Trump's Man Smashes it in East Jerusalem

"For years, Palestinians in the crowded East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Silwan have complained that the walls of their homes were settling and cracking, disturbed by an underground archaeological dig led by a right-wing Jewish settler group. When that dig was officially unveiled... with the ceremonial smashing of a brick wall, it was President Donald Trump's ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who swung the first sledgehammer. The reverberations were literal and metaphorical. US ambassadors to Israel, to avoid being seen as taking Israel's side in the conflict with the Palestinians, have avoided public appearances in East Jerusalem. Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 and annexed it. Most of the world considers it illegally occupied, and the Palestinians want it as the capital of a future state.... But [Friedman's] starring role at the event run by the City of David Foundation yesterday was more provocative... Over the years, the group has moved hundreds of Jews into Silwan, a neighbourhood with with about 5000 Palestinians. At the same time, it has led a sprawling excavation of an area of Silwan called Wadi Hilweh, where archaeologists [names please] say they have unearthed the original boundaries of biblical Jerusalem. Yesterday's event represented the opening of what the group is calling the Pilgrimage Road, an underground passageway that leads from the Pool of Siloam, where the group says ancient Jewish pilgrims would cleanse themselves, to the point at which they would ascend the Temple Mount... 'Here we have this powerful, irrefutable, undeniable evidence,' Friedman told the guests, which included Israeli and US diplomats and lawmakers, the billionaire Republican donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, and Sara Netanyahu, wife of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Friedman added, 'Were there any doubt, and to me there never was, about the accuracy, the wisdom, the propriety of President Trump recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, I certainly think this lays all doubts to rest'." (US smashes diplomatic barrier, David M. Halbfinger, The New York Times/Sydney Morning Herald, 2/7/19)

Two other individuals, apart from the mob above, deserve dishonourable mentions in relation to their cavalier attitudes towards Israeli activities in East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements:

The first is Geraldine Brooks, Australian-born novelist and Catholic convert to Judaism following her marriage to the late US writer Tony Horwitz. Brooks' best-seller, The Secret Chord (2015), has lent credence to the City of David Foundation's tunneling. See my two posts The Tunnel Vision of Geraldine Brooks for details.

The second is former Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop, who is on record as saying, "I would like to see which international law has declared [Israeli settlements] illegal." (See Lawyers caution Bishop, John Lyons, The Australian, 27/1/14 in my 28/1/14 post Just How Bright is Julie Bishop?)

Meet the Zionist Ubermenschen

Of course, you won't have seen this in the rags:

"Yesterday, Israeli Channel 13 aired video recordings by rabbi educators at the state-sponsored military prep-academy Bnei David in the West Bank settlement of Eli. The rabbis hail Hitler's Nazi racist ideology as '100% correct', only criticizing it for not being applied to the right people - that is, the Jews should be the master-race, and non-Jews the 'untermenschen'.

"The statements are jaw-droppers. The full coverage with subtitles can be seen in a video prepared by journalist David Sheen.

"These educators send young men to the army, and have been advocating these ideas for years. They have close ties to lawmakers, specifically to Rabbi Rafi Peretz, now head of the Union of Right Wing Parties, the notorious merger with the Kahanist party Jewish Power, who is now the leading candidate for Minister of Education. The academy is also tied to a Yeshiva, to which many students come after their military service.

Slavery Should Return

"It starts out with Rabbi Eliezer Kashtiel, who bemoans that slavery has been abolished:

Abolishing legal slavery has created deficiencies. No one is responsible for that property. With God's help it will return. The goyim (non-Jews) will want to be our slaves. Being a slave of the Jews is the best. They must be slaves, they want to be slaves. Instead of just wandering the streets, being foolish and harming each other, now he's a slave, now his life is beginning to come into order.

"The 'goyim' in this context is to be understood as Palestinians.

"He says it's because they have 'genetic problems', and posits that they want to be under occupation:

There are around us people with genetic problems. Ask any average Arab where he wants to be. He wants to be under occupation. Why? Because they have genetic problems, they don't know how to run a country, they don't know how to do anything - look at the state of them.

Yes, we are racists

"'Of course there is racism', Kashtiel continues:

Are we unaware that there are different races? Is it a secret? Is it untrue? What can you do? It's true. Yes, we are racists, we believe in racism.

"Kashtiel suggests that because Jews are a superior race, they can 'help' the inferior ones:

Correct, there are races in the world, nations have genetic characteristics, so we [the Jews] must consider how to help them. Racial differences are real, and that's precisely a reason to offer help.

"A student asks the rabbi: 'Who put you to decide who is who?' Kashtiel:

I can see that my accomplishments are much more impressive than his.

The Holocaust is humanism and pluralism

"Another rabbi, Giora Radler, says that the Holocaust is not what you think, it's not about killing Jews. It is humanism and pluralism that is killing us for real:

The Holocaust for real is not about the killing of Jews - that's not the Holocaust. All of these excuses claiming that it was based on ideology or that it was systematic, this is ridiculous. Because it was based on ideology, to a certain extent, makes it more moral than if people murdered people for no reason. Humanism, all the secular culture about us believing in the human, that's the Holocaust. The Holocaust, for real, is being pluralist, believing in 'I believe in the human'. That's what's called a Holocaust. The Lord (blessed be his name) is already shouting for many years that the [Jewish] exile is over, but people don't listen to him, and that is their disease, a disease which needs to be cured by the Holocaust.

"In other words, the Holocaust was there to teach Jews a lesson - drop pluralism, isolate yourself in the Jewish State and let go of the diaspora 'illness'.

"These remarks were made in a lesson titled 'relating to the Holocaust'.

The Nazi logic was right

"Radler:

The Nazi logic was right unto themselves. Hitler says that a certain group in society is the seed of all calamity for all humanity, that because of it all of mankind will go to oblivion, that they harm humanity, and therefore must be exterminated.

"Radler asks a student: 'Does this ideology sound illogical to you? Very bad?'

"Student answers: 'It doesn't sound moral.'

"Radler: 'Was Moses as bad as Hitler?'

"Student: 'No.'

"Radler:

Why not? There is one thing in the world that is truly evil and that is to be a hypocrite. Does it make a difference to you if they killed you now with a knife the way they did to Agag [the Amalekite king whom the prophet Samuel 'hacked in pieces'] or if they kill you in a gas chamber?

"Student: 'Not'.

"Radler:

[Hitler] is the most righteous person. Of course he is right in every word he utters. In his ideology he is right. There is a male world which fights, which deals with honor and the brotherhood of soldiers. And there is the soft, ethical feminine world [which speaks of] 'turning the other cheek'. And we [Nazis] believe that the Jews carry on this heritage, trying, in our words, to spoil the whole of humanity, and that's why they are the real enemy.' Now, he [Hitler] is 100% correct, aside from the fact that he was on the wrong side.

"So here, Radler was emulating Hitler, mouthing Nazi arguments approvingly. The only fault of the Nazis, per Radler, was that they didn't know who the real master race was, and who the real 'untermenschen' were. The Nazis couldn't be right, because only Jews could be the superior ones. But if Jews now apply this race theory and ideology currently - that is, essentially upon Palestinians, then they would really be '100% correct' - maybe even '101%, because they got it even more right than Hitler." (From Israeli rabbi educators at military prep-academy are caught on video congratulating Hitler, Jonathan Ofir, mondoweiss.net, 30/4/19)

Jonathan Freedland's Dream Zionists

Here's the liberal Zionist editor of The Guardian, Jonathan Freedland, pretending that Netanyahu's victory at the polls will be equally bad for Jewish Israelis and Palestinians, and omitting the fact that it was the former who enabled it:

"So Palestinians will have to brace themselves for a Trump 'peace plan' that is likely to deny them the territory they need to build a state of their own. Meanwhile, Netanyahu's victory promises a further assault on democratic norms and the rule of law inside Israel. It surely spells gloom for the long-term prospects of both peoples, but they are used to that by now. It's been this way on and off for most of the last quarter century. For truly this is the age of Netanyahu." (Netanyahu's victory means life is about to get worse for Palestinians, theguardian.com, 10/4/19)

George Orwell would be turning in his grave if he knew Freedland had been awarded a special Orwell Prize in May 2014 for his 'journalism'. Certainly, at least on the subject of Palestine/Israel, he seems incapable of producing anything other than pro-Israel PR.

In a 2012 New Statesman essay, Yearning for the same land, Freedland reveals why.

In it, he argues unconvincingly that, alongside the Zionism we're all familiar with, "the expansionist desire to control the entire biblical land of Israel," there's another "true" Zionism, consisting of "the more modest claim that there should be a Jewish national home within historic Palestine," and that that is the Zionism he, Freedland, professes. IOW, it's two states for two peoples, with the Palestinians getting a mere 22% of their historic homeland at most, contingent on the unlikely event of every soldier and settler pulling up stakes and getting out.

Whatever their imagined difference, both Zionisms, of course, subscribe to the same dogma, namely that Jews constitute not a faith community, but a "people" who, "like every other people, have a right to self-determination in the historic land of their birth." Although the concept of Jewish peoplehood has no basis in fact (and has been exploded most recently by Israeli historian Shlomo Sand in his 2009 book The Invention of the Jewish People), Freedland accepts it uncritically. Nor does he acknowledge the absurdity of this fictional people's achieving its fictional right of self-determination at the expense of another.

Sensing he's on shaky ground here, he attempts to bolster his case by shamelessly playing the Holocaust card: "The Jewish people, scythed by the Holocaust and after centuries of persecution, were gasping for breath in 1948; their need for a home was as great as that of any people in history. They had the right to act, even though the cost for another people, the Palestinians, was immense." Overlooked, of course, is the bleeding obvious that it was Germany, not the Palestinians, who perpetrated the Holocaust, not to mention the fact that the majority of Jews displaced by the war would have preferred to migrate to the United States and elsewhere than to Palestine.

Freedland goes on to claim that there was no "logical" connection between the pre-1967 Zionist colonisation of Palestine and the post-1967 Zionist colonisation of its West Bank and Gaza remnants. The Israeli settlement of the occupied territories was not, he asserts, "the ineluctable consequence of Zionism - as the Israeli right argued then and now." Presumably, for Freedland, those responsible for settling pre-1967 Palestine, his "true," Labor, Zionists, were more than content with their "national home" in 78% of historic Palestine. How strange then that their behaviour after 1967 belies this:

"The authorized, 'legal' settlements began in the era of the Labor-led governments, from 1967 to 1977. They flourished in the days of the Likud governments that followed and during the subsequent period of the Labor, Likud, and unity governments. In the course of the negotiations that engendered the September 1993 Oslo agreement, and in the period following it, the settlements saw an unprecedented building boom. All the the subsequent governments have made a point of approving new construction, ostensibly only within the boundaries of the existing settlements, but they have always supported - by political and budgetary deed and by failing to enforce the law and deter violations - the establishment of new settlements in the guise of new neighborhoods and 'illegal' outposts." (Lords of the Land: The War Over Israel's Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 1967-2007, Idith Zertal & Akiva Eldar, 2007, pp xvii - xviii)

Freedland, of course, overlooks entirely the colonial-settler roots of the Zionist project and the trampling of the indigenous Palestinian Arabs' right to national self-determination following World War I; the fact that political Zionism, from its inception, was focused exclusively, as one of its early slogans put it, on 'a land without a people'; and that Zionist colonisation, like every other form of colonisation, has only ever trampled underfoot the rights of those it has dispossessed.

Freedland may try to fool us with his airy talk of Zionist "dreamers" and "two peoples, fated to seek their dreams in the same land," but in truth he's only fooling himself.

Some Gems from Morrison's 'Address to the Sydney Institute'

The complete text may be accessed at pm.gov.au, 15/12/18:

Look at this sentence from Morrison's lengthy (and thoroughly USraeli) tirade against the UN General Assembly and tell me what it means:

"We won't turn a blind eye to an anti-Semitic agenda masquerading as defence of human rights as a nation like Australia."

Here he plays the Doc Evatt card (without of course mentioning the former Labor foreign minister's name):

"We proudly recall that it was Australia that chaired the Committee that recommended to the UN General Assembly the creation of the state of Israel and then voted in favour of the partition of Mandate Palestine."

To begin with, Evatt's Committee (UNSCOP) didn't recommend "the creation of the state of Israel." It recommended that Palestine be divided into Jewish and an Arab states. And there was no implication that the said Jewish state was anything other than those parts of Palestine where Jewish settlers had congregated. In fact there were almost as many Arabs living in the proposed 'Jewish' state as there were Jews - with no implication, of course, that they would be ethnically cleansed, as indeed they were the following year.

And another thing: to the extent that Evatt involved Australia in recommending that Palestine be partitioned over the heads of its people, we were complicit in depriving the Palestinian Arab majority of its right to national self-determination, in violation of the UN Charter, and in setting the scene for Zionist terror gangs to create the Palestinian refugee problem, still unresolved to this day.

Speaking of which refugee problem:

"And we continue donations to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East of $41 million in 2017-19."

Which begs the question: why is Morrison touting this as some kind of virtue when, in fact, thanks to Evatt, Australia was complicit in creating the very Palestinian refugee problem which UNRWA was set up to deal with?

"Though a two state solution remains the only viable way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the obstacles, we must admit, to achieving such a solution are becoming insurmountable."

And they are? Morrison shies away from telling us. Elsewhere in his speech, however, we find this clue: "[Israeli] settlements undermine peace - and contribute to the stalemate we now see." But, hey, you wouldn't expect a rapture-ready fool to see, let alone forthrightly state, the bleeding obvious, would you?

Now here's a curious thing. For Morrison, while the General Assembly is a seething hotbed of anti-Semitic bullies, the Security Council (with its trusty US veto!) is quite another matter:

"I also required that their [ie, departmental secretaries from Prime Minister and Cabinet, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Defence and Home Affairs] deliberations respect Australia's obligations under international law and UN Security Council resolutions - two things that are fundamental, I think, to Australia's interests in in a rules-based order... respect for UN Security Council resolutions is a relevant factor for Australia that we can't put to one side as we consider our position on these issues. Now, Australia is subject to UN Security Council resolutions that apply to the Jerusalem issue, including Resolutions 478 and 2334."

Indeed, but is Morrison aware that Security Council resolution 478, adopted (14-0) in 1980 in response to Israel's illegal annexation of occupied East Jerusalem, included a call for "those states that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City"? And if so, does he really think that his ploy of a "Trade & Defence Office in West Jerusalem" passes muster as "respect" for a resolution containing these words?

As for resolution 2334 (2016), which condemned (14-0) Israeli settlements as a "flagrant violation" of international law, does he really expect his mealy-mouthed talk of "insurmountable obstacles" to a two state solution to fool anyone?

"At the end of the day, it all comes down to what you believe in."

Well, he's right there. Without doubt, Morrison is the most Zionist prime minister this country has ever had.

Pain in the Neck

There's a preliminary report - PM locks in shift to West Jerusalem (Simon Benson) - in today's Australian which quotes what Morrison will say later today when he announces his much-anticipated decision on relocating Australia's embassy to Jerusalem. In it I note these words in particular:

"The Australian government has expressed our strong concern over Israel's land appropriations, demolitions and settlement activity. The settlements undermine peace - and contribute to the stalemate we now see."

To sheet home to Israel the extent of his "strong concern" for "settlement activity," which "undermines peace," Morrison has therefore declared that:

"The Australian government has decided that Australia now recognises West Jerusalem, as the seat of the Knesset and many of the institutions of government, is the capital of Israel. And we look forward to moving our embassy to West Jerusalem when practical in support of, and after, final- status determination. We have decided to start work now to identify a suitable site for an Australian embassy in West Jerusalem." (ibid)

I'm sorry, readers, I can't proceed any further on this subject at this point in time. You see, I've badly twisted my neck trying to get my head around the above.

Something for a Religious Freedom Commissioner to Chew On?

Scott Morrison's proposed legislation to 'protect' freedom of religion has The Australian's editorialist scratching his head:

"How would the new religious freedom commissioner (who must also defend those of no faith) deal with an arrogant, Richard Dawkins-like assault on Christianity? Could a Shia Muslim haul a Sunni before a tribunal for 'conciliation'? Would Scientology or Falun Gong qualify as religions? If a critic faults Islamism on political grounds, could a radical make a complaint of religious discrimination? Would a court ruling that a witness in a niqab or burka show her face come under challenge?" (Scott Morrison's big ideas and the problem of detail, 14/12/18)

These, of course, are all just hypotheticals. And yet, there on the front page of the same edition, The Australian featured a matter anything but hypothetical:

"Sending her three children to Leibler Yavneh College at Elsternwick, in Melbourne's southeast, is a form of 'life insurance' for Zoe Goodhardt. But this is an insurance policy like no other. It is the guarantee Ms Goodhardt says that her family's Jewish faith and way of life can continue untrammelled. So it is no surprise as rising secularism clashes with the beliefs and values of traditional faiths that Ms Goodhardt, 32, has rushed to support Scott Morrison's pledge to protect religious freedom... 'I think that it's our right, and the right of the school, to cultivate a community at the school in line with their ethos and values,' Ms Goodhardt says... At Yavneh College, that community is based around the modern orthodox school's mission to adhere to Jewish law (Halacha), ethical behaviour (Derech Eretz) and Zionist ideals." (Keeping religion alive lies at heart of family's values, Brad Norrington, The Australian, 14/12/18)

Since Zionism is the ideological driving force behind the settler-colonial, apartheid state of Israel, could this not be grounds for a Palestinian complaint to a future 'religious freedom commissioner' that the school's Zionist focus is aimed at producing students who, in one way or another, could conceivably go on to aid and abet, or even become directly involved in, the violation of Palestinian rights?

And if you think this is a stretch, keep in mind that "Modern Orthodox Jews form the core of the religious Zionist settlement movement in Israel." (See 5 key takeaways... from new survey of US Modern Orthodox Jews, Ben Sales, The Times of Israel, 30/9/17)

How typical of Murdoch's Australian to instance "Islamism", while ignoring political Zionism, with its blatant conflation of religion and politics, even when (on this rare occasion) it makes it to the front page.

(On this matter of Palestine/Israel in court, readers might like to trawl through my posts Sixteen Angry Men 1 (25/9/10), Sixteen Angry Men 2 (28/9/10), and Sixteen Angry Men 3 (29/9/10). These are well worth a re-read.)

A Class of Their Own

"Israel is to build hundreds of new homes in a settlement in the occupied West Bank where a Palestinian stabbed three Israelis, one fatally, Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman said yesterday." (Israel to build 400 units to avenge knife attack, AFP/The Australian, 28/7/18)

So Israel wouldn't have expanded its settlement otherwise? Was there ever a more cruel and casuistical colonisation in the annals of settler-colonialism than the Israeli?

Don't Give Me that 'Two States' Shit...

Extracts from an interview with Jamal Juma', coordinator of the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign, about the popular resistance in Gaza, the Trump administration's policy toward the question of Palestine, and Palestinian options to chart a new course ('A watershed moment in Palestinian history': interview with Jamal Juma', mondoweiss.net, 29/6/18):

"It is clear that the Wall was designed to isolate and lay siege to Palestinians... It closed off all the dynamic areas that Israel considered necessary to isolate various areas. 80% of the Wall is within the West Bank.

"The second part of the siege is reinforcement of the settlements. Each settlement has what Israel calls a buffer zone - a security apparatus consisting of barbed wire and roads that Palestinians are not allowed to use...Today, there are two road networks. One is for Israeli settlers, about 1,400 kms long, and its purpose is to connect all settlements to one another and to Israel in a kind of network... The other network, the alternative roads, is for Palestinians to use... The two road systems are separate. This is the basis of the racist, discriminatory system we talk about: isolating Palestinians and confining them in limited spaces, and controlling their resources through settlements, the road network, military installations, and the Wall, [all of] which takes up about 62% of the West Bank.

"With the extension of the settlements, we no longer talk about the Palestinians ghettoized in the north, south, and central region. There is more fragmentation of Palestinian residential areas. New settlement outposts are not being discussed in terms of whether they should be removed or not. They are being transformed into settlements. When you see 150 outposts, you are really talking about 150 new settlements. This project is intensifying, especially since Trump took office... This is a watershed moment in Palestinian history. Since Trump took office, US policy has fully adopted the Zionist project and embarked on a process of liquidating the Palestinian cause... It is a clear program. It began with the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the Zionist entity, the transfer of the embassy, and the targeting of the refugees by cutting aid to UNRWA... In addition, there is the use of Arab countries that are ready for normalization with Israel and eager to be aligned with the American project - Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and Egypt [are] pressuring the Palestinians to accept the US liquidation project.

"This has complicated things and taken [the Palestine cause] out of the sphere of international law and the UN... the US has dealt a blow to international law...

"On the formal political level, the Palestinian Authority is in crisis. It had placed its faith in the US, but the US is now clearly determined to liquidate the Palestinian cause. The only real option remaining to the PA is to cast its lot with the Palestinian people and on free people around the world, international solidarity and movements that support us...

"On the popular level, we see serious activity in search of an alternative to the status quo, the largest and most important of which is taking place now in Gaza with the Great March of Return... This has changed stereotypes about Gaza as a launchpad for rockets, a place of terrorism, hijacked by Hamas... Just as the first intifada emerged from Jabaliya in the Gaza Strip, today we have the beginnings of a mass civil disobedience movement. Gaza has a population that is resisting, and Hamas does not control this resistance... The Great March has returned focus on the refugee issue... despite all efforts to ignore and erase it. More than 70% of Gazans are refugees, and they are demanding the right to return to their homes...

Meanwhile, Back at the Peace Process...

"With no progress to show for months of effort in trying to get a new peace process going in Israel, diplomats say that the Trump Administration is increasingly 'fed up' with Israeli officials, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular.

"'They want us to implement confidence-building measures in relation to the Palestinians, and we say no to every request,' one Israeli diplomatic source was quoted as saying. He added the US had increasingly urged Israel to remove checkpoints or allow Palestinians more building rights on Palestinian soil, but that Israel keeps citing security concerns to refuse.

"Israel has also had a settler representative at every meeting, and they've objected to every US proposal. Given how desperate the Israeli coalition is for settler support, this always stops any US proposal dead in its tracks.

"The biggest problem, officials say, is how dismissive Netanyahu appears every time discussions of a Palestinian state, or making any progress at all, comes up. The expectation seems to be that Israel can keep delaying the process until the US gives up." (Diplomats: Trump 'fed up' with Netanyahu dismissing peace efforts, Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 24/11/17)

Things That Go Bump in the Night

Zionists and their fellow-travellers (think here of Turnbull/Shorten, for example) are always banging on about Israel's alleged lack of security. They discourse endlessly about its need for 'secure borders,' 'security fences,' and about 'living in a tough neighbourhood.'

All bullshit, of course, designed to mask a genocidal reality.

The simple fact of the matter is that ever since the predatory, European settler-colonial movement known as Zionism was introduced into historic Palestine by the British after World War I, it has turned the lives of its indigenous Arab population into a living hell of insecurity and fear.

When next you hear a Zionist droning on about Israel's alleged need for security, spare a thought for the utterly defenceless inhabitants of the tiny West Bank village of Umm al-Kheir:

"Spent the last two days at Umm al-Kheir, a Bedouin village in the South Hebron Hills, enjoying the wonderful hospitality, generosity, and loving kindness. This was not my first trip there. And as much as I hate to say it, as with most things in Palestine, things are so much worse than my last visit. The illegal colonial settlement of Carmel belonging to the entity called Israel surrounds the village on almost every side. Some of the tents and housing units are less than 20 feet from the 'security fence'. Housing units in the illegal settlement have increased and more are being built, with plans to take more of the land owned by the village to continue expansion.

"The villagers sit day after day waiting for the illegal occupation soldiers to come with their bulldozers to demolish more of their housing. People speak openly about their discouragement for their future but still stand steadfast, [saying] that they will not be moved or defeated. Our tent was one of those closest to the fence and for two nights we sat up most of the night while Zionists threw stones over the fence at the tent or at anything that appeared to move. The village leader says the violence is increasing all the time and fears that one of these nights something much worse than stones will be thrown. Fortunately, no one was hurt (physically) the past two nights but there was little or no sleep for us or any of the men of the village who sat up keeping an open eye and ear to try to spot the thugs doing this. The commotion would wake up many of the villagers and you could hear the crying of many frightened small children throughout the night.

"This is an every night occurrence and everyone is exhausted, all of the time, and can only catch a few hours of sleep after sunrise. Phone calls to the police of the entity called Israel Police as well as the Palestinian Authority Police are a waste of time. No one will respond to the calls for help to make the settler violence stop. Many Internationals, such as ourselves, go for a few nights (when we have the people to do so) to help with a protective presence but it doesn't stop the ever-increasing settler violence. The Bedouin are a very peaceful people and are committed to nonviolence but they are called terrorists by the Zionists and most of the Zionist-supporting governments of the world (such as the United States). More International presence is needed, and more of the world needs to know the truth." (Two nights in Umm al-Kheir: a journal, palsolidarity.org, 5/9/17)

Don't Mention the Grovel

Morning Report, Radio New Zealand, 14/6/17. Transcript:

Susie Ferguson: New Zealand and Israel have agreed to restore ties, ending a 6-month crisis between the two countries. Israel recalled their ambassador in December after New Zealand co-signed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel's continued settlements. Well, last half-hour on Morning Report we spoke to Gil Hoffman from the Jerusalem Post, and he said that PM Bill English wrote a letter saying he regretted the damage done to Israel-New Zealand relations as a result of New Zealand proposing resolution 2334 at the [UN] Security Council. With us now is the foreign minister, Gerry Brownlee.

Ferguson: Are you able to confirm that that was indeed what the letter said?
Brownlee: What the letter indicated was that New Zealand wanted to resume diplomatic relations with Israel and regretted there'd been fallout from the co-sponsorship of the resolution.
Ferguson: So an apology was required to the Israelis?
Brownlee: I think it was a clarification of the fact that we remain good friends of Israel, have been for a very long time, and we respect the fact that they are a democratically-elected government which is not all that usual in the Middle East.
Ferguson: An apology regretting the damage done to the relations between the two countries. Does New Zealand regret the resolution itself?
Brownlee: Well, the resolution is one that's been passed by the UN and that exists. What's important is that the relationship between New Zealand and Israel is on a good footing and so we are able to discuss as friendly nations issues that affect both of us.
Ferguson: That's not exactly what I was asking though, minister. As for this resolution, is that something New Zealand and the New Zealand government regrets?
Brownlee: As I said, and all I'm going to say, is that we regret the fallout that came from that. I think the important thing is that the re-establishment of those diplomatic relations and the discussions we can now have as nations that remain after many, many years of friendship.
Ferguson: Is that a way of saying you do still back the resolution's intent but you still want to be friends with Israel?
Brownlee: It's a way of saying exactly what I've said so far.
Ferguson: So, as for all the work that was done on this by [former NZ foreign minister] Murray McCully, is this essentially all being thrown under the bus?
Brownlee: Look, what is important, and I'm going to keep on saying this no matter how many times you ask me, and different ways you ask it, is that the relationship between two countries that have been friends for a very long time is back on the right foot and that enables a level of discussion you can't have if you're at loggerheads.
Ferguson: Is this a pandering to Israel from New Zealand?
Brownlee: No.
Ferguson: How not?
Brownlee: It's a mark of respect for a country that's a unique democracy in the Middle East.
Ferguson: So was carrying that resolution and taking that forward disrespectful then?
Brownlee: Well, I just told you it didn't matter how many ways you asked me the question I wouldn't be deviating from my response.
Ferguson: But it is an interview, Mr Brownlee, which is where I get to ask questions and, hopefully, you get to answer them.
Brownlee: Where you get to ask questions and I give you the answers that I'm able to give you, and that's what I've been doing despite the fact that what you would desire as an answer from different questions.
Ferguson: So was New Zealand then used as a pawn by the US under President Obama in this territory?
Brownlee: That's a very interesting question. I don't know where you got the idea that New Zealand has allowed itself to be used as a pawn by anyone.
Ferguson: Well, essentially it came up in the interview with Gil Hoffman from the Jerusalem Post on Morning Report. That's why I thought it was something worth putting to you. So is that the case?
Brownlee (inaudible): The problem... Morning Report...
Ferguson: So [US Secretary of State] Rex Tillerson was here recently. Was this something that was discussed during his visit to Wellington?
Brownlee: No.
Ferguson: So there was no request from the US for New Zealand to make this apology?
Brownlee: No, we had a very good discussion with Tillerson. I think we were able to confirm that we're on the same page of a whole range of issues and we were also able to put our disappointment with the US position on climate change and the TPP but that is a perfect example of how two countries that are very close friends... can have differences without getting too fraught about it.
Ferguson: Just to clarify: what is New Zealand's view of the settlements that Israel has made on Palestinian land? Do you view them as illegal?
Brownlee: What we've said is that the settlement issue is one that the parties that are in dispute need to sort out among themselves, and we'll do what we can to assist in that process. In the end it's something for them to determine.

Shifty as...

The Real Julie Bishop

Age columnist Sarah Gill, although beginning to have her doubts following Julie Bishop's recent meeting with President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines ("At this juncture, what's called for is not an expression of 'concern'... but a point-blank repudiation of Duterte's drug war - its mission and its methods."), has obviously been a great fan of our sleek and stylish foreign minister:

"Underneath it all, I think Bishop cares a great deal about human rights. I believe in the authenticity of her desire to eradicate the death penalty globally - although it's not clear the matter was broached with Duterte, who is on the verge of reinstating it. I also believe in her sincerity when she speaks of fundamental freedoms, or argues passionately for democracy, or insists that human rights are inextricably linked to prosperity and regional stability." (We turn blind eye to regional atrocities, Sydney Morning Herald, 3/4/14)

Frankly, foreign ministry press releases can only take us so far with these professional politicians. It's the unscripted, on-the-hop, quip which best takes us to the "underneath it all." As in:

"I would like to see which international law has declared [Israeli settlements] illegal." (Julie Bishop, quoted in Israeli lawyers caution Bishop, John Lyons, The Australian, 27/1/14)

Harari & Friends

Yuval Noah Harari gets a dinner invitation from Haaretz columnist Benny Ziffer, and look who's coming to dinner:

"After the election [in March], Sara Netanyahu thanked me profusely for defending her and invited me over for dinner. I thought that it would be better if they came to our house. The truth is that my culinary experience at the Prime Minister's residence was not very exciting... We set up a little buffet in the corner of the living room, and opened the windows and balcony doors wide. The security guards remained outside and even the street wasn't closed off. I also invited [writers] Eyal Megged and Zeruya Shalev who are mutual friends and to embellish the dinner party I invited Nehemia Shtrasler, Prof. Yigal Schwartz and his wife and Yuval Noah Harari and his partner. We had a lovely evening. It was enjoyable and interesting." ('I hate the Left!', Naami Lanski, israelhayom.com, 22/4/16)

It was. Benny's a great raconteur. Sample:

"I feel that the Left is disingenuous with the slogans it disseminates. 'Stop the occupation,' for example. That's not realistic. It's a bunch of bull. This week I went to [the Palestinian village of] Bil'in with my wife after we hadn't been there for a long time. You go past the checkpoint and you see Modin Ilit and Kiryat Sefer, which have expanded to the point of touching the neighboring Palestinian villages, and you see some of the villages, which used to be dirty, God-forsaken hell holes, thriving and flourishing... People go there to have their cars fixed at garages, to get dental work done at dental clinics. They opened a commercial center there. There are Jewish clients. Peaceful coexistence is an inevitable byproduct of all this occupation-shmoccupation stuff. Life is stronger than any occupation. The existing model actually works." (ibid)

As Benny said, "We had a lovely evening. It was enjoyable and interesting." Harari fitted in perfectly. The perfect embellishment.

Netanyahu's Final Words

Netanyahu's gone at last, but lo, he's left behind an EXCLUSIVE message, relayed to us by Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian:

"When I look at Syria and Iraq, I think that the danger of ISIS has been greatly reduced. But the possibility now looms that the militant Sunnis of ISIS and al-Qaida may be replaced by the militant Shi'ites of Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah." (Beware threat of Iran's extremists: Bibi, 27/2/17)

OMG! This is getting way too complicated.

So if a swarthy gent of 'Middle Eastern appearance' with that look in his beady eye applies a blade to your neck and exclaims, 'Convert or die, infidel dog!', remember Bibi's words, and ask the guy, ever so nicely, 'Sunni or Shia?'

Greg also reports Netanyahu as saying that Jewish settlements are "not what drives the conflict," because "The Arab and Palestinian opposition to the state of Israel preceded the settlements by half a century."

Needless to say, Greg didn't remind him that before the settlements there were the kibbutzes - same colonial shit, same colonial smell - and that they too were opposed by the Palestinians.

Funny, this thing natives have about colonies, eh?

Greg also quotes Netanyahu as saying:

"No one in their right mind would say to the Palestinians here, have a state which will reduce Israel to a width of 10 miles and have them continue to seek our annihilation, to continue to seek the flooding of Israel with millions of descendants of refugees and use the territory of a Palestinian state as the launching ground for thousands of rockets and endless attacks on the Jewish state." (ibid)

Needless to say, Greg didn't remind him that in 1948, Arab Palestine was drastically reduced to 22%, 60% of which (known as Area C) is under Israeli control; or that historic Arab Palestine was flooded by wave after wave of British-backed European Jewish settlers from 1918 on; or that the Jewish settler community in Palestine became a launching ground for the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine's Arab population in 1948.

Netanyahu further offered this highly scientific evidence that he had won the hearts and minds of most Australians whilst, presumably, meeting and greeting on Manly Beach.

"Mr Netanyahu said he had received a very warm reception in Australia, including several hours on Manly Beach interacting with, he said, more than a thousand Australians, of whom only two made critical comments." (ibid)

Now quite how this casual, man-of-the-people stroll on the beach fits with the elaborate security lavished on an earlier Netanyahu jaunt is frankly a mystery to me:

"If you're a Jewish baker up to host the wife of the Israel Prime Minister, there are certain tests you must pass - and they don't just involve the quality of your bagels. The only thing is, as Sydney cafe owner Jesse Meguideche learned yesterday, you won't even know you're being scrutinised, so efficient is the Israeli advance guard of eatery secret operatives. First, a clandestine team was sent to test the facilities, service and, most importantly, kosher food at his friendly little Rose Bay establishment, Jesse's Cafe... when the the pair [Sara Netanyahu and M'Lady Lucinda T] finally showed up mid-morning yesterday, accompanied by dozens of uniformed and plainclothes security people, an enforcer told Mr Meguideche, 'We chose you because you ticked all the boxes.' He'd known something was up: a booking was made a week ago, and there were security sweeps and sniffer dogs in recent days, but so tightly guarded were details of the visit, he was left to draw his own conclusions until the very last minute... 

"Security was heavy, and spilled out onto busy Old South Head Road, but even that was as nothing compared with the precautions a little later across the way at the heavily fortified Moriah College, where the two prime ministers visited with their wives. There riot squad detachments, federal police, uniformed motor-cycle outriders, emergency services, local coppers on foot and a bewildering number of men dressed down to the point of hobo, but with that steady gaze usually born on the battlefield, were backed up for a time by a hovering police chopper." (Cafe fits bill for first ladies' sweet, not-so-secret soiree, Stephen Fitzpatrick, The Australian, 24/2/17)

"Several hours on Manly Beach interacting with more than a thousand Australians"? Pull the other!

Et Tu, ECAJ & AIPAC?

Over at News Corpse, Greg Sheridan's fairly beside himself at the First Coming of King Bibi. Even Fairfax has plonked its useless bum on the proverbial fence for the occasion, with a pro (Anthony Bergin) and a con (Stuart Rees) on its opinion pages. But this week's (17/2) Australian Jewish News is strangely silent on the subject, no front cover pic of the Zionist Messiah, no editorial encomiums, nothing really.

Could this AJN report on page 3 possibly have anything to do with it?:

"Australian Jewish leaders have expressed concern over Israel's controversial new legislation on settlements, describing the law which would retroactively legalise an estimated 4000 West Bank settler homes built on privately own Palestinian land as 'troubling' and 'counterproductive'. In a joint statement, Executive Council of Australian Jewry [ECAJ] president Anton Block and executive director Peter Wertheim said the Regulation Law passed by the Knesset last week, which prevents the government demolishing the homes and forces the landowners to accept compensation, is 'very troubling'. 'It seeks to legalise retroactively outposts that were built on land in the West Bank that had been privately owned by Palestinians. At the time they were built these outposts were illegal under Israeli law,' Block and Wertheim noted. Stating that the law was enacted 'despite the opposition of the Attorney-General of Israel', they said, 'Both he and the Defence Minister, as well as many legal experts, are predicting that the law will be successfully challenged in the Supreme Court of Israel. We can only hope that occurs, reaffirming that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is a democracy governed by the rule of law'." (Leaders unsettled by settlement legislation)

OMFG, they're criticising Israeli colonisation here, folks! ECAJ is criticising core Zionist business, namely the theft and settlement of any and every bit of Palestinian land they can possibly lay their hands on!

So WTF is going on here? These boZos have spent their entire lives cheering on, and otherwise aiding and abetting, Israel's colonisation of occupied (River-to-Sea) Palestine, but this latest land grab is a bridge too far? C'mon, guyZ, talk about swallowing the proverbial camel but straining at the proverbial gnat.

But lest one think that the Zcales have at last fallen entirely from their eyes, Block and Wertheim are really only worried that "this episode will... have  the 'unfortunate effect of feeding the false narrative that settlements are the primary reason for the absence of peace and will provide the Palestinians with a further excuse to keep avoiding a return to direct negotiations with Israel'."

(As Yishai Fleisher, the International spokesman of the Jewish community of Hebron, said in the New York Times recently: "Israel never seems to have a good answer to accusations against the settlement enterprise. Whenever the claim that Israel stole Palestinian lands is heard, Israel's answers inevitably are: 'We invented the cellphone,' 'We have gay rights,' 'We fly to help Haiti after an earthquake.' Obvious obfuscation. And when pushed to explain why the much-promised two-state solution is perenially stuck, the response is always to blame Arab obstructionism." (A settler's view of Israel's future, 14/2/17))

But there's more:

"Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) national chairman Mark Leibler and executive director Colin Rubenstein said AIJAC believes the bill is a 'counterproductive and unwise piece of legislation aimed at pandering to fringe constituencies at the expense of Israel's integrity and image abroad'."

Whaaat?! Did they say "fringe"? As in 'lunatic fringe'? OMFG, they're calling Israeli colonisers, pioneers, FFS, who are merely doing what Zionist colonisers, formerly known as kibbutzniks, have been doing ever since Balfour gave them Britain's blessing in 1917, lunatics! Can you believe it?

Nonetheless, they too insist that "the Palestinian refusal to negotiate, not settlements" is "the biggest barrier to peace."

(Reread Fleisher.)

Seriously - well, not really - you've got to feel sorry for the current King of the Colonies once he gets to Sydney. Should Block, Wertheim, Leibler and Rubes draw too close to Caesar, will he fix them with his eye, and ask, Et tu, ECAJ & AIJAC?

Bob Hawke's Crazy Love

In an Australian Financial Review op-ed published yesterday, former Labor PM and die-hard "friend of Israel," Bob Hawke, confesses to being worried about "the danger of Israel being blinded to the threat to its very soul and the vision of its future."

In Time to recognise the state of Palestine, he describes a meeting he had with former Israeli PM Golda Meir, at the end of the Yom Kippur War in October 1973:

"I listened with admiration and in total agreement as this wonderful woman, still traumatised with grief, looked into my eyes and said there could be no peace for Israel until there was an honourable settlement of the aspirations of the Palestinian people."

"Soul"? "Vision"? We're dealing here with a-worse-than-apartheid-state for God's sake, with no other "vision" than to cram in as many Jews as possible, and knock off as many Palestinians as circumstances allow. As for that "wonderful woman," Golda Meir, wasn't she the one who said, "There is no such thing as Palestinians"? (See my 17/8/08 post The Zionist La Passionara.)

Unfortunately, despite all his free time and a taxpayer-funded retirement package an aged pensioner could only dream of, he still hasn't taken the time or trouble to revisit, research, revise and apologise for his youthful infatuation and where it led him.

Clearly, the old codger's still not over it.

The only thing, it seems, which perturbs his rosy vision of an imagined Israeli golden age, is the current "sentiment of Israeli political leadership" as exemplified in "the inexorable expansion of Jewish settlement in the West Bank," where "some 580,000 Israelis live in 123 government-authorised settlements and about 100 unauthorised outposts on the West Bank and 12 major neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem." Not to mention those recently announced.

"The least we can do," he concludes, "in these most challenging of times, is to do what 137 other nations have already done - grant diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine."

The appalling thought arises: Will this be it? Will Hawke's be the one and only opinion piece in the lead-up to Netanyahu's visit in the Australian press that deviates from the usual, bipartisan kowtowing to Israel?

Perish the the thought.

But there's more to Hawke's piece than meets the eye. Something quite astonishing in fact. This:

"It was our great foreign minister Dr H.V. Evatt who chaired the UN Special Committee on Palestine and it was the resolution of that committee that authorised the partition of Palestine into two states. It was on the basis of this resolution that the state of Israel was established in 1948. The resolution gave the already settled and the newly arriving European Jewish settlers - who by then constituted a third of the population and owned less than 6% of the land - exactly 56.47% of the Palestinians' best cultivated land and cities. The two-thirds population of indigenous Palestinians who owned more than 94% of the land were given 47% of their own country."

Think about it...

If:

a) Evatt had a hand in proposing that the indigenous Palestinians be divested of 56.47% of their patrimony, to be handed over, lock, stock, and barrel, to a minority of recently-arrived European settlers who had purchased only 6% of it (and he did);

b) and if the partition proposal enshrined in the UNGA's resolution of 29 November, 1947, was as draconian as has been described (and it was);

c) and if said partition resolution was, at least in part, Evatt's legacy in Palestine (and it was), then how the hell can Hawke describe Evatt as "our great foreign minister"?

In fact, it was the partition resolution of 1947 that gave Zionist fanatics such as David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir all the excuse they needed to embark on the military offensive they'd been preparing for for decades, drive out the indigenous Palestinian population, occupy 78% of their ancestral homeland, destroy hundreds of their villages, steal their land, and strew it with settlements (called at the time kibbutzes).

If Hawke really wanted to make a statement at this time, the very least he could have done would be to repudiate Evatt's legacy in Palestine, demand Israel withdraw to its 1947 partition borders, and call on it to implement all relevant UN resolutions, particularly UNGA resolution 194, enshrining the right of Palestinians ethnically cleansed in 1948 to return home.

Historically Illiterate British MPs Debate Palestine

Following Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's  'STFU, I'm talking about Iran, not settlements' visit to the UK, the British parliament passed the following resolution on 9 February:

"That this House reaffirms its support  for the negotiation of a lasting peace between two sovereign states of Israel and Palestine, both of which must be viable and contiguous within secure and internationally recognised borders; calls on the Government to take an active role in facilitating a resumption of international talks to achieve this; welcomes UN Security Council Resolution 2334 adopted on 23 December 2016; and further calls on the government of Israel immediately to halt the planning and construction of residential settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories which is both contrary to international law and undermines the prospect for the contiguity and viability of the state of Palestine."

While I liked (and disliked) some of the speeches which preceded it, I couldn't help but notice, and be profoundly irritated by, the historical illiteracy of certain MPs when it came to Britain's key role in opening up Palestine to wave after wave of Zionist fanatics from 1918 on. After all, this is their history, and there can be no excuses for not knowing it. So here are some snippets from the debate, both those I enjoyed, and those by MPs in dire need of a remedial history course:

Sir Desmond Swayne (Con), mover of the motion: "On Monday night, when a Bill was passed in the Knesset retrospectively legalising 4,000 homes in illegal settlements, the Israeli Minister of Culture welcomed the result, saying that it was 'The first step towards complete... Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.' The words 'Judea and Samaria' were chosen carefully. When President Trump was elected, the Israeli Interior Minister, no less, welcomed it by saying that we are witnessing 'the birth pangs of the Messiah when everything has been flipped to the good of the Jewish people.'... It is absolutely clear that a significant proportion of the Israeli political establishment is in thrall to an increasingly strident settler movement that regards Palestine as a biblical theme park - Judea and Samaria."

"I am certain that the Prime Minister will have made representations to the PM of Israel on Monday. I last made representations to an Israeli politician at a meeting in the Knesset with the chief negotiator with the Palestinians and Deputy PM. Halfway through that meeting, he stormed out announcing that I had launched a brutal assault - moi! As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a pussy in comparison with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is a terrier. I am absolutely convinced that his representations will be much more robust than mine but, so long as they remain representations, the Government of Israel will continue to act with absolute impunity."

[Do we even have one Desmond Swayne in the Australian parliament? Anyone? Rhetorical question.]

Richard Burden (Lab): "What John Kerry was getting at was that if we end up with the de facto annexation of the West Bank, that gives Israel a choice. It can say either that everybody living there should have the vote and rights equal to those of its own citizens, or that they do not. If it says that they do have those rights, the future of Israel with a Jewish majority is at an end. If it says that they do not have those rights, Israel can no longer claim to be a democracy. Not only that, but if there is de facto annexation while Israel maintains a system of laws and controls that discriminate against the majority of people who live in the West Bank and denies them basic rights, what term can we use to describe what we are left with but a form of apartheid?"

[Just imagine what would happen if an Australian MP invoked the word 'apartheid' in connection with Israel.]

Crispin Blunt (Con): "Since Oslo, Palestinians have been betrayed by two decades of factionalised leadership; by the international community in the disastrous consequences of the implementation of the Oslo process; historically by their Arab neighbours in the catastrophic way that they first advanced their own interests ahead of the Palestinian cause; and, also historically, by Britain in our failure to deliver the second half of the Balfour Declaration."

[OFFS, does Blunt seriously thinks that Balfour promising the Zionists "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine was fine and dandy, just so long as "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"?

Think about it: assorted Russian, Polish and Romanian Zionist fanatics score a "national home" in Palestine, while Palestine's "existing non-Jewish communities," which is how the Balfour Declaration dismissively referred to the indigenous Muslim/Christian Palestinian Arab majority (over 90% of Palestine's population in 1917), get mere "civil and religious rights." What a bargain!

Honesty dictates that Blunt's last comment should have been replaced with, The Palestinians have been betrayed historically, by Britain in our CRIMINAL decision to issue the Balfour Declaration."]

Joan Ryan (Lab): "Before addressing the motion, I wish to condemn the rocket attack on Israel last night, when Islamic State fired four rockets from the Sinai Peninsula into Eilat. I expect that the whole House wants to join me in that sentiment."

[LOL Ryan, you'll remember, heads Labour Friends of Israel, and was caught on film, in the recent Al Jazeera expose, licking her lips at the prospect of receiving 1 million pounds from the Israeli Embassy operative, Shai Masot.]

Philip Holobone (Con): "My point was that Britain's connection with the region goes back an awfully long way. For the best part of 30 years after the First World War, we did our best to try to come to a reconciled solution between Arabs and Jews. As a nation we failed, which was why we pulled out in 1948."

[Holobone's historical sketch doesn't go back far enough. The British betrayed a 1915 treaty they had signed with the Arabs promising Arab independence, including Palestine (the Hussein-McMahon pledge), in exchange for a rising against the Ottoman Turks, by doing deals, first with the French, to carve up the Middle East between them (the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916), and second with the Zionist movement, to which they promised Palestine in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

IOW, the British BETRAYED their Arab allies, and by so doing SINGLE-HANDEDLY CREATED TODAY'S PALESTINE PROBLEM.

Any British MP who isn't familiar with these elementary historical facts, and thinks that Britain 'did its best to reconcile Arabs and Jews' (as opposed to unleashing hordes of Zionist fanatics on the unsuspecting Palestinian Arabs) in British-occupied Palestine (1918-1948), should be debarred from holding office on the grounds of historical illiteracy.]

Tommy Sheppard (SNP): "This is the longest-running conflict in the modern era and its solution seems further away than ever, but its very intractability is a reason why we should rededicate ourselves to trying to move the process forward. Every time the international community has considered the competing claims in the region, they have arrived at the same conclusion: that two states living side by side, one Jewish in character and one Arab in character, in peaceful coexistence is the solution to aim for. That was true when Balfour and Sykes looked at it 100 years ago... "

[Bullshit! Sheppard seems to think that when Balfour and Sykes were playing colonial games in the Ottoman Middle East, they found, in Palestine, two equal, indigenous communities, one Jewish and one Arab, who needed a little help from the British to get along together. He doesn't seem to know that the Arabs were not only indigenous to the area, but were, in fact, the overwhelming majority of the population (90%+) at the time, while the Zionists were British-backed and protected European settlers, out to create their very own, exclusive, ethnocratic Jewish (and hence Arabrein) state.]

Andy Slaughter (Lab): "The tragedy of the Palestinians is the occupation. The length of the occupation... The settlements are the embodiment of occupation. Everything else that is wrong in the occupied territories flows from those settlements; 85% of the barrier, which is there to protect the settlements, is on occupied territory. It has been said that the settlements occupy only 1.5% of the land, but they control 42.7% of the land. Palestinians in the West Bank are not allowed to build on 60% of the land."

[A useful rebuttal to the Netanyahu line that the settlements are not the problem.]

Alan Brown (SNP): "On one trip, I saw a settlement positioned, nice and bright, on the top of a hill, with plenty of green shrubbery made possible by the piped water supply. Meanwhile, the closest Bedouin village, despite having electricity pylons running past it, is not allowed to connect to the electricity. The water supply for the settlement runs through the Bedouin village, but the villagers are not allowed access to it. The school in the village is part funded by the EU but has a demolition order hanging over it. That is state intimidation by Israel."

[Nicely put.]

There's No Business like (Israeli Apartheid) Show Business

"It took 3000 [Israeli] police to clear the isolated hilltop of protesting [Israeli settler] youths." (Knesset passes West Bank land law, William Booth, Washington Post/Sydney Morning Herald, 8/2/17)

3,000?

Oh, I see. One to dispense tissues. One to serve cool drinks. One to apologise profusely. One to...

After all, G-d himself gave this land to these gilded youths with Brooklyn accents, don't you know?

Just ask them and they'll tell you: "The Amona settlers said God had promised the land to the Jews and denied the Arab claims." (ibid)

Meanwhile, on the other side of the apartheid wall, only a handful of Israeli troops are needed to keep the G-d forsaken Palestinian untermenschen in line.

In fact, only 4 Israeli ubermenschen were needed when the 17-year-old Palestinian youth, Qusai al-Imour was SHOT 6 TIMES while resisting the Israeli OCCUPATION of his ancestral homeland:

"A human rights group has demanded that the army investigate the killing of a Palestinian teen after footage showed soldiers dragging the youth's bullet-ridden body to their vehicle with his head banging on the ground. Only then did the soldiers offer medical care." (Video shows Israeli soldiers dragging Palestinian teen shot in clashes, Jack Khoury & Gili Cohen, Haaretz, 17/1/17)

Netanyahu's Charmless Offensive: UK 3

As charmless Israeli thug Benjamin Netanyahu lectured UK PM Theresa May on Iran, and ignored her on Israeli settlements, Israeli aircraft and tanks were once again pounding the crippled, impoverished Gaza ghetto, and the Israeli Knesset was passing legislation enabling Netanyahu to "unilaterally seize [occupied West Bank] land privately owned by Palestinians, make it state property, and then transfer it to settlers for the construction of settlements... " (Israeli Knesset agrees to seize Palestinian land in late night vote, Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 6/2/17)

Her reaction? Invite him back later in the year for a birthday bash:

"May also invited Netanyahu to return to the UK later this year to attend events to mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour declaration in November." (May refuses Netanyahu's call to impose new sanctions on Iran, Patrick Wintour, theguardian.com, 7/2/17)

 Teensy Weensy Britain...

Unleashing the Settler Hordes

Zionists have been playing word games ever since Herzl's 'Jewish State' of 1896 was transmuted, in the infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917, into 'National Home for the Jewish people', and the tweeted grunts, belches, farts and turds of the rampaging Trumposaurus are providing Netanyahu with all the wriggle room he needs and more to implement the Irgun/Herut/Likud, facts-on-the-ground, Zionist wet dream of a Greater Israel stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean:

"Everyone was surprised yesterday when the White House issued a statement warning Israel to tone down its settlement construction announcements, faulting them for large unilateral moves and asking them to hold off pending future talks between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli officials seemed less surprised by the comments, deciding that they're going to officially interpret them as a full endorsement of continued settlement expansion, amounting to giving the Israeli government 'carte blanche' to build as they wish with no restrictions.

"How they were told to 'stop' and heard 'go' appears to be related to previous statements from President Obama, which Trump's statement yesterday closely mirrored. Israeli officials saw the Trump statement as softer in tone than Obama's calls for Israel to stop building settlements, and are therefore presenting it as a net win. After all, it's not like Obama did much of anything about Israel's reckless expansion of settlements, and after this statement, Israel seems to reason Trump is liable to do even less." (from Israel interprets Trump warning as green light to keep expanding settlements, Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 3/2/17)

Just since Trump's 20 January inauguration we've had 560 more settler homes announced for occupied East Jerusalem and another 5,500 announced for the occupied West Bank. This speaks volumes about Netanyahu's contempt for UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which recently declared Israeli settlements a "flagrant violation of international law."