Neturei Karta has a Solution to the Middle-East Problem

The world has suffered for decades from the unsolvable "Middle East and Palestine issue". Why hasn't anyone managed to solve the problem yet?

The root of the problem: The Palestinians want back the land that was robbed from them in 1948. The Israelis do not want to return it, claiming that it was "lawfully granted to them by the United Nations".

The existence of a "Jewish State" is a historical mistake, and it is an injustice that increasing numbers of people are no longer willing to accept. The Zionist "government" has forfeited its right to exist.

There is actually no longer a state, but only a "problem". An unsolvable Middle East problem, which threatens the entire world with destruction. The danger resulting from this problem may lead to the greatest catastrophe in human history, if we do not intervene.

The problem can only be solved peacefully and permanently, in our opinion, through the following simple steps:

1) The State of "Israel" must be dissolved. The UN decision of 1947 to partition Palestine and create the State of Israel must be recognized as a mistake, and undone.

2) The Palestinian people must take full sovereignty over the entire land of Palestine.

3) Jews who already live in Palestine may remain in the country under Palestinian rule, and may request that the Palestinians grant them equal citizenship.

4) Implementation: The UN should prepare laws that regulate the execution of the above process so that it should be as equitable, humane and painless as possible. A sufficiently long time must be allotted for the process to take place.

We have reached the point at which Jews and Arabs seem to have in common only their pent-up hatred against each other and longing for revenge. But they must try from now on to live together in mutual respect.

This solution seems, at first glance, revolutionary, sensational, perhaps even utopian. But it is the only solution that affords a real prospect of success and a way out of this otherwise insolvable crisis. All other "plans" and "solutions" lead nowhere.

Let's look at the exceptional advantages that will be achieved by following the above plan:

1. The continuing threats posed to the world from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran's nuclear threat, Israel's nuclear threat, Israel's threat to bomb Iran and more will be removed from the world.

2. The oppression of the Palestinian people at the hands of the "State of Israel" will come to an end. Human dignity and livelihood will be restored to them once again.

3. The global threat of rising anti-Semitism, wanted and coldly calculated by the Zionists from their inception, will come to an end, since its main cause is the atrocities currently perpetrated by the Zionists against their Arab "subjects".

4. The astronomical sums spent by the U.S. and other countries each year to support and arm the Israeli state will become available for use to implement peace in the region.

5. Many countries, most notably the U.S., will become free from the powerful Zionist Lobby. These countries will be free to make their own decisions as to what best serves their interests, without having to depend on the goodwill and consent of the lobby.

The political background and motivation of this plan is simple, logical, and self-evident. But even from the religious Jewish perspective, this plan is logical and compelling. In fact, from this perspective no other solution is possible or conceivable.

Consider the following remarks on religious Jewish thought:

Religious Judaism and the Land of Israel

Two thousand years ago, the Jews were sent into exile by God's decree, where they must remain until they are redeemed by God, as He has assured them through the prophets. The idea of a return to the country prematurely, without divine redemption, is wrong. In view of this, the Land of Israel belongs to those who have lived there for hundreds of years: the Palestinians.

The idea of a premature return was first conceived of by the Zionists, who at the beginning were a small Godless group, completely rejected by mainstream Jewry. They forced their plan upon the Jewish world through years of political maneuvering. Their slogan was that the Jewish people would finally stop waiting for divine salvation. "It is now time to take our destiny into our own hands," they said. "We must forget our past; we must leave behind the Divine message and the ancient role of the Jewish people in the world. Israel, the people of the Bible, must be transformed into a secular nation."

The majority of the Jewish people resisted this idea vehemently and wanted to know nothing of the Zionists' solution and their Zionist state. Thus Zionism went forward in the face of the strong opposition of the vast majority of Jews.

Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust

The level of anti-Semitism in the world has now reached such proportions as we have known only in the years immediately before the outbreak of World War II. It is fueled by the Zionist atrocities against the Palestinian population. Eighty years ago, anti-Semitism was instigated and fanned by the Zionists. They cleverly organized defamation campaigns against the Jews of Europe, with the aim of causing the ground to burn under their feet, so that they should feel the need to flee and take refuge in the new "Jewish State ". It worked then, and it works again today.

We look at today's Zionist activity in consternation, yet the Zionists tell the world that it is a duty and an honor to support their movement in any way. Whoever is negligent in this duty or, worse yet, exposes something about the Zionists, is branded an 'anti-Semite'.

For this purpose, the Zionists have built a global lobby which, especially armed with the Holocaust card, is able to stifle any attempted criticism of Israel.

How the "Israeli state" was Founded

After the great destruction of the Jews in Europe, the Jews were rootless and bleeding. For the most part, they succumbed to the thoughts and plans of the Zionists and willingly followed them into their so-called Promised Land. Only a small part, in particular the faithfully religious affiliated Jews, did not follow and have remained to this day bitter enemies of their idea and their state.

The international community, out of compassion and a sense of duty, perhaps even a sense of guilt, agreed to the idea of a refuge and permanent homeland for the broken and uprooted Jewish people. For this the international community deserves recognition, praise and gratitude.

The idea to use Palestine for this homeland seemed right and logical at the time, and was implemented in the historic UN decision of 1947. But this decision brought with it an equally historic injustice: the country was simply robbed from the Palestinian residents, who had been there over a thousand years. They abandoned their homes, and Jews settled there instead. The "State of Israel" was born!
Wrongly. And wrongly, it is still standing today, after over 60 years.

The Turning Point

The time has come when the "Zionist redemption" has suffered shipwreck, and the historical error of the Jewish people and the world community must be reversed. The former global enthusiasm about the creation of the "Jewish State" is no longer there. It has dissolved into thin air. The dream has become a nightmare.

More and more people feel unease and opposition to the continued atrocities of the Zionist movement, today "the State of Israel." The truth - that "anti-Zionism" does not equal "anti-Semitism" - is beginning to surface.

Zionism is not Judaism, and Judaism is not Zionism.

On the contrary, the two concepts stand in stark contrast to each other! The Zionists, now in the dress of the "State of Israel", are not entitled to represent the Jewish people. Nobody has assigned them to this role; they have taken it on their own. Today, fewer and fewer people believe in this fiction. More and more people understand that the whole Middle East, thanks to the existence of the State of Israel, has become one big explosive powder keg, which can ignite at any time and plunge the entire world into the abyss. At the same time people are also beginning to understand, that by dissolving this State that does not belong in this region at all, the situation in the Middle East will finally stabilize.

This solution should actually be undertaken by the Jews who live there themselves, once they understand that it is a sin to break loose from a divinely-imposed exile, and that the way to repent of that sin is to go back to living in exile. However, the Israeli population is far from coming to such a recognition. The majority of the population is firmly rooted in fanatically-held beliefs that they live in the utopia of "redemption", and that they have returned to the land of their fathers.

Meanwhile, however, their state represents a quickly growing threat in its region of the world, threatening to plunge the world into an inferno.

That our solution is, for the most part, "religiously motivated" is not surprising: Whether we want to admit it or not, the people of Israel since time immemorial have been the people of God and nothing else. We are not "a nation like all nations"; we have received our laws and life goals from God on Mount Sinai, and we have faithfully adhered to and always upheld them. That is, until about one hundred years, when the great catastrophe, the Zionist movement, arose with the aim of transforming the Jewish people into a nation like all nations. They said: "We have no connection with God, no connection with Sinai. But by staying strong, together, we will solve our problems ourselves! We will have one country, one state, one army, one language, and everything a country needs. " And that is unfortunately what they did.

Today, after a hundred years of Zionism, we are facing a big mess. God has begun to show us that there is no escape from Him. The Zionists may have raised an insurrection against Him, but He will never accept it. He has been watching on the side for a long time, but it seems obvious that now He is manipulating world events to lead His people back to where He has always wanted it, and still wants it. Therefore, the solution to this problem is not only politically motivated, but also religiously motivated. Either it will be implemented by man, or by God himself.

This solution can only come about if there is pressure from the outside. The world, especially the UN, the U.S. and the EU, have the duty and the power to carry it out.

It is a political solution, but also a divine duty. Because, again, it is God who declares that the Zionist redemption of His people is not acceptable, and that His people must continue to live uninterrupted in exile, waiting for divine salvation. Redemption can only be left in the hands of the one God, and He will carry it out justly, according to His will. There is no other way to redeem the Jewish people. God will do exactly what He intends to do with His world. Israel will be redeemed by Him (not by the "State of Israel"), and the whole world will recognize God's kingdom.

The "redemption" is not reserved only for the people of Israel. God will redeem all of mankind. Peace will prevail all over the world. Every nation, every country and everyone will recognize God's regime and live in everlasting peace and satisfaction.

Now we are being given a unique, perhaps last chance to end the Zionist state on our own initiative, because if we do not, God will do it - the same God who sent His people into exile. He wants His people redeemed not by the Zionists but by Him alone, as He has repeatedly announced through the prophets. There is no getting around God's plan. Therefore, let us have the insight to put the solution into action under all circumstances. There is no time to lose!

Neturei Karta International – www.nkusa.org

Defeating the Terrorist State

A Racist Fascist Rogue Apartheid State Must NOT Exist

World Hated Land Thieves Recruiting Gazans for Intelligence Work

Officials said Israeli intelligence agencies have stepped up their recruitment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. They said the Israel Security Agency was recruiting Gazans for espionage operations through contact over the Internet and cellular phones.

"They want to check up on the situation in Gaza, and ask questions that trick citizens into cooperating with purported investigations," Hamas Interior Ministry official Mohammed Abu Abdullah said.

In April 2010, Hamas executed two Palestinians convicted of spying for Israel during the war in the Gaza Strip in 2009. Officials said Israeli intelligence agents were contacting Palestinians through such tools as Facebook and Twitter.

"The occupation [Israel] has begun to turn to Internet and phone lines — a common trick — in the recruitment of Palestinian citizens who willingly or not become collaborators," an official said.

Hamas warned Palestinians not to discuss any sensitive information over the telephone. In a statement on April 27, Abdullah said Israeli agents were posing as Palestinian and Western researchers and asking questions regarding the Gaza economy and other sectors.

Officials said Israeli intelligence appeared interested in locating key facilities around the Gaza Strip. They warned Palestinians not to respond and immediately hang up on unknown callers.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/me_hamas0353_04_29.asp

"An Overview of The Synagogue of Satan

Obama declares May Jewish American Heritage Month

U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday declared May Jewish American Heritage Month for 2010, calling it a time to honor "the invaluable contributions Jewish Americans have made to our nation."

Obama said in a statement that the U.S. has always been both a haven and a home for Jewish Americans, including those who arrived in the country "before America's birth" and those "who sought refuge from the horrors of pogroms and the Holocaust."

Obama went on to say that Jewish Americans have immeasurably enriched the national culture, while maintaining their own unique identity.

"During Jewish American Heritage Month we celebrate this proud history and honor the invaluable contributions Jewish Americans have made to our nation," Obama said.

"The Jewish American story is an essential chapter of the American narrative. It is one of refuge from persecution; of commitment to service, faith, democracy, and peace; and of tireless work to achieve success."

Obama added that Jewish Americans have influenced every facet of American life, including athletics, entertainment and the arts to academia, business, government, and the Armed Forces.

"We are a stronger and more hopeful country because so many Jews from around the world have made America their home," Obama said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1166542.html

"Petraeus is right"

Last month, Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee why he was an ardent supporter of special envoy George Mitchell's Middle East peace efforts, even though Israel and the Palestinian Authority aren't a part of his Central Command area of responsibility:

“I keep a very close eye on what goes on” in the Israeli-Palestinian issue ..., Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday “because of its impact on that part of Centcom that is the Arab world. And in fact, we have urged that this is a critical component. That is one reason we have invited Sen. Mitchell to brief all the conferences we host and seek to support him and his staff any way we can when he's in Central Command area.”

“Clearly the tensions in these issues have an enormous effect on the strategic context in which we operate in Central Command area of responsibility,” Petraeus said. “My thrust has generally been to encourage that process that can indeed get that recognition that you talked about and indeed get a sense of progress.”

In a news conference this week with visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Defense Secretary Robert Gates further reiterated the strategic logic that Petraeus was discussing.

"What we do believe is that the — heretofore, the lack of progress in the peace process has provided political ammunition to our adversaries in the Middle East and in the region, and that progress in this arena will enable us not only to perhaps get others to support the peace process, but also support us in our efforts to try and impose effective sanctions against Iran,” Gates said Tuesday.

Earlier this week, the Atlantic's Jeff Goldberg reported that an unnamed leader of a Jewish American organization tells him Petraeus is right:

"General Petraeus is right. We can't get around that. He is, essentially, the American ambassador to the Arab world, and to the Muslim world beyond it. The State Department has ambassadors on the ground, but Petraeus is something above ambassador, and when he goes around the Middle East he meets ferquently with heads of state, and from what I understand, he hears quite often about settlements on the West Bank and about what the Arabs call Israeli intransigence, and occasionally his interlocutors answer his requests for help on various issues by saying, 'Let's see what you guys do on the Palestinian question and then we'll see what we can do for you on your problems.'

"Is there hypocrisy here? Of course there's hypocrisy. Does the average Arab leader care about the Palestinians? If they cared, they would have bought them new houses with their oil money a long time ago. But they know that their people, thanks to Al-Jazeera, care, and are aware of the situation on the ground, and they know that America is Israel's prime benefactor. The point is, the perception of israeli intransigence makes it seem like the deck is stacked against the Arabs and considering that we need the Arabs for oil, to stand against Iran, for all kinds of things, it's Israel's job to help its main ally unstack that deck a little. Petraeus was just telling the truth about the on-the-ground reality."

Consensus would seem to be emerging that this is not a radical analysis, although the leader preferred not to go on the record, Goldberg says, because it may be a bit advanced for members of his organization. Just to add, I had a call from a retired conservative synagogue rabbi in the heartland the other day, who articulated much the same sentiment, and he also wished not to go on the record, for similar reasons. "If I do, I will be rabbi 'emeritus emeritus,'" he joked.

Former Sharon adviser Dov Weisglass observed something similar in an interview with Israeli daily Haaretz last month. The American Jewish community "will defend Israel in the face of the administration only on matters where there is a real threat to Israel," Weisglass told the paper. "I have serious doubt that U.S. Jews see the Netanyahu government's territorial aspirations in Judea and Samaria [West Bank] and the Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem as an existential matter."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0410/Petraeus_is_right.html

Traitors To America Rally In NYC On 25/04/10: The Video

In my Files Of Absurdity: Volume CXVII, I called ever single person that was to attend the so called rally for Israel in NYC on April 25, 2010, a bunch of traitors that should be rounded up and either put into prison, or sent packing from America. Well, they gathered and they definitely showed their true allegiance, and the were allowed to spew their hatred for the REAL Semites and rightful citizens of Palestine, the Palestinians themselves. Here is a video of that so called "rally":



NTS Notes: These people interviewed in this video are the real cause of the problems in America. They call themselves "Americans" but they are nothing more than "dual citizen" Pro-Israeli Zionist Jews that have no loyalty to America at all. More

Ism's and Ishes: "Don't Blame the Jews for What They Do!"???

We all know that the real ism behind Communism is Judaism, but Jews like the extended Rothschild clan pretended that the Communist Jews they put in power in Russia were not Jews, but instead were atheists diametrically opposed to Judaism. Strange thing was, these "atheists" protected synagogues and rabbis, while mass murdering and humiliating Christian clergy and turning Christian churches into ashes, or pig barns. Marx was a devout student of the Talmud, and Judaism holds that Jews are the Jewish god on Earth, such that the Jewish people are taught to worship themselves, as above so below. Just as the Jewish god rules the lesser Goy gods in the heavens, so the Jews rule the Goyim on Earth. Just as the Jewish god and his puppet Sammael scapegoat the Goyim for Jewish crimes against humanity, so the Jews scapegoat the Goyim and blame "atheism" for their Jewish crimes against humanity.

But Jewish "atheism" is but a disguise for Judaism. It is a process of destruction of the Goyim and empowerment of the Jew, which is Judaism in its purest form. It is the dismissal of Gentile life, not the dismissal of Gentile gods, per se. The Jews do not seek to destroy all religion, only to deprive the Goyim of their supernatural protection while increasing the might of their Jewish god, and the Jews call this process, "atheism".

The Jews, through clown troops like Daryl Bradford Smith & Co., as well as through Talmudic Jews like Neturei Karta, also deny that Zionism is Judaism and ridiculously claim that Zionism is diametrically opposed to Judaism. A rather odd claim given that the objectives of Zionism mirror those of Judaism and are the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, are fulfilled by Jews, and benefit only Jews to the detriment of all others. The underlying message being, "Don't blame the Jews for what they do!" More

Neocons: Playing The Dual Loyalty Card ++ Nadler, Weiner Speak Out For The Occupation

The neocons AIPAC, its think-tank (the Washington Institute of Near East Policy), and the rest of the usual Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd is now harping on the question of dual loyalty. Are American Jews being accused of being more loyal to Israel than America?

The "dual loyalty card" is suddenly being played by neocons to argue that those who oppose the lobby are accusing Jews of dual loyalty. Lately they have seized on a remark by some anonymous White House aide who said that Obama aide, Dennis Ross, "seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests."

The quote sent the neos went into overdrive. Bob Satloff of AIPAC's Washington Institute for Near East Policy wrote a delightful piece denying the dual loyalty charge, saying, in effect, "Dual loyalty to who? We hire Moroccans and Egyptians, not just Israelis. Does that mean we are loyal to those countries?"

It was a dumb piece which led only to a flurry of stories revealing, for those who don't know, that the Washington Institute and Satloff are AIPAC cutouts. For the first time, I told the story about being in the room when the Washington Institute was created by AIPAC.

Anyway, here is Lee Smith of the Tablet, a new (very good) Jewish blog, playing the dual loyalty card for all its worth. And he names names, actually just one: Stephen Walt of Harvard.

According to Smith, Walt is leading the orchestra that is playing that tune. The neos are obsessed with Walt because (and John Mearsheimer) he wrote The Israel Lobby which argued that anyone who criticizes the lobby will be smeared as an anti-Semite and worse til the end of time. Smith, like all the other neos, proves the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis by arguing that, in criticizing the lobby, Walt is even worse than "the rejectionists of Hamas, for they at least have to live with the consequences of their choices." None of the things Smith says are is true but its standard stuff in the Standard.

But the beauty part is that the story about Profesor Walt is filed under the rubric "Agents Of Influence" which is a Washington term for those who quietly promote seamy interests under the guise of objectivity. They are often people you have never heard about who have a hidden agenda and promote it well.

And guess who Smith quotes to sum up his argument: Steve Rosen, that Steve Rosen.

To Stephen Walt, pro-Israel is a bad thing, but to the American people it is a good thing. If he thinks our national interests are not being followed, and that Dennis Ross and WINEP are instruments of a foreign power, then by that measure, the majority of the American people are instruments of a foreign power.

So true, the American people have often demonstrated their support for Dennis Ross and WINEP. Can't argue with that.

Of course the American people was not indicted under the Espionage Act for providing government secrets to Israel while Rosen was.

But the column isn't about Rosen who spent millions to prove that he was not something considerably worse than a mere Agent of Influence. Its about Walt.

And this contradiction doesn't even occur to Smith when he's wriitng his column. No, he is playing the the dual loyalty card and nothing will get in his way.

I guess the neos realize that calling their opponents "anti-semites" and "self-hating Jews" isn't working anymore. So they now accuse them of calling American Jews disloyal.

It won't work. The lobby is reeling, now that there is someone in the White House who thinks that he can deal with the sovereign State of Israel directly -- government to government -- without going through them. You know times are bad when the American Jewish Congress is merging with the American Jewish Committee, or vice versa.

No serious person is calling the lobby disloyal. But ever growing numbers are accusing it, quite rightly, of using thuggish tactics to silence its opponents.

American Jews, at home in America, aren't even paying attention. They are too busy going to work, figuring out how to pay for college, driving the kids to soccer, hanging out with their fellow Americans of all ethnicities (half are even marrying non-Jews) and doing what they can to advance the interests, not of Israel but of the United States and the Democratic party.

Meanwhile, here are Congressmen Anthony Weiner and Jerrold Nadler (big progressives) opposing the two-state solution. This follows Chuck Schumer's quote that God has chosen him to guard Israel's interests in the Senate.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/29/neocons_jews_dual_loyalty/

'West has satanic intentions'

From pro-Israel to anti-Israel apologist

Could Indyk’s recent op-ed in the ‘New York Times’ be the last hurrah from those Jews pressing Obama to intensify pressure?

Former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk has emerged as one of the leading Jewish apologists for President Barack Obama in his confrontation with the Israeli government.

With the American public now beginning to express resentment of the anti-Israeli tilt adopted by the Obama administration, Indyk has been intensifying his attacks on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, blaming him for the crisis and slandering him as an instrument of extremist nationalist elements.

Indyk has had a remarkably successful academic and political career. Educated in Australia, he was employed by the Australian counterpart of AIPAC. In the US, he subsequently assumed a research role in AIPAC, following which he was appointed executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and taught Middle East studies in various universities.

He served as a special assistant to president Bill Clinton, and was a member of secretary of state Warren Christopher’s Middle East peace team. After adopting US citizenship, he became the first foreign-born and first Jewish US ambassador to Israel, serving two terms. Currently he is director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institute. Indyk is also an enthusiastic supporter of the New Israel Fund, and recently vigorously defended the NIF in Australia after the invitation to NIF president Naomi Chazan was revoked following the uproar concerning NIF grants to organizations collaborating in the compilation of the despicable Goldstone Report.

SO HOW are we to understand Indyk’s recent outbursts? Jewish supporters of Obama’s harsh and one-sided offensive against the currentgovernment fall into two broad categories.

There are those like J Street who are either genuinely anti-Israel or convinced they know better than Israelis what is best for Israel and are willing to lobby their government to force the Jewish state to continue making unilateral concessions. Needless to say, according to the most recent poll, more than 90 percent of Israelis are opposed to Obama imposing a solution.

The second category are the acolytes of Obama seeking to ingratiate themselves with the administration by acting as its apologists.

Indyk understands both the Arab-Israeli conflict and the nature of Israeli domestic policies, and on the basis of his ferocious criticisms of thegovernment , one is tempted to conclude that as a member of the administration, he is not merely promoting a partisan agenda, but deliberately distorting reality.

His most recent defense of Obama’s offensive was an International Herald Tribune op-ed titled “When Your Best Friend Gets Angry.”

He accuses Netanyahu of being responsible for the current crisis. Yet he is aware that he has skillfully navigated his government to a centrist position which the vast majority of Israelis support. Indyk must appreciate that by appeasing Obama and initiating a settlement freeze, Netanyahu made a concession that none of his “dovish” political predecessors would ever have contemplated. This and otherunilateral concessions to the Palestinians were neither reciprocated nor even acknowledged.

Indyk’s extreme views should perhaps be viewed in the context of his colleague Dennis Ross being reportedly accused of having dual loyalties for suggesting that the administration was making demands that could not be implemented within the democratic constraints of the Israeli system. Indyk need not be concerned about facing any such suspicions, and also implicitly distanced himself from Aaron David Miller, a long-term State Department critic of Israeligovernment policies, who recently also expressed disillusion with the path adopted by the Obama administration.

INDYK EVEN went to the length of reiterating that Israeli intransigence was contributing to US military casualties – a manifestly untrue accusation (as Indyk himself must know) – repudiated by Gen. David Petraeus, who emphasized the positive aspects of Israel as a strategic ally. Indyk effectively claimed that American soldiers were dying becauseIsraelis are endangering “a vital national security interest for the United States,” presumably by building apartments in Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem.

In subsequent more explicit comments, Indyk said 200,000 US troops are fighting terrorism and Obama is obliged to write between 30 and 40 condolence letters a month – far more than the Israeli prime minister. Such chilling remarks from a mainstream American Jewish public figure have the capacity of inflicting enormous damage on Israel and the Jewish community.

Indyk also repeats the absurdity that by making more unilateral concessions to the Palestinians, Israel will enable the US to resolve the Iranian nuclear threat, again linking the construction freeze in Jerusalem with Obama’s ability to deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This balderdash is compounded when he also urges Israel to cede the Golan to Syria – ignoring the latter’s alliance with Iran and its increasing aggressiveness toward Israel.

To top off this vicious barrage, Indyk cynically invokes the memory of Yitzhak Rabin, whom he refers to as “Israel’s greatest strategic thinker.” Yet he would be aware that Rabin exploded when Diaspora Jews sought to encourage US administrations to exert pressure on the elected Israeligovernment.

He would also know that Rabin would never have displayed Netayahu’s restraint had an American president treated his country like a vassal, as Obama did to his erstwhile ally.

Indyk’s recent intensified attacks on the government could be in response to the extraordinary groundswell of protest against Obama’s hostility toward Israel.

AMONG JEWS, ADL’s Abe Foxman is no longer a lone voice protesting the Obama policies. World Jewish Congress president Ronald Lauder, Nobel Peace laureate Elie Wiesel, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, Democratic Obama supporter Alan Dershowitz, former New York mayor Ed Koch and many other mainstream Jewish leaders are now raising their voices in protest. There is a groundswell of anger among Jewish Democrats who feel that Obama reneged on his pre-electoral commitments. The most recent poll (Quinnipiac University) shows that 67% of American Jews (78% of whom voted for Obama) disapprove of his policies, while only 28% approve; 73% believe that Palestinians should be obliged to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition to further negotiations.

This extends to the wider American public, the majority of whom also disapprove of Obama’s handling of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, with 66% saying he should be a strong supporter of Israel and only 19% opposed. Twice as many Americans support Netanyahu as those opposing him.

This was reflected in resolutions passed by the House and the Senate with overwhelming majorities urging Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to bring an end to the confrontation.

Of late, the message seems to have penetrated. The more recent statements from both Obama and Clinton not only reiterate the “unshakeable relationship” between Israel and the US, but are trying to promote the appearance that relations are on the mend.

Most Israelis and Americans would certainly welcome this. Thus, perhaps Indyk’s op-ed was a last hurrah from those Jews pressing Obama to intensify pressure. Indyk’s warning to Israelis to distance themselves from the policies of their government “or there will be serious consequences” should therefore be treated with the contempt it deserves.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=174192

Mideast nearing 'explosion,' Jordan's Abdullah says

Jordan's King Abdullah II warned Thursday that the situation in the Middle East could "explode" due to Israel's building of settlements in East Jerusalem.

"I am afraid the tension could develop into an explosion with all parties paying the price," the monarch said in a speech to the annual conference of Jordanian ambassadors.

His comments came ahead of a meeting this weekend of the Arab League in Cairo, which may herald the resumption of indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Abdullah accused Israel of "playing with fire" by carrying out unilateral actions in East Jerusalem which the Jewish state captured from Jordan in the 1967 war.

"Israel should choose between living in an isolated fortress in the region or reaching peace with all Arab and Islamic states in accordance with the Arab Peace Initiative," he said.

The Arab peace plan, which was launched at the Arab summit conference in Beirut in 2002, offers Israel recognition by all Arab states if it pulled out from all the Arab territories it occupied in the 1967 war, including East Jerusalem.

Two weeks ago, Abdullah told the Chicago Tribune that a war could break out in the Middle East this summer if no progress is made in restarting Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.

"If we hit the summer and there's no active [peace] process, there's a very good chance for conflict, and nobody wins when it comes to that," Abdullah said

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1166291.html

Jordan's Abdullah: Israel playing with fire
King tells foreign envoys Israel must choose between 'living in a fortress' or reaching peace with all Arab states by withdrawing from 'occupied Arab lands'

What’s Happening with Israel?

by Victor Davis Hanson, Tribune Media Services

Current American relations with our once-staunch ally Israel are at their lowest ebb in the last 50 years.

The Obama administration seems as angry at the building of Jewish apartments in Jerusalem as it is intent on reaching out to Iran and Syria, Israel’s mortal enemies. President Obama himself, according to reports, has serially snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A new narrative abounds in Washington that Israel’s intransigence with its Arab neighbors now even endangers U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East. Obama is pushing Netanyahu’s Likud government to make concessions on several fronts, from supplying power and food to Gaza, to hastened departure from the West Bank.

These tensions follow the Obama administration’s new outreach to the Muslim world. Obama gave his first interview as president to the Middle East newspaper Al Arabiya, in which he politely chided past U.S. policy on the Middle East.

In his June 2009 Cairo address, the president again sought to placate the Islamic world — in part by wrongly claiming that Islamic learning had sparked the European Renaissance and Enlightenment.

Lost in all this reset-button diplomacy is introspection on why past American presidents sought to support Israel in the first place. We seem to forget why no-nonsense Harry Truman, against worldwide opposition, ensured the original creation of the Jewish state — or why more than 60 percent of Americans in most polls continue to side with Israel in its struggle to survive.

In contrast, most of the rest of the world does the math and concludes Israel is a bad investment. It has no oil; its enemies possess nearly half the world’s reserves.

There is no downside in criticizing Israel, but censuring some of its radical Arab neighbors might prompt anything from an oil embargo to a terrorist response.

There are about 7 million Israelis; the Muslim and Arab population in the Middle East numbers in the hundreds of millions.

According to the academic cult of multiculturalism, it is fashionable to see pro-American, democratic and capitalist Israel as a symbol of a pernicious Western culture of oppression; its enemies are seen as underdog liberationists.

No wonder that in the ongoing dispute, most of the world adds up the pluses and minuses and concludes that it is wiser to side with Israel’s foes than to become its friend. But why, until now, has America always bucked the tide?

The reason is not the so-called “Jewish lobby” here in the U.S., but because a clear majority of non-Jews supported Israel. They saw that in a sea of autocracy, Israel is a democracy and a free and open society, one quite different from its neighbors.

I suspect that when there is a final two-state settlement, Arabs wishing to remain inside Israel will be treated far more humanely as citizens than any Jews who stay on the West Bank and take their chances as residents of the new Palestinian state. We suspect that when Israel pulls back from lands occupied after the 1967 war, there will remain prominent calls in the Arab world to continue the withdrawal — and finish Israel altogether.

Holocaust denial is still a staple in intellectual circles of the Middle East, and serially embraced by the Iranian government.

Fashionable anti-Israeli sentiment is de rigueur in European elite society. Nearly a third of all country-specific resolutions passed by United Nations Commission on Human Rights have damned Israel — far more than anything directed at the mass-murdering regimes of Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.

In contrast, America’s traditional bipartisan support for Israel put the world on notice that the United States would never allow another Holocaust — or the destruction of Israel, or even serial attacks against it.

Yet if we are seen as neutral, just watch the rest of the world get the message and start piling on. Anti-Jewish terrorism will gear up again. Frontline entities like Hezbollah, Syria and Iran will ready their missiles without worry of American anger. Iran will assume we are resigned to its acquisition of the bomb. And the U.N. will again begin providing cover by issuing its pro forma denunciations of Israel, counting on a newly diffident United States to vote “present.”

Perhaps the Obama administration genuinely believes that by pressuring Israel and reaching out to its enemies, it can at last achieve peace. Perhaps a few key figures in this administration simply do not like or trust the Jewish state — support for which now polls only 48 percent among Democratic voters (versus 85 percent among Republicans).

No matter. This administration should take a deep breath and review history. It would learn that when Israel is alone, its opportunistic enemies pile on. And then war becomes more, not less, likely.

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=22627

Jewish groups: Boycott Ahmadinejad in JYC

JEW YORK (JTA) -- Jewish groups are calling on U.N. member representatives to walk out in protest when Iran's president speaks next week at the United Nations.

Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's plans to address the U.N. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference on May 3 makes a mockery of the proceedings, Jewish groups said.

"We call on all countries, particularly those that value democracy and freedom, to leave the United Nations hall when Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, rises to speak," the president and executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations said in a statement. “Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability poses a threat to the region and the entire Western world. To have President Ahmadinejad address this review conference makes a mockery of the efforts of many countries to prevent nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism from becoming the gravest global threats of this century."

The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York issued an action alert urging readers to e-mail U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at sg@un.org to protest Ahmadenijad's inclusion at the conference.

The World Jewish Congress asked its member communities to contact their government representatives to persuade them to participate in the protest walkout, saying in a statement, "It is dismaying that, once again, the U.N. is allowing the head of a regime, foremost in the sponsorship of terrorism and the abuse of human rights, who defies U.N. resolutions regarding its nuclear ambitions, to appear before the international body."

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/04/30/2394597/jewish-groups-boycott-ahmadinejad-in-nyc

Iran: We'll cut Israel's legs off
Ahmadinejad's deputy visits Damascus, warns Israel against striking in Syria; 'Days where Israel could run wild are long gone,' he says, adds that Israel tasted bitter taste of failure in 2006 and 2009

Knesset speaker said he would rather have Palestinians as Israeli citizens than divide the land as part of a two-state solution.

The Complete Manual for The British Jewish Voter

by Gilad Atzmon

With Britain’s three-way race for prime minister entering the final lap, many Brits are still wondering who to vote for. As if it makes any difference. However, if you are interested in my take on the subject, I would suggest you opt for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. If you want to know why, it is pretty simple - just because the Jews don’t like Clegg at all. This is at least the impression I gathered after reading the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).

The JTA grasps that no single party is expected to capture a majority of the British parliament in the May 6 ballot. They realise, like the rest of us, that the office of Prime Minister may go to whichever party leader is able to secure a coalition deal or win the support of another party. This is indeed horrible news for our relentless Zionist fundraisers. Usually they buy just one party. In fact, in this particular election, they already gambled on the Conservatives. As it happens, now they have to buy all three leading parties.

A few days ago the JTA published a manual for the British Jewish voter. As one might expect, the JTA and the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BOD), a rabid Zionist institute that claims to represent British Jewry, are convinced that British Jews are a top British political priority. “One thing is certain,” says Rosalind Preston of the BOD, “whoever is elected will have to deal with some very real and pressing issues, not only on the national and international level, but as they affect British Jews on the home front.” British Jews, she said, are concerned with “boycotts of Israeli goods, the spike of anti-Israeli resolutions and speakers on university campuses.”

I myself would be far more optimistic if I knew that British Jewry were actually concerned with war crimes committed in their names by the Jewish state. This leaves us with a very clear picture, as much as a growing number of Brits try to resurrect Britain’s stand on humanism, the BOD and the JTA want this kingdom to continue to be subservient to the interest of one tribe only.

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems leader is not exactly the favorite candidate as far as the BOD and the JTA are concerned. During the IDF’s 2009 genocidal attack on Gaza, Clegg penned an Op-Ed in the Guardian newspaper calling on the Labour Government to "condemn unambiguously Israel's tactics" and demanded an “immediate arms boycott of Israel by Britain and the European Union”. As much as it is transparent that Clegg’s polite humanist stand is something the JTA disapproves of, Brits should start to identify just who promotes murderous regimes and ideologies in the midst of their politics and media.

Last December Clegg was also the lead signatory of a letter addressing the fact that Israel has 1.5 million Palestinian prisoners. In addition he wrote that the legacy of Israel’s operation in Gaza is a “living nightmare” for Gaza’s residents. Again, as much as the JTA is disgruntled about Clegg’s public stance, the Brits should be very proud to find such a voice of reason amid their overwhelmingly ‘Blue & White’ funded politics.

We also have the story of the adorable Lib Dems, Jenny Tonge who the Zionists despise. Tonge is a former member of Parliament who became a member of the House of Lords in 2005. In 2004, Tonge said she would become a suicide bomber if she had to suffer the indignities of the Palestinians. In 2006 she suggested that the pro-Israel lobby had "financial grips" on Britain and on her party. Last March she met with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Syria. Clearly the JTA doesn’t approve of Tonge’s sincere refreshing call for justice. Last February, Tonge requested an inquiry into the claim that the Israel Defense Forces' earthquake relief teams in Haiti had harvested the organs of quake victims. Obviously, this claim was reasonable, considering the Israeli share in the vast global market of organ trafficking.

Interestingly enough, Tonge’s remark prompted Clegg to fire her as the party’s spokeswoman for health in the House of Lords. In fact this act is something the Brits should take note of before giving their vote to the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg. Indeed, like the Conservatives and New Labour, the Lib Dems also have their ‘friends of Israel’. At the end of the day, it appears that all major British parties find it impossible to refuse the Zionist pound or shall I say the Shekel. To eliminate any doubt in the matter, the Lib Dems spokesman reassured the Jewish Chronicle that, ‘It was because they are friends of Israel that they will be candid and critical.’

As one might expect, Jews want to punish Labour for its failure to comply with Jewish pressure. As the JTA reports, “Jews are upset with Labour’s failure to amend the universal jurisdiction law that permits private citizens to apply for the arrest of Israeli politicians for alleged war crimes while they are on British soil.” This shouldn’t take us by surprise. You cannot expect a ‘tribal’ operation to support ‘universal’ jurisdiction. Cameron (Conservatives) has said that he would rescind the law. Clearly with 50% of his shadow cabinet being members of the Conservative Friends of Israel, I expect the protocols of his cabinet to also be transcribed into Hebrew or at least Yiddish.

Brits may be shocked to find out that in the JTA’s review of the British election there is not a single word about British national interests. The article leaves the impression that Jews who live in Britain for generations have zero interest in their neighbours. All they are concerned with is the level of subservience of British politicians to what they regard as Jewish interests (Israel and Zionism).

But do not get the wrong impression. The JTA also has some positive news for its readers. According to the rabid Zionist media outlet, some Jews also participate in the democratic game as equals amongst equals. “In the midst of this year’s extraordinarily tight race, candidates for Prime Minister and hopefuls in Jewish districts appear to be stepping up their pandering to Jewish voters.” Geoffrey Alderman, a historian of British Jewry, sees this as a positive development. “Appealing for a Jewish vote is a sign of a vibrant democratic state,” he said.

I hope British politicians might realise before it’s too late, that there are some other migrant communities in this country that deserve at least as much attention and care.

Testing the Limits of Freedom of Speech: Ernst Zundel Speaks Out

An exclusive interview with one of Europe's most well-known political prisoners

Ernst Zundel is a German author and historian who has spent seven years of his life behind bars as a result of expressing his controversial viewpoints and opinions. He is a revisionist who has denied the Holocaust as described by most historians. He has been one of the most prominent political prisoners in Europe and has been jailed in three countries on two continents.

After his arrest in the U.S. in 2003, he was deported to Canada, where he was kept in prison as “a threat to the national security” for two years. After deportation to Germany in March 2005, he was convicted and sentenced in 2007 to five additional years of imprisonment on charges of holocaust denial. He was finally released on March 1, 2010.

This is the first interview Ernst Zundel has given since his release.

Firstly, I would like to extend my congratulations on your recent release. Were you ever mistreated or subject to any type of mental or physical punishment in breach of international conventions?

My entire treatment these past seven years by those arresting me, trying and convicting me, and keeping me in prison has been in brutal breach of international conventions. I was arrested in broad daylight on American soil by officials of the U.S. government who acted as hit squads for a nefarious lobby. There was no arrest warrant. I was not read my rights. I was whisked away in handcuffs without being allowed to get my wallet, to call my attorney, to be allowed to make my case before an American Immigration Judge or even hug my wife goodbye.

I was incarcerated in six different prisons on two continents in three countries—the USA, Canada, and Germany—without relief of any kind. In effect, I have had 10 percent of my life stolen from me – and for what “crime”? For having “overstayed my U.S. visa”?

Throughout my imprisonment, basic human rights principles were trampled underfoot repeatedly and with impunity. The worst prisons were the Canadian detention centers at Thorold, Ontario and at Toronto West, where I was held for two long years in isolation cells, ice-cold in the winter, no shoes or socks allowed. The electric light in these cells, bright enough to be able to read, was kept on 24 hours a day. Through a glass slot in the door I was checked every 20 minutes, and my activities were meticulously noted by the guards: one sheet for every day. No dignity, no privacy. My toothbrush was kept in a plastic bin in a hall. I was not allowed to speak to other prisoners. Bed sheets were changed only after three months. No pillows. No chairs. When I wrote to my wife or to my attorneys, I had to sit on a makeshift pile of my court transcripts. No radio, no television, not even an electrical outlet to sharpen my pencils. No ball point pens, only pencil stubs, cut in half with a saw. No spoons, forks, or knives were permitted; only a white plastic spoon with a fork called a “spork” that had to be returned every time at the end of the meal. With very few exceptions when furtive guards showed me some kindness away from the surveillance cameras, I was treated as though I was the worst of criminals. That’s Canada for you, where I have lived and worked without a criminal record for more than 40 years.

It was somewhat better, but not much, in the United States. In Germany, it was quite a bit better in terms of the basic necessities, but personal mail was routinely withheld – 1,700 letters for up to five years – even after I forced a court to order that it be given to me. My so-called trial in Mannheim was a political show trial in the Stalinist mode in that my guilt was a foregone conclusion. I requested that exculpatory exhibits be allowed as validation for what I believed and had written and said. No meaningful defense was allowed. I could not put on record any forensic evidence, any historical documents, or even expert witnesses, That very request to be allowed to offer evidence was held to be a new offense of criminal behavior and could have resulted in new criminal charges – as were, in fact, lodged against my lawyers during that very trial who tried to overcome these restrictions.

Along with the rest of EU members, Germany regularly criticizes other countries for violations of free speech and human rights. However, your case demonstrated the emptiness of such claims within Europe. What’s your take on that? Is Europe really a utopia of liberty and freedom of speech?

Most European countries have only selected free speech for officially approved and sanctioned views on history. Almost all EU countries have laws in place that restrict freedom of speech under the guise of one fig leaf or other, such as the prevention of racist or neo-Nazi activities. The state decides selectively who is and what is racist. These laws are hypocritical, in Germany’s case superseding even their own Basic Law.

Dissidents are allowed very little opportunity to be read or heard in the mainstream corporate media channels of the West. The control mechanisms of the press are many, often subtle but widely understood and obeyed – fear of loss of jobs, diminished circulation, the withholding of government advertisements etc. There is no longer unrestricted freedom in any Western country, not even in the U.S. with its wonderful Constitution and Amendments such as the Bill of Rights.

Allow me here to point out to your readers the outline of a censorship practice known by its neutral term “rendition”, but more honestly defined as political kidnappings to force the silencing of dissident speech or alternate thoughts. Renditions in the West are ever more frequently practiced not only against alleged “terrorist suspects” but against ordinary political activists and writers whose viewpoints are frowned upon by such outfits as AIPAC and similar Zionist lobby and interest groups, B’nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress etc.

In order to spell out what I can only describe to you in broad strokes, I’d like to briefly shed light on the period preceding my arrest in the U.S. and Canada, the conniving and the similarity in other cases like mine, where an innocuous or alleged infraction is used as a fig leaf to silence a political opponent.

Viet Dinh, a Georgetown University law professor and director of their Asian Law and Policy Studies Program who helped craft the Patriot Act, put it succinctly, as reported in an American publication called Wired that deals with freedom of speech on the net. That interview reads:

Wired News: An estimated 5,000 people have been subjected to detention since 9/11. Of those, only five — three noncitizens and two citizens — were charged with terrorism-related crimes and one was convicted. How do we justify such broad-sweeping legislation that has resulted in very few terrorist-related convictions?

Dinh: I’ve heard the 5,000 number. The official numbers released from the Department of Justice indicate approximately 500 persons have been charged with immigration violations and have been deported who have been of interest to the 9/11 investigation.

It may well be that a number of citizens were not charged with terrorism-related crimes, but they need not be. Where the department has suspected people of terrorism, it will prosecute those persons for other violations of law, rather than wait for a terrorist conspiracy to fully develop and risk the potential that that conspiracy will be missed and thereby sacrificing innocent American lives in the process.

This is exactly what happened to me. The initial reason given was an alleged immigration infraction – namely a “visa overstay”. I was no terrorist; I was a dissident writer. My political detractors knew perfectly well that I was in America legally, awaiting adjustment of status due to my marriage to an American citizen. I was in Immigration Adjustment of Status proceedings, meticulously following all the prerequisite steps. I was living openly in a rural area in Tennessee and was listed by address in the local telephone book. The U.S. government had given me a Social Security number, a work permit, a document that allowed me to leave the country and return unmolested. I had undergone and passed an FBI check and a health clearance. The only last step missing was a personal interview by an immigration official to ascertain a valid marriage to my American citizen wife.

We had been notified in writing that this interview could take as long as three years, and that no status report would be given. We were patiently waiting for that last step, a routine interview with an immigration official. Our immigration attorney had requested such an interview in writing – twice! Under oath, he testified that he had written those letters. These letters have mysteriously disappeared from our immigration file. When I was arrested, it was claimed that I had negligently “missed a hearing” which gave them grounds for an arrest due to a visa overstay. In other words, a simple bureaucratic loophole was found or fabricated that has cost me seven years of my life.

What happened to me in the context of a deliberate state policy of deception has also happened to others. Similar ruses via false accusations were used in cases like Germar Rudolf, likefwise married to an American citizen, El Masri of Germany, Maher Arar of Canada, Gerd Honsik of Spain, Siegfried Verbeke of Belgium, David Irving, and now Bishop Williamson of England, to name only a few individuals who were caught between the grind stones of a criminal policy possible only under the Patriot Act in the U.S. and similar legal instruments in other countries. Embedded in that background of a widespread covert policy and practice to force political conformity, my case makes eminent sense. We are no longer dealing with an aberration. These extrajudicial renditions give 9/11 and the Patriot Act a new light as a global policy instrument of brutal censorship of unpopular thinkers and writers.

The thrust of a prestigious publication such as yours would normally deal with the policies of foreign governments, renditions, kidnappings, and incarcerations not only of foreign enemies but, as in the case of Vanunu, an Israeli-born- and-raised atomic scientist. He was no neo-Nazi, no racist, no Holocaust Denier, yet he was relentlessly pursued by the Mossad and ultimately kidnapped and jailed for 18 years.

The patterns of the breaking of international law and conventions, the use of false identities, and the brazen practice of breaking and entering by spy and intelligence agencies, etc. – these criminal activities are daily in the news. This sets the stage and makes my case a logical progression of an old, established policy, with this one difference: we are no longer talking about hunting and kidnapping alleged “Nazi war criminals” like Eichmann or stone-throwing Palestinians or even “Arab terrorists”, but instead the targeting of writers and other political dissidents in Western countries calling themselves “democracies”.

My story does not even end there. In my case, my “Holocaust Denier” profile was convenient, but passé. It was not even, as is so commonly and falsely claimed, “Denial of the Holocaust” or even more bizarre, my “visa overstay”! I was told what actually happened by a friend of ours with high-level UN connections. In his own words: “It was the Blue Booklet that did it! That’s when it was decided at the very highest level to take you out for good!”

Here is what happened, briefly: In the early months post-9/11 my wife, an avid Internetter, discovered a compelling research document entitled Stranger than Fiction: An Independent Investigation of 9/11 and the War on Terrorism by Anonymous, 11-11-2. She gave it to me over breakfast. I read it, found it interesting, and ran a few copies off on my printer for people on my mailing list. I did not write that lavishly footnoted paper. I did not research it. I merely copied it. Somebody must have concluded that I, with my background of thorough forensic investigations in other areas, showed more than ordinary interest in 9/11 as a potential political false flag common in intelligence agency operations!

During my trial in Mannheim, ostensibly for “Holocaust Denial”, portions of my monthly newsletter, where I mentioned this booklet and the 9/11 topic, were referenced by the prosecution as criminal offenses. Only after it became clear that I welcomed the opportunity to have my attorneys present forensic evidence of a potential 9/11 cover-up were those portions of the accusation against me hastily dropped, and my trial became a “Holocaust Denial” show trial in the traditional Stalinist mode, “… accuse wildly but don’t allow a defense!”

As we later found out through various freedom of information requests in various countries, there was in place for years a deliberate, convoluted plan to arrest and detain me under false pretenses so as to take me out and put me behind bars.

I mention this only as an overarching, logical example as to how diabolically clever my political opponents are in using the accusation of “Holocaust Denial” and persecution of Holocaust Revisionists as arrows in their arsenal of weaponry to shore up, consolidate, and protect their deceptively acquired power and influence.

What’s the reality behind Holocaust? Didn’t it happen at all? What about people such as Elie Wiesel, Thomas Blatt, Wladyslaw Bartoszewski and Leopold Engleitner who are Holocaust survivors and describe their own accounts of those painful days, when they personally witnessed the heart-rending demise of their parents in concentration camps and bone-crushing machines. How should we resolve these contradictions?

I will not answer this question. I would risk five more years in jail if I answered these questions honestly and truthfully. However, in the age of the Internet, others less known than I am find ways to simplify a painful, multifaceted problem, as the cartoon below makes plain:
"Prevent Holocaust: BOMB IRAN" by Carlos Latuff

"Prevent Holocaust: BOMB IRAN" by Carlos Latuff

Many people of other countries have come to the categorical conclusion that the Western world is a beacon of liberty and unrestricted freedom of speech. But it sometimes seems that the reality is something else, and that people can be easily prosecuted merely for publishing views that are disliked. The booklet you published, Did Six Million Really Die?, is an example. What do you think?

Here is just one more example of what I already outlined above: We have faxes and other documents that prove on official embassy letterhead that the much vaunted and propagandized U.S. Judiciary has run interference for these kidnappers and renditioners via behind-the-scenes ex parte communication, thus engaging in a cover-up and whitewash worse than the ones practiced by those the U.S. government always blames for human rights violations in their hypocritical press campaigns, like against China in Tibet, Lukashenko in Belarus, Putin in Moscow and, of course, Iran during the recent so-called Green Revolution.

Many Zionist websites have introduced you as a white supremacist. Is that a fair characterization?

This claim is a convenient character assassination technique. I have never been a white supremacist and have stated so for decades, publicly, in countless interviews, newsletters, speeches, broadcasts, etc. It is my opponents’ modus operandi to broad-brush complex issues by politically expedient demonization.

You’re opposed to the regime of Israel because of its discriminatory and atrocious approach against the nation of Palestine. You consider yourself a pacifist who advocates stability and peace; aren’t these beliefs incompatible with your viewpoint regarding Hitler, who is internationally considered to be a notorious dictator and relentless killer? How can your peace-seeking stance come together with your approval of Hitler?

I cannot answer this question due to legal restraints. An honest and complete answer would land me in jail as a re-offender very quickly. Implicit in your question is the toxic image of me that my detractors would like you to have. To be called a Nazi is worse than being called a leper. For decades I have been on the receiving end of just such a targeted character assassination campaign. I have been jailed many times not for advocating an ideology but for expressing a dissident, alternative viewpoint on many topics, including Adolf Hitler’s role in history. Revisionism is not an ideology. It is merely a scientific method of re-examining historical events and of trying to understand the movers and shakers who made history a footnote to their personalities.

Let me answer your question this way: I have always abhorred any kind of violence in the pursuit of political goals. By anyone! Politically, I was and am a pacifist, much in the Gandhi style. I advocate a sober, neutral look at history, including the period known as the Third Reich. The peoples of the world, regardless of what system of government they live under, owe it to themselves to emancipate themselves of the simplistic images of propaganda and deceit posing as history.

On May 1995, your Toronto residence was the target of an arson attack which resulted in $400,000 worth of damage. A few days later, some of your extremist opponents were caught trying to break into your property. Again a few days later, you received a parcel bomb which the Toronto police detonated. Have you ever tried to lodge a complaint against them? Have they ever been lawfully sentenced?

This is the flip side of some of the questions above. While I have never advocated or engaged in violence, egregious acts of violence have been repeatedly practiced on me, of which the political kidnapping in 2003 was merely the latest. As to the fire and the bomb, no, nothing was ever resolved. The police apprehended the bomb builders and senders, but the charges laid were stayed. There seems to have been no political will at the highest levels of the Canadian government. There was no political coin to be garnered by prosecuting Jewish arsonists, who even confessed to the deed.

Do you differentiate between the Zionists and Jews as the followers of a divine, monotheistic religion?

Yes, the two are totally different. Some Orthodox Jews who are united against Zionism, such as the Neturei Karta, believe that also. They know the godfathers of Communism and Zionism followed identical policies. The guiding spirit behind the two systems is the same. Neturei Karta rabbis attended the 2006 Teheran Conference sponsored by your President in an attempt to distance themselves from what they consider to be a dangerous atheist clique in the pursuit of illegal politics of conquest of which they want no part.

The mainstream corporate media, while having already vilified you, remained silent about your release. What do you think about this? Are you going to continue your ideological path or would you prefer to keep a low profile and forget about the intellectual activities?

Ironically, that was exactly what I intended to do when I moved to Tennessee and married Ingrid; keeping a low profile and turning to private endeavors such as my love for art and music. I felt that my revisionist outreach was finished, concluded to my inner satisfaction. Let others read both sides and then judge for themselves. All the arguments, all the information needed on the Holocaust is out there, on the Internet, in tens of thousands of websites, all for the taking. How often do you have to dig up an archeological site to find yet one more bone, yet one more implicating shard? My wife likes to say that you don’t have to eat a camel to know what a cutlet tastes like. I was quite ready to retire and satisfy my creative needs and desires. I could leave the political mopping-up activities for others to complete. But could my political opponents bring themselves, as rational people might have, to likewise call it quits? No; that is simply not in their nature.

As you point out so cogently, a powerful vilification campaign is still going full blast. It keeps my name in the media for people to decide for themselves who I am. Upon my release, my wife has collected thousands and thousands of letters from readers, only three of which were negative! Not a bad record, of the millions of dollars spent and millions of words dispersed in an attempt to paint me as as a devil with horns.

Let me ask you – would your prestigious publication have cared to interview me if you thought that I deserved the label of Evil Incarnate?

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/04/30/testing-the-limits-of-freedom-of-speech-ernst-zundel-speaks-out/

Hamas minister unlikely to receive German visa

BERLIN (JTA) -- A Hamas government minister from the Gaza Strip is unlikely to receive a visa to attend a conference in Germany.

Basem Naim, the minister of health for the Hamas-led administration, reportedly was invited to attend a conference in June sponsored by the Protestant Academy in Bad Boll, Germany.

But a German Foreign Ministry spokesman told JTA that the official "attitude towards Hamas is unchanged: The federal government demands that all actors in the Middle East refrain from violence and recognize Israel's right to exist and the results of the peace process so far. This also applies to Hamas and remains the basis of every decision regarding this organization."

The spokesman said he could not comment on individual cases.

Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union.

Joachim Beck, executive director of the academy, told the Stuttgarter Zeitung newspaper on Thursday that "there's a real campaign against us" for inviting Naim to their Mideast conference titled "Partners for Peace." Also reportedly invited are former Palestinian representative to Germany Abdallah Frangi, now head of the foreign ministry for the Fatah movement, and former Israel Knesset speaker Avraham Burg.

The academy reportedly has removed the logo of the Federal Agency for Civic Education from its invitation. The academy had hoped for financial support, but will not receive any from the federal government.

The head of the German-Israel Society, Johannes Gerster, reportedly wrote to the head of the Protestant council in Germany, Nikolaus Schneider, asking for a clear statement on the matter. Gerster said it was one thing to meet privately and speak with members of Hamas, as he himself has done, but it was another matter to invite a Hamas representative to a public forum.

"Obviously the organizers [of the conference] don't care that such actions actually encourage Hamas people, who are incapable of making compromises, to carry on their fight against Israel until the last Jew has left Palestine either dead or alive," Gerster said.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/04/29/2394567/hamas-minister-unlikely-to-receive-german-visa

Protesters menace Israeli diplomat in Britain
“I don’t think they wanted to kill me, but I genuinely believed they wanted to physically hurt me," she said. "If I had not had the police and security team, I would have been beaten up.”

Lador-Fresher told the Jewish Chronicle that “No foreign diplomat should have to go through what I went through.”

U.K. police forced to smuggle Israeli diplomat out of lecture

Obama spreads the love, keeping Jewish leaders happy

Pedophile-killer 'molested suicidal girl' in hospital

Director of charity that hired man to work as guard questioned on suspicion of employing convicted felon to protect minors.

A 70-year-old man from Herzliya who was convicted and served a lengthy prison term for murdering his former wife and raping minors was arrested at the Meir Medical Center in Kfar Saba on Thursday after allegedly molesting a 14-year-old suicidal girl whom he was employed to guard.

The suspect, Yosef Nunu, was hired by the Matav charity to work as a security guard. The charity’s director was questioned by police under suspicion of employing a convicted felon to protect minors in violation of the law.

Nunu served 24 years in prison for murder, molesting minors, raping young girls, and molesting family members. He was released after receiving a presidential pardon.

Nunu was tasked with securing a girl who had been hospitalized after attempting to take her own life.

The incident has caused national outrage, and police have stressed that the law calls for any agency which employs people who work around children to ensure that the employee produces a certificate from police stating that he or she has no previous convictions.

According to suspicions, Nunu began molesting and touching the girl while she lay in her hospital bed. He was seen by doctors hovering over the girl. The doctors became alarmed at his actions and immediately called police.

During police questioning, Nunu denied the suspicions, saying he merely “wanted to cheer her up” by giving her “a massage and a kiss to the forehead.”

The Kfar Saba Magistrate’s Court extended Nunu’s custody by five days, and described the suspect as a danger to those around him.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=174329

Israeli officials: Obama to call world summit if Mideast peace talks fail

U.S. President Barack Obama has told several European leaders that if Israeli-Palestinian talks remain stalemated into September or October, he will convene an international summit on achieving Mideast peace, senior Israeli officials told Haaretz on Thursday.

The officials said the conference would be run by the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers - the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia - in a bid to forge a united global front for creating a Palestinian state. The summit, they said, would address such core issues as borders, security arrangements, Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem.

Obama is determined to exert his influence to establish a Palestinian state, the officials said, and several European leaders have vowed that the EU would support any peace plan proposed by Washington. Therefore, though so-called proximity talks are set to start in the coming weeks, Obama is already readying for the possibility that the indirect Israeli-Palestinian talks might reach a dead end.

The U.S. proposal would likely be presented by the end of this year, the officials said.

On Saturday night, Arab League foreign ministers will convene to reiterate their support for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to begin the U.S.-mediated talks. The Arab bloc is expected to demand that the negotiations show progress within four months. September and October will thus be critical months in determining whether the talks have borne fruit.

The UN General Assembly will reconvene in late September, and that month will also mark one year since Obama hosted a largely unproductive trilateral summit with Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In addition, September 26 marks the end of the 10-month period Israel allocated for a freeze on West Bank settlement construction, and Netanyahu will have to decide whether to allow such building to be resumed.

Israeli officials said they believe Obama could postpone the international summit, or the unveiling of his own peace plan, until after the midterm Congressional elections in November, in which his Democratic Party is widely expected to suffer heavy losses.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu has a full diplomatic schedule next week. On Monday, he will travel to Sharm al-Sheikh for talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on restarting the peace process. Mubarak will likely ask Netanyahu to make goodwill gestures toward the Palestinians to demonstrate the seriousness of his intentions to advance negotiations.

U.S. special envoy George Mitchell will return to the region later in the week to meet with Netanyahu and Abbas for discussions that may serve as the first round of proximity talks.

In advance of these talks, Interior Minister Eli Yishai instructed the Jerusalem Planning and Building Committee to inform him of any plan to authorize construction that the U.S. administration might deem diplomatically sensitive.

Abbas, for his part, will visit China on Friday, and in advance of this visit, he told the state-run news agency Xinhua that the Obama administration had promised him it would work to prevent any provocative Israeli moves during the negotiations.

"We want our state to be declared under an international agreement," Abbas told the agency while visiting the Jordanian capital of Amman Thursday. "If this could not happen, the Arabs will go to the UN Security Council to get recognition of Palestinian statehood."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1166413.html

Clinton warns Iran, Syria on threats to Israel
'US open to engaging with Tehran'

Clinton: Syria's provocations may plunge Middle East into war
"Transferring weapons to these terrorists - especially longer-range missiles - would pose a serious threat to the security of Israel. It would have a profoundly destabilizing effect on the region.

Clinton warns Assad about war risks

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday warned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against the risk of sparking a regional war if he supplies long-range Scud missiles to Lebanon's Hezbollah.

"Transferring weapons to these terrorists -- especially longer-range missiles -- would pose a serious threat to the security of Israel," Clinton said in prepared remarks to a pro-Israel group.

"President Assad is making decisions that could mean war or peace for the region," she warned.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Clinton_warns_Assad_about_war_risks_04292010.html

Israel's tyranny of the majority is dangerous

The only democracy in the Middle East is perhaps unique, but it's doubtful if it's the real thing. Results of a poll published in Haaretz yesterday reflect what has been known for a long time: a combination of ignorance, a basic lack of understanding and a fascist mood. An ill and dangerous wind is blowing toward a government that is threatened with collapse.

According to the poll, which was conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University, there is a clear, solid anti-democratic majority. It's a majority that wants to punish people who expose wrongdoing by the military, and it's not willing to allow human rights groups to operate freely. It's a majority in favor of punishing those who call for a boycott on Israel, and it wants heavy sanctions against journalists who reveal information about immoral acts committed by the Israel Defense Forces.

Punishing and punishing, and delighting in the silencing of the critics - that's what the people want. That's their opinion. Of all the real and manufactured dangers lurking against Israel, this is the greatest, most real and most immediate.

Take accountant Haim Yoavi-Rabinovich in the Anat Kamm case. He called for the arrest and trial of Haaretz's publisher, Amos Schocken, for blackmail and treason, no less. "Kamm is not a spy, she's a traitor," Rabinovich wrote, calling for Kamm to be punished accordingly, too. It can be assumed that in the view of people like him, an execution in a public square would not be an excessive punishment.

Rabinovich is not alone. His ideas are all over the Internet and have attracted plenty of support. But he's not the problem. The likes of him exist in every proper, civilized society. The problem is that in the Israel of 2010 almost no system remains to halt this dark and ignorant Rabinovichism and defend freedom of expression, which 98 percent of the respondents in the survey, believe it or not, said is important to them.

How Israeli it is to be (theoretically) in favor of freedom of expression yet in practice be so much opposed. You don't need a poll. Most Israelis believe that democracy (only) means elections every few years, because it's enough for a narrow majority of MKs to raise their hands in the Knesset in favor of every kind of crime and injustice to make it all right. Security is used as a cover for everything. There is a connection between the politicians' flattery campaigns in the primaries and democracy; that anyone who dares criticize, expose wrongdoing, step out of line or voice a different opinion is destined to the same fate; that the majority can do whatever it wants and the minority must be powerless.

Most Israelis are fed up with any system of government supervision, which is the true test of the nature of government. To hell with the remnants of real journalism in Israel, and to hell with the Supreme Court, which doesn't necessarily always do its job. And enough already with those treacherous human rights organizations. Let's have an Israel without a High Court of Justice and without human rights groups like B'Tselem.

Such an Israel is ready to move forward in the face of any threat. Israel is ready for a monster. Nothing will stop it. Every kind of violent and dangerous leader and every war crime will be welcomed here, welcomed by the stupid and ignorant.

Our immune systems have long weakened. The press will be silent, and the Supreme Court will forgive. Meanwhile, protest slumbers and civil society, a concept on the rise in world politics, doesn't exist. Go explain to the Israel of 2010 that the media's role is to expose wrongdoing, the non-governmental organizations' role is to warn us, and the Supreme Court's role is to be a gatekeeper. Instead, all of them are to be punished. Go explain that the tyranny of the majority is no less dangerous than control by the minority. Go explain that democracy means unlimited, free criticism.

All this is gone and forgotten. We have no one to instill these values. We have survived Pharaoh, and we will survive Iran, but not this problem. It filters down from within, threatening to bring everything down on the people. The current public atmosphere is the classic breeding ground, as if it were taken from the history books for cultivating savage regimes. There is no need for a military coup in Israel. The defense establishment has excessive control over most aspects of life. There is no need for a dictator, either. The tyranny of the majority is dangerous enough.

"Mr. Schocken, editor of Haaretz," as Rabinovich ignorantly called him, will not be put on trial for now. And Anat Kamm will not be executed. But democratic government in Israel has already been put on trial, and the punishment is being delivered right in front of our eyes.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1166133.html

National Public Radio's (NPR) Pro-Israeli Bias

Since established in 1970, NPR ignored its public trust in favor of privilege, corporatism, militarism, imperial wars, and Israel's vilest crimes, including collective punishment, illegal occupation, targeted killings, land theft, dispossessions, home demolitions, crop destruction, mass incarcerations, torture, violence, and the 2008 - 09 Gaza war inflicting mass deaths, permanent injuries, vast devastation, and human misery against defenseless civilians, imprisoned under siege since June 2007, and afflicted by a dire humanitarian crisis as a result - exacerbated by conflict and intermittent attacks, issues NPR ignores or understates.

It's notorious for its biased, shoddy reporting, pseudo-journalism, creeping commercialism, distracting non-news, and deceiving listeners it's public, non-profit, and impartial. Savvy media consumers know better and tune them out for delivering the same slanted coverage found on major networks and in broadsheets like The New York Times, Washington Post, and others - grossly favoring power, and when it comes to Israel it's interests matter. Palestinian ones don't, so news is carefully filtered to distort facts, and report lies that when repeated enough become truths.

In its May/June 2004 issue, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) asked "How Public Is Public Radio?" in examining its guest list choices - on all issues (including Israel), mostly government officials, corporate think tank representatives, professionals representing their interests, and other elite sources, the public comprising a tiny 7%.

"For a public radio service intended to provide an independent alternative to corporate-owned and commercially driven mainstream media," it said, "NPR is surprisingly reliant on mainstream" sources, the public nearly entirely shut out, and when included they're largely nameless "people in the street," quoted in one-sentence sound bites with no impact.

In December 2001, FAIR's Seth Ackerman discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "Illusion of Balance" along with a companion November/December 2001 "Study of NPR's Coverage of Deaths in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict."

It found an 81% likelihood that an Israeli death would be reported compared to 34% for a Palestinian. Among under age 18 Palestinians, only 20% were reported compared to 89% of Israelis, FAIR concluding that "being a minor makes your death more newsworthy to NPR if you are Israeli, but less" so, or not at all, if Palestinian.

The imbalance is far greater today with few if any Israeli deaths, many Palestinian ones, but few ever reported and when done, it's dismissive, brief, and/or falsified as to the cause.

FAIR October - February 2002 Action Alerts "repeatedly criticized NPR for describing periods when only Palestinians were being killed....as times of 'relative calm (or) comparative quiet,' " yet barely concealing outrage about Israeli deaths, only caused in response to unreported IDF or settler-initiated violence.

Mainstream US media, including NPR, suppress stories like the London Guardian Rory McMarthy's on April 17, 2009 headlined, "Teargas canister shot kills Palestinian demonstrator," saying "Bassem Abu Rahmeh is (the) 18th person to die since 2004 during demonstrations against (the) West Bank('s)" Separation Wall.

Before being killed, Abu Rahmed begged Israeli soldiers not to shoot lest they kill an Israeli, his last words in Hebrew being: "Officer, officer, officer, listen, you killed an Israeli, wait a moment, wait a moment!" Instead, a high-velocity gas canister hit him in the chest and killed him.

"The Israeli military said it was looking into the incident," of course, meaning whitewash, cover-up, and exonerating soldiers to commit repeated atrocities and get away with it - but try finding that explained on NPR or any mainstream US news service where Palestinian suffering is a non-story.

On April 6, 2007, Felice Pace's CounterPunch article discussed NPR's Weekend Edition, Saturday saying host Scott Simon "managed to do yet another NPR (Middle East) News interview (March 31)....in which he completely ignores the central influence of the Palestinian People's plight," affecting the entire region, contributing to its instability.

From 1990 - 2009, Linda Gradstein was NPR's Israel correspondent, at the same time accepting pro-Israeli organization honoraria, the Electronic Intifada's Ali Abunimah and Nigel Parry reported on February 19, 2002 in their article headlined, "Special report: NPR's Linda Gradstein takes cash payments from pro-Israeli groups."

Despite a clear conflict of interest, professional ethics, and NPR policy, she worked as a paid Israeli propagandist, EI writers concluding:

"for some reason or other, Gradstein (was) effectively exempt from NPR's own regulations. These revelations only broaden existing concerns about the integrity of NPR's Middle East reporting and honesty of Linda Gradstein....the sad truth is that (she) rarely (met the minimum) standards," nor do other NPR reporters covering foreign or domestic policies. They like other major media reporters are paid liars.

NPR Misinformation on East Jerusalem

Jews claim all Jerusalem as its historic capital, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declaring, during a May 22, 2009 Jerusalem Day ceremony (commemorating the city's 1967 reunification), that:

"United Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided."

For Muslims, it's Islam's third holiest site, containing the 35-acre Noble Sanctuary (al-Haram al-Sharif), including the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock. Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as its capital, yet Israel is dispossessing them one settlement expansion and home demolition at a time, world leaders turning a blind eye, letting it happen, despite disingenuous opposition rhetoric often quoted in mainstream reports, including NPR.

On March 26, Mondoweiss.net published Henry Norr's article headlined, "When it comes to E. Jerusalem, 'NPR' misleads and misinforms," offering examples from 22 recent broadcasts.

NPR calls the city "Israel's capital," its "undivided (or) unified capital," with a historic claim to it all. In contrast, Occupied East Jerusalem is dismissed as "disputed territory," its final status "only (to) be determined through negotiations" that may or may not occur, but given how previous ones were structured it won't matter.

In three accounts, NRP quoted Netanyahu saying "The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago," despite Judaic roots dating only from around 1,800 BC, the Old Testament calling Abraham the first Hebrew for refusing to worship the period's common idols, and organized Judaism dates from Moses around 1,500 BC.

One "Talk of the Nation" report featured an Israeli analyst saying East Jerusalem settlement construction will continue because the entire city is "the heart and soul of the Jewish people." Analyst James Fallows told listeners that Israelis consider East Jerusalem settlements "necessary for their survival."

Other reports described expropriated areas as idyllic "neighborhood(s)," hilltop "communit(ies)," pious Jews there "focus(ing) on their religious studies and pay(ing) little attention to the outside world." Their large families require settlement expansions to accommodate them, so Palestinians have to go, no matter that they and their ancestors lived there for centuries.

Yet Israelis say East Jerusalem's 250,000 Palestinians have no historic claim to the city they "want" for their "future state" and "aspire" to be their capital - mindless that it already is and that no government, including America, recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital or has an embassy there.

The November 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) designated Jerusalem an international city under a UN Trusteeship Council, still binding today. The 1949 UN Resolution 273 gave Israel UN membership conditional on its implementing Resolutions 181 and 194 (December 1948) granting Palestinians their universally accepted "Right of Return - topics NPR never explains.

Though rarely discussed or reported, world governments and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) consider East Jerusalem occupied. Even the ICRC says so, calling Israeli actions there "illegal" under international law, specifically the 1907 Hague Regulations and Fourth Geneva's Article 49 stating:

"Individual or mass transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of the motive." Neither shall "The Occupying Power....deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

In addition, numerous UN resolutions established "no legal validity" for occupied land acquisitions or settlement building. When violations occur, no nation may recognize or support them or the responsible state.

Further, the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples condemned "colonialism in all its forms and manifestations," including settlements deemed to be illegal.

International laws are clear and unequivocal. NPR never reports or explains them - that:

* all Israeli settlements are illegal;
* growing numbers of Jews oppose them;
* many support the global BDS movement (boycott, sanctions, and divestment);
* more now leave Israel than arrive; and
* Palestinians are systematically persecuted, terrorized, and denied rights afforded solely to Jews, and are being dispossessed of property they owned and did "most of the building (on for) over the last 1,500 years."

Their voices are virtually shut out. Instead, feature interviews are presented like "All Things Considered" host Robert Siegel's with Israel's US ambassador Michael Oren, saying:

"....Jerusalem is sovereign Israeli territory, and it has the same status as Tel Aviv. And just as Israelis have a right to build anywhere in Tel Aviv, they have a right to build anywhere in the city of Jerusalem."

Or another with Martin Indyk (former US Israeli ambassador and Netanyahu brother-in-law) hyping Iran as an "existential threat" when last September Reuters quoted Defense Minister Ehud Barak saying "Iran does not constitute an existential threat to Israel....Israel is strong. I don't see anyone who could pose an existential threat," though he called Iran a challenge to the whole world without being more specific.

NPR pro-Israeli propaganda persists in deference to the Israeli Lobby and its funding sources, much of it corporate, from special interest foundations, and wealthy donors strongly supportive of Israel as are virtually every member of Congress and all administrations, Republican and Democrat.

No matter, according to a FAIR May 17, 2005 Action Alert headlined, "CPB (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) Turns to NPR as Latest 'Bias' Target." It quoted a May 16 New York Times report about the CPB considering "a study on whether NPR's Middle East coverage was more favorable to Arabs than to Israelis - further evidence that the agency intends to police public media for content it deems too 'liberal.' "

Past FAIR analyses clearly exposed NPR's pro-Israeli coverage - recently more extreme, making it impossible for listeners to know truths NPR suppresses, much like The New York Times and rest of America's print and broadcast media, in contrast to Haaretz writers Amira Hass and Gideon Levy who tell it heroically to Israeli and world readers.

A Final Comment

Among its 25 top 2005 censored stories, Project Censored's No. 11 pick headlined, "The Media Can Legally Lie," a CMW Report, Spring 2003 by Liane Casten titled, "Court Ruled that Media Can Legally lie." It covered a unanimous February 2003 Florida Court of Appeals decision for Fox News, saying no rule prohibits distorting or falsifying news.

It pertained to 1996 Jane Akre/Steve Wilson Fox affiliate WTVT, Tampa reports on bovine growth hormone (BGH) dangers, Monsanto's hazardous to human health genetically engineered milk additive. At first, the station loved them, but headquarters Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to admit falsifying evidence and produce bogus reports on BGH safety.

They refused, threatened to inform the FCC, were fired, and sued - a district court jury deciding on their behalf, awarding Acre alone $425,000 in damages. Fox appealed and won, the Appellate Court saying Acre wasn't protected under Florida's whistleblower statute, it loosely interpreted to mean employers must violate an adopted "law, rule, or regulation." Fox simply followed "policy" entitling its stations to lie - whether on product safety or falsifying facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

NPR and other US major media operations take full advantage, keeping their listeners and readers in the dark and uninformed, while Palestinians are systematically persecuted, out of sight and mind, except for people concerned enough to learn the truth and tell it.

http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/2166-national-public-radios-npr-pro-israeli-bias.html