The Revolution Cometh

What a difference a month makes. Just revisiting this blog and you would think that everything was on the ledge about to be tipped over for the giant mouth of capitalism to swallow us whole and spit us out through its rear. But... What a difference a month makes.

We had Ben-Ali toppled in Tunisia, something that really just had most mainstream news outlets really oblivious to the events that led to his exile and the eventual revolution that is still taking place in the North African country that really has little to no importance when it comes to its scale in world commerce and trade and even population. But "little Tunisia" did strike at the heart of what subjects in the Middle East and North Africa were all too aware of; that "austerity" measures and free market cronyism and corporate protectionism did little or nothing at all to advance the cause of the working poor and the peasants in the region and in fact it only lead to more money being scoffed down the elite's accounts while the rest of the people languished in detrimental conditions that would lead one brave Tunisian to set himself alight for the sheer desparity of the situation. He set all of these things alight and while it is very misleading and dishonest to limit the roots of such a movement to take down a dictator of 24 years to one such symbolic act, as the labour and the people's organisational skill and determination in the face of brutal oppression and police abuse that really took down Ben-Ali, it definitely lit a fire in people's minds that things are not okay and that they should make a stand.

In tandem with what I wrote about "the Left", it seemed like that I was pretty much on the money as every single opposition party were taken aback at what happened in Tunisia and later in Egypt and that they were merely just piggy-backing the wave so they could stay relevant in the peoples' eyes. And although Ghannouchi and El Baradei did get plenty of play, they remain on the outside and had little to no influence on the movements and attitudes of the people occupying the stronghold of the dictatorships respectively. The organised left didn't see it coming and it was up to common people and the working class to take upon themselves and take action to bring those fuckers down, something that those of us in the West are still stricken from doing and way too divided to even focus on such a premonition.

Now as Egypt also gets into the nitty-gritty of post-dictatorship and into the more pivotal period of consolidation of the revolution against the players of counter-revolution (the US and Israel), and as Tunisia goes from strength to strength to make sure that all of their fighting was for something worthwhile, it seems that both have taken the form of a socialistic revolution that could really challenge the rest of the region into thinking that there really is a better way for the Arabs who have been enslaved by Kings and Emirs and puppets of imperialism. The road ahead for both is a massive uphill battle and as the media looks to more "sexy" topics (they have already stopped reporting on Egypt as a headliner now that Mubarak has resigned, as if a dictactor resigning was the only demand of the people), and as the spectre of US Capital attempts to wring the neck of Egypt's working class from rebuilding the system of exploitation, civil war looms, and it shows in every history of revolution that those upper class douchebags will not give up their privilege without a fight. Rest assured, the workers of Egypt have a stronghold, not only in their country but within this whole world as they are in control of one of the biggest ports of world trade. With Egypt, this powerhouse can be awakened and can use its leverage in capital and military (but the military is STILL under US bribes) to help bolster smaller and weaker movements in other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan and even Syria. Just the easy symbolism of having the biggest Arab country to give support to working class struggles in the region can only lead to better things, as we see these dickweeds attempting cosmetic "reforms" so they can stay in power without pissing off the wrong people but it won't work. As the Angry Arab stated, the fear of authority has been broken and it can never go back.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Alot can happen and as of right now, nothing can happen and Egypt can remain like it was just like what happened with Marcos in the Philippines where the military just removed the head of the turkey and the body (the military) kept moving along without any changes except for a prettier head (Aquino was voted in and now we have democracy in the Philippines without any question of the free market politics which ravages Filipinos). Egypt can have a "nice reform" man up top while the military pulls all the strings. (You just want to weep at all the press naysaying all those African revolutions where the military rules.) But the workers seem steadfast and they know what's on the line and they are organising more strikes until they are satisfied (and anything less than a retooling of the system is unsatisfactory). Yemen is getting hotter and hotter; Bahrain is seeing more and more people getting arrested; Syria is even seeing some solidarity; Jordan can only get bigger and Algeria seems to be close to being a full-fledged uprising (but the repression will only be harder as everyone wants to avoid Mubarak's fate). Keep in mind that every country, no matter how big or small, is different from the other, but the people have the most in common with the others as they all suffer deeply from the inequality and destitution and repression of these monarchies, oligarchies and plutocracies.

So keep yourself glued to this space... As the revolution is coming...

The Left is failing you

Recently I was privy to listen on Paul Cienfuego's lecture on "Corporations vs The People" and this union veteran did hit the mark with myself, and in light of all the recent readings I have been embarking on, the revolutionary zeal seems to have bubbled a little more when Cienfuego bleated out that single issue activism is simply illogical and ignorant of the structural enemy that we are up against and that trying to take down the giant by one chink here and there is embarrassing and to be truthful, misses the mark. I definitely have been guilty of such an error and I am emerging to a newer outlook, a newer target and a bigger scope; although I never really limited myself to just one single issue as I had always tied everything together with the systems that we have inherited with capitalism and imperialism as well as neocolonialism, I cannot just write and read only of the single issue of Palestine and Israel. Mainly that (1) who really has the time to deal with every hasbara nutjob out there; (2) I grow weary of the same old, tired arguments that befuddles left-right as well as left-left analysis of the conflict and (3) with all due respect, I have read as much as I could possibly can to stay interested in this, and I will never be a scholarly expert on the topic (and to be perfectly fair, even scholars limit themselves to a certain field and dedicate years to such a practice) BUT I know enough (and know more than the average dipshit) about it to make informed comments and decide that Israel is a piece of shit and that Palestine should be free. I have the biggest regard for all those laying their lives on the line in B'ilin and they are forever in my thoughts. Aside from the guys on Mondoweiss, it seems that everyone else worth reading that dedicates themselves mainly to the Israel/Palestine show has slowed down their posts and many have even been missing for months at a time, myself included. Now that is not to say that there isn't anything to write about as shit happens in Gaza every day (re: Jewbonics who's in Gaza now) but things haven't changed in 40+ years in Palestine, just the terrible bullshit that Israelis throw to us. But somehow, bringing down Israel for the sake of justice, although it would be quite satisfactory and welcomed by millions around the world and definitely an example to hold for other wannabe colonial enterprises to take down, free Palestinians would somehow still suffer just like free South Africans and free Vietnamese and other free colonial subjects to the vagaries of power and currency. And that leads us to revolution.

Now we are living in very testy times, and if you're an identified leftist, you must be either putting a gun to your head or constantly shaking in disbelief at what has become of this world gone mad. Right now in the West, we are witnessing terrible attacks on jobs, public sector institutions as well as the welfare state, healthcare, food, housing, immigrants, non-whities, unions and regressive taxes. Although the downing of Congresswoman Gifford may have not been explicitly linked to such a purpose, we are shocked to see such things unfolding in front of our eyes here (remember a Federal judge was killed in the same attack), as I definitely have a hard time believing that such an incident would have occured if Loughner was not a product of the environment around him. He may have been crazy, but crazy people aren't so crazy that they cannot absorb what is around them. And what was around Loughner? Arizona.

Unfortunately because of the hoopla, we will not even get close to arguing what really is at stake here and what Obama has been doing under the cover of being a "centrist" or one friendly to the working poor. We have been decimated in the last twenty years and there has been no end in sight and no real check on the corporations that have run rampant over the industries of North America. Get a reality check! Those jobs have gone down south for good. It is not coming back and you better get used to working three part-time service jobs to make ends meet. On top of that we live in inflationary times and food prices skyrocketing and it is a recipe for poverty and a subservient population searching for answers and a quick way out of the mess that they dug for us and then dumped us into.

Sadly the Left did not capitalise on the misery, did not cross bridges, did not reinforce the unions, did not reinvigorate the student masses, nor did it make any distinctive effort to get any initiatives forward. Instead it chose to rely on a party that has its hands dirty with corporate money, elected a rich Black man who studied in the same university with those who modeled the Pinochet economy into disaster as well as other disasters that now has South America beating back the atrocities of capitalism and US predatory practices in the region. It failed to organise a legimitate option for an alternative to the disaster that makes us sick, poor and hungry. Instead it lumped its hopes on the audacity that is Obama (yes, that was intentional) and now turning to his third year in office and taking a major beating in midterm elections, he will now focus on a re-election campaign that will have him embracing the right even more to find some kind of middle ground so not to be viewed as some kind of communist for his pitiful healthcare "reform" that didn't reform anything. (What "reform" has all the big insurance companies supporting it?) Obama seduced the Left into thinking that he was capable of doing something better than Bush but he is turning out to be the monster that made Nixon the most progressive President in recent history. Now I know those truly in the know were not fooled but we certainly are weak and rather irrelevant.

And I have to say it is because of this idea of fighting everything singularly, that if we take down one corporation that we can take down another. That simply will not work in times like these. The Right has been able to use its influence and capital to suffocate those most vulnerable and use its capital to pit us against each other and direct the hate to those undeserved of it. Our jobs, our livelihood, our children's future are on the line here and to be in so narrow in scope that to think that this system is able to sustain itself with the rampant pace that the oligarchy is marching at is sheer idiocy. The Tea Party are dopes but they mobilised their asses to get the nutjobs they wanted into office. The Left has seen opportunity after opportunity to take on electric issues that could spark the sleeping poor into action only to see the right get stronger and the Left look even more depleted than ever. I have to say that times like these make me wonder how worse it will get before we can take charge of this madness, dismantle the bourgeoisie and make capitalism, imperialism and colonialism a thing of the past and make the lives of those who toiled and suffered all the better and get what we deserve.

How many...

must perish before they take you down...

Courtesy of Joseph Dana.

Jawaher Abu Rahmah, 36, was evacuated to the Ramallah hospital yesterday after inhaling massive amounts of tear-gas during the weekly protest in Bil'in, and died of poisoning this morning. Abu Rahmah was the sister of Bassem Abu Rahmah who was also killed during a peaceful protest in Bil'in on April 17th, 2010.

Doctors at the Ramallah hospital fought for Jawaher Abu Rahmah's life all night at the Ramallah Hospital, but were unable to save her life. Abu Rahmah suffered from severe asphyxiation caused by tear-gas inhalation yesterday in Bil'in, and was evacuated to the Ramallah hospital unconscious. She was diagnosed as suffering from poisoning caused by the active ingredient in the tear-gas, and did not respond to treatment.

Jawaher Abu Rahmah was the sister of Bil'in activist, Bassem Abu Rahmah, who was shot dead with a high velocity tear-gas projectile during a demonstration in the village on April 17th, 2009. See here for a video of his shooting.

How horrifying is it to die in peaceful protests just like your brother did last year?

Compromise, Delegitimise or Misunderstood

Is Zionism racism?



There has been an interesting discourse surrounding a couple of Jewish dominated blogs, the higher traffic being generated on Mondoweiss, which has a much higher following than the other, the Magnes Zionist, run by Jeremiah Haber. In fact, Haber got the inspiration to write his latest FAQ on Zionism as a response to an initial post by Jeremy Slater on Mondoweiss. Both had the main protaginist as Zionism and both defended the ideology from the accusation being flung around that it is a racist ideology that discriminates. Slater and Haber themselves both identify heavily with Zionism and both have strong ties to the state of Israel and Haber is an orthodox who lives both in the US and Israel. He admits to living in an ethnically cleanse city and recognises that fact that he lives in a former Palestinian residence. Slater I'm not up to detail with to his leanings or identification but it is not far to assume that he has strong ties to his religion, whether he practices or not is another thing.

Now as entertaining as it has been to reading all of this, and it really has sent me back to the laptop to get writing again in what has been a rather stagnate area of interest for myself, things really are at a point where the tinkering of what Zionism is or what it means to be a Zionist has been a lesser issue and one that is of little alarm that the talk of Zionism has become somewhat an exercise for intellectuals and scholars and students everywhere which detracts from the bigger issue of Palestinian justice and suffering. While it is important to battle where the battlelines are drawn, and Israel and its supporters everywhere tend to toe the ideological line fairly often as well as the hypocrisy line, that anti-Zionists and leftists and opponents of injustice everywhere tend to show up and give them the fight they deserve, it is definitely the lesser importance to undertake especially when homes are being razed and random Riad in Lebanon is feeding off the scraps in a refugee camp that UNWRA is running pathetically with no end in sight and poor Iya in Gaza has no clean water and little future to look forward to as another flotilla gets intercepted on its way to give fleeting relief. Because in the grand scheme of things, Palestinians will care little to grasp if Zionism was a legitimate project when cast into the light of history, nor will Israelis care if intellectuals worldwide have disdain at a state which privileges one over the other when there is injustice everywhere and Romas are being expelled and Tamils are being turned away from the border and Aborigines are being put in the slammer for petty crimes and the States increases its prison population with a giant black and Latino population behind bars all the while giving no rights or reparations to the Natives who live in squalor. It is just word acrobatics which only titilate to those who have the privilege to meander such topics as imperialism, capitalism, nationalism and Zionism. Danger looms ahead for the Palestinians and the action that is of dire consequence is Boycott, sanctions and Divestment. The dialogue is important and it is of necessity if we are to win the war, especially for those who are misinformed or just on the fence on what to do about it; but, although the key to understanding the conflict requires the knowledge of Zionism, it is less significant when lives are at stake. Undercutting Zionism is not a prerequisite to ending an occupation or giving people better lives; it only is when it becomes the sole factor in keeping the imbalance permanent.

With that said, the debate has re-sparked something within me and I found inspiration to finally return to the conflict at hand, and hopefully I have something more with a better outlook on what really makes power tick more attuned with a broader scope rather than the narrow focus of just the competing narratives of Israel and Palestine. Upon indulging in the matter, it must not be mistaken that there are bigger issues at hand and this talk is just that, talk. But Zionism provokes the most outrageous responses, both for and against it, that one such as myself cannot pass it up, even though it's best that you let it go since it is quite time-consuming and sometimes brain-draining.

So let's revisit: Is Zionism racism?

Typified above, it is either Yes with an "if" or No with a "but". Nothing in this world is ever as black and white which is easily answered with a Yes or a No, especially one as complicated and as historic as Zionism, which has over 100 years of history right about now. And if you ask a plethora of people you would get a plethora of answers, probably evenly tied down the middle on the yay or nay side. The thing is one needs to have studied it studiously in order to make the best informed comment on such a polarising question. One also needs to study not only Zionism, but other forms of nationalism AS WELL as racism itself. The ante just got upped somewhat since no bystander can come by and make an informed commentary on what Zionism was or what it means to so many who call themselves Zionist, or even to the opposite, anti-Zionist, since it would need to have existed before one can be opposed to it. Haber had to define what racism is for him so he could answer it, and I would have to do the same.

In my small time on this earth, I have always defined racism as discrimination pertaining to one's skin colour. Being of a minority myself, I experienced it many times growing up in a settler state which raped and destroyed a native population of its own and now residing in another country which did the same to its own natives (natives are really non-peoples, aren't they?), but of a much lesser extent since my background is of one which has probably the least of the negative stereotypes than others. Exclusion of one because of what they believed was of a different matter since one can be a Christian and be of a different colour altogether; on the one hand if one could be accepted as a white but could be excluded if that person was Jewish or a Muslim or sometimes just ugly, and another could be accepted if they were seen as part of them even though they could practice another religion but were of the same skin colour. It's not hard to see where this is going. And I think that is why the question of "Is Zionism racist?" makes it that much harder to answer IF this was not in a disclaimer to begin with as Zionists can be of all colours and races; I'm positive there are black Jews who are Zionists just like there are arab Jews who are ultra-Zionists; those transcend skin colour and therefore in my classic definition, it is not racist at all since one just needs to ascribe to one form of belief, Judaism. Hence this is where the confusion begins to most as Zionism is inclusive of EVERY colour as it places no emphasis on race at all and never has as long as the people being subjected to it were Jewish, practicising or not. In its simplistic and most banal form, Zionism was meant to be some kind of salvation, a Jewish self-determination, for a world where Jews were unwanted. How hard is that to fathom in a world where dictators and pogroms were so rampant?

But things do get a bit hazy when you look into its murky past. Herzl, the founder and father of Zionism, certainly was no saint, in my eyes anyway. Zionism in general originated in Eastern Europe, and try as you might but its founders, supporters and shapers were not those who were victim of pogroms but ones who were of a higher class, ones who were free enough to hold conferences and form groups such as World Zionist Congress and hobknob with heads of state and others who held sway with power. People like these were the ones running the Zionist show, not poor Nikolas in Lodz finding the self-life preposterous or Sigi in Dusseldorf pondering on the Jewish question in Western Europe and its fate. It wasn't refugees who fashioned a movement, although it did reach their coffers once Zionism took its form and build an enormous amount of capital around the idea of a Jewish state, but the bourgeoisie who had parties and drinks and committed themselves to the fight for a new state for their "nation". Hence, here lies the problem.

Any study of the attitudes of Europe in 19th Century and you would find not only latent racism but blatant racism and prejudice also. Colonialism was the flavour of the day. Policies were done in the prism of white domination, especially when you dealt with the likes of the Orient, as you were the ones to dominate the lesser beings of the rest of the world. One can even say linking the project of colonialism is related to the outcome of the Holocaust (Arendt). It's not hard to sift through the shit and find what is rotten here. Zionism, while not a classic form of colonialism in the form of exploitation and servitude to capital, its attitude to its unintended victims were of the same consequence as colonialism itself. Zionism, borne out in the 19th Century in the age of nationalisms, is now an anachronistic ideology in the age of post-nationalism and multiculturalism and pluralism. For the founders, despite the testaments for those who want to believe that Zionism's sole purpose was for Jews to run their own affairs, its exclusion of all things native is what hampered this construct from its non-discriminatory equation. For, how could you ever consider it to be non-racist when you hold your own affairs to be of higher importance than those you are living upon? How could you believe that the fate of your own "people" is of bigger proportion than those whose lives you intend to change forever? How could you ever live on a land of peasants and not think that the rights of the bourgeois European supersedes the minute rights of the fellaheen? To me, this is discrimination in its finest form. Would a pioneer not be racist if he believed in Manifest Destiny? Or is he just sympathetic to the rights of a pioneer to self-determine his way across the plains and damned anyone if they resist? Would an power-elitist, educated in the finest schools that Europe has to offer, not be inclined to thinking that brown/black/red/yellow people are lesser humans whose lives have little meaning, so little in fact, that they do not even register as people in the first place ("A land without people for a people without land.")? Can a racist not make racist policies when it comes to the fate of their "people"?

Haber, Slater and others would recite the many forms of Zionism that has existed and they would be correct to do so but that is irrelevant, personally speaking. Zionism has been supported and opposed by so many that anyone can add their two cents to what Zionism is and is not that the true form can become morphed into something that it really wasn't to begin with. As much respect I hold for Haber, and he has to be commended for the criticism that he engages in daily, especially where he lives where lives (can Australians, Americans and Canadians ever think as critically to where they live as he does?), his inclusion of Magnes and Buber and the binationalists of Zionism is really a red herring. I mean not that he does this on purpose in order to distort the reality but the usefulness of such figures as Magnes is akin to the usefulness of a binationlist Palestinian of the same era (yes, there were some who advocated such a proposal too); Magnes, while important, so much so that he has followers from the Zionist critical of Israel, registered such a little impact that I barely even remember reading his name in two of Tom Segev's anthology of the history of Israel (One Palestine, Complete and 1949: The First Israelis). In both of those books, together over 1000 pages long with endnotes, the main cogs in the machine were Zionists who excluded from the Arabs, who organised Jews against Arabs, and those who made legislation with Arabs as an enemy. In fact, so much so was the dichotomy that Ben-Gurion was viewed as a binationalist at first and even Chomsky expresses DBG as such, even though you can look at all his quotes in Palestine Remembered and you would know that one doesn't harden their opinion of Arabs just by living in the country with respect to their "rights" and then ethnically cleanse them later on. I'm sure you can ask any Palestinian living in Gaza right now about Magnes and they will furrow their brow but I'm sure the answer would be different if you asked them about Ben-Gurion, about Weizmann, about Jabotinsky, about Begin, about Rabin, about the Palmach, the Irgun, the JNF, the Histadrut, the kibbutz, the Haganah and who ran those outfits and you would find little, if any, binationalists who were sympathetic to the Muslims they wanted to expel. For it is these organisations and those behind it who eventually would definte what it meant to self-determine as Jews, and it meant doing it at the expense of another in the other's land and not even considered to the views of those they were usurping. Colonists they drank with, and colonialism they pissed out when it became a project to save their skin from tyranny. Zionism had the opportunity to show that they could do what it intended but its position when in power decided that it would expel, refuse and also resist any kind of non-discrimination when it came to the "enemy" ie the Palestinians. It welcomed the Mizrahim and substituted them for the Palestinians, becoming the lower class. It then brought in more whites from the ex-Soviets, funneling in more classes all the while the elite of Ashkenazim got drunk with their own idiocy as the lower started organising to get power they had been lacking. In another shocking non-racist Zionist turn, it flooded itself with plenty of slave-labour from the poor Asian nations to give themselves a serf-class. All of this while refusing to acknowledge the Palestinians all around them. No, this isn't discrimination at all. Funny, if the Magnes of years yore had ANY momentum at all, it has a weird way of showing its binationalism when the Israel idea of a one-state is one with a totally weak Palestinian politi-power that it cannot make any laws in such a state.

Could Zionism not have been racist? In a utopian world where they found a place bereft of people and they harmed not one single soul, then perhaps. But what state would have formed? One completely Jewish 100%? There would still be problems with such a state, as the interpretations of who is Jewish enough and who gets accepted to such a state would only lead to complications that should be saved for another post. As romantic as they want to make it sound, this form of nationalism did not mimick others that arised amidst the struggle against colonial powers. In fact, in a bitter twist of irony, Zionism, while suturing its Jewishness with independence, it could only do so with the help of colonial power and had no real grassroots struggle within it as Zionism was thrust upon many in light of the atrocities that were happening in the march towards World War II. It did not resemble the black struggles against white power in the US, nor the fight against the French in Algeria nor the African uprisings in Kenya, Ghana, Angola, Nigeria and South Africa. While provoked by tyranny of one, it did not attempt to emancipate but only one to escape, to another people's land, to find its own way. The nationalisms of those we have known has always been inclusionary, one that wanted to transcend hierachies that perpetuated the system of master and peasant, owner and the owned. Zionism's pre-determined subjects did not hold a common cause for the most part, and most did not even register in its radar, some were even opposed to it. There were so many spectrums it needed to mend but it just could not as a revolutionary struggle in Cuba of the lower class would no way find common cause with one that deciding the fate of the Jewish Question. As to my latest readings, Zionism had no revolutionary content to it at all. For its most part, it had NO qualm with the present system in Europe, sought not change from it but form its own way which benefited themselves in the same style as Europe, for Jews, in Palestine, without recourse to anyone who opposed it.

As stated above, this in no way has no bearing as to where things should go from now. Little will be determined as to what Zionism is, not by the UN, not by AIPAC and certainly not by blogs. The only reason why this is of any significance is because attempting to shape the narrative often makes for writing such as this and the claims of "hypocrite" can only go so far until you mark it out clear to that person that you care little for your choice to "self-determine", and that you do not DENY their people to determine their fate, it's just they should stop determing other people's fate too.But make no mistake about it, Zionism is not just any other form of benign nationalism. It is another form of colonialism conned with self-determination rhetoric.

Why no sane person likes Israel: Part II

Israelis celebrate the flotilla murders at the Turkish Embassy in Tel Aviv



Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempts to pull the fast one



MSNBC's "impartial" coverage of the flotilla attack with Glenn Greenwald the only one having a brain



Stupid assholes on the internet trying to justify their murder

Y Ben-David said:
It is not obvious to me that the IDF had no right to intercept the flotilla on the high seas (I am no expert in international law). They quite openly stated that they intended to defy the blockade. The blockade is recognized as legal by most of the international community.

Gibson Block said:
As for the activists on board the ship. They obviously decided to fight in advance and they had to know things were going to get rough if they did.

bacci40 said:
not justified?

http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/channel.asp?c=27

weapons found among the aid from the ships

surprise

that is what your donations went to.

to kill your fellow citizens.

(The moron bacci40 linked a year old video. And those three were just off one blog.)

Anonymous said:
1) Did you see the IDF's video of what happened? It shows that the "activists" on this ship were intent on violent confrontation, which the Israelis were clearly not prepared for. The first commando to descend from the helicopter is in critical condition. The second commando down was shot. The third is in the hospital. If you were on that team and seeing your buddies maimed like that you would also open fire.

zacharyesterson said:
Even during the raid, troops did not fire on those on board at first, instead simply trying to go about their business of inspecting the cargo. When they were attacked with venomous force by the activists, they were left with no choice but to respond in kind. Those are the only facts that matter here, and all the kneejerk Israel-hating in the world won't absolve the activist aggressors from their share of guilt for the horrific events that unfolded today.

Eric M on this comments section. They want approval so bad but they won't find it where people use their eyes and have an independent brain. The comments need to be read in its totality in order to see the absurdity and the lengths Israeli-fuckers want to go to to show that they did nothing wrong. I'm not going to rife through more of their cockspittle or even reference the terrible Ledrew "debate" that aired here in Canada (and the two stupid callers who don't know a thing about this conflict) but this is just the tip of the iceberg for these Zionist thugs.

I echo: This is a fight against a state like no other. It is bigger, badder and more established in propaganda and espionage. This is not going to be easy...

Why no sane person likes Israel

I do realise that it has been quite a while since I have written but things have looked so bleak for the Palestinians even back in 2008, and to remind everyone that's when Bush was still in office, that nothing seemed to have changed things. No amount of reading books, blogs and press releases from activist groups (bless them) did ever make a dent on the Godzilla killing machine that is Israel and its impugnity. Many liberals pined for Obama to do something, and secretly many on the left had hope that he could actually make a little bit of a difference (but most like Ali Abunimah and the Angry Arab [as well as myself] did not suffer from such delusions that a man who is tied to the military money could EVER scale back on anything related to Israel's artillery, because that's what counts here, not pathetic words or summits and meetings and "unhelpful" diatribes that we have heard it all before, even for a younger generation like myself to grow weary of), and yet, after Gaza 2008-09, still things are still the same, or even worse depending on who you speak with in Gaza and the West Bank and the refugee camps (because the real tragedy is that even with all the effort being put into Gaza and the actions in B'ilin and N'ilin and Jayyous, Palestinians still are being given shit treatment in the neighbouring states) and Obama was helpless to do anything about it. Simply helpless. He's more adept in bombing people than stopping the bombs and the fire. Check out Pakistan and Afghanistan if you haven't been convinced about the first black American president. So unfortunately, I grew jaded about the conflict, because it's the same old tired hacks doing the same old spin and the same old story that we are being fed for decades now and STILL the Palestinians are being fucked. On top of that, it's people who actually care about their situation who are starting to get fucked over also. And then you have these incidents, or perpetrated killings for a more precise description, as the video above. Then what else can you say about it?

I found myself powerless for as long as I can remember about this conflict and it's easy to be in that skid because there really is no avenue you can travel without disappoint and more corpses lying in wake the day Israel does it is time to strike at the heart of Palestine and their supporters. Reading Mondoweiss et al didn't make a diddly of difference on whether Israel did this or that or was wrong in this or that and battling it out with their comments section seemed less and less relishing and more like an exercise on which idiot can be more of an idiot when the time came. The only saving graces are the few that are still worth visiting (Lawrence of Cyberia, Jews Sans Frontieres and The Angry Arab). You can only keep trooping on if you actually think you have a chance in making progress but here we are, 2010, 43 years on of occupation, and all we get is a shoe-throwing Iraqi who actually gets close enough to those responsible for war crimes. (Bless the man who attempted the citizen's arrest here in Canada though.) More material for weaponry and all the op-eds wouldn't make any difference on myself because I already knew what was vital to this conflict and what makes it tick, and I already knew what makes the other side want to keep their lies hidden, so no amount of flyer handouts and blog posts would satiate me because Israel kept rolling over the bodies and starving children. This shouldn't deter those who are steadfast in this struggle, and I wish I shared their strength, but unfortunately being so far and very detached from the struggle itself, it seemed more a burden to bear rather than a revolution to carry on. I decided I would be better suited doing other things while still holding true to the struggle and solidarity and attempt to give it a new light in a different medium. (More on that if I am successful at it.) Best to leave the blogging and writing to those who write better and are more dedicated and personally who have more time to write and read than a worker who is raising two very young boys.

And then you have this.

But what really kills me over this is not the actual crime itself but the spin we are already hearing and going to hear for months until Israel actually admits the truth after it has committed more crimes which they lied about and then would admit to after... well, that's the Dante's circle of hell. Palestinians have no chance at peace or a normal life and yet Israel insists that it's their own fault. THIS IS WHY NO SANE PERSON LIKES ISRAEL. Enough of the "nuances", or complexities, or the bullshit, and we are going to hear them. (Ambush? You cannot be serious.) It's not the fact that Israel does commit these acts and gets away with it, but it's the fact that they have the nerve to insult everyone's intelligence into believing that they did this for the good of someone else, for the betterment of men, for the future of humanity, for the saving grace of Abraham and all that kefuffle that is not even worthy to mention in a Kafka short story. The sad truth is this has been happening for an awfully long time, and you thought Gaza 18 months ago was atrocious, just have a look at what Israel is capable of doing and that is the future of Palestine. This is the future of the conflict; more deaths, more propaganda, and more bullshit, mostly by Israel. You don't have to be a genius to figure out what the fuck is wrong with this picture, all you have to do is have a good look at the surroundings, at the dysentery and all the death tolls and you should be able to do the math.

Another bitter pill is that we have all failed Palestine. Yes, many people are helping and this ship was trying to do just that and they are truly made of harder stuff than the rest of the world but we have all failed. All the emails, letters, protests and pretty signs, t-shirts, press releases, conferences and confrontations was not enough to spare the lives of those activists and it is not the salvation that little child in Lebanon could suffice with because he is a Palestinian born to a refugee who only wants to find his way home. Sure, it may give them a nice, warm feeling that we are on their side, but we are the affluent and they are the invisible and yet we cannot find it within our own power to take control and stop this madness. 62 years of Israel and 62 years of getting away with fucking murder; will this make a change? Will it be another added to the list of "turning points" that was meant to take down this Apartheid? Will it be enough for pussies such as J Street to even publish a condemnation of this ugly piece of shit they call Israel? Get it through your goddam heads: you ended lives for your shitty Zionism. Look at it the footage. It really means that much to you to kill innocent people and then blame them for you having to kill them. No wonder normal people don't like you.

It's times like these that should remind us that we have not done enough. We have to do a whole lot more; and modeling this struggle against the struggle in South Africa will not be enough. It may have the cosmetic look of segregation but this is not South Africa and this is not 1994 and this is not a conflict between blacks and whites. This is West vs a bunch of anti-imperialists, Jews, Arabs and muslims and other internationals. Why some blacks support Israel, some Arabs also do. Asians support Israel. Pretty much the rest of the world does business with this pit stain they call Israel; they do business in the Congo, they do it in Australia, they do it even in fucking Turkey, so this is a huge beast to take down all alone, because not even the PA is on our side (they do business with Israel), not even Israel's neighbours are on our side (Jordan and Egypt, please stand up) and I don't see Cuban troops sending themselves into Palestine like they did in Angola to help stop South Africa (also Namibia). South Africa had business on their minds but it relied on the backs of blacks; Israel couldn't give a shit about the backsides of Arabs, they have shown that they don't need them for anything. This is bigger than we can image, because everything is related to Israel (even your cellphones), and every company does business with them as the list of those who boycott are about the number of a my digits.

Perhaps it's just me who this has finally got the best of but I know that this is the highest uphill battle to take on. It's rather easy tackling the IMF, the World Bank and the economic establishment that depletes the world and keeps the peasants hungry and angry; it's simple to see the limits of US imperialism and it's ugly wrath that has 700 plus bases worldwide; it's not controversial to go after failed systems that burn out First Nation lands and other indigenous rights that colonialism plundered a long time ago; it's not uncommon to take on the UN and their bias and their attitudes towards Africa; but all of that is nothing when you take on the giant (and the ironic thing is all of that is connected, even to the conflict in Palestine).

Now I have come to terms that I will not live to see a free Palestine but perhaps if we really push it and left the niceties at the door (because where has being "civil" gotten us? Where is the fucking anger?) and took on our spineless representatives and threaten their taxes and their services and really strike at their hearts and wallets (or maybe just wallets will suffice) we can make them not see the truth because they don't really care what version is true or not, but show that we won't stand for an injustice that makes all of us sick then we can let the world off of our back and finally sleep at night.

Hamas' Chutzpah

Sderot aftermath of a Qassam rocket.

By ETHAN BOMBER

GAZA – It has been over a month since the fatal strikes by Israel destroyed most of Gaza. Infrastructure is still mostly just ruins, rubble and pieces all blown in bits. Even with reports of a ceasefire being agreed to by both sides, the three-week campaign to destroy Hamas has left a deepening imprint on life for Gazans, as sporadic fire is traded near the border, threatening another spark for a bigger retort by Israel.

But this time, Hamas will be on the ready. According to a recent appearance by Hamas’s prime minister, Ismail Haniya, Hamas will not be fooled again and have a new tactic up their sleeve next time Israel chooses to wield its deterrence against the terrorists.

“Israel used the ceasefire as a trap to lure Hamas into thinking that Israel was serious about opening the borders. If they think it can do what they did again, they are wrong. Hamas is ready.” Haniya then hints at Hamas’s new secret weapon. “We will drop leaflets.”

Leaflets?

It has been a point of contention that when the IDF warns their enemy of the area that is being targeted for elimination, it will either drop leaflets or send text messages to anyone who could inhabit the intended target. By simple logic, anyone who remains behind is a legitimate target as they are there to fight. Now Hamas is going to use this moral compass that is unique to the IDF.

I visited a Hamas official who requested anonymity because the terrorist did not want to be liquidated. Upon entering his dilapidated quarters, I noticed that it was missing a roof. “I have been unable to fix this place since the IAF bombed the area.”

I wondered how a top-ranked Hamas member was living in such poor circumstance with all the aid and food that was going in the Strip via Israel. Then the explanation: underneath his stone-aged rubble was a tunnel filled with weapons. I adduced another factor into his destitute living: fifteen children with three different wives.

After being asked about Haniya’s latest comment, he informed me that this latest tactic was inspired by Israel’s massive offensive that left 1,300 civilians dead. He was under the impression that an intensive bombing campaign against a civilian population would ignite the civilians to revolt against the administration currently in power.

“We are weaker militarily and politically. But we must kill the Jews for this.” There were hints of great envy at Israel’s ability to leave such destruction while not being held accountable. He seemed to dismiss the fact that Israel has been condemned internationally for Operation Cast Lead, his point being that Hamas is “condemned” also but does not get to trade with the rest of the world like Israel does. Apparently he did not receive the warnings from Israel that consistent Qassam fire into Southern Israel would warrant a military response from Israel.

It was troubling that his many sons were in the weapons facility scraping off what seemed to be tags off of the munitions. After a query about the children’s activity, it appeared that they were removing the Farsi serial numbers so as to divert attention from their sole supplier of terror.

Further into Gaza City, conversations with several Hamas leaders all but confirmed the leaflet initiative with the main objective of inflicting as many casualties as possible on Israeli civilians. With greater review, it seems that their recent pragmatic stance has taken less of a stronghold and their radical wing is now closer to the fray and the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead has only reaffirmed the ridiculous belief that Israel is not serious about peace. Questions about Israel allowing in the little aid into Gaza were met with run-around answers about Israel refusing to let it food and medical supplies as well as injured Palestinians into Israel for hospital care.

I spoke to Captain Z., a military head commander of Hamas at his office, or what was left of it as Israel took out the main Hamas infrastructure. He delved into further as to why Hamas has adopted this new strategy.

“We are out to show that Hamas has morals too. We don’t want to kill civilians; we just don’t have the capability to decipher civilian from military. What do you expect us to do? Just sit here and let Israel do what they want to us?” Captain Z. started getting more contemptible the longer he spoke.

“If only we could inflict as much damage to Israel as Israel did to us? Imagine the possibilities?”

I contended that dropping leaflets would be ineffective as the Qassams were too indiscriminate to aim at a limited area and most Israelis may decide to leave the area for safer plains.

“We’re dropping them at Ashkelon and Sderot. That’s the range of our missiles right now. Anyone living there can leave if they want to but if you stay, you’re a legitimate target.” The fact that Ashkelon and Sderot were not military outposts did not deter Captain Z.’s zeal for death. In the midst of his histrionics about Israel targeting civilians with no gunmen nearby, he inferred that “Israel has a draft, they all end up being in the army.” He even dismissed that Israel takes every measure to distinguish a terrorist from a civilian and that if the terrorists didn’t used civilians as part of the battlefield there wouldn’t be any civilian casualties.

“In case you didn’t notice, we’re terrorists. What do you expect us to do? Play by the rules? Not kill civilians? Jews are responsible for all of this. My children are ready to be martyrs. We will fight until we free Palestine.”

The desperation amongst Hamas leaders to give birth to new ideas for a form of terrorism seems to be reaching new depths with this leaflet plan as it seeks to absolve itself from prosecution of the intent to do harm to Israel. The extent of how deep the grave Hamas is digging is shown on their T.V. sets as it was programmed on reruns of, not Hollywood movies about past U.S. military failures, but of the 90s show MacGyver. This was a strange occurrence but a Hamas leader seemed more than eager to answer my question as to why every Hamas military member was watching this obscure American show.

“MacGyver has the innate ability to create weapons out of ordinary household items. We Palestinians need to learn this trait in order to free Palestine.”

A short stroll through Gaza City’s main center has the factories totally leveled. Talks with the United Nations personnel concerning the cargoes that were stolen by Hamas were fruitful. The image given was that Hamas is rounding up the majority of food to gain some form of control over Gaza and that has led the United Nations to temporarily suspend the imports of certain goods. Upon further study of other Hamas hideouts, there were filled with U.N. shipments and equipment. Also present were numerous children removing more tags while being indoctrinated by imams about Jewish conspiracies to control all the money in the world.

Talking with a Hamas representative about the lack of funds and goods to poor Gazans, I posited a logistics of using the leaflet initiative, where they would find paper to use and how they would go about dropping it in southern Israel. “We get all the paper we need from the U.N,” He quipped. “And we’re just going to launch those leaflets like how we do the rockets.”

Further information about an operation like this led this Hamas representative to demonstrate a firing for me. Strolling nearby a learning institution, he pointed around 300 yards eastward and implied that he would hit it with precision. After eight attempts where rockets went wayward both south and west and some even falling quite short of the intended destination, he rejoiced at the success of the operation.

“Praise Allah! We’re ready for round two!”

I evinced at how there were many warnings that if the Qassams continued to land in Israel then Israel would have no choice but to inflict a bigger “shoah”. He remained not phased in his pride. “Our children are ready. Israel can kill them all and we will fight them all.”

“I just don’t get it.” Added another soldier in plain ragged clothes. “You know the extent of those Qassams and yet Israel doesn’t evacuate their citizens. Now you will have written evidence of where they will land. What are our choices?”

The tough choices for Hamas are more of an ideological problem than humanitarian. Instead of providing responsible governance, they just choose on sillier and more asinine ways to fight Israel who are the sole nation responsible for feeding Gazans. Whether this latest tactic would be successful is not conceivable. Terrorists only have a losing hand. Giving up is the best choice for Hamas.

Isabel Kershamner contributed reporting.

Lesley Hughes gets Finkelsteined

Election season is nigh and it’s hard not to get lost in the muzzle and hazing that is typical of the campaigning. Here in North America, we are treated to two elections in the short span of a month, with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling for a new government over the “no confidence” and the incumbent youngster Barack Obama taking on the experienced old-timer John McCain, engulfed in the dramatics on who will unseat the ever-more obsolete George W. Bush. You get the mudslinging, the slurs, the jokes, the speeches, and even a fixed vote. It is the time when a nation gets shaken up and we get to hear the elitist-of-the-elite duke it out, using all means necessary in order to embarrass their opponent in defeat by the polls. All etiquette is out the window here; the old adage of “all is fair in love and war” rings true. We had the pinnacle of it earlier this year when Obama was called a Muslim; after all, in these times, being a Muslim is a “smear” when you aren’t one. The odd thing was that this was pushed by members of his party.

The gloves come off and everything and everyone you have ever breached upon is up for scrutiny; well, except if you’re John McCain and his “war-hero” and POW status. Just last week Canada was privy to quite a “nude scandal” when NDP candidate Julian West in British Columbia resigned when it became public that his antics “at an environmental conference in 1996”, which involved “skinny dipping with a group of teenagers”, as well as other reports that had him exposing himself to teenage females. Not exactly the model candidate to run your community taxes, I guess? Naturally, it is just part-and-parcel of the gossip columns that has us steering away from serious issues such as the falling economy and fledgling businesses in Canada. In addition, economist Michael Hudson laid out the nightmare that would befall the Canadian dollar thanks to the casino mortgage crashes down south. These aren’t real issues: what’s really important is if our local candidate was too frivolous in his younger years.

This makes for entertaining viewing/reading about the skeletons in our officials’ past. I mean, who would have guessed that we were close to electing a man with a flair for “nudist” practices. Or even worse, vote for a woman who is so odious that she invokes anti-Semitic notions in relation to the attacks of 9/11. Yes, this is the one Lesley Hughes.

Hughes, to those who aren’t aware or who hasn’t googled her name already, was the Winnipeg-area Liberal candidate forced to step down thanks to Liberal leader and PM candidate Stephane Dion. Rumours are flying abound and the usual canard of “anti-Semitism” is making sparks across Canada, and with Dion being pressured as an unfit “leader”, whatever that means anymore in politics, felt the need to strengthen this attribute to show voters that he has the fortitude to fire someone who is deemed a liability towards the campaign. And with all the configurations about North American politics, it’s hard not to fault that decision by Mr Dion on a realpolitik perspective. But Dion left his fellow party member to the wolves as Hughes, still on the ballot because of the late dismissal, is scraping to keep some sort of dignity amidst all the horror that has her respected image going down the drain.

Not a lot of information has been divulged about Hughes’ career. In fact, it’s a very arduous task to try to find any snippet of it at all online. The fruit of my findings is limited to one article where Hughes herself is the sole figure in exchanging any kind of information about her background, as she

“had written a biography of a leading figure in Winnipeg's Jewish community, had dramatized the Holocaust in a play, and taught the Holocaust for 15 years in her classes at the University of Winnipeg.”

This is by no means ossified as concrete evidence that she is not an anti-Semite. Without further information about her then all we have is her writings, which from the looks of things is pretty clear of anything offensive since she has skimmed through unchecked after all these years. What I mean by this is that anti-Semitism is not a phenomenon that is latent for so long and then manifests itself in some marginal publication somewhere only to dissipate, remaining dormant again for another decade or so. It isn’t like a light switch you can keep off and flick on at a whim. It resembles more like the drunken ranting of Mel Gibson.

Here's where all this controversy is rooted from: her one article written back in 2002 where she hints at prior Israeli knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Of course, this is nothing to new to anyone. Her precise words as thus:

“German Intelligence (BND) claims to have warned the U.S. [about the terrorist attacks] last June, the Israeli Mossad and Russian Intelligence in August. Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it. About 3000 Americans working there were not so lucky.”

Naturally, whenever you connect 9/11 with Israel that has you in cahoots with Robert Faurisson, David Irving and David Duke: the epitome of evil, a peddler of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and a disciple of the Protocols of Elders of Zion. The reaction of much of the bloggers and the press was normally outlandish and from the Canadian Jewish community, it was predictable. The Black Rod, a notorious right-wing blogland for all things Conservative, was not very courteous when they refer to Hughes, calling her a “wacko nut” and Sylvain Abitol, Co-President of the Canadian Jewish Congress asserted, “Ms. Hughes crossed a line which cannot be crossed under any circumstances because there is no place in Canada for 9/11 Jewish conspiracy theories.” Not to be outdone was Bernie Farber who lavished Dion for his decision to dismiss Hughes and stated that “[t]here is no room in Canada or anywhere for these modern-age twists on the age-old anti-Semitic calumnies with these odious and dangerous conspiracy theories." The only thing missing is for Hughes to be given the illustrious skill of being a Holocaust-denier or even a Nazi. To her credit, Hughes has stuck to her guns and there was even an online poll showing dismay at her removal. But it seems like the damage has been done and this will forever be burned on Hughes’ career.

Not that anything I write here will change the recent events nor even halt the blathering that is gathering steam in the blogs and the press. The National Post had an editorial that was filled with glee at Hughes’ misfortune (and defending Tory MP Lee Richardson). There has been scant reaction from the left spectrum, not wanting to touch the issue as if it was a hot potato that they don’t want to be burned with (with few exceptions, the Canadian Dimension, Paul Graham and Henry Makow).

What seems to have been the common denominator in the flawed analysis of Hughes’ comments is the grave deception of what she really represented or embodied. In comments, it is circulating that Hughes wrote that the Mossad knew in advance of the terrorists attacks and selfishly evacuated their own, meaning Jewish, kept the intelligence for “themselves”, the collective that Jews supposedly have over us Westerners, and left the rest to burn. That seems to have been the summary that everyone is focusing on. The more I see the same quoted line, the more I am under the belief that they are just limiting themselves to the highlighted print and not reading the article in its full text, or even in its full paragraph.

Here’s what The Black Rod is shamelessly accusing Hughes of:

“[T]he Israeli government tipped off their co-religionists who sneakily moved without warning those who don’t share their religion and letting them die in a terrorist attack. Yeah, no anti-Semitism there, not if you look at it with one eye closed and squint with the other while turning in circles till you get dizzy.”

Another blog seems to have followed this line of thought, omitting the earlier part of the paragraph that mentioned

“German Intelligence (BND) claims to have warned the U.S. [about the terrorist attacks] last June, the Israeli Mossad and Russian Intelligence in August.”

Similarly Jonathan Kay of the National Post was guilty of this pathetic display of journalism. It seems that in their haste to get to the most offensive nature of Hughes' article they decided to skip one part of the paragraph, possibly thinking that it was irrelevant and decontextualised. (To its credit, The Black Rod quoted it fully but seems to have come to the same conclusion anyway.)

Why am I reporting on this seemingly harmless work of journalism? Because I do not find it harmless at all. Not in the least. If you scroll back up the page to the original quote on Hughes’ article and then hit page down to the flubbered one quoted by the right then you really have two different pictures. The entire paragraph had “German Intelligence” warning “the US” in June, the Israelis and the Russians in August.

Let’s step back here: the Germans informed the Americans in June, two months before the Israelis who were informed in August. The fact that this doesn’t seem abnormal to anyone accusing Hughes of anti-Semitism here is rather preposterous or selfish in their own right to benefit from a Liberal candidate having to step down, no matter the issue; it just so happens that this one is around 9/11 and Israel, ie Jew. This sentence contradicts everything that the right has been stating, that the Israelis were selfish in keeping this information for themselves. This seems to be more of a stinging account of US incompetence since they were informed three months before the attack but it was just ignored. The Israelis seemed to have taken this piece of information as sound and did what they had to do. While we can all speculate as to how much the Israelis knew, and I have dealt with this subject before, it is up to the Americans’ own government to inform their citizens of a danger in their country. Israel, as an ally, may have been obliged to do so. I can never know and neither can anyone else here unless there is a major investigation into the operation (which there never will be until it is too late) to what extent the relationship was, but it has been reported consistently that the Bush Administration had ample evidence that a terrorist attack was imminent and did nothing about it.

What Kay, his National Post cohorts, The Black Rod and others want you to think is that Hughes claimed Israel had foreknowledge of these events and decided to evacuate without informing the US about what was going to happen, even though they were already informed two months prior. What is also telling is the word Jew is not evident in Hughes’ original post; in fact, that is a phenomenon that Kay, etc. are guilty of as they have put it upon themselves that “Israeli businesses” means Jew, and therefore that anything condemning “Israeli businesses” means something of an anti-Semitic slant. You’d be hard-pressed to find any of these sites having the word Jew in quotation marks: that means Hughes never wrote that word at all. All she was guilty of was reporting that “Israeli businesses” did something unusual in breaking their lease before a major attack.

This is a classic defense of all Israel’s apologists. What Israel’s defenders have up their sleeve is a major card: the anti-Semitism card. You need not mention the word Jew, or even refer to a Jew; you can complain about Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza and you’ll end up in the Jimmy Carter end of the dividing line here. Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer, two scholars who have distinguished careers, were not immune to the attacks when they published a best-seller last year. Israel could be guilty of as many war crimes as possible and that will not be enough for anyone to detach the anti-Semite card. It is the classic defense mechanism that has kept Israel and its supporters in a bubble free from criticism. The list of victims is a long one and we can add Leslie Hughes to the growing list.

And the list can only grow longer, not shorter. As we have it, it is in the interests of those who support Israel to equate Israel with Jewishness. It’s hard not to make that distinction since Israel is known as the Jewish state. But this only curries favour with those who are not in the know about Israel and about the inner workings of the Jewish state and its caliphates. For Israel is not just a state with Jews, it has 1.4 million Arab citizens among it, plus a good portion of non-Jews who immigrated from the former Soviet who have no desire to be Jewish. It also has a healthy number of Bedouin; it even has Arab members in the Knesset (though only in single digits). But yes, immediately we tend to think Israelis as Jewish, as it gets clearer by the day that this Jewishness is the one thing that counts when you are a citizen of Israel. (Let's not forget about those Israelis who do not wish to be identified with the policies of its own government, similar to Americans who wish to be detached from the conflation that Bush and his cronies speak them since he is the leader of the US. These courageous Israelis see the folly in blindly supporting everything Israel does in its name, going to lengths as facing assassination.)

It is a perfect ploy to deflect it from the real issues here: it’s difficult to stem the tide when you are painted as an anti-Semite. No one wants to be invoked as a neo-Nazi, a Holocaust denier or a terrorist sympathiser (unless you are one). When you deride critics of Israel as someone with an axe to grind from anachronisms dating back to past centuries, it minimises what they have to say no matter how truthful it might be. For how can you take an anti-Semite seriously? This is what happened to former President Jimmy Carter and apparently for Hughes also. It is eerily similar to those who fear of being depicted as unpatriotic, not supportive of troops, or, dare I say it again, terrorist sympathiser. These are standard practices to neglect the issues and facts that are presented and instead focus on the presenter’s character; analysis of their background and history is all up for grabs, similar to those running for office.

There is also a spectacular omission from the original blog entry. Hughes averred to internet journalism and their findings, therefore relying on the reports of other journalists, which is what we all do here. It reminds me of what Mehrene Larudee said,

“We rely on the truths of others.”

We must do our own research but we depend on the ability of a reporter to tell the truth. That’s what the academics do and that’s what the journalists should be doing. That really seems to be missing by the guys from the National Post or else they would have done their duty and read the blog entry in full.

Here’s what else you would have missed if you perused through the right-wing blogs and press:

“If the work of Internet journalists is correct, then the war [in Afghanistan] is neither a holy war, not a grand clash of civilizations between East and West, and our soldiers were lost to us and to their families to keep drugs and oil profits flowing in the U.S.

Until we know the truth, we should refuse to add one more Canadian body to the pile of dead in Afghanistan.”

Hughes covered her tracks here. The “If” is the operative word here. She did not testify that what she wrote is dogma as she is relying on the research she has done. For if she believed everything that she wrote, would she have written “if”? She even ends with “until we know the truth”, meaning she doesn’t know the truth of the matter just yet, just that there is a lot of evidence showing that what the leaders of the free world are saying was not airtight when analysed by experts who are not on the company payroll. Rather, it seemed more like a position for a further inquiry instead of a belief in an Israeli role in 9/11. As the saying goes, “inquiring minds want to know”. I’m positive Hughes was not the only one curious to the very covert Israeli activity in the US.

Was Hughes right?

Despite the obvious condescension from those who simply want to dismiss this as a pure conspiracy theory, there had been a lot of reports that can lead one to believe that the Israelis had plenty of information about the hijackers of 9/11. What happened was scores of Israelis being detained after the attacks, and there were some 140 who were taken into custody before that also. They were arrested along with 1,000 Muslims under the rubric of “Special Interest”, as INS officials in Cleveland and St. Louis testified that they were “of special interest”.

Now this may seem harmless but coupled with the great expose by Christopher Ketcham in Salon, Carl Cameron in Fox News, yes, that’s right, Fox News, about the role of the Israeli art student spy ring, then there are too many hunches not snuffed out just yet. The suspicious disappearance of anything related to these events from Fox and Salon only adds more curiousity about its magnitude. The DEA reported “suspicious activities” by Israeli art students, as there were reports of them “visiting the homes of numerous DEA employees” and attempted “to circumvent the access control systems at DEA offices, and when these individuals began to solicit their paintings at the homes of DEA employees.” These aren’t rantings of some sidelined anti-Semite, these are serious reporters doing their job digging at something that happens in the US all the time: espionage. We can invoke Jonathan Pollard, Larry Franklin and even the USS Liberty here.

As we have it, even the Jewish publication Forward admits to this fact. This does not seem like that Hughes was very far off from what other journalists were reporting about six years ago. If you follow all of this, you will find out that the Israeli spy students had accommodation in close proximity to four hijackers in Hollywood, Florida and had followed their movements very closely for months, some even as early as January 2001. None of this was made public to the US UNTIL they were caught doing so. As one reporter (who I can’t remember) put it, “how could they have not known?”

On top of all of this, we get the even more suspicious activity of the trio who were cheering as the Twin Towers burned. As it turned out, these were employees of a mysterious moving company called Urban Moving Systems. It’s funny how we want to forget but they were all photographed “smiling” as the towers collapsed. These incidents seem too much of a coincidence to be ignored.

All of this is missing from the right’s account of Hughes’ blog entry. It’s easier to relegate it to conspiracy theories so you don’t have to do any work in debunking her accusations about the Israeli intelligence. One blog even put on the ridiculous Anti-Defamation League publication that was meant to finally put the myth to rest. The sad thing about it was that this poster had no clue of the contents of the publication and wanted to keep the faith that Abe Foxman was a man of great fortitude, which he is not. The paper is rife with assertations of “myths” without ever citing a fact against the reported findings about the Israeli spy ring. Their best defense is guilt by association: since the neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers all believe this, then it must be false because they are men for white power and people who don’t think the Holocaust ever happened. They can say that AIPAC is powerful and cite many AIPAC members boasting of its power and even Israeli MK members gloating of its lobby in the US, show the numbers of AIPAC donations, and still call it “myth” because the neo-Nazis believe it is true. Not a good defense. Maybe the guys at The Black Rod should read Walt and Mearsheimer’s book since they sneer at James Petras and “affluent Jews” and “powerful Jewish organizations”. What is ignored, possibly on purpose, is that there are many prominent Jews who hold very powerful seats in the Bush Administration and even in past Administrations. This structure and pattern was so adamant and blatant that the Camp David Accords were featuring heavily on Jewish influence with the lack of an Arab voice. Because of this, Dan Kurtzer dubbed them Jim Baker's "Jewboys" in his latest book. It led to some "embarrassing" moments, as "[t]here was no expert on our team on Islam or Muslim perspectives", not surprising since it was filled mainly with Israel supporters.

It has been seven years since the attack and still we are no closer to the truth about these matters, thanks to a very obedient Administration that wants nothing to be exposed that could incriminate its own people who were asleep at the post. It also wants to guard their greatest ally, the special of special friends, Israel; it has many positions paid for and pushes many bills into Congress. The only attempted response was from The Black Rod on the issue of the Odigo messengers that were sent to two employees on the morning of 9/11. While The Black Rod cites a story from Ha'aretz (unlinked even though I was able to find it) that

"two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack."

Further down he recalls the interview with one Alex Diamandis, the Odigo Vice President of Sales and Marketing. Not specifically the head honcho or even one that is related to anything about security issues; he's a marketing man and sales person. But there is a discreptancy here: Diamandis revealed that "something big was going to happen in a certain amount of time, and it did -- almost to the minute". That's funny: the earlier account was TWO HOURS prior to the attacks. Diamandis has it happening instantly. Upon further review, a book available online has the FBI still investigating the matter two months later, with Diamandis and co. unwilling to provide "more details" as it "would only lead to more conjecture." If it was no secret, then what is the harm in finding out or making it public?

While The Black Rod was correct in pointing out that Odigo's office was not located within the World Trade Center (but close enough from Ground Zero), that does not mean the case is closed that Hughes was incorrect in stating "Israeli businesses" vacating "the premises a week before the attacks". The Black Rod assumed that Odigo was the only Israeli business apparent in the 9/11 conspiracy theory: the folk at The Black Rod were unaware of the Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. There was a timeframe where the company moved from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia, planned six months earlier. The company is half owned by the Israeli government. All attempts for more information from the company about its move, breaking its year lease, were rebuffed.

This is all available to anyone willing to grant more than five minutes of research. I guess that was too much to ask for the right blognuts. I was even able to locate the English summaries of the Der Spiegel and Der Zeit articles that were published damning the Israeli intelligentsia role in 9/11 and its subsequent role in being idle in the wake of the most sophisticated terrorist attack we have known. Here’s the evidence written:

“According to research by ZEIT, between December 2000 and April 2001 a whole horde of Israeli counter-terror investigators posing as students were on the trail of Arab terrorists and their cells in the United States," SPIEGEL writes. "In their secret investigations the Israelis came very close to the later perpetrators of Sept. 11. In the town of Hollywood, Florida, they identified the two former Hamburg students and later terror pilots Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi as suspected terrorists. Agents lived in the vicinity of the apartment of the two seemingly normal flight school students, observing them around the clock.”

Hughes didn’t even state this, but it may have been implied. She also used the German intelligence line but never alluded to anything close to a spy ring syndicate, only that German intelligence “claims” to have done so. This does not mimic the imagery of Hitler to me; more or less Hughes was relying on the integrity of the German authorities and not of some maligned fascist or noted anti-Semite; Hughes was going on the evidence given by the German intelligence agency. Hughes was just inquisitive on certain auspicious reports about Israel’s Mossad according to these claims; the more appropriate and reasonable thing to do was check out these claims and if it was by some anti-Semite planting falsehoods to give Israel a bad name (and Jews automatically), it would be the German intelligence that’s guilty, not Hughes. None of that was ever undertaken and that’s why these “theories” still fly about.

But why would Israel withhold information from its greatest ally?

Exactly the same reason why it does its espionage: to benefit Israel. Jonathan Pollard divulged American secrets to the Soviets in exchange for a massive influx of Soviet Jews; Larry Franklin eavesdrop key American intelligence on Iran to AIPAC in the hope to push for a hard stance on Iran, ie bombs; and the USS Liberty? Well I’m not quite sure about that one just yet but we still do not have the proper inquiry on that matter. But what we do know is that Israel cannot be exculpated from spy activity in the US even to the detriment of the Americans. So how can 9/11 be any different?

Thanks to hindsight of seven years, we can really put the pieces together. We knew of the strong pro-Israel crowd that pushed for the war in Iraq. There was the co-ordinated paper of the Project for a New American Century called “The Clean Break”, authored by key members of the Bush Administration written for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Its prime objection was to restructure the map of the Middle East in order to benefit Israel.

“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”

Iraq was the first to go. Iran was meant to be next. Revelations?

Without 9/11, all of this would have been incomprehensible. The attacks was the perfect prerequisite in order to implement the doctrine to reshape the Middle East in Israel’s favour: that puts a different light on why those spy students were so jubilant when the attacks happened, which they may have foreknowledge of. How could they have taken that photo without knowing? How about the getaway with the same type of van and the same company name?

Without 9/11, Israel could not justify their beefed up military package with the US. Without the “war on terror”, Israel would not be able to do what it does to the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and the Arab world in general without condemnation from the rest of the world. Because of the “common interests” of both parties involved, an attack on the US would mean a gung-ho revenge mentality that would have its guns aimed at Israel’s enemies: the Islamic world. By letting 9/11 happen, it would benefit immensely by letting America get rid of its problems of hegemony in the region.

9/11 gave both nations carte blanche for their militarism. Every contraversial measure could be justified as a response to 9/11. The Israelis had a great stake in the aftermath. This is the information that they withheld from the slanders of Hughes.

Now it certainly is not anti-Semitic to bring up these charges against Israel even when the Israeli press reported on these findings also. (It’s normal for Israel to be more open about their role than it is in a very compliant press here in North America.) But it’s a new world order and we are nudging closer to a very broad definition of anti-Semitism here. The classical defintion is being thrown out the window; it is being replaced with a new conglomerate, one that lumps in all that is critical of Israel and its policies into one that is part of a conspiracy to destroy the Jews. This is a dangerous sphere we find ourselves in as this only complicates the matter of accepted speech and dialogue and true anti-Semitism.

We have come to expect this sort of pandering to the Jewish community here in North America. Dion celebrated Israel’s anniversary; Harper backed Israel’s decimation of Lebanon two years ago and Canada was the first country to boycott Hamas. Little will change when every candidate who is deemed a danger to the status quo is fired for being an “anti-Semite”.

Anti-immigrants is alright by us

In glaring contrast, Richardson caused a bit of a furore when he blamed immigrants for the rise in crime. He excoriated the “kid” who did not grow up “next door”, who worshipped “a difficult culture” and “don’t have the same respect for authority”. Richardson “regretted” the remarks but he seems to have a job still. This just shows how easy it is to demean “immigrants”, the scapegoat of all things wrong with the economy and crime, without there being a threat of losing your job.

Harper came to Richardson’s defense, stating that it was "an extreme example of a non-story being blown up," putting the blame on “gotcha journalism that have nothing to do with anything that voters care about in this campaign." For Harper and his Conservative pals, this does not remind them at all of what happened to Hughes. This was an example of a media too involved in minutae, going through every little detail to sensationalise a story and nitpicking over every little thing said or written by a candidate. The difference is the target of the “attack”: for Richardson, the poor immigrant who aren’t the kids we knew, and Hughes at Israel, which was immediately dubbed equated to affluent Jewish power.

I do not advocate the firing of eithern, or is it a defense of the allegation that Israel was “behind” the horror of 9/11; there is no evidence that points to Zionist responsibility in forming the attack or even colluding with the perpetrators; but it seems both were the victim of Harper’s “gotcha journalism”. But this is an example of who the real whipping boy is and what is accepted, even though Richardson recanted in his statements and Hughes has not. And I do not believe that this is a prime example of the work of a powerful Zionist cabal that wants to control every little thing the media says over Israel, even though there is ample evidence that directs us to that conclusion. Dion was pandering to a political base that he knew he could not offend; Farber and his CJC gang are strong and influential. In the past, Farber has been known to believe that “the Internet must be tamed”, because it is a medium that is dangerous to control, a “wild frontier”. There is no such equivalent for the immigrant lobby. It is painstakingly clear of their absence here, what Steven Plaut would vouch for (a strong Arab and liberal lobby), but yet they are unequipped to take down a candidate who tied crime to immigrants and unable to defend a woman who uses Israel’s supposed past crime as a beneficiary. Fittingly, this would have been the opportune time to “take control” of the talking points.

Whether Hughes was right or not (a matter that was of less importance to everyone), it seems that she will be another victim of the smear campaign by Israel’s supporters. Pressured into stepping down by her party leader, Dion can only be seen as an opportunist and not a loyal party leader. The momentum is stinging and Hughes will be relegated to pariah status.

The lesson learned is if you are in the political running, know who you are criticising; it might cost you your career. Choosing your words carefully so you can be as benign as possible is the ticket. It makes for a very entertaining election campaign. (One that is absent of any foreign policy debate vis-à-vis Israel. And that’s the way we like it.)