Posts
Just a bit from a most neutral source:
Christopher Gunness, the UN Relief and Works Agency (Unrwa) spokesman, said the idea that there was no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, was absurd.
"The organisation for which I work - Unrwa - has approximately 9,000 to 10,000 workers on the ground. They are speaking with the ordinary civilians in Gaza... People are suffering. A quarter of all those being killed now are civilians. So when I hear people say we're doing our best to avoid civilian casualties that rings very hollow indeed."
One of the many children killed in the ongoing phase of the Palestinian Holocaust
Found at Al Jazeera.
Most of the inhabitants of the tiny and crowded Gaza strip are refugees from what is now Israel and they make up the largest Palestinian refugee community aywhere. Gaza is the largest concentration camp of modern times, the dumping site for Israel's unwanted natives. Palestinians demand the right to return, the recovery of their lands and properties and an end to Zionist Apartheid.
Update: Chossudovsky believes it is actually a well planned genocide of Palestinians with the intention of forcing them to migrate elsehwere and make all Palestine part of Israel (something impossible unless genocide is massive because Palestinians still outnumber Jewish colonists in the former mandate). In this sense the humanitarian disaster is intentional.
The longer term objective of this plan, as formulated by Israeli policy makers, is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands:
"Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources... The daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions" Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)
It is basically the same as the Holocaust. When we compare Zionists to Nazis it is not any exaggeration: Gaza is a ghetto/concentration camp where a huge number of Palestinians have been dumped after ethnic cleansing. Now they want to implement the Final Solution, and get rid of all or most Palestinians in Palestine, so Palestine can fully become Israel.
.
7 comments:
The Ten Most Common Mistakes of the Israeli People
UNRWA policies caused out of control population growth in Gaza
The first link is most interesting, a very good criticism of Zionism from an insider.
The second is mere Zionist propaganda. Jews have not been majority in Palestine since the Roman genocide, some 2000 years ago. The "problem" of greater populaton growth among poor Palestinians than affluent Jews, who often migrate to other countries due to the evident lack of future and legitimacy of Israel as such, exists even within Israel, with the "Arab" (Palestinian native) fraction of Israeli "citizens" growing at a rate that should overcome Jews in some deacades even if refugees never return.
Israel is a failed project but they will hardly admit it while they have the blind support of all Western governments.
So it's clearly time (it's very late in fact) to boycott Israel massively, as we did with racist South Africa. Only that way will Palestine ever return to normality, only that way will peace ever be achieved.
Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About The U.S.-Israeli Relationship
Another review states One of the most abiding features of the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the asymmetrical nature of the balance of power between its main protagonists: Politically, militarily, financially, linguistically, and organizationally, the Zionists have almost always enjoyed the upper hand. Nowhere is this asymmetrical nature more dramatically illustrated than in its linguistic dimension. The effectiveness with which the Zionists combined the propagandistic use of language with their organizational and political skills to construct a towering edifice of mythologies about the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict was unmatched by anything the Palestinians and the Arabs could do or say.
The point is that relative demographic strength is the only thing the Palestinians have going for them.
BREMEN: If the leaders of the American-led "Coalition of the Willing" had known Gunnar Heinsohn's research, they would most likely never have left their troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. They would quickly give up any thought of intervention in Sudan's Darfur province. They would tell the Palestinian 10-children families that the West will no longer pay for their unrestricted childbirths. Western opinion-makers and politicians would also abandon their pet theory that virtually any act of violence in a belt from Northern Africa to the Philippines – in addition to miscellaneous acts of terror all over the world – are caused by the unsolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
And worst of all seen from the prevailing political consensus in the West: Heinsohn does not believe for a second that economic aid and hunger relief in countries with large youth populations can prevent wars, social unrest, terror or killings. On the contrary he is convinced that in some cases material aid may start the killings. This is because starving people do not fight, they just suffer. However, if you give a lot of young men enough to eat and a certain education in a society where there are too many young men so that not all can get the recognition and positions that they feel entitled to, it may lead to violence.
The 63-year-old sociology professor at the University of Bremen published his findings in his sensational and politically incorrect book Söhne und Weltmacht: Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen [Sons and World Domination: Terror in the Rise and Fall of Nations], published in 2003. The book became widely known and discussed after the prominent German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk had characterised it as being as groundbreaking as Karl Marx's Das Kapital. Sloterdijk thought that the book might pave the way for a new realism within a field that might be labelled "Demographic Materialism".
Heinsohn is not concerned with the absolute size of populations, but rather with the share of teenagers and young men. If this share becomes too big compared to the total population, we are facing a youth bulge. The problem starts when families begin to produce three, four or more sons. This will cause the sons to fight over access to the positions in society that give power and prestige. Then you will have a lot of boys and young men running around filled with aggression and uncontrollable hormones. And then we shall experience mass killings, until a sufficient number of young men have been eradicated to match society's ability to provide positions for the survivors.
According to Heinsohn, 80 per cent of world history is about young men in nations with a surplus of sons, creating trouble. This trouble may take many forms — a increase in domestic crime, attempts at coups d'état, revolutions, riots and civil wars. Occasionally, the young commit genocide to secure for themselves the positions that belonged to those they killed. Finally, there is war to conquer new territory, killing the enemy population and replacing it with one's own.
But, as Heinsohn emphasizes again and again, the unrest and the violent acts caused by youth bulges have nothing to do with famine or unemployment. In his book he describes it as follows: "The dynamic of a youth bulge — it cannot be emphasized too often — is not caused by a lack of food. A younger brother, who may be employed as a stable hand by the first-born son and who may be well fed and perhaps even fat, does not seek food but position, one that can guarantee him recognition, influence and dignity. Not the underweight but rather the potential losers or the déclassé are pushing forward" (p. 21).
I have become interested in the demographic explainations of Gunnar Heinsohn. Interview: A Continent of Losers
Sorry but to my way of thinking Chossudovsky has got fixed ideas about 9/11 that hurt his credibility. The majority of those who have thought about the matter of US staging or complicity do not share his views.
Here is someone (not of the left) who once toyed with Chossudovsky-like ideas but has now dismissed them. He is an excellent source for information on Israeli hawks' strategic thinking and the US neocon consensus (they are identical in many cases).The War On Iraq:Conceived in Israel
A self-consciously moderate voice but with up to date coverage of U.S. foreign policy, particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration'. LobeLog.com
I think the above sites go some way to explaining why the Israelis get away with doing the sort of things that South Africa did.
I agree that Israel wants the Palestinians to be so miserable that they leave. I wouldn't call it genocide or make comparisons to the Nazis though, that just confirms their opinion that anti-semites are holding them to hypocritically high standards
You may know that the US inteligence and government knew of Pearl Harbour atatck way in advance. They may have not directly incited it and they did took some measures to keep the bulk of the Pacific fleet safe but they allowed the attack to happen and kill many people because it was the ideal pretext for their plans regarding to the East Asia/Pacific area, where Japanese imperialism was a direct competitor.
US strategical analysis of the time show that it was concerned about Nazi Germany getting ahead in the global control of resources. They estimated that their American area of influence plus the Birtish Empire were not enough to compete with the then rather conosolidated German area of influence. They understood that they also needed to control Eastern Asia and Japanese imperialism (under the copycat slogan "Asia for the Asians") was a direct threat to this economic need. Both Japanese and US governments knew this fact well and they both knew that imperialis war between both powers was virtaully unavoidable. Japan tried to avoid it for long, because it was obviously in disadvantage, but US economic and diplomatic pressure was actually pushing for it. Both sides knew that the fight was unavoidable and the Japanese hoped to get the upper hand by sinking most of the US Pacific fleet. The US governement istead though they needed a pretext to persuade their isolationist citizens to support the war, so they basically favored the attack while protecting the bulk of the fleet.
Much of the same may have happened in 2001. The reasons are somewhat different but it was basically meant to provide justificatio for greater intervention in West and Central Asia, an area not just rich in resources but also a mjor crossroads where US-Zionist interests but also Russian, Chinese and even Indian ones collude.
The fact that it was used as a pretext to invade not just Afghanistan but significatively Iraq (a secularist regime whose main fault was to be a potential threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia) and thet fact that Islamism has been basically financed by Saudia and Pakistan, both major regional US allies, that Osama was known as "the CIA man in Afghanistan", etc. all show that if 9/11 was not plotted by Washington directly, it was at least tolerated by it.
As I've said often Islamism is the kind of ideology that makes the perfect foe: keeps the masses ignorant and fanatic, is a right-wing fascist ideology that in fact poses no serious threat to the Capitalist status quo at all and it is an ideology that can only gain adepts among a cultural minority (globally speaking). It's the perfect enemy and both Tel Aviv and Washington know it well.
I was like everybody flippant when the attack happened but soon after, the very day or at most the next day, I was thinking "qui bono"? And getting perplex at things like that the most well-reputed German BND intelligence agency claimed that Mohammed Atta was actually not any Taliban but actually a member of the anti-Taliban networks (a fact silenced thereafter), that Atta's father claimed to have talked to his son the day after 9/11, that the "airplane" hitting the Pentagon was never seen anywhere (and anyhow that maenouvre could not be made by an inexperienced pilot, not even by an experienced one probably, with such huge airplane), that Saudi Arabians, including Bin Ladin's family, were the only people allowed to leave the country in the aftermath of the attacks, etc.
It's all very very muddy. And there is of course the "cui bono" question. And the answer is: all fundamentalists, be them Muslims, Christians or Judaist/Zionist (even Hindu ones maybe) got benefitted by such sectarian strife. While the secularists got heavily damaged and even became the targets of the Pentagon in the case of Iraq.
In 9/12, I was already thinking it was a coup (it has no other name) in the USA and in the whole Western world. A coup meant to justify greater police control on the pretext of terrorism and to justify certain imperialist interventions, notably in Iraq and Central Asia. Interventions adressed to curtail possible Russo-Chinese influence, as well as to weaken the secularist panarabist bloc, the most direct threat to Israel and Saudia.
Re Pearl Harbour Sniegoski on The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism Re-reading the conclusion of this it actually goes a lot further than I thought it did towards agreeing with you.
My view is they wanted the Japanese to give up China and they were worried they would attack the USSR which might have tipped the balance for the success of the German attack. They needed the Japanese to strike first and might even have have tried to provoke them. I just don't think there is hard evidence to show they went any further than that.
Interventions adressed to curtail possible Russo-Chinese influence, as well as to weaken the secularist panarabist bloc, the most direct threat to Israel and Saudia
Here is a superb blog that covers all those issues Stephen M. Walt's blog
Israel has to be worried that its more educated young people will not want to live there if they are in continual military confrontation and conflict. There are a lot of Israelis in the US already. So I am not so sure they don't want to end the conflict while they are in a position to dictate terms. The problem is the Palestinians don't have the ear of those in Washington like the Israelis do.
Please read Noam Chomsky's and Heinz Dieterich's book "The Winners" (not sure if that's the original title, I have it in Spanish language edition). Dieterich is the one to put things more clear (he's much more interesting than Chomsky IMO) and he clearly refers to think tank strategical analysis on the so-called "Greater Area" (or something like that) which was defined basically in contrast to what Nazi Germany, then their main geopolitical adversary, controlled.
This was all done in accordance to economic designs of imperial style. Instead of planning direct war with Germany, they found more important and apparently easier to crush Japan. In the end things evolved differently because Germany declared war to the USA in the hope that Japan would attack the USSR, something they did not. Also the USSR proved to be a much hardiest rival for the Nazis than it appeared then and the fortunes were reversed. China ended outside (largely) of US influence but the defeat of Germany in Europe allowed the USA (and its British satellite) to remain on top of the global hierarchy. The conflict for SE Asia though extended well into the following decades (Vietnam war, etc.), as the Japanese temporary success (they created many "independent" governments in the colonies they conquered) and the Chinese Revolution itself had mined the colonialist structure of the region.
But the Cold War it's mostly a new, distinct, epysode anyhow, sepcially because the USSR championed a universal ideology that could be exported anywhere and that seduced the poor around the World. In opposition to that (and notice that the socialist "threat" has not vanished, with growing support in places like Latin America or South Asia - and even in Greece, where the Cold War never really ended) the West could only propose consumerism and religion. Consumerism was costly, as it required guaranteeing that the populace had enough purchasing power, so they would not be tempted by the austere egalitarism of Socialism. But religion was a tool they could use much more freely and that would hardly collude with socialists.
Israel has to be worried that its more educated young people will not want to live there if they are in continual military confrontation and conflict. There are a lot of Israelis in the US already. So I am not so sure they don't want to end the conflict while they are in a position to dictate terms.
In fact also many Russian Jews have gone back to Russia after a brief Israeli epysode. Israel is a fragmented and laregly failed project but only time will put them in their place.
In any case, they are not in position to dictate terms. They think they are but Palestinians are a proud and stubborn people who won't settle for less than what is just. Any Palestinian governemnt that renounces to too much will lose popular favor and succumb. Arafat knew that and that's why he was murdered (probably) and replaced by more malleable second line leaders who are already despised massively by the Palestinian people (and that's why Hamas became the leaders in such a short time).
The problem is the Palestinians don't have the ear of those in Washington like the Israelis do.
That's a problem not just for the Palestinians but also for the USA, which is basically surrendering its foreign policy to the Zionist Lobby, sacrificing its credibility as global leader to the inconditional support of a hateful racist regime.
More in Joachim Martillo'd blog (among other sites).
Post a Comment