Who may resist (or, ‘Do you see any smokestacks?’)

Israel/Palestine
on 17 Comments

For any active colonial enterprise, the answer is that no one may resist, not violently, not nonviolently—not in any way, because the business of a colonial power is to maintain itself as a colonial power. To that end, it demands the passivity, compliance, and collaboration of the colonized people. When, historically, compliance is not forthcoming, the colonial power responds with repression and violence.

Israel—with its relatively small (by the numbers; think India, by contrast) but still very real colonial occupation—is no different. Colonial powers do not acknowledge that there’s anything wrong with what they’re doing; indeed, they defend their actions as legal and just. Thus, it is the resistance that is the crime. Think about American slavery: it was the “lawful” status quo. Violence against slaves (and abolitionists) was the acceptable norm. Escaped slaves—property gone missing—were hunted down and brought back in shackles. A slave uprising (as with a colonial uprising) was the crime; John Brown is the terrorist, not the slave owners.

This is a schematic presentation, I know, but I think it holds.

Regarding today’s Israel, ask the members of Netanyahu’s coalition; ask the members of AIPAC; ask lots of even well meaning American Jews. They’ll insist that Israel, (the unacknowledged) colonial occupier, is the victim and that those who resist must be punished, lest the phenomenon (of resistance to illegal occupation) spread.

And if you ask the major apologists who work at finessing the truth, you’ll get the answer that, sure, the settlements were Israel’s biggest mistake ever but, they’ll also tell you, Palestinians are the criminals for resisting. And they’ll tell you that those who support their resistance are anti-Semites.

It breaks down to whether you support the occupation by justifying it and calling it something else or whether you believe that the occupation must end (and ending the occupation, as they well know, would entail a lot of decolonizing).

Amira Hass has the heart of a lion. She stands apart for her decades-long struggle as a journalist to expose the ugly, suppressed truth about the occupation and to challenge it. Read the comments that accompany her articles and you’ll see the vitriol directed at her. Yesterday she wrote about resistance

Throwing stones is the birthright and duty of anyone subject to foreign rule. Throwing stones is an action as well as a metaphor of resistance. Persecution of stone-throwers, including 8-year-old children, is an inseparable part − though it’s not always spelled out − of the job requirements of the foreign ruler, no less than shooting, torture, land theft, restrictions on movement, and the unequal distribution of water sources.

It has generated the virulent response one would expect, with settlers accusing Haaretz of being anti-settler. See Noam Sheizaf’s commentary at +972

[T]he real issue is the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance in the eyes of Israeli society – or more correctly, the lack of legitimacy. . . .

In the Israeli political conversation, all forms of Palestinian resistance are forbidden. Those advocating for Israel view every Palestinian action as a form of terrorism, and as such, they become inherently illegitimate and justify repercussions and unilateral moves by Israel. The BDS movement – which is clearly non-violent – is often referred to as “cultural terrorism” and “economic terrorism,” the UN statehood bid was “diplomatic terrorism,” stone-throwing is “popular terrorism,” and so on. The Israeli government is taking active measures to suppress all those forms of resistance, and the debate in Israel isolates and punishes those who support them. The sad reality is that by doing so, Israel leaves more and more Palestinians to wonder on the value of such non-violent acts, as opposed to that of the real, armed terrorism.
 

There is an aversion in Israel to admitting that there is even an occupation (they still babble about “disputed” territories, not occupied territories). But as of June this oppressive occupation will have been running for forty-six years. How can one argue with Amira Hass’s contention that “throwing stones is an action as well as a metaphor of resistance.” Richard Goldstone in his eponymous report acknowledged the right of an occupied people to resist—with the warning that legal resistance did not permit harming civilians. It seems, unfortunately, that in the case at hand it is the occupiers who are permitted to harm civilians, as we see the Israelis doing routinely with international impunity.

For me there was irony in the publication on the same day as the Hass article the piece by Robert Rozett about Jewish resistance during the war. He is challenging the once regnant Israeli wisdom that the Jewish heroes of the Holocaust were those who engaged in armed resistance, whereas the rest went shamefully like sheep to the slaughter. Rozett says, no, resistance and the struggle to stay alive and human take many forms. In fact this notion is not new; an undergraduate course about the Holocaust that I took at Columbia in 1970 or so had a week or two on the syllabus devoted to readings that the professor understood in this way. But it’s an important point; the macho understanding of resistance is a cruel hoax. In the Jewish world, Jews are valorized for resisting in whatever way, for their amidah (taking a stand); Palestinians, however, may not resist and their sumud (steadfastness) is to be condemned. This, I believe, is unacceptable. 
 

My parents moved to Israel in the late 1970s. My father and I argued vehemently and nonstop about the matter of Palestinians, a Palestinian state, the occupation, and the wars from even earlier, from the mid-1970s until his death four years ago. It was he who, really irritated with something I’d said, countered with, “Do you see any smokestacks?” Meaning that until there are gas chambers and ovens, there’s nothing  to discuss: for him, Palestinians were simply barbaric terrorists. End of story. What a paltry standard of (in)justice it is that allows the prism of the Holocaust to distort everything. I saw my father, whom I loved very much, as a typical Israeli (or, perhaps, he was simply a typical American Jew).

It has become the thing in Israel today to crow about how “quiet” things are in the occupied territories—they boast that there’s no terror even as they exploit talk of terror all the time. In 2012, they tell you, no Israelis were killed at the hands of Palestinians. By contrast, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the IDF has already killed eleven Palestinians in 2013. The campaign talk in Israel a few months back was about how it was unnecessary to even think about Palestine: the natives, that is, were not restless. But in fact they are.

It is the right of peoples under occupation to resist. Why should the Palestinians be the only people in the Middle East denied this right?

17 Responses

  1. Citizen
    April 5, 2013, 12:27 pm

    Given the Nuremberg Trials and Geneva since, not to mention the internet, there will be no more death camp smokestacks a la Auschwitz. Israel is writing the book on the limits of how much harm one can do to a captive population since 1945, and get away with it; indeed, even have it funded and diplomatically covered. Future world historians will document this role regarding what Jews did once they had a jurisdiction with absolute power like others have had since the biblical days of Joshua.

  2. MHughes976
    April 5, 2013, 4:26 pm

    To my mind, occupation governments are legitimate in their genuine form – that is, they work on the principle that the territory is not theirs, that it will be returned to traditional or native government after the end of formal hostilities, that there will be no seizure of property. In that case, there is no right to resist them. To depart from these principles is to move from occupation to conquest and a right to resist conquest does exist.

    • Avi_G.
      April 5, 2013, 6:52 pm

      So how does that apply to Northern Ireland?

      • libra
        April 6, 2013, 2:38 pm

        Avi_G: So how does that apply to Northern Ireland?

        Probably to the same extent as it applies to Texas.

        Avi, if you start comparing the occupation and settlement of Palestine by Israel (which is the context of this post) to every vaguely similar event in world history then you’ll end up sounding like a hasbarist. And I’m sure you wouldn’t want that.

        That said, if you see a single, democratic state in IP as the way forward then Northern Ireland offers grounds for optimism.

    • MK_Ultra
      April 6, 2013, 4:34 pm

      If that’s the case, every action ever taken by every single government around the world is legal. No government ever recognizes or categorizes their actions for the true motives. Take the US for example. You can’t just cherry pick colonialism, the same applies to every wrongdoing from war crimes to genocide.

    • Talkback
      April 8, 2013, 11:00 am

      MHughes976 says: “In that case, there is no right to resist them.”

      People always have a right to resist anything which limits their right to self determination, even if an occupation is legally accepted, because it is only interim and doesn’t serve colonial purposes or annexation.

      • MHughes976
        April 12, 2013, 6:12 am

        If either description, occupation or conquest, applied to Northern Ireland the consequences would be the same, I’d say. I’d like to think that the current status of NI is something different again, in that it’s the scene of a legitimate agreement between formerly contending parties.
        The rights of governments arise, as I think Hobbes (sort of!) showed, from social contracts, arrangements which create mutual trust, in their various forms. The dreadful alternative of ever-spreading mistrust is to avoided wherever possible. There is surely an operative social contract in the United States, the example MKU mentions. There was once a social contract making this part of the world, now England, a province of the Roman Empire, along with Judaea.
        The situation was reversed briefly during WW2 when there was an Allied Military Government in occupation of Italy. I think that this was legitimate and that Italian civilians had no right to cut the throats of British or American soldiers or even to obstruct their movements. I’d say in reply to talkback that if you can’t make an ‘occupation contract’ (silly as the phrase sounds) then there is no alternative for armies on foreign soil (and these must sometimes exist) than to behave like conquerors, with all the homicide and plunder that that entails. In the ME, it’s important to me to say that there is no true occupation anywhere in Palestine, only an attempted conquest of all of it (with death and plunder a plenty) and a consequent right to certain forms of resistance.
        What is meant by ‘self-determination’? I ask with all due respect, since the phrase is indeed widely used and honoured. But I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen even a coherent definition of it.

  3. DICKERSON3870
    April 5, 2013, 6:49 pm

    ● RE: There is an aversion in Israel to admitting that there is even an occupation (they still babble about “disputed” territories, not occupied territories). But as of June this oppressive occupation will have been running for forty-six years.” ~ Ilene Cohen

    ● JASON HIRTHLER:

    [EXCERPT] . . . Gustave Le Bon, a pioneer of mass psychology, once noted that the masses are especially susceptible to comforting fantasies, and that, “Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.” . . .

    ● RE: In the Israeli political conversation, all forms of Palestinian resistance are forbidden. Those advocating for Israel view every Palestinian action as a form of terrorism, and as such, they become inherently illegitimate and justify repercussions and unilateral moves by Israel.” ~ Noam Sheizaf

    ● JASON HIRTHLER:

    [EXCERPT] . . . Thus the great social theorist Max Weber famously defined the state as the set of institutional arrangements that exercise a monopoly over the (legitimate) means of violence within a given territory or over a given population. . .

    JASON HIRTHLER SOURCE – link to counterpunch.org

    ● P.S. “The nation that oppresses another nation forges its own chains.” – Karl Marx

    • DICKERSON3870
      April 5, 2013, 7:07 pm

      ● P.P.S. RE: “Gustave Le Bon, a pioneer of mass psychology, once noted that the masses are especially susceptible to comforting fantasies [e.g. Chernus’ “myths” (see below) ~ J.L.D.], and that, “Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master . . .” ~ Hirthler (from above)

      ● SEE: “Israel’s Defense Chief OK’s Hundreds of Israeli Deaths”, By Ira Chernus, CommonDreams.org, 11/11/11

      [EXCERPT] . . . An essential motive of Zionism from its beginning was a fierce desire to end the centuries of Jewish weakness, to show the world that Jews would no longer be pushed around, that they’d fight back and prove themselves tougher than their enemies. There was more to Zionism than that. But the “pride through strength” piece came to dominate the whole project. Hence the massive Israeli military machine with its nuclear arsenal.
      But you can’t prove that you’re stronger than your enemies unless you’ve also got enemies — or at least believe you’ve got enemies — to fight against. So there has to be a myth of Israel’s insecurity, fueled by an image of vicious anti-semites lurking somewhere out there, for Zionism to work. Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran has gradually risen to the top of Israel oh-so-necessary enemies list. Iranophobia is rampant in Israel, as one Israeli scholar writes, because “Israel needs an existential threat.”
      Anyone who has grown up in Israel, or in the U.S. Jewish community (as I did), and paid attention knows all this. . .

      ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to commondreams.org

      ● P.P.P.S. ALSO SEE – “Iranophobia: The Panic of the Hegemons”, by Ira Chernus, Tikkun Magazine, November/December 2010
      LINK – link to tikkun.org

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 5, 2013, 7:18 pm

        P.P.P.P.S. RE: “But you can’t prove that you’re stronger than your enemies unless you’ve also got enemies — or at least believe you’ve got enemies — to fight against. So there has to be a myth of Israel’s insecurity, fueled by an image of vicious anti-semites lurking somewhere out there, for Zionism to work.” ~ Chernus (from above)

        SEE: “Israel’s Trauma Psychology and the Attack on Gaza”, By Avigail Abarbanel, Sunday 4th January 2009

        [EXCERPT] . . . Israel has been itching for a ‘good war’ for a while now. The botched attack on Lebanon in 2006 was a psychological disappointment that did not fulfil its purpose, and only led to a deepening chasm between the political and military arms in Israel. An Israeli friend told me in disgust the other day, that there is an atmosphere of ‘national orgasm’ in Israel about the prospect of attacking Iran. While people are being bombed in Gaza, all Israelis can talk about is the coming attack on Iran. But there is a link between the two.
        Israel’s social problems have grown exponentially over the past 15 years. It’s a very different Israel now than the one I grew up in. There is more violent and organised crime than ever before, and more domestic violence and abuse of children than ever. There are more drugs and drug use, and they have drunk-driving, something I have never encountered while I was still living there. This is reflected in official reports as well as in the daily newspapers.
        My brother who lives in Israel described to me how soldiers who spend their military service in the Occupied Palestinian territories implementing Israel’s brutal occupation, come home on weekends only to get involved in drunken armed brawls and murders. This was unheard of in my time.
        Israelis have never been particularly kind to each other. It’s one of the reasons I left actually. In my late twenties I started to grow weary of the unkind, harsh and unforgiving atmosphere around me. It was a tough place to live in not because of our ‘enemies’ but because of how people treated one another. You would believe that we were all enemies rather than people who have some kind of a shared heritage. The only thing that could unite people and temporarily brought out more kindness and a sense of cooperation was a feeling of being under collective threat, and in particular a ‘good wholesome war’ . . .

        SOURCE – link to avigailabarbanel.me.uk
        AVIGAIL ABARBANEL’S SITE - link to avigailabarbanel.me.uk

        P.P.P.P.P.S. COMING SOON: The new Über-Xtreme Ziocaine Ultra Sustained Release Transdermal Patch®! Let The Good Times Roll!™

    • DICKERSON3870
      April 6, 2013, 12:36 am

      P.P.P.P.P.P.S. RE: “Gustave Le Bon, a pioneer of mass psychology, once noted that the masses are especially susceptible to comforting fantasies [e.g. Rockstroh’s “comforting lies” (see below) ~ J.L.D.] and that, “Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master . . .” ~ Hirthler (from above)

      SEE – “Tyranny of the Reasonable: Popular Complacency in an Era of Economic Exploitation and Perpetual War”, by Phil Rockstroh, Common Dreams, 4/05/13

      [EXCERPT] . . . Not all truths are created equal. At times, true statements can be launched with malevolent intent. Such declarations of fact should be avoided for the sake of all concerned (e.g., “Your child was served with a large dollop of the ugly gene distributed so generously in your family”). In contrast, calling out an insidious lie told in the pursuit of a selfish agenda serves the benefit of all, but [i.e. except for] the promulgator of the self-serving fiction (e.g., a lie such as: “Evidence indicates that the despotic ruler of (fill in the blank of a resource rich or strategically located nation) has become a threat to life and to the liberty of the world at large; therefore, we have no choice but to invade with the full force of our military might and establish the democracy that decent people everywhere yearn for”). The same applies to convictions borne of convenient self-deception (e.g., “I support the troops deployed in the aforementioned invasion…or else people might accuse me of supporting the terrorists”).

      For an individual, by far, the biggest danger in trafficking in transactional lies arises from losing awareness of the demarcation point between where the lie starts and you begin — your existence reduced to a fixed smile (and a clutch of hidden resentments) that announces the presence of a counterfeit life. By losing the recognition that you are lying, your life becomes a lie. Often, a comforting lie can be as insidious as an outright prevarication. Building a worldview based on comforting lies translates into a habitual muting of the senses — a white noise of the mind takes hold drowning out the unique music that forms the core of one’s consciousness…obliterating, the quality Kabir averred is: “The flute of interior time [that] is played whether we hear it or not. What we know as ‘love’ is its sound coming in.” . . .

      ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to commondreams.org

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 6, 2013, 4:55 pm

        P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S. ANOTHER EXCERPT FROM “Tyranny of the Reasonable: Popular Complacency in an Era of Economic Exploitation and Perpetual War”, by Phil Rockstroh, Common Dreams, 4/05/13:

        [EXCERPT] . . . The individual who finds an implicate order within — who keeps hold of the golden thread of his true nature as he wends through the baffling labyrinth of social convention and official deceit — will make an ally of fate. His true name will be emblazoned upon his heart and will ring across the devouring abyss of a conformist age.
        In bleak contrast, how can a people whose consciousness and concomitant mode of being was forged in a furnace of cultural perfidy be capable of building anything of enduring worth? The facile fades, even as the lie that gave rise to millions of deceitful heirs lives on (e.g., The citizenry of the U.S. who have shunted from consciousness and expunged from memory, the millions of slaughtered human beings (from Central America to Central Asia, from Southeast Asia to the Persian Gulf) resultant from the imperial ambitions of the nation’s ruling elites).
        We claim we know who we are. We believe the fictions we spin regarding our identity and our interactions with the world. But, to a large degree, we are composed of the very things we are unaware of about ourselves — the things that we find too uncomfortable to admit inform our actions and form the foundation of our fate.
        Propagandists, corporate and political, know this: They know how to manipulate those resistant to self-awareness, by plying them with flattering lies and pummeling them with contrived fears. These overpaid, professional liars know how to trap us in cages constructed of our cherished convictions. This is why, as a general rule, human beings prove so easy to control.
        If you find what you have been habitually avoiding, you might blunder upon who you are.
        Antithetical to the process of self-awareness: The quintessence of duplicity we know as corporate man is not interested in connection nor exploration; he craves control. He is not moved by mystery; he has an agenda. He does not know life; he possesses a facile contrivance of being.
        But the currents of time will erode his counterfeit world. He will be left with nothing, because, in the long run, he will only possess his own emptiness.
        Yet, you cannot force truth upon the deceived. If a deluded soul is fortunate enough to stumble upon it, he will have found it beneath the rubble of his collapsed convictions. His most treasured, now shattered, verities will glint like shards in moonlight, as irascible circumstance has forced him to question all he insisted was true.
        This is the means by which wars are avoided. Here is located the point of departure where a subversion of a corrupt order begins.

        SOURCE – link to commondreams.org

    • DICKERSON3870
      April 8, 2013, 2:24 pm

      RE: “. . . Thus the great social theorist Max Weber famously defined the state as the set of institutional arrangements that exercise a monopoly over the (legitimate) means of violence within a given territory or over a given population. . .” ~ from above

      MEA MAXIMA CULPA; I incorrectly attributed the above quotation to Jason Hithler. Actually, it was from an excellent commentary by Andrew Levine.

      SEE: “Obama’s Divided Self – Papa Obama and President Drone”, by Andrew Levine, Conterpunch, 4/01/13

      [EXCERPTS] . . . Over the past four years, a clearer image of our forty-fourth President has emerged.
      It turns out that Obama has two personae. Like the individual who was both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the Robert Louis Stevenson story, there is a benevolent Obama and a malevolent one.
      There is the parent who tries hard to be understanding and helpful, and who is never intentionally overbearing. Call him Papa Obama. And there is President Drone.
      . . . Obama seems to think that his words can work wonders. That was what led him to give a splendid Papa Obama speech in Cairo in 2009, at the outset of his first term. When the world didn’t then fall into line, he lost interest or perhaps he just decided that it would be expedient to let matters take their course. In any case, that was all there was to his opening to the Muslim world.
      Then when “hope” and “change” really did break out in Egypt and throughout the Middle East in the spring of 2011, Obama made sure that, as always, the U.S. would be on the wrong side.
      Ironically, it isn’t just Obama’s liberal apologists who struggle with delusions; evidently, Obama does too. Reality has been intruding on his faith in the efficacy of Papa Obama words almost from Day One.
      Put differently, the family circle has been shrinking.
      That is not surprising. The difference between good kids and those who lie beyond the reach of non-coercive parenting skills has always been imaginary. In Obama’s case, it is based on his internalization of the values, prejudices and affinities of America’s (and the larger West’s) elites. Reality was bound to intrude.
      So, by now, for all but a favored few, the love is gone. What is left is force.
      There is nothing new in that. Using or threatening to use force is what states do.
      This is axiomatic in modern political philosophy; states coordinate the behaviors of the individuals under their authority through the use or threat of force. Thus the great social theorist Max Weber famously defined the state as the set of institutional arrangements that exercise a monopoly over the (legitimate) means of violence within a given territory or over a given population.
      And it is how states have always dealt with other states. War and diplomacy are, and always have been, complementary extensions of one another.
      What is new are the means through which force can now be exercised. So far, President Drone has chosen to deploy drone technology only in parts of the world populated by peoples the West despises and about whom it knows little and cares less. . .

      ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to counterpunch.org

  4. talknic
    April 5, 2013, 9:51 pm

    But as of June this oppressive occupation will have been running for forty-six years. “

    The above statement shows just how deeply the wholly holey Hasbara has penetrated.

    On May 22, 1948 UNSC S/766 the Provisional Government of Israel answered questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations.

    Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?

    “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.” … ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel” link to unispal.un.org

    “international regulations” at the time say;

    Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
    “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” link to avalon.law.yale.edu

    Further to which as recently as 2004

    9th July 2004 International Court of Justice the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict link to icj-cij.org

    3 Jun 1948 in the Knesset Report to the Provisional Government of Israel by Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Ben-Gurion 3 Jun 1948
    “The entire expanse of the State of Israel allocated to us under the terms of the UN resolution is in our hands, and we have conquered several important districts outside those boundaries”.
    and;
    “To the greatest possible extent, we will remain constantly on the offensive, which will not be confined to the borders of the Jewish State”. link to mfa.gov.il

    Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948 link to mfa.gov.il

    Israel has never legally acquired any territories beyond the boundaries Israel asked to be recognized by and was recognized by link to trumanlibrary.org

    Occupation can actually be dated from at least May 22nd 1948

    • Talkback
      April 8, 2013, 11:11 am

      talknic says: “Israel has never legally acquired any territories beyond the boundaries Israel asked to be recognized …”

      So how did the Zionist Apartheid Junta legally acquire territory inside recognized boundaries? Recognition is not legitimation.

  5. Citizen
    April 6, 2013, 9:18 am

    This internationally known novelist, currently dying of cancer, told the world yesterday why he supports BDS: link to guardian.co.uk

  6. Andreas Schlueter
    April 7, 2013, 11:19 am

    Referring to the term “colonial power” there´s a big difference to “modern colonialism” and the masses of colonized people to work for the colonial master: Israel is more orientating on the old settler colonialism of the North American type. The Palestinians are “Red Indians” for the colonizers. The believe of the ruling elite in Israel is: well, the American and the Australian Goyim had enough time to deal with the Red Indians and Aboriginies, why don´t they leave us in peace to deal with the Pals accordingly, Antisemites! Dajan had made it clear already: who don´t want to live like a dog can go! That´s still the ultimate aim, the “Transfer”! And they fear the closing of the “time window” and the growing critics in the world as well as the growing resistance of particularly Jews worldwide to be occupied by hardcore Zionist policy. That´s why they are so eager of having the Region in flames by a war against Iran so they can sell the Transfer as the only means to safe Israel: link to wipokuli.wordpress.com ! The whole story becomes more dangerous since an important part of the US power elite has given itself into the hand of Israel´s power elite: link to wipokuli.wordpress.com !
    Andreas Schlüter
    Sociologist
    Berlin, Germany

Leave a Reply