Defining Racism

The neocon press is not merely confined to the United States. It flourishes in the money-losing Canadian newspaper National Post. The paper rabidly supports Zionism, which means that it supports the dispossession of Palestinians who are indigenous to historical Palestine.

A recent editorial screed (it makes no effort to hide itself as such) was written by a Canadian version of American right-winger Ann Coulter (in regressivism but not glamor), Barbara Kay.Barbara Kay, “The college campus: Anti-Semitism’s last North American refuge,” National Post, 21 November 2007. Kay describes Israel as a “literal phoenix risen from the ashes…” Ashes? What she didn’t mentioned was that, if there were any ashes, the ashes were of Palestinians who inhabited the territory.

If, indeed, Palestine was a land without people, then by all means, Jews (or any other people) migrating to the land, working it, and making a living there would make for a great success story. No one should have a problem with this.

Despite deceptive protestations by erstwhile Israeli politicians, such as Golda Meir,“There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.” Quoted in Sunday Times interview, 15 June 1969.
Meir does not deny that there were indigenous people in the land; she denies that these “thing[s]” were “Palestinians.” Obviously, it is a silly and racist obfuscation.
the land was not empty, and most people, nowadays at least, regard the dispossession of an indigenous people as morally reprehensible.

Since the fact of Palestinians being massacred and forcibly expelled from the Jewish state is established,Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld Publications, 2006). it would seem to any reasonable observer that the Palestinian people have a legitimate grievance for being resentful. Yet, Kay gallingly describes Arab resentment of the crimes that they have and are facing as a “cancer”: “anti-Semitism.” If Kay’s logic is sound, then by the same logic, Jewish resentment of crimes against them by Nazis would be anti-Teutonism on the part of Jews. This is patently absurd, as is Kay’s nonsense.

Kay writes, “The new Jew-hatred isn’t characterized by brutal government-sponsored Kristallnachts.” Kay attempts to wipe out the historical context here, to erase Deir Yassin among other massacres, to elide the wiping of over 500 Palestinian villages off the map.Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld Publications, 2006).

Kay proffers, “It should go without saying that criticism of Israel is, in itself, not tantamount to anti-Semitism. Clearheaded critics treat Israel as a country like any other, including their own. They judge Israel’s actions by the single standard they apply to everyone else, and speak of Israel in language appropriate to truthful exchange.”

This sounds fine. This is the principle I will apply. I will start from the principle that dispossession of indigenous peoples from their land is wrong. I asked Kay:

“Do you deny that an indigenous people — the Palestinians — were forcibly transferred from their land so that Israel might ‘rise like a phoenix from the ashes’?

“Just as the expulsion of Jews from European countries was wrong, was it not wrong to expel Arabs from their land?”

Kay’s email response is telling in how it avoided the questions, placed the blame on the victims, and regurgitated discredited Zionist propaganda.

The great majority of the Palestinians would not have left the land if they had not been told to by their leaders, who expected that the combined might of the attack by 7 Arab countries would soon settle the issue of Israel altogether. Those who stayed have Israeli citizenship and are very happy in israel. If Iisrael [sic] was so bent on ethnic cleansing, how is it that they did not kick out those who did not leave voluntarily? The answer is that apart from a few unsavory incidents, the Palestinians left to be out of the way of the coming war, and fully expected to return when the war was won by their side. Too bad, they bet on the wrong horse. Those are the fortunes of war, and there are so many other cases of that in history, but somehow it is only Israel that gets flak for what all other countries have done when wars are won. Since Israel did not start that war, the losers have only themselves to blame. The Jews who were kicked out of Arab lands were welcomed into Israel, just as the Palestinians should have been welcomed into Jordan and Lebanon, and the books would have been nicely balanced. They were left to rot in refugee camps by their “brothers” as political pawns and to arouse the sympathy of people like you. But they should not be Israel;s problem. History has moved on. the moral of the story is that if you want to live in peace with your neighbours, don;t start wars with them, as you may not be happy with the result. They should be offered monetary restitution for their homes and then let them make their peace with their bad gamble. Barbara

Kay makes assertions. Where does she base her claim that Palestinians are happy with Israeli citizenship?According to Adalah, a self-described “independent human rights organization” for Arabs in Palestine, funded by the New Israel Fund (check the BOD):
“Israel never sought to assimilate or integrate the Palestinian population, treating them as second-class citizens and excluding them from public life and the public sphere. The state practiced systematic and institutionalized discrimination in all areas, such as land dispossession and allocation, education, language, economics, culture, and political participation.”
Is she referring to the happiness felt by Bedouins whose homes and crops are demolished in the Negev?Nir Hasson, “Negev Bedouin protest home demolitions, crop destruction,” Haaretz, 15 February 2004. Is she referring to the happiness Palestinians feel at being unable to buy land from the Jewish National Fund — an embarrassment to Jews?Editorial, “Who needs the JNF?Haaretz, 23 September 2007.

As for the notion of a voluntary efflux of Palestinians, Jewish Israeli historian Ilan Pappe refuted this propaganda.Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld Publications, 2006). Kay’s question about an incomplete “ethnic cleansing”The term “ethnic cleansing” is arguably not the best term. See Kim Petersen, “Bleaching the Atrocities of Genocide: Linguistic Honesty is Better with a Clear Conscience,” Dissident Voice, 7 June 2007. is glaring in its presumptions. She is unaware or ignores polls that indicate a plurality of Israeli Jews are bent on “ethnic cleansing.”Aaron Klein, “Poll: Israelis favor expelling Palestinians,” WorldNetDaily, 14 February 2005. Moreover, the Jewish state does not function in a sealed domestic vacuum. Flagrant violations of human rights and crimes against humanity are likely to heighten the international opprobrium directed at Israel, and no state willingly courts pariah state status.

The Right of Return is a universal right. It is the same right that Jews lay claim to in migrating to Israel and deny to indigenous and refugee Palestinians. The double standards here are stark.

The disinformation is so dense, it astounds. It disingenuously plays into Jewish victimhood. The easy refutation of Kay’s many assertions, speaks compellingly of the invalidity of the bulk of assertions she has made.

Complains Kay, “But you know Israel critics have become Israel haters when: they are obsessed with Israel’s moral failures and ignore others’; they respond compassionately to Arab war victims, but not to Israel’s terror victims…”

Kay invokes an egalitarian principle that criticism must not be focused exclusively on the “moral failures” of one group. This is fair. To have any legitimacy in denouncing crimes committed against people elsewhere, one must first acknowledge and denounce the crimes committed by one’s own country.

Authentic Journalism

The hallmark of any authentic journalist must be to present a coherent, well-written story that is backed by solid facts. An authentic journalist will scrutinize any sources cited and verify their statements for accuracy. Second, an authentic journalist will avoid assertions and unsubstantiated opinions, to protect the verisimilitude of their journalism and the integrity of their person. Third, an authentic journalist will never stoop to the gutter tactic of name-calling. The quality of Kay’s journalism will be self-evident when one reads it and checks for factual accuracy, assertions, and ad hominem:

Point 1: “Israel haters maliciously appropriate the discourse of Jewish victimhood to promote hate in others through outright historical lies.” No examples are provided by Kay, so, presumably readers are expected to believe this based on Kay’s authority.

Point 2: “They label Israel an apartheid state.” She never identifies who “they” are, but presumably former president Jimmy Carter is one of “they,” an Israel-hater.

Point 3: “[They] call Israeli soldiers Nazis.” The comparison may be apt or not. Kay does not deal with this. When behaviors are similar, people often resort to comparisons. That Jews base their claim to historical Palestine, partially based on the crimes perpetrated against them by Nazis; it, therefore, seems fair to compare Nazis with Zionists when the behaviors of the two are the same.

Point 4: “[They] portray Ariel Sharon eating babies.” Some of “they,” whoever “they” are, resort to ridiculous insults. That Sharon was a murderer of Palestinians is undeniable. Kay averts dealing with this substantiated fact.Dossier on “SHARON, Ariel — Israel’s Former Prime Minister,” Electronic Intifada.

Point 5: “[They] compare Gaza to Buchenwald and in short seek to normalize the idea that support for Israel is support for racism, today’s ultimate taboo.” Again, Kay provides no examples to back up her claims. Buchenwald was a Nazi slave-labor camp where many prisoners starved to death. Likewise, Gaza is often referred to as an open-air prison where deliberate Israeli government policy withholds Palestinian money, threatening Palestinians with starvation (a war crime, as the occupier is responsible for the well-being of the occupied people).Patrick Cockburn, “‘Gaza is a jail. Nobody is allowed to leave. We are all starving now,'” Independent (UK), 8 September 2006.

Kay admits that in Canada, “open manifestations of anti-Semitism” are rare, but she complains “a handful of labour leaders and politicians — marched in solidarity alongside Hezbollah supporters carrying placards urging ‘Death to the Jews.’”

Such a placard would be repugnant. I could find no images about such placards through an online search. I searched on google images for “death to the jews Hezbollah” and through the first 12 pages could not view one single image of such a placard or other such signage. On the first page of the search, there was a link to an image of a double door with spray-painted graffito: “KILL ALL ARABS!” On the same page was a link to a man carrying a placard reading: “ISLAM IS A DEATH CULT.” Only once in the 12 pages of searching did I come across any signs aimed at Jews. This placard read: “JUDAISM REJECTS ZIONISM.” The bearers of the placards were the Orthodox Jews of Neturei Karta.People who label others as anti-Semites must also denounce brazen anti-Arabism.

I asked Kay for evidence of the placard. Such a placard would be highly objectionable, but Kay only asserts the carrying of such a placard.

She replied in detail:

There were two demonstrations in Montreal that summer. One had a sign reading “Mort aux juifs” [“Death to the Jews”] (I can;t provide an image, but it was there and there have been many such signs in demonstrations in other parts of the world with this and similar signs. By the way, if you are wonderfing what the mandate of Hezbollah is, it is to eradicate Jews everywhere in the world. Hezbollah was responsible for the 1984 bombing of the Argentinian community centre which killed a high number of Jews and many other attacks on diaspora Jewish centres. When someone walks beside a supporter of Hezbollah with the sign “Long Live Nasrallah” one is essentially supporting someone with the sign “Long live Hitler” because both have the same agenda. It is possible that you believe the propaganda that Hezbollah is some kind of benevolent charity group. It is indeed a terrorist organization primarily interested in exterminating Jews, not just Israelis. Barbara

Okay, let’s grant that there was such a despicable sign in Montreal. Then let’s examine the logic that flows from what else she wrote. If at an open gathering of people opposed to violence or injustice, a few persons appear bearing an objectionable banner, then all conscionable people should abandon the progressivist gathering? Really? What an effective way to kill opposition to violence and injustice in one swell swoop. All that would be necessary then is for Zionists to plant one or two members with racist signs among gatherings of people opposed to Zionist crimes. No more dissent to Zionism. No more dissent to anything in the world. Kay is buying into the fallacy of guilt by association in attempting to pin the objectionable actions of a few people on all dissenters. This is a tactic of authoritarians to undermine effective dissent.See an embarrassing exposure of Canadian police provocateurs attempting to infiltrate peaceful demonstrators: “Stop SPP Protest – Union Leader stops provocateursYou Tube. It also plays into the mindset that allows for collective punishment of Palestinians by Zionists (a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention).

Kay’s account is ahistorical. She ignores that Hizbollah arose in 1985 after the Jewish-Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Kay is likeliest referring to the 1994 bombing of the Argentina-Israeli Community Center. Hizbollah can hardly be blamed for something that occurred before its inception. Hizbollah denies involvement in the bombing.Statement, “Hizbullah denies Argentina bomb… Independent investigators are skeptical of the accusation,” BBC, 11 November 2005. Available at Islamic Resistance: Lebanon.

Clearly Kay puts forth a double standard. Comparing Hitler to Nasrallah is okay, but comparing Sharon to Hitler is not okay, even anti-Semitic. So why is a comparison of Nasrallah to Hitler not anti-Islamic?

Also, the mandate of HezbollahRead “The Hezbollah Program” version from a Zionist website, Zionism: Zionism and Israel Information Center. does not, as Kay erroneously alleges, call for the “eradicat[ion of] Jews everywhere in the world.” It does, however, call for the destruction of Israel. “The Hezbollah Program” states: “Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people.” Israel has launched serial wars against Lebanon in recent decades. It was not until Israel invaded Lebanon and essentially destroyed it in 1982 that Hezbollah began to form. Hezbollah is a resistance movement. War involves destroying the other. When an entity tries to destroy you, then one logical response is to destroy whatever is trying to destroy you.

I certainly do not advocate the destruction of other humans. But one must rail against the one-sided stigmatization of people who are legitimately defending themselves from outside aggression.

With so many garbled facts, what credibility do the rest of Kay’s assertions have?

Kay presents herself as a defender of Jews from racism. Jews should be defended from racism. All peoples should be defended from racism. Racism is a scourge that should be obliterated. Yet, in essence, Kay exposes her own racism by ignoring or minimizing the terrible crimes perpetrated on Palestinians by Jews.

Kay and other apologists for Zionist crimes strive to entrench criticism of Zionist crimes as the “ultimate taboo” and to bludgeon the anti-racist critics with the label of anti-Semitism. But Zionism is not the equivalent of Judaism, as Neturei Karta evince.

Anti-Semitism is being wielded as a fallacious defense against racism. In fact, it is racism under the guise of anti-racism. In a moral world, seeking justice for Palestinians must not be conflated with anti-Semitism.

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at Read other articles by Kim.

37 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. JoeMorgan said on November 26th, 2007 at 6:31am #

    Israel is a cross between South African Apartheid, Jim Crow in America, with many laws remenisent of Nazi Germany.

    None of that is racism or neo-Nazism because Jews are not considered European people — and words like racist and neo-Nazi are simply synonyms used to define Europeans when they act collectively, when they organize along racial lines, follow racially defined leaders and when they discriminate in their own ethnic interests.

    Jews and nonwhites in America are encouraged to act collectively.

    There are no real egalitatarians, only pretend egalitarians, and the coalition that calls itself “the minorities,” is simply a coalition of “tribes” that promote their ethnic interests by encouraging “minorities” to act collectively, while punishing white Gentiles when they do the same.

  2. Mike McNiven said on November 26th, 2007 at 10:05am #

    The following statement, by the author, is absolutely correct:
    “In a moral world, seeking justice for Palestinians must not be conflated with anti-Semitism.”

    Coversely, those who believe that the focus of the stuggle should be on “imperialism” must not be conflated with “pro-zionism,” because, the imperialists created zionism as a tool of expanding their sphere of dominance! In today’s world, it is the imperial US/UK governments which allow the zionists to do whatever they want to do — not the other way around. With the , hopefully soon, decline of imperialism zionism and racism would be history! To that day…

  3. Neal said on November 26th, 2007 at 10:44am #


    One might read historians other than Mr. Pappe. Many – if not most – serious historians disagree with him. Moreover, Mr. Pappe does not believe that it is necessary for a history really to be an accurate account of events. This is what historian Benny Morris has to say about Pappe (and the first paragraph below is a direct quote from Pappe about his own methodology, which, as you can see, rejects the view that historical analysis must somehow be consistent with what actually occurred):

    my [pro-Palestinian] bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the ‘truth’ when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers; and sides with the workers not the bosses. He feels for women in distress, and has little admiration for men in command…. Mine is a subjective approach….

    For those enamored with subjectivity and in thrall to historical relativism, a fact is not a fact and accuracy is unattainable. Why grope for the truth? Narrativity is all. So no reader should be surprised to discover that, according to Pappe, the Stern Gang and the Palmach existed “before the revolt” of 1936 (they were established in 1940-1941); that the Palmach “between 1946 and 1948” fought against the British (in 1947-1948 it did not); that Ben-Gurion in 1929 was chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive (he was chairman from 1935 to 1948); that the Arab Higher Committee was established “by 1934” (it was set up in 1936); that the Arab Legion did not withdraw from Palestine, along with the British, in May, 1948 (most of its units did); that the United Nations’ partition proposal of November 29, 1947 had “an equal number of supporters and detractors” (the vote was thirty-three for, thirteen against, and ten abstentions); that the “Jewish forces [were] better equipped” than the invading Arab armies in May, 1948 (they were not, by any stretch of the imagination); that the first truce was “signed” on June 10, 1948 (it was never “signed,” and it began on June 11) ….

    Brazen inaccuracy similarly marks Pappe’s treatment of the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. Pappe writes that the Arab Higher Committee had tried to “negotiate a principled settlement with the Jewish Agency” (it did not); that in “October 1936” the AHC “declared a general strike” (it was declared in May, 1936 and ended in October); that “in August [1937]” Palestinians assassinated “Major Andrew,” the British acting Galilee district commissioner (his name was Lewis Andrews, he was a civilian, and he was assassinated in September); and that “quite a few” of the Palestinian dead in the 1936-1939 rebellion were women (there are no accurate figures, but there can be no doubt that only a handful of the three thousand to six thousand Palestinian dead were women, who generally took no part in the rioting and the fighting).

    Pappe writes that “in the 1969 election, the moderate Eshkol could not prevail against the more inflexible Golda Meir” (Eshkol simply died in office, and his party, Mapai, selected Meir as his successor, and later, in the general elections of 1969, the incumbent prime minister Meir, heading the Mapai list, ran against, and beat, a collection of right-wing, religious, and left-wing parties); that there were one million Palestinians living outside Palestine by the end of the 1948 war (the number was no more than three hundred thousand); that “the fida’iyyun [literally, self-sacrificers or guerrillas] … activities initially consisted of attempts to retrieve lost property” (this was probably true of infiltrating Palestinian refugees, but the fida’iyyun, set up by Egypt only in 1954-1955, from the first were engaged in intelligence and terrorist activities, not in property retrieval); that “Lebanon was destroyed in [Israeli] carpet bombing from the air and shelling from the ground” in 1982 (Lebanon was not destroyed, though several neighborhoods in a number of cities were badly damaged, and there was no “carpet bombing”). Again, the list is endless….

    Ephraim Karsh, from a different point of view (as Morris considers himself to be on the Left although anti-Israel bigots want him thrown out of the club), indicates as follows:

    Ilan Pappé has gone so far as to argue that the outcome of the 1947-49 war had been predetermined in the political and diplomatic corridors of power “long before even one shot had been fired.” To which, one can only say that the State of Israel paid a high price indeed to effect this predetermined outcome: the war’s six thousand fatalities represented 1 percent of Israel’s total Jewish population, a higher human toll than that suffered by Great Britain in World War II. Further, Israel’s battlefield losses during the war were about the same as those of the Palestinians; and given that its population was roughly half the latter’s size, Israel lost proportionately twice the percentage of the Palestinians.


    A number of scholars have already done outstanding work showing the faults of the new history. Itamar Rabinovich (of Tel Aviv University, currently Israel’s ambassador to the United States) has debunked the claim by Shlaim and Pappé that Israel’s recalcitrance explains the failure to make peace at the end of the 1947-49 war. Avraham Sela (of the Hebrew University) has discredited Shlaim’s allegation that Israel and Transjordan agreed in advance of that war to limit their war operations so as to avoid an all-out confrontation between their forces. Shabtai Teveth (David Ben-Gurion’s foremost biographer) has challenged Morris’s account of the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem. Robert Satloff (of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy) has shown, on the basis of his own research in the Jordanian national archives in Amman, the existence of hundreds of relevant government files readily available to foreign scholars, thereby demolishing the new historians’ claim that “the archives of the Arab Governments are closed to researchers, and that historians interested in writing about the Israeli-Arab conflict perforce must rely mainly on Israeli and Western archives” — and with it, the justification for their almost exclusive reliance on Israeli and Western sources.

    Come now, Kim. I trust that you now realize, if you did not before, that you simply cannot come to firm conclusions about the Arab Israeli conflict based on Mr. Pappe’s writings. His writing is, by his own admission, sufficiently tendentious as to lack credibility since he, by his own admission, does not believe that the history of events and the events described must somehow be consistent.

    Now, one can, in fact, examine the Arab Israeli dispute in many different ways. But, it seems to me that it is difficult to take Pappe’s view against facts that show he is simply mistaken in his subjective analysis of events.

  4. Deadbeat said on November 26th, 2007 at 10:54am #

    Kay’s account is ahistorical. She ignores that Hizbullah arose after the Jewish-Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1985. Kay is likeliest referring to the 1994 bombing of the Argentina-Israeli Community Center. Hizbollah can hardly be blamed for something that occurred before its inception. Hizbollah denies inolvement in the bombing.13

    Kim you need to correct 1994 to 1984 in that paragraph.

  5. Deadbeat said on November 26th, 2007 at 11:00am #

    To Joe Morgan,

    I don’t think you understand what racism is. Racism is the ideology that one group is superior and have special right over than of another group. It is chauvinism. Clearly that definition defines Zionism.

  6. Mike McNiven said on November 26th, 2007 at 11:49am #

    Mr.Peterson, Sharon’s invasion of Lebanon was in 1982! It was a massacre which killed more than three thousands , mostly Palestinians.

    Hezbollah of Lebanon was already in place when, in 1983, the US embassy in Beirut got blown up. The 1994 bombing of the Argentine Jewish Community center, which killed more than thirty people, according to INTERPOL, was done by the Hezbollah of Iran.

  7. Neal said on November 26th, 2007 at 11:49am #


    No. It was 1994. It was a Jewish Community Center. According to Argentina, Iran was directly involved and arrests warrants have been issued to persons in the Iranian government including that alleged moderate, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

    And No. Zionism (i.e. the Jewish liberation movement) is not a racist doctrine anymore than any other liberation movement is inherently racist. There, of course, have been Zionists who are racist but, then again, most have not been racist.

    The true origin of the view that Zionism is racism is well-OILed political interests. It is nice to know that those who claim to be so upset about Zionism do the bidding of these OIL interests including, most particularly, that paragon of freedom – well, the lack thereof, anyway -, Saudi Arabia (i.e. the state where women are, in effect, slaves and no religion other than Islam can be openly practiced). Real good show there, Deadbeat.

  8. JoeMorgan said on November 26th, 2007 at 12:58pm #

    Deadbeat wrote:
    “I don’t think you understand what racism is.”

    Racism is a scarlet letter that pretend egalitarians use against white Gentiles who act collectively, ie, as all Jews and nonwhites are encouraged to act, to organize along racial lines, to follow racially defined leaders and to discriminate.

    The Zionists and Jewish supremacists who control much of America’s culture are fighting against the use of this scarlet against Jews when they discriminate.

    A pretend egalitarian, (there are no real egalitarians), is someone who opposes discrimination and inequality out of one side of their mouth, and out of the other promotes discrimination when in their ethnic interests.

    Deadbeat wrote:
    “Racism is the ideology that one group is superior and have special right over than of another group.”

    So, Zionism is Jewish collectivist thinking, yes. But since Jews are not technically a European race, scarlet letters like racist and neo-Nazi are not supposed to be applied to them.

    All healthy races seek to maintain their power within a society, both in terms of its percentage and its power within the power structure.

    If one is opposed to group aggression — predatory human behavior based upon group identity, racial aggression, ethnic aggression … — then why use a word like “racist” that is only applied to those who use propaganda that says the opposing group is “inferior”?

    Racism is a bogus word for that reason. Propganda is present whenever there is group conflict. The Zionists use many propaganda to harm the Palestinians, that God gave them Palestine, that they had a right to take the land because of their holocaust myths, that the Palestinians are terrorists, led by terrorist leaders and the Zionists are innocent victims of these terrorists.

    But propaganda does not create group conflict. It is only a weapon, like guns and bombs.

    So, the scarlet letter racist is targeted only against European peoples, by pretend egalitarans, who make sure that this scarlet letter is only applied to white Gentiles.

    Your attempt to use this scarlet letter against Zionists is considered an attack on Jewish ethnic interests.

  9. JoeMorgan said on November 26th, 2007 at 1:08pm #

    Jaime wrote:

    “AFTER the modern State of Israel was ratified by the UN, several neighboring Arab countries ATTACKED the nascent Jewish State.”

    Was it ratified by the Palestinians?

    After all, it was their land before the European Jews came in to colonize it.

    Jaime wrote:

    “The Palestinians who died or were misplaced at that time were as a result of the Arab’s war against the Jews.”

    Powerful Zionists before the apartheid state of Israel was created and since have promoted greater Israel. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine was calculated. The Arabs know that the Zionists have never been satisfied with the UN mandated size of Israel, that Zionists keep the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza in brutal conditions because they want that land and want to drive them out, that they harass Syria and Lebanon because they want excuses to invade and occupy Greater Israel.

  10. Gary Lapon said on November 26th, 2007 at 1:23pm #


    That would make sense, except that the #1 supporter of Israel (the US government) is also an ally of Saudi Arabia.

    Also, I’m a Jew, and I fail to see what Zionism has done for my liberation. It accepts anti-Semitism as something not to be surmounted, but to be used for the gain of a minority of Jews. It accepts and makes peace with European anti-Semitism both ideologically and historically. Theodor Herzl even met with Von Plehve, a primary organizer of the pogroms in Russia the drove my ancestors to the US, for support, and Von Plehve was won to Zionism as a way of getting rid of Jews from Russia. In fact, the Zionist Federation of Germany sent a memorandum of support to the Nazis in 1933, upheld by the World Zionist Organization Congress by a vote of 240 to 43. Goebbels was a fan of Zionism as well. Here is Ben Gurion himself, in great Britain in 1938 to a meeting of Labor Zionists:

    “If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative.”

    The historical strategy of Zionists has been to align themselves with anti-Semitic imperialist regimes (by proposing a solution to their “Jewish problem”: moving the Jews to Israel) in order to secure a piece of land for some Jews at the expense of others, such as the Palestinians and the Jews left to be killed by the Von Plehve’s Black Hundreds and the Nazis.

    Some liberation movement.

  11. Deadbeat said on November 26th, 2007 at 1:47pm #


    Thanks for the correction on the year of the bombing.

  12. Deadbeat said on November 26th, 2007 at 1:52pm #

    Deadbeat wrote:
    “Racism is the ideology that one group is superior and have special right over than of another group.”

    So, Zionism is Jewish collectivist thinking, yes. But since Jews are not technically a European race, scarlet letters like racist and neo-Nazi are not supposed to be applied to them.

    All healthy races seek to maintain their power within a society, both in terms of its percentage and its power within the power structure.

    No! The fact of the matter is THERE ARE NO RACES. Race is a false construction and concept used to divide people and justify the OPPRESSION of certain groups over others. Races was needed to justify capitalist oppression of Africans during the slave trade. Race was needed to justify the ethic cleansing of the Native Americans. Zionism is the excuse being used to justify the oppression and ethic cleansing of Palestinians.

  13. sk said on November 26th, 2007 at 2:01pm #

    Our automatic “supporters of Israel”–or as Noam Chomsky describes them: “supporters of the moral degeneration and ultimate destruction of Israel”–are up in arms at the temerity of anyone associating racism with the “Light unto the Nations”. Here’s a poem published in an Israeli newspaper in support of a minister that they’ll find even more enlightening:

    Their progeny are a nightmare: How many Arabs in Israel?
    Already more than a million there, and still growing, right off the scale.

    Just look at them–they blacken your sight! I say this without reproaching the Jew:
    The Arab is ploughing his furrow by night that his race might outnumber you.

    A lunar eclipse? Does that explain it? Is it the mark of misfortune? Is it death’s kiss?
    Even the cat, the locust and the rabbit are unfamiliar with lust like this!

    There is no happy end in sight. They are paving the path to your tomb,
    Night after night, night after night, in the Arab woman’s womb.

    -Gershon Ben Ya’akov

  14. Lloyd Rowsey said on November 26th, 2007 at 2:31pm #

    “Regarding a continuing (and worsening) problem in comprehending the increasingly excellent and numerous articles Dissident Voice is putting up: It would constitute a quantum leap in comprehensibility if readers could “take a snapshot” of an entire article and all the posts commenting upon it, and save them for printing.
    Further with regard to taking a snapshot and saving an entire article and all the posts commenting on it, N E V E R M I N D….
    It can be done!!!”

    From two posts of mine this morning, at Keith Harmon Snow’s “Darfurism, Uganda and the U.S. War in Africa,” put up on November 24.

    PS. Be sure your printer has a lot of paper.

  15. Neal said on November 26th, 2007 at 2:34pm #

    Gary Lapon,

    You seem to think that the Jewish Liberation Movement has to have done something for you individually. Why?

    Change the context a bit and re-think your thought. The Greek Liberation Movement liberated Greece from the Ottoman Empire. Not all Greeks benefited. But, that does not make the Greek Liberation Movement a bad thing.

    One thing that is certainly clear. Since the time that Israel has come into being, the lives of Jews in most countries have improved dramatically. Is that a coincidence? I do not know for sure but I doubt it. Certainly, the existence of a place where Jews can escape persecution and oppression has directly helped a very, very large number of Jews, most especially those from Europe, Arab countries and the former USSR.

    As for your ben Gurion quote, you are reading his statement in a manner that, to an historian, makes no sense. Assuming that you have the quote correct and in context and that it was made in 1938, you fail to consider the significance of the year 1938 in ben Gurion’s thinking.

    In 1938, the expectation that European Jewry would be largely extinguished was not something that ben Gurion would likely have believed. Leading politicians did not even believe that such was occurring years later after incontrovertible evidence was placed in their hands. What was imagined is that the Hitler years would be terrible and destructive, not the end of European Jewry. And, not even Hitler had decided on European Jewry’s complete destruction in 1938, so ben Gurion would really have had to been a psychic.

    So, the question would have to be asked regarding what ben Gurion meant. While I do not have access to his entire remark nor its context, the likely significance that comes from some actual knowledge of his views is that he was using flowery language to indicate that the best place for Jews to be would be in Eretz Y’srael. That he surely believed but that is something different from what you read into his statement, which requires him to have been a psychic.

  16. bill rowe said on November 26th, 2007 at 5:03pm #

    Israel stole Palestinian land;and continues to do so. The US is their biggest supporter in this. If not for US then UN sanctions ala South Africa would have probably wiped the racist regime from the map of the earth ala Iran’s Ahmadinejad’s mis-quote already,similar to South Africa being abolished as a racist regime. Things won’t change until the mostly ignorant American piblic thinks the injustice is important enough to force their political scum to change policy or be kicked out of office.Unfortunately I have little hope that the disfunctional system some call a democracy in the US is capable of doing that.Best hope is to wait about 50 years when decline of US economic dominance will result in US public’s unwillingness to prop up the scummy racist regime and most world Jews will want to live somewhere else than in that racist rathole… then maybe the rathole residents will want to change their house themselves,again ala South Africa…

  17. Gary Lapon said on November 26th, 2007 at 5:32pm #

    On the question of institutional racism in Israel:

    The following is from
    with full citation available there:

    “Despite its substantial Arab-Palestinian student population, Haifa University harbors, or at least tolerates, a culture of racism — against Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular — which manifests itself in the fact that members of its faculty espouse racist “theories,” publish bigoted research papers, and advocate ethnic cleansing with impunity. The university has consistently and systematically failed to censure such academics or to properly investigate accusations of racism raised against them.

    It provides institutional support to racist academics and their research activities. The most notorious of these academics is Arnon Sofer, chair of geo-strategy at Haifa University and vice-chair of its Center for National Security Studies. He is also known in Israel as the prophet of the “Arab demographic threat.” He takes credit for the route of the Israeli apartheid wall — declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in the Hague, on July 9, 2004 — saying, “This is exactly my map.” [5]

    Prof. Sofer, who views the high birth rate of the Bedouin Palestinian citizens of Israel as a “tragedy,” and has no patience for “democracy and pretty words,” [6] has for many years openly advocated “voluntary transfer” — or soft ethnic cleansing — of Palestinians in the occupied territories as well as Palestinian citizens of Israel, in order to guarantee “a Zionist-Jewish state with an overwhelming majority of Jews.” In one particularly telling prediction, Sofer says, “When 2.5 million [Palestinians] live in a closed-off Gaza, … those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. … So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day. If we don’t kill, we will cease to exist. The only thing that concerns me is how to ensure that the [Jewish] boys and men who are going to have to do the killing will be able to return home to their families and be normal human beings.”

  18. Neal said on November 26th, 2007 at 5:53pm #

    Gary Lapon,

    You cite from a biased source which does not employ the thing that helps to understand events: CONTEXT. The Israelis have good reason to fear the Arab population. Why? Read what the Hamas Covenant says. I trust you know the part of it which calls for the genocide of all Jews. Must I quote it for you. And, unlike your ben Gurion quote, mine will be in context.

  19. Kim Petersen said on November 26th, 2007 at 6:37pm #


    Of course one should read widely from various sources and appraise the information accordingly. What you offer is your personal opinion on Pappe. I’m utterly uninterested in this. I am interested in the facts. Morris attests to the dispossession of the Palestinians. This is a fact that I am interested in. What Morris thinks of Pappe is of no interest.

    You have mentioned some unreferenced “facts” that amount to irrelevant quibbling.

    Firm conclusions about the Arab Israeli conflict can be had from myriad sources, Pappe being just one of them. Your tendentious comments do not carry any credibility until you admit to the Nakba and the crimes against Palestinians. You prefer, however, to provide cover for Zionists, although you will deny it, it is patently obvious.

    Mike McNiven,

    Thanks for your comments. However, I fail to see how what I have written differs from what you say.

    “[Hezbollah] was begun by a Shi’ite cleric after the important events which changed the Middle East: the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (1978) and the Iran Revolution (1979).

    In 1984, two years after the massacre at Sabra and Shatila and the arrival of 1500 revolutionary Iranian guards, the Party of God was formed.”

    Also, INTERPOL does not say that the AMAI bombing was “done by the Hezbollah of Iran.” It has merely “decided to endorse and adopt the conclusions of the report prepared by INTERPOL’s Office of Legal Affairs that Red Notices should be issued for the following six individuals: Imad Fayez Mughniyah, Ali Fallahijan, Mohsen Rabbani, Ahmad Reza Asghari, Ahmad Vahidi and Mohsen Rezai.

    Sorry Jaime,

    The two concepts are tied, as much as you imagine them to not be so. You are a self-professed Nakba-denier. This puts you in similar ideological company with Mr Zundel and Mr Irving.

    Playing games with the date of an “ethnic cleansing”is diversionary. Primary is whether it happened or not. When is secondary.

    But clearly, the comments here indicate that people can cut through the fallacious subterfuge from Zionist commenters.

  20. Neal said on November 26th, 2007 at 6:47pm #


    Now you clearly did not read the comment posted by me. What I said is that Pappe, on his own theory – not my theory -, does not take facts as centrally important. Rather, he, not I, takes the view that, because the Arab side lost, he is on their side, facts be damned.

    Pappe’s exact words are:

    my [pro-Palestinian] bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the ‘truth’ when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers; and sides with the workers not the bosses. He feels for women in distress, and has little admiration for men in command…. Mine is a subjective approach….

    Note: he refuses to stick to facts. He prefers, as he says, a subjective approach. In other words, he does not care whether or not something is true. He cares about his politics, not what occurred.

    In Arab discourse, the Nakba refers to the failure of Arabs to win the 1948 war, a war which they described, before it began, as a chance to drive off the entire Jewish population. That, you will note, is a view that appears consistently in Arab books on the topic. It is not my subjective view. It is the most common Arab view. It, by the way, remains the most common Arab view.

    Now: do you have any facts that say my facts are wrong.

    I do not deny that Arabs lost their homes. I note, however, that the actual context includes their effort to ethnically cleanse the Jewish population. I would throw back in your face: ARE YOU A PERSON WHO DENIES THE ARAB EFFORT TO ETHNICALLY CLEANSE OR KILL OFF THE JEWISH POPULATION OF WHAT IS NOW ISRAEL?

  21. Valkyrie said on November 26th, 2007 at 7:09pm #


    I haven’t read Pappe. But I have read Morris and his conclusions do refute Kay’s assertion that Palestinians left Israel voluntarily.

  22. Mohamad said on November 26th, 2007 at 7:49pm #

    AMAZING. Please, truth needs to be told. You have great power being in the media. Myself, and the free world urge you to keep using this power to uncover the lies, and show the truth. Again i say, this is an amazing article, and i thank you deeply. Not many journalists would do what you did, but it only takes one. Keep up the good work, and god bless you.

  23. Kim Petersen said on November 26th, 2007 at 9:27pm #


    As I have said, I am not interested in the Zionist tactic of ad hominem. To me, it clearly exposes how utterly inept and vacuous their position is.

    Selectively quoting from Pappe means little. Pappe also said: “Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts, Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers.” — interview with Le Soir, Nov. 29, 1999. [source]

    Focusing on a personality is a distraction.

    And, do you really hold that an attempt to undo an “ethnic cleansing” against one’s own people makes the victims of ethnic cleansing ethnic cleansers?

    Dr. Israel Shahak put it well in “The Racist Nature of Zionism and of the Zionist State”: “It is my considered opinion that the State of Israel is a racist state in the full meaning of this term. In this state people are discriminated against in the most permanent and legal way and in the most important areas of life only because of their origin. This racist discrimination began in Zionism and is carried out today mainly in cooperation with the institution of the Zionist movement. I do not wish to debate any justification for the racist policy. The most important fact is that it exists. Therefore the first step consists in admitting the truth: The State of Israel is a racist state, and its racism is a necessary consequence of the racism of the Zionist Movement. Facts are facts. After this we can debate, if we wish to do so, why such a racism is ‘forbidden’ against the Jews and becomes a good deed when it is carried out by the Jews.”


    Thanks Mohammad.

  24. sk said on November 26th, 2007 at 11:32pm #

    Kim, it may be time to consider Gabriel Ash’s advice:

    Trolls need a special low-content diet. Please, please, those of you who feed the trolls–you know who you are–don’t!

    Here’s something to unwind with. For Breyton Breytenbach substitute Daniel Barenboim.

  25. JoeMorgan said on November 27th, 2007 at 6:43am #

    Deadbeat wrote:
    “No! The fact of the matter is THERE ARE NO RACES.”

    You might tell that to American nonwhites who have 1,000s of racially defined organizations here, 1,000s of racially defined leaders, and all discriminate based upon … race.

    Deadbeat wrote:
    “Race is a false construction and concept used to divide people and justify the OPPRESSION of certain groups over others.”

    Our species is a predatory species, which means we are tribe oriented, hierachal, and territorial.

    Regardless of the word you use to define this, it is true, and we see omnipresent tribal behavior on the planet.

    Deadbeat wrote:
    “Races was needed to justify capitalist oppression of Africans during the slave trade.”

    Our species has been enslaving each other since we stepped foot in the mud, and Africans still enslave each other. According to a report written by Senator Lieberman, there are 5 African countries that still keep slavess.

    Deadbeat wrote:
    “Zionism is the excuse being used to justify the oppression and ethic cleansing of Palestinians.”

    Zionism is human collectivism, which all racial families engage in if they are normal and healthy.

  26. Max Shields said on November 27th, 2007 at 6:57am #

    I think it is really important to see Zionism as a creation of imperialism. It patterns itself after every historical instance of imperialistic agression that’s been recorded. Israel takes its cue from the American expansionists and exceptionalists doctrines. And these are operating today, in US foreign (and domestic) policies.

    Zionism is not an aberration. It is “modern” day version of colonialism; and it is firmly entrenched in ideology. Israel is not an empire unto itself, but instead feeds off the ideology of Western imperialism most strikingly expressed in US policies.

    It uses the power of the “conqueror” to alter the story (history) to justify morally unjustifable acts; and has found a tool – a moral imperative not unlike American exceptionalism/manifest destiny – called Holocaust to thrust around like a giant sword at anything that gets in its way or needs “convincing”.

  27. Neal said on November 27th, 2007 at 7:02am #


    Note that you did not answer my question. Do you or do you not condemn the Arab effort to ethnically cleanse what became Israel? That is a Yes or a No.

  28. Gary Lapon said on November 27th, 2007 at 9:30am #

    I’d like to comment on the idea of arguments based on “facts” versus “subjectivity.”

    First of all, “objectivity” does not exist in reality. Even the most well-cited and exhaustive article on any topic ultimately relies on subjective interpretations of events (even first-hand accounts are subjective…even photographs are subjective, because the photographer must make a choice of what to shoot, which is based on their judgment, which is subjective). In addition, the decision of which “facts” to consider relevant to the topic, and hence to include in an article or book, is subjective.

    Anyone claiming objectivity is seeking to mask their subjectivity, to pass off an interpretation that supports their agenda as “the facts.” This is often utilized in the mainstream media by pundits attempting to convince people to support policy that is contrary to their interests. For example, you have Bill O’Reilly on Fox News talking about how he’s “fair and balanced” and how his show is “the No Spin Zone.” He does this because his role is to convince working class people to take conservative positions, which are contrary to their economic interests. He can’t say, “I support driving down the wages of all workers, and this can be done by using racism as a weapon of division, which will prevent unionization and will allow bosses to pay employees of color less, keeping all wages down. So: you should discriminate against Blacks and/or Latinos and/or Arabs and/or Muslims.” Instead, he lies, claiming that an objective analysis of the “facts,” shows that undocumented immigrants cause crime, that rap music causes crime, that Islam is inherently violent, etc.

    I think it’s a good thing that Pappe, on principle, sides with the oppressed and not the oppressor, whatever “the facts.” The vast majority of people are excluded from day to day politics, so they are not obligated to abide by the code of the elite. The Palestinians suffering at the hands of Israel, the children having their limbs blown off by Israeli cluster bomblets to this day in Lebanon, the thousands being tortured in Israeli dungeoins: they never signed a statement saying that “might makes right,” that just because Israel was able to drive their ancestors from their land (or, as many Zionists, in a characteristically racist manner, interpret “the facts” in an “objective” manner, left, all for the same reasons, because of course the “Arab mind” is one) they must accept this reality, that they must live as second-class citizens.

    Whenever a human being thinks, speaks, or writes, the result is subjective. This is unavoidable; we all have a perspective, a class interest, an interpretation, and a unique set of information we see as “the facts.” The most honest among us are open about this subjectivity. They put their agenda out there. In a world where it’s possible to meet the needs of everyone, where there is no need for oppression or exploitation, those who oppose oppression and exploitation on a principled basis, no matter the color/religion/ethnic origin/status of the oppressors or oppressed, are subjective, yes, but in the best possible way.

  29. Hatuxka said on November 27th, 2007 at 9:47am #

    Great post here by Kim Peterson, alot of agitation from the usual suspects on precisely how dishonest and dishonorable one of their more prominent cohorts (lying and distorting defenders of Israel), this Kay person, is. This Ziofascist cohort seen in this post and thread is nothing if not brazen and the appearance of two of them here not to defend this indefensible Kay, but to counter the mounting realization even in this country, so in lock-down for so long against discussion of this sort in the mainstream, of the enormity of Israeli state criminality against the Palestinians.

  30. Neal said on November 27th, 2007 at 10:08am #

    Gary Lapon,

    I do not claim that one can get to objectivity. However, one cannot claim that an event occurred in 1936, when it occurred in 1938, and then assert that the event wrongly claimed to occur in 1936 influenced what occurred in 1937. Unless cause and effect are thrown out the window, such a claim is called an error.

    Frankly, that is what you are defending. So, yes, there is no perfect objectivity. But, the effort to maintain fidelity to events is what distinguishes a scholar from a quack. That is what Morris claims about Pappe. Not that Pappe has details interpreted more one way than Morris would do but, instead, that the idea of even trying to present events in a manner that resembles, to the extent humanely possible what occurred is rejected out of hand in favor of advocacy.

    Consider, if one rejects the effort toward maintaining fidelity to events, any narrative is equally true – which, in fact, is what Pappe claims. So, one can say, just as well as Pappe says that Arabs were only wronged, claim that Arabs wanted to leave the area because they thought life in Lebanon and Syria and Jordan would be better. Some, in fact, did so. And, it is a very good subjective narrative. The only way to refute it would be to accept the idea that one must maintain fidelity to events as they occurred.

    You, of course, are free to maintain that objectivity is a crock. But, you open yourself up to anyone saying anything.

  31. jaime said on November 27th, 2007 at 10:10am #

    Rather than throwing recriminations around…folks should get behind this. Of course, the Hamas is virulently against any kind of deal. We might yet see the Israelis and Abbas’s people subduing Hamas together with the blessing of the Arab world. Then maybe peace can have a chance.

    Israel and Palestinians agree to launch peace talks

    Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:38 AM EST

    By Arshad Mohammed and Sue Pleming

    ANNAPOLIS, Md (Reuters) – With a handshake, leaders of the United States, Israel and the Palestinians agreed on Tuesday to immediately launch peace talks with the goal of reaching a final accord by the end of 2008.

    President George W. Bush made the dramatic announcement at the opening of a 44-nation Middle East peace conference, with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas standing alongside him.

    Bush arranged for a handshake between the two leaders as they stood at the podium of the conference after he announced the agreement whose aim is establishing a Palestinian state that will live in peace with Israel.

    The accord emerged from lengthy, last-minute negotiations between the parties on a joint document meant to chart the course for negotiating the toughest “final status” issues of the conflict — Jerusalem, borders, security and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

    “We agreed to immediately launch good faith, bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including core issues, without exception,” Bush said, reading from a joint statement. He said the two sides agreed to try to reach an agreement by the end of 2008.

  32. Shabnam said on November 27th, 2007 at 11:06pm #

    Barbara Kay believes:

    “Hezbollah was responsible for the 1984 bombing of the Argentinean community centre which killed a high number of Jews and many other attacks on diaspora Jewish centres. When someone walks beside a supporter of Hezbollah with the sign “Long Live Nasrallah” one is essentially supporting someone with the sign “Long live Hitler” because both have the same agenda.”

    She is referring to the bombing of “The Argentine Jewish Mutual Association,” AMIA a Jewish charities association headquarters in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994 where 85 people were killed.
    This has nothing to do with Iran but the Zionist liars try to connect this bombing to Iran, Hezbollah and even Syria to demonize these countries for further action against Islamic countries to expand their influence around the world.

    Israel, its American cabal, and other deceivers had accused Hezbollah or its cells of being behind the explosion. But Hezbollah does not engage in any activities in foreign land, nor does it have active or dormant cells. Therefore, Ms. Kay is lying when she accuses Hezbollah. Before the bombing, there were number of anti-Semitic incidents in Argentina including Vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, threats to Jewish institutions, and other activities. In 2003, the Delegation of Israeli Argentine Associations (DAIA) Center for Social Studies reported 177 anti-Semitic incidents. Therefore, this bombing could have been carried out by internal enemies, including the military.

    Barbara Kay who writes for a pro Zionist newspaper, National Post, where brought charge of ‘dress code’ for Jews and other religious minorities against Iran topresent Iran as another Nazi Germany and portrait the Iranian president as another Hitler through lies and deception –same as Barbara Kay who claims Hezbollah is responsible for the attack without any prove – we are hopeful to see National Post apologizes for Ms. Kay’s lies – as they did in the case of ‘dress code’ story – soon. Please read the following article for facts on this issue:

    Argentina’s Jewish community, the largest in Latin America, has close ties with the former president, Nestor Kirchner who also is Jewish. Mr. Kirchner has gone out of his way to court Argentine Jews by creation of a special commission to re-investigate the AMIA case.
    Nestor Kirchner spoke at the United Nations General Assembly session and had extensively referred to Iran, criticized its policies, and demanded the extradition of suspects in the explosion of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, the Argentinean capital that took place in 1994 in which 85 people were killed. But the representative for the victims of the bombing has criticized his speech before the UN, affirming that the president is trying “to gain other countries’ support as a cover for corrupt Justice Department.

    Argentina has financial problem and the Kirchner family is trying hard to bring money to improve the economy. Jewish community’s financial resources and their votes were important in Christina Kirchner’s victory for presidency. Leading American Jewish organizations, the Lobby, is very active in the politics of AMIA and have urged Interpol to issue international arrest warrants for the perpetrators of a 1994 bombing attack against the Jewish community building in Buenos Aires.
    Immediately following the explosion at the Argentinean Jewish Center (AMIA) certain circles pointed the finger of blame at Iran, accusing Tehran of having masterminded the attack. The then health minister of the Zionist regime, Ephraim Sneh accused Iran in these words, “Iran is a potential terrorist and AMIA blast resembles the one at the Israeli Embassy.” This occurred 2 years earlier.
    Staging of numerous rallies in front of the Iran Islamic Republic Embassy in Buenos Aires, organized by the Zionist regime with the backing of Jewish circles in Argentina and the United States in complete harmony with Western media, had created a poisonous atmosphere against Iran. The Argentinean government was faced, on the one hand with the flood of media reports against Iran, and on the other by efforts of some Argentinean politicians and legal authorities in forging documents and bribing witnesses to give evidence in favor of the Zionist regime, using completely fabricated material as evidence. Such factors led to the concurrence of the Argentinean government with the judiciary in issuing unjust verdicts against Iran and Hezbollah resulting in an almost total break in political, economic, and cultural ties between Iran and Argentina.
    Iran’s former ambassador to Argentina, Hadi Soleimanpour was detained on August 21, 2003 in Durham, Britain, where he was studying. A British court held a 51-minute hearing on November 13, 2003 and issued a final verdict acquitting Soleimanpour and declaring the case officially closed.
    Following a complaint filed two years later by Iran against the British court for libel and damages, the British government paid 180,000 pounds sterling to cover the costs of the trial.
    Therefore, those Zionist who condom Iran and Hezbollah for the bombing must stop repeating Zionist’s rubbish immediately.
    Israel has not only whipped the Palestinian off the map but also is trying to divide countries larger than itself in the region through destabilization using American power to implement its expansionist policy.
    Zionism and imperialism are both sides of the same coin and fighting against one without the other is not fruitful. Both are exploitative, racist and expand their power and influence through dispossession of others by military means and act of terror. Both believe in their chosenness and their exceptionalism. I believe that Zionism is racism, because in establishing the racially exclusive state of Israel, in 1948, and expelling the indigenous Palestinians from the land, they have done ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population who has lived on their land continually for the past twenty one centuries.

  33. jaime said on November 27th, 2007 at 11:44pm #

    Shabnam wrote:

    “… Hezbollah does not engage in any activities in foreign land, nor does it have active or dormant cells…..”


    Hizballah Activity in North America
    By Andrew Cochran

    Brian Hecht of The Investigative Project on Terrorism has prepared a quick reference guide to major Hizballah and Hizballah-linked illegal activity in the United States, Canada and Mexico:

  34. jaime said on November 27th, 2007 at 11:55pm #

    Hezbollah builds a Western base
    From inside South America’s Tri-border area, Iran-linked militia targets U.S.
    By Pablo Gato and Robert Windrem
    NBC News
    Updated: 9:29 a.m. ET May 9, 2007

    CIUDAD DEL ESTE, Paraguay – The Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia has taken root in South America, fostering a well-financed force of Islamist radicals boiling with hatred for the United States and ready to die to prove it, according to militia members, U.S. officials and police agencies across the continent.

    From its Western base in a remote region divided by the borders of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina known as the Tri-border, or the Triple Frontier, Hezbollah has mined the frustrations of many Muslims among about 25,000 Arab residents whose families immigrated mainly from Lebanon in two waves, after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and after the 1985 Lebanese civil war.

    An investigation by Telemundo and NBC News has uncovered details of an extensive smuggling network run by Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim group founded in Lebanon in 1982 that the United States has labeled an international terrorist organization. The operation funnels large sums of money to militia leaders in the Middle East and finances training camps, propaganda operations and bomb attacks in South America, according to U.S. and South American officials.

    U.S. officials fear …

  35. baby said on November 28th, 2007 at 4:43am #

    the title looked interesting
    but the contents?
    oh no! heady stuff

  36. Lloyd Rowsey said on November 28th, 2007 at 5:45am #

    baby, you said it.

  37. Lloyd Rowsey said on November 28th, 2007 at 7:01am #

    I suspect
    it may be repetitive
    in places