in these three pages there is another factor that both Barnes's "Joe Hunt" and Edward Hallet Carr appear to have missed. What if, the historian calls on the facts but presents the facts in a context that we can only find morally reprehensible? What if, someone were not to deny the holocaust, but rather to argue that it was necessary? Would this not upset our sensibilities to such an extent that we had no choice but to put the book down?

And so it is with the Zionist historian, Benny Morris who correctly concludes that there was indeed an ethnic cleansing of Palestine. What a genuis! Unfortunately, he then argues that this was necessary in 1948 and that  David Ben-Gurion's failure to expel all Arab Israelis might mean that it might be necessary to finish the job in the future. Yes, Barnes's "Hunt" is correct whe he says, "historians need to treat a participant's own explanation of events with a certain scepticism", and Carr is, of course, correct when he says, the facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context." However, what do we have when the historian puts ethnic cleansing into a context where it is morally justifiable?

Finally, if this has developed into another party pooper post, my apologies. However, if you are an undergrad who wants to get to that disco at the student's union on friday you might want to thank me. You may just have been saved the torture of reading not only the 158 pages of party pooping E.H. Carr, but also, and more importantly, you might just have added Benny Morris to your list of "historians to avoid. Anyway, I will now read Mr Barnes's novel as it is meant to be read, you can confine yourselves to pages 16, 17 and 18 of the book and enjoy the party.

The mainstream media and the coming war on Iran

With Yigal Palmor, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, neither willing  to discuss who was injured nor the extent of the injuries "because it was a security matter" , we can only speculate as to how bad the injuries sustained by Tal Yehoshua, the 40 year old wife of an Israeli Defence Attache, who herself is a diplomat, were.

Nevertheless, with her not only being conscious yesterday, but also "talking to her family" (ibid), there is no need to assume the worst for her. That might be good news, but that is not how it is going to be reported and already we have the mainstream press moving away from 'Haaretz's', "moderately wounded" from yesterday to today's "critically injured" and having undergone surgery "to remove splinters from her spine and liver."

The media mood swing helps prepare us all for the coming war and not only in Israel. Germany's 'Bild Zeitung' is right up there with 'The Sun' when it comes to quality journalism and, with a circulation of almost four million, it is at least as popular. Today, we had the pictures of the burning car along with a story of a critical Israeli diplomat. We can almost expect a "serves them right" from Otto Normalverbraucher when the bombs fall on Iran. Of course, we might wonder if it officials didn't immediately known "whether the explosion was caused by a bomb", who decided it was and when did they decide?

The picture depicts 'Die Bild Zeitung' reporting "bomb terror and two instances of Israeli diplomats being attacked, the other one was the case of the defused device in Tblissi, with the burning car after the explosion.

Armageddon

The 'Guardian' reports:
"Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has accused Iran of being behind twin attacks on Israeli targets in India and Georgia on Monday in a move likely to further escalate tensions between the two countries and increase international pressure on the Iranian regime." 
 And then goes on to add that:
"Iran described the accusations as "sheer lies". Mehdi Nabizadeh, Iran's ambassador to Delhi, was quoted as saying by IRNA: "Any terrorist attack is condemned [by Iran] and we strongly reject the untrue comments by an Israeli official. These accusations are untrue and sheer lies, like previous times."

Moreover, with the Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, every bit as "certain" the Prime Minister as to who is behind the attacks, we mind start to worry about this, latest, development, after all according to Lieberman, Israel knows  "exactly who is responsible for the attack and who planned it, and we're not going to take it lying down." And, the proof that Iran is behind the attacks? Well according to 'Haaretz':  "The incidents on Monday come one day after the fourth anniversary of the assassination of Hezbollah's deputy leader, Imad Mughniyah, a killing the Islamist organization blames on Israel."  Nevertheless, pretexts, incidents, must, and will, be found no matter how absurd those pretexts are.


However, with the chances of a multi-sided civil war in Syria "with those groups that are being armed covertly by NATO via Turkey and Qatar having an advantage in hardware," increasing by the hour, and with that coming conflict leaving Iran bereft of its potential ally on the eve of an Iraeli attack,  even the most myopic of us should not only be suspicious when Israel starts to point the finger after a failed bomb attack in New Delhi and neutralized device in Tblissi, but also aware of who the real criminals are.

It is important that we are for with Robert Frisk reporting that the conflict in Syria has already spilled over into Lebanon,and with Israel and the West's continued "collective delusion of grandeur (and) illusion of the power to make reality ” we could very well be on course for a conflict that could indeed put us on the road to Armageddon (ibid).

Tears of Gaza

 In considering the posts from wednesday and friday, it is, perhaps, appropriate to give readers the opportunity to watch the Norwegian film actress and director, Vibeke Lokkeber's, documentary film, 'Tears of Gaza' .

As the Palestinian American author, Susan Abulhawa, quite rightly says; "Vibeke Lokkeberg has given us a monumentally important record of what happened in December 2009 to January 2010; so no one can ever say "I didn't know." (ibid). It is time to close that gap between what we can know and what we want to know.  Watching this film might just facilitate our achieving that.

The Forgotten Palestinians

In his book 'The Forgotten Palestinians' Ilan Pappé argues that those Arab Israeli citizens who were trying to negotiate their own modus vivendi with the Israeli state by choosing a "third space" were faced with an even more determined Israeli Jewish polity that was "willing to discuss a compromise over the occupied territories, but was unwilling to accept the bi-national reality in the pre-1967 Israel." (Pappe: 155).

Of course, the "compromise" that the majority of Israeli Jews were, and are, willing to consider for the occupied territories has to be questioned and it might be concluded here that Pappe is refering to the Israeli Jewish polity, or body politic, in its widest sense for, as he himselves knows, there was never going to be any real compromise by the Zionists when it came to "their" "Judea and Samaria". Something that is further evidenced by the ongoing Orwellian "legal" efforts to legalise the illegal settlements.

The ethnic cleansing of all of mandatory Palestine, or of as much of it as possible, is a very real expression of Zionism's "Raison d'être". Indeed, while Pappe quite rightly says that,"the inevitable logic of Zionism and its ability, or rather inability, to accept another national minority in the midst of the Jewish state", (ibid) it has to be emphasised that the "Jewish democracy" has never defined its borders and has yet to legalise most of its annexations.

Mr Pappe knows this and none of it should detract from his worthwhile reminder of the Arab Israeli population's fate. However, it is a fate that that community shares, and will continue to share, with all Palestinians. Indeed, if there were any doubts regarding that fact they were dispelled as recently as four weeks ago when Israel’s High Court "upheld a law that specifically excludes Palestinians from applying for permanent residency or Israeli citizenship by virtue of marriage to an Israeli." Moreover, there can be no doubt that the Israelis being referred to are Arab Israelis, for, while the precise number of mixed marriages in Israel between Arabs and Jews is unknown, they are extremely rare.  It is, of course, a racist law.

Jonathan Cook, in his book 'Blood and Religion: The Umasking of the Jewish and Democratic State', provides us with a wonderful exposé of the racist state that would implement such a law and shows us how there will be attempt to redraw the Green line to create a state where only Jewish blood and Jewish religion count. The book was published in 2006 but with a population and territory swap, as part of an eventual peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians now being the subject of "normal" discourse among Israeli Jews, the author can hardly be accused of fanciful thinking. All the more so since, to varying degrees, a population transfer is now accepted by all major politicians from Livni to Lieberman with the latter going so far as to present his plan to the United Nations.

We should have no illusions; in 1940 the director of the Jewish National Fund's Land Department, Yosef Weitz, was provided with a Zionist perspective that is just as relevant now as it was then, when he said:
"It must be clear tht there is no room in the country for both peoples .... There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer all of them, save perhaps for Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one tribe. The transfer must be directed at Iraq, Syria, and even Transjordan." (Cook: 97)
Tomorrow the transfer will be directed at those Israeli Arabs who live in the triangle, while the project to judiaze the Negev and Galilee is already ongoing.


We need not doubt the fate of the Palestinians if the Zionist project is allowed to succeed. Those in the occupied territories will be joined in their "Bantustans" by the population of the triangle, while those living inside the "Green Line" will be confined, providing they sign a loyalty oath and recognize Israel as a Jewish state, mainly to Nazareth and parts of East Jerusalem. There will, of course, be no viable state on the West Bank and in Gaza and for those Palestinians whose right of return is affirmed by UN resolution 194 there will be ...... nothing. This is not about compromise, it is about basic human rights, for the Palestinians in Israel, in the Occupied Territories and in the diaspora. It is a matter which should concern all of us.

A dangerous diplomat, a dangerous politician, and a dangerous businessman

 'Haaretz' describes him as, “Not just an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador” and there can be nothing wrong with that. At least not in my book; Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist ..... who cares but we might at least expect Britain's ambassador to the Zionist state, Matthew Gould, to have Britain's interests at heart. However, when he says on his appointment that "You cannot do this job without being a passioniate Zionist"  and is quck to publically reaffirm his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism we should really wonder if there might not be a potential conflict of interests here.

Certainly not for Mr Gould who, at an event to raise awareness and support for Kibbutz Eshbal, was "genuinely moved by the inclusive Zionist vision".  For a lesson on just how inclusive Zionism is we might want to direct Mr Gould to Ilan Pappe or Jonathan Cook. Of course, in considering his obvious bias and prejudice and the emotive drivel above we shouldn't expect the British ambassador to find the cognitive engagement that any real academic discourse with Zionism requires. Nevertheless, he would still do well to go to his employer's own website where he can read in the travel advice section:
 Entry Requirements - ...... If you are a British national with a Palestinian name or place of birth but without a Palestinian ID number, you may face problems. Be aware that a number of British nationals of Palestinian origin or British nationals married to Palestinian nationals have been refused entry since May 2006.
We might wonder if the inclusive" vision" mentioned above could see Mr Gould trying to stop this sort of racial prejudice against British citizens.

However, what is more worrying than his toleration of discrimination against a particular group of British citizens  are the meetings Gould had with the then Minister of Defence Liam Fox and the Minister's close friend, Adam Werritty. All the more so considering the latters links to both the arms industry  and Israel with the 'Independent' reporting on the 16th October 2011that "Mr Werritty was so highly regarded by Mossad - who thought he was Dr Fox's chief of staff - that he was able to arrange meetings with figures at the highest levels of the Israeli government." 

A raving Zionist ambassador, a businessman with links to the arms industry, the military industrial complex in the United States and the Israeli government, and a British minister, and government, with close links to the American neo-cons. There is, indeed, evidence to suggest that Craig Murray's plot to attack Iran is more than just fanciful thinking and when the British ambassador in Tel Aviv gets to say to his Zionist friends: “My government absolutely agrees with your conception of the Iranian threat and the importance of your determination to battle it.” Dealing with the Iranian threat will be a large part of my work here.” he and "his"government are all too aware of what that "dealing with" actually implies and Mr Werritty gets all giddy at the prospect of the rich pickings in the not too distant future.


Finally, if what has been written seems to involve too much conjecture, the reader should take time to read Craig Murray's posts from today and yesterday in order to garner a more informed opinion..Riveting stuff indeed and should the bombs start falling, we might at least be aware that the war criminals are in the British business community, the political establishment and Civil Service. Among other places, of course.

"Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide"

"Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide,"  wrote Asher Grunis, one of the judges in the Israeli supreme court's 6-5 majority ruling upholding the ban on thousands of Palestinians who are married to Israeli citizens from joining their Israeli-Arab partners.

One is reminded of the Zionist historian Benny Morris who views ethnic cleansing as a necessity in Israel's case and, therefore, not morally reprehensible. Indeed, the decision made by the Israeli supreme court would appear to support Morris's hypothesis that not only was the ethnic cleansing necessary, but that it was "unfortunately" left unfinished and "the Israeli Arabs ar a  time bomb ...... a potential fifth column." Of course, anyone who either believes that human rights should be sacrificed for a mythical national ethos, or that ethnic cleansing might be a necessary evil are inevitably morally bankrupt.

The oxymoron Jewish "democracy", built on ethnic cleansing, while flaunting international law and the human rights of 20% of its population can never have any moral high ground. It is a hypocritical farce and the its pseudo democrats and intellectuals are farcical hypocrites.

Obama and support for Israel

Speaking before the Union for Reform Judaism conference in Maryland on Friday, President Obama stressed that his administration has done more than any other to support Israel. There is no need to look for the details that might substantiate that statement for in doing so we might only conclude that the Obama administration has done at least as much as those of Ronald Reagan, George H Bush, Bill Clinton and George W Bush in bending over backwards to support the Zionist state. It has done no more and no less and the evidence would appear to suggest that Washington's support for Israel, is and has been for a long time, unconditional.

Nevertheless, the political discourse needed to sell this unconditional support is still required. Therefore, we have Obama telling the conference that:
"We stand with Israel as a Jewish and democratic state," he said. "America's commitment and my commitment to security of Israel is unshakeable."  Of course, this oxymoronic jargon is nothing new but it does have a continued appeal; we have "a democratic state" and nobody has the right to deny any people their right to self determination. Values that are as American as apple pie and values which "middle America" just loves to identify with.

Of course, the reality that another people have to be ethnically cleansed for the Jewish state to come into existence and the reality that 20% of the population of Israel are being effectively disenfranchised in this "Jewish state" is being ignored. Therefore, we might do well to pick up on this gobblydegook by pointing out that only when a state becomes a state for all of its citizens can it become democratic and that if that happens in Israel, it will, of course, no longer be an exclusively Jewish state.

 A "state for all its citizens" that really does sound as American as apple pie. Indeed, we might even be talking about the United States that Obama swore allegiance to. Now, wouldn't helping to establish this  kind of state in the region be really supporting Israel and who knows, once that state is established, it might not be important what it is called. At least it would be a viable and far preferable alternative to the "Bantustans" that they will call "Palestine" and the oxymoronic "Jewish Democracy" that we have at the moment.

Shalit suffered in captivity

We shouldn't delve into this nonsense too much. Nevertheless, whatever the nature of the  "harsh things" suffered by Gilad Shalit in captivity, it would do well to put them into perspective. 'Haaretz' reports:
"Noam Shalit, father of recently released Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, said on Thursday that claims his son was not tortured during his time in Hamas captivity should be taken "with a grain of salt."

We might wonder as to whether the man who was captured in the uniform of an occupying army and an army that less than two years ago slaughtered almost fifteen hundred men, women and children has similar pyschological problems  to the "91.4 percent of children in the Gaza Strip who are suffering moderate to severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder."However, if he does, unlike some of them, the IDF soldier, does appear to have all of his limbs and his senses. Indeed, Gilad, who still has his uniform hanging in his wardrobe, might live to "fight" another day.

There are, of course, those who might deem the above to be an unfair comparison. Therefore, it might be useful to consider the following:
"Under Israeli military law, which prevails in the Palestinian territories, the crime of throwing a stone at an Israeli solider or even at the monolithic 20-ft.-high "security barrier" enclosing much of the West Bank can carry a maximum 20-year-prison sentence. Since 2000, according to the Palestinian Ministry for Prisoner Affairs, more than 6,500 children have been arrested, mostly for hurling rocks."
Moreover, on reading this we might quickly come to the conclusion that many of those released a couple of days ago are incarcerated for of not much more than failing to kiss the boots of their oppressors. 

However, it is the following statistics that tell their own story:
"7000 prisoners in the occupation jails, including: - - 35 captive- 337 children- 15 members of the Legislative Council- 19 in solitary confinement- 2000 prisoners needing medical attention- 16 prisoners suffering from cancer- 160 suffering from heart diseases, kidney and blood pressure problems- 80 suffering from diabetes- 12 suffering from Hemiplegia- 40 Palestinian prisoners suffering from mental illnesses because of the psychological methods of interrogation used by the Israeli jailers and the prison authorities which include torture."

We can all come to our own conclusions regarding Gilad's suffering. However, on putting it into perspective, the less myopic of us might at least treat the following comment from his father with the contempt that it deserves.
"Gilad felt the Israeli bombings on the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead in 2008. "Gilad was in close proximity to the noise of the war," said Shalit, adding that "it's not a picnic to be in a building while above you there are F-15s and F-16s bombing [from above]." Indeed, we might be tempted to say to Gilad's father, "you have got your son back Mr Shalit, now just shut up and go away."

Is the two state solution dead and is a one state solution possible?

On looking at the map, the reason for the Palastinian/Arab rejection of the partition plan proposed by the UN general assembly in 1947 needs no further explanation. Again, we might want to revisit King, Victor Emmanuel III's "Ma è ancora casa di alltri". However, less understandable would appear to be the rejection of the British White Paper of 17 May 1939, which Gilbert Achcar quite rightly referes to as "the major historical error of the Palestinian national movement."

This document rejected the idea of creating a Jewish state on Palestinian soil and just as importantly, it not only declared itself in favour of limiting Jewish immigration for the next five years to 75,000 annually, but it also promised an independent Palestinian state, which would be ruled proportionally, within ten years. Therefore, even if we are to look at the map of Palestine at the time of the UN partition plan some nine years later, we would quickly conclude that that White Paper would appear to form the basis for  the best scenario that Palestinians could ever have hoped for. However, we might want to go further and in light the events since, there is enough evidence to suggest that any two-state solution has never been a viable alternative for Palestinians. Especially when we consider the aims of Zionism and the record of the Zionists

Indeed, the ongoing ethnic cleansing which began in 1948 and which continues to this day was always there to ensure that the Palestinians could never have a state of their own. Therefore, it should come as no surprise when we read in yesterday's 'Guardian' that Israel has decided to go ahead and build 1,100 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement. Of course, it comes as no surprise, this has been an ongoing pattern since 1948 and surely, surely, even the most myopic among us must realise that, as far as Israel is concerned, there is to be no two-state solution. That is why we might want to give a one-state solution as suggested by Ali Abunimah and others our consideration.

Unfortunately, while the 'Guardian' reports on a decision to expand the settlements as if it were real news, the real news is contained elsewhere in the article:
"An Israeli police investigation concluded that a settler and his infant son, who were killed when their car overturned last Friday, had been struck by a rock thrown by Palestinians. At their funeral on Sunday night, a rabbi called for "collective punishment" of Palestinians, saying "there are no innocents in a war".

In 1939 it was not only the Palestinians who rejected the British White Paper, but it was also vehemently opposed by the Zionist movement. With 500,000 settlers living in the Occupied Territories - in 1939 the total Jewish population of all of Palestine was less than 500,000 - and with not only individual Zionists calling for the collective punishment of Palestinians, but with it also being practiced by the Zionist state itself, the one state solution, like the two state solution, is at present a  chimera.  For either to be otherwise, it will require condemning Zionism, like other forms of colonialism, to the dustbin of history and that is where the real political struggle lies.

UN speeches US backed peace process is dead

 
Phyllis Bennis, author of 'Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict' and a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, and Director of its New Internationalism Program, reveals all and nothing in conversation with the 'Real News's Paul Jay.

However, it is neither the possible possibilities that are now available to the Palestinians that should attract our attention; or do we actually believe that that privileged little elite at home in its "Ramallah bubble" will sacrifice itself in the name of Palestinian unity, nor is it Abbas's speech itself, which contained nothing unexpected, but rather the puerile polemic spouted out by Netanyahu.  Do these people actually believe that the decision made at Wannsee on January 20, 1942 to exterminate European Jewry is actually relevant to their, Zionist's claims, on someone else's land?

Hitler, it might be pointed out, was eight years old when the first Zionist Congress took place, Netanyahu himself talks about rights going back 4,000 years and, of course, the Zionists have no doubt that God gave them the land. Obviously, a God who didn't have an ear for King Emmanuel III's "Ma è ancora casa di alltri". Of course, the pathos which Netanyahu seeks to envoke is not based on any real grief but rather it is an attempt to gain moral and, ultimately, political capital from the slaughter of European Jewry. However, while it is the Palestinians who, in their suffering, can better empathise with those who suffered and died in the Nazi death camps, the Israeli Prime Minister's ploy is just one more example of what Norman Finkelstein calls, "the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history". Once again we have the victimisers portraying themselves as the victims. However, if the aforementioned drivel just doesn't wash, It is the manner in which that theme is continued in the rest of the speech that is both offensive and worrying.

There is the link established between the Nazis and Iran, which might allow us to rightly worry about Israeli intentions and then there are the ungrateful Palestinians, who bombarded Israel with missiles for eight years, after Israel had voluntarily left Gaza. Gaza is, of course, still de facto occupied but are we being told here that there is no way Israel can evacuate the West Bank? Are we being told that a few "Bantustans" is going to be the Palestinian "state" and that if the Palestinians have their "state", they better behave themselves and do as they are told?

Of course, what happened in Gaza at the end of 2008 and January 2009 can always serve as a warning. Dr Finkelstein has written a good book on those events entitled 'This Time We Went Too Far', the problems is that these people do not understand "too far". How can they? They are pathological liars, they are hypocrites, they are murders. However, when we read of Netanyahu finishing a speech at the UN by quoting "the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago", we can better understand and in understanding we realise that not only are they liars, hypocrites and murderers, but that they are also quite mad. Of course, theirs being a collective condition, they probably don't realise that they are actually insane. Nevertheless, while we won't be able to put them all into a straight jacket, we can at least try to ignore their gobbledegook and get them to obey the law.

The world turned upside down

A couple of days ago I cited the Italian King, Victor Emmanuel III, responding in 1904 to Theodor Herzl's request for a Jewish state by saying "Ma è ancora casa di alltri" (But it is still the home of other people). Moreover, it is unreasonable to suggest that the death camps and attempted extermination of European Jewry alters that fact. Having said that, however, if there is to be a bone fide case for the establishment of a Jewish state, it might follow logically that that state be in Europe. All the more so when there is enough evidence to suggest that the Israelis tend very much to see themselves as being firmly embedded in western civilisation. Therefore, what about Michael Ben Ari's, a member of the Israeli parliament, comments today?
"If the Palestinians want a state, they can go to Europe or the US – it's very nice there," said Michael Ben Ari, a member of the Israeli parliament. "This is the land of Israel and we are here forever."

Now, while many Israelis have at least two passports, not only is it extremely difficult for Palestinians to get into either Europe or America, but it is even more difficult to see any moral argument that might provide a modicum of support for any attempt to establish a state in Europe or America there. No, it is in fact the Palestinians who have nowhere to go and it is because of this that it is really time for them to establish their state. Only once that has happened can there be any real discussions as to the final status and remember Israel too has yet to define its borders. Indeed, once those borders have been defined, it might just be that many of those Israelis, who have an extra  "Jus Sanguinis", might just decide to discover their other home. Indeed, we might first expect many to be discovering an extra  "Jus Sanguinis". Today, it is the Palestinians who have nowhere to go.

Netanyahu: "We have rights going back 4,000 years."

In the post from a couple of days ago one of the major tenets upon which Zionists claims to a state on Palestinian lands rest was shown to have no support, or at least none that can be informed by reason. Today, 'Haaretz' tells us that Netanyahu intends to confront the UN General Assembly with the other major tenet upon which the state of Israel is based.

It would be a little bit too much for him to approach a hetrogeneous world with Judiasm very own divine right. Therefore, we are told that his purpose will be, "to present our truth, which is that we are not foreigners and we have rights going back 4,000 years."   Sensible people might, of course, ask, if this guy is actually being serious? Nevertheless, we will have the United States and Australia, to name but two states, who will be supporting this absurdity, even if, applying it to either the Americas or Australasia would result in an ethnic cleansing that would make even the one taking place now in Palestine rather insignificant.

"Ma è ancora casa di alltri" , there is no "homosuperior"

We can read in today's 'Haaretz' that Netanyahu "will agree to an upgrade of the Palestinian status, but not to statehood." At most, however the Israeili Prime Minister's comments are just one more example of that arrogance, which has distinguished Zionism since its very inception.  Indeed, as early as  January 23, 1904  in response to Theodor Herzl's request for a Jewish state, the Italian King, Victor Emmanuel III, is quoted as saying  "Ma è ancora casa di alltri" (But it is still the home of other people).

Nevertheless, over a hundred years after that response the Zionists are still ignoring international law and bombarding us a gobbledegook rhetoric, a puerile polemic, that ignores the most significant facts, including the most obvious one, which  is given suitable substance by  Gilber Achcar in his book 'The Arabs and the Holocaust', when he quotes an answer to Zionist accusations of Arab pro-Nazism, which appeared in the Arab daily "Filastin" on 17th June 1934:
"What authorizes the Jews to announce sorrowfully to the Arabs that a Nazi movement has sprung up   among them? Is it the Arabs who have driven the Jews from their land, or is it rather the Jews who are driving Arabs from their homes and persecuting the to the point of depriving them of human beings' most basic right, the right to life?" (Achcar: 49).

This is crucial and it should form the premise of any discourse on Palestine. Furthermore, it means that, despite the ongoing ethnic cleansing with new "facts"  being created on the ground by the Zionist occupation on a daily basis, the response to Netanyahu today can only the one made by King Victor Emmanuel III to Herzl's request back in 1904; "Ma è ancora casa di alltri".

This really isn't about Israel agreeing to Palestinian statehood and the real concession still to be made is the one where the Palestinians agree either to an Israeli state or one where they accept Israelis sharing a state with them. When that concession is made not only will we have peace in the Middle East, but we will also see the end of the Zionist "Übermensch", that  pseudo "homosuperior" whose intellectual antecedents can, to some extent, be found in an ideology which was indeed responsible for the holocaust itself.

My views on the demonstrations in Israel were made clear in last Monday's post. However, if we can see past the the leader of Haifa’s Carmel tent city, Yossi Baruch's, demand for "a welfare state (and) free education for every girl and boy, from the moment maternity leave ends and until the child finishes a doctorate", and return to the initial demands for affordable housing, we might at least suspect that any eventual evacuation of the settlements has become just that little bit more difficult to envisage.

Nevertheless, while only a week ago I was viewing the demonstrations as just another a attempt by the Zionist state to escape that "hamatzav " which must inform their everyday realities, there is some evidence to suggest that we might not be totally pessimistic regarding the Palestinian cause for even if we suspect that the solidarity between Israeli Jews and Arabs in, for instance, Haifa will dissipate once "the situation" has reasserted itself, there is no need to doubt the writer Sami Michael's sincerity when he told a crowd in Arabic:
 “At age 85, it’s hard to be optimistic but the younger generation today makes me feel optimistic. Today the public is showing for the first time a connection between classes, between cities and villages, between Arabs and Jews, and I don’t remember anything like this in Haifa. The impact of the Middle East has reached us, too,” 

Unfortunately, while we might not doubt Mr Michael's sincerity and forgive him his optimism, there is enough evidence to suggest that he suffers from that euphoria and myopia which indeed also affected those who took to the streets in Cairo and elsewhere in the Arab world. There too "the situation" has reasserted itself, nowhere was there a real revolution, and to expect that there can be any real change in the Zionist state can come about because of these demonstrations is actually quite absurd.

"Hamatzav"

While sitting in Eccleshall Road's Caffè Nero.on Monday the story on "hundreds of thousands" protesting over the cost of living in Tel Aviv was picked up on in hard copy of 'The Times'. Unfortunately, with Daniel Finkelstein getting us to pay for the Murdoch press's "quality journalism" no link can be provided. Still, with 'Al Jazeera' already having run the same story on Sunday, there is, at least, no reason to doubt the accuracy of 'The Times' report. It might, however, be pointed out that a regular100-square-metre flat  in modest middle-class neighborhoods in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv costing upwards of $600,000 is not something that interests me in the slightest and why should it when the ethnic cleansing of Palestine has long since extended to Israel "proper"? Are we being asked to view this as a "human interest" story when Arab families are being evicted from their homes in East Jerusalem on a daily basis and when the ongoing ethnic cleansing of what is left of Palestine continues unabated?

Of course, this is not meant to be a "human interest" story and what it does in fact represent, as the demonstrations in Tel Aviv itself represents, is an example of what Slavoj Žižek refers to in his book 'Living in the End Times' as a longing for an alternate reality that as become embedded in the Israeli's psyche. This is an attempt to cast off what Israelis call "hamatzav", "the situation"; a situation which is determined by the occupation, Gaza, the electric fence, a situation which permeates their lives at every level. This is Israelis crying out, "we are just normal people who want to live normal lives." It is, of course absurd and no matter how they loud they scream their political reality is, and will continue to be, dominated by the ongoing ethnic cleansing of a country that is not  theirs, by the bombing and murder of innocent men, women and children and by a brutal occupation that has now being in existence for forty four years. These are the questions that have to be addressed and until they are there can be no escape from "hamatzav" and there can be no normality.

Massacre in Norway breaks Peres's heart and Netanyahu knows the families' agony.

When we read of Peres saying that the massacre in Norway "was a tragedy that hurts and touches every human being,"  and, when Netanyahu tells Oslo how the Zionist state can understand the pain that the families of the victims are facing, revulsion turns to nausea. We might puke and we might also realise that, unless thousands of dead Palestinians are being referred to inadvertently, that these criminals have lived their lie for so long that they no longer recognise the extent of the deceit and crimes that they are involved in.

.... and the band played believe it, if you like

Listening to Hague at the moment talking live on the BBC and isn't the hypocrisy disgusting? There they are monitoring human rights specifically in Libya, Syria and Yemen at and has he forgotten about Bahrain and his mates in Saudi, and what about just about the biggest human rights abuse of them all; the ethnic cleansing in Palestine! Still, Iran gets a mention and so does China ..... "human rights, human rights, human rights", a universal right, and "blah, blah, blah".

Disgusting hypocrites, indeed, and after Cameron yesterday, "drawing a line in the desert sand", we might not be surprised to hear the news that the CIA and MI6 are at work in Libya, after all Washington itself has already made no secret of its support for covert actions. Still, let us look at it positively, after all, it is all about "human rights" and "democracy", isn't it? Yes, the people of Bahrain and Palestine have reason to hope and the band played believe it if you like.

Goebbels to teach Jews in Warsaw Ghetto history of German persecution by Mongols

It is really only when we look to Israel that any need to synthesize becomes absurd and it becomes all too apparent that the existence of the Zionist state, "our" oxymoron Jewish "democracy" epitomizes that absurdity. There really are no two sides to the so-called conflict and so it is left to the ethnic cleansers to manufacture them and what about the following for their latest effort to create substance to their "argument". The United Nations has launched a new plan to teach the Holocaust in Gaza schools .... and we do not need to be a Sherlock Homes to deduce who got UN to do that, do we?

Isn't it a bit like a "chip on the shoulder" American redneck wanting to tell some Afghan villagers of the horrors of 9/11, while hoping that the said villagers might then be convinced of the necessity of their houses being bombed? Of course, there is an alternative and what about teaching Israeli children the real lesson to be learned from the holocaust? Namely, that ethnic cleansing, and persecution of another people, is morally wrong and can never be morally justified. Methinks, that until that happens Palestinians really don't have any need to learn about the holocaust. After all, they have one of their own and it is still on-going. Nevertheless, if you redneck analogy isn't enough to tell you how absurd this really is, then it might be worth pointing out the the title on Norman Finkelstein introduced the article with: "Goebbels to teach Jews in Warsaw Ghetto history of German persecution by Mongols." Not too sure if the Mongols actually persecuted the Germans, still .... get the point?

Democratic Change in the Middle East

""The world must intervene immediately and stop Muammar Gadhafi," Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel said yesterday, referring to the Libyan leader," while Ehud Barak tells us that the "Mideast unrest" must not culminate in revolutionary regimes and 'Haaretz' informs us that "the US should direct Mideast storm of change towards Iran."

While we are all happy to see the movement towards change in the Arab world and while we would welcome similar change in Iran, does the hypocritical soundings from the oxymoron "Jewish Democracy" not make you want to vomit? If not what about Ehud Barak continuing to stick up for his old mate and informing us that "Mubarak still enjoys respect of many Egyptians, adding that his dignity should be preserved." Yes, they are going to feel a trifle isolated down in Zionistan when they are surrounded by a sea of unfriendly democratic "regimes" who start to demand equal rights for the native population of Palestine.

Sort of caught between the devil and the deep blue sea they are and who knows we might even find the Mossad "Stern Gang" and their mates from the CIA facilitating the Lenin and Robespierre option just to see their "worst fears" validated and keep them in that little state of permanent war without which their little farce would come tumbling down.

In the meantime the 'Guardian' reports that Gaddafi is getting ready for his "Little Big Horn', the middle class have started to organise things in Libya's second city, Benghazi, David Cameron has apologised for the slow evacuation of British citizens and, with the stakes high in oil rich and strategically important Libya, what are the chances of the West already pulling the strings behind the scenes and if, contrary to the scenario outlined in the first paragraph of this post, there are going to be democracies in the region ..... well, we might at least get them to follow the "Washington Rules" and if they need help in setting up their little shams, we can always send someone from Jerusalem to help them.