47 years to the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights!
1861 Days to the Israeli Blockade of Gaza:
End Israeli Apartheid Now!
Support Palestinian universities – it is what people under the Israeli jackboot ask you to do
Any army fighting against children, has already lost the war!
Israeli War Criminals and Pirates – to the International Criminal Court, NOW!
Make Zionism History!
Demand the destruction of Israeli WMDs NOW!
3 YEARS TO THE MURDEROUS INVASION OF GAZA!
WE SHALL NOT FORGET!
EDITOR: What would Israel have done without the Holocaust?
Well, to begin with, it would not even be there… The Holocaust is the most debased issue in the Zionist discourse. Before and during the Holocaust, Zionism has done its level best to stop any solution to the plight of Europe’s Jews, which did not involve sending them to Palestine. Read Edwin Black’s excellent book on the Transfer Agreement, to learn about the level and types of lies and fabrications used by Zionist organisations in order to terminate the anti-Nazi boycott against Hitler, a boycott which Black, a devout Zionist, is persuaded could have brought Hitler to his knees. Another excellent book on the indifference and hostility of Zionism to the plight of the Jews of Europe is by S B Bet Zvi, on the Evian conference (unfortunately only in Hebrew!). Of course, after the Holocaust, Zionism and then Israel have used it very well to get every possible benefit out of it, at the same time that it deprived the survivors in Israel of most of the funds it collected on their behalf, allowing most of them to perish quietly and in penury. There is massive research published about Zionist manipulation of the Holocaust, the latest example of which is Netanyahu comparing the Iran nuclear programme to Auscwitz. Now the Jewish state, with 400 nuclear devices, is comparing itself to the Jews of Auscwitz… As the son of two survivors of Auscwitz, I can only puke at this cynical manipulation of the dead victims of Nazism.
Of course, Netanyahu is not alone in using this bizarre and repulsive tactic, which works only on two groups – Israelis, who cannot give up the ‘sacred victim’ role and identity, and Americans, who stand to attention when the Holocaust is mentioned by any Israeli leader, as most of them know nothing whatsoever about it. It is deeply embarrassing, but not any different from the same tactic used in the past to silence and humiliate criticis of Israel.
This is the stuff which feeds anti-Semitism. In the article below, some of those sick outbursts are examined.
Israel is fighting a losing battle over victimhood: Haaretz
For years, victimhood speeches by Israeli leaders have succeeded in bringing American Jews to their feet, applauding, and getting them to open their wallets.
By Akiva Eldar
With regard to A.B. Yehoshua’s extraordinary remark – that he had “never heard the Jews analyze the Holocaust as a Jewish failure, which was not anticipated” – I can only wonder where the renowned author was when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waved the “Auschwitz letters”? Yehoshua didn’t hear that Netanyahu said that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new version of Adolf Hitler? He didn’t know that Netanyahu had promised that he would not, under any circumstances, allow Iran to carry out a second Holocaust? Doesn’t Yehoshua understand that Shoah equals victimhood – not guilt, not failure, and without any doubt whatsoever – and that the ability to play the victim is a strategic asset with an existential value?
In her new book, “Who is Afraid of Historical Redress: The Israeli Victim-Perpetrator Dichotomy,” Dr. Ruth Amir wrotes that the perception of Israeli-Jewish victimhood, which was always present in the Jewish narrative and Jewish thought, became even stronger after the Holocaust and serves to give Israel political legitimacy.
Amir, who heads the Department of Multidisciplinary Studies at the Jezreel Academic College (full disclosure: This writer is a member of the college’s board of governors ), notes that the fact that Israel sees itself as a victim justifies its aggression and injustice. With the help of guilt-neutralizing mechanisms, Israelis disengage the circumstantial link between an action and its consequences, and absolve themselves of responsibility. That is why they aren’t interested in trying to correct injustices and reconcile with their neighbor.
The death of John Demjanjuk recalls the declaration that Shulamit Aloni attributes to the late Prime Minister Golda Meir after the Eichmann trial: “Now, when everyone knows what they did to us, we can do anything we want, and no one has the right to criticize us and tell us what to do.” Meir even apparently commented that she would never forgive our enemies for “forcing” us to kill them – another victim-like comment.
Prime Minister Menachem Begin said before the bombing of Beirut during the first Lebanon war that “No country that fought in World War II has any right to preach morality to us, since they did nothing to stop the killing and extermination of the Jews.”
Victimhood purifies the victim of any guilt and enables him to request empathy – even if he is the stronger, victorious, occupying party. This duality is the reason that for years, victimhood speeches by Israeli leaders have succeeded in bringing American Jews to their feet, applauding, and getting them to open their wallets.
The problem is that since World War II the language of human rights has been gradually taking the place of the Holocaust in diplomatic and moral discourse. Even in Germany it’s getting harder and harder to play the role of occupier-victim. Sigmar Gabriel, the chairman of that country’s Social-Democratic Party, who has his eyes on the chancellor’s seat, visited Israel and the territories last week and didn’t hesitate to write on his Facebook page that in Hebron there is an apartheid regime.
If you remove the Holocaust and victimhood from the debate, Netanyahu’s claim that “Israel has the right to defend itself,” turns into a double-edged sword. How then, are we meant to respond to the Palestinian leader who will claim: “It’s the right of a people without a state to defend itself?”
True, there is a difference. Israel is not threatening to destroy the Palestinians. It is “only” taking their lands and has “only” been holding them under a regime of occupation for 45 years, without basic civil rights. From another perspective, if it’s justified to impose sanctions on Iran because it desires nuclear deterrence, why is it forbidden to impose sanctions on Israel so as to stop settlement in the territories?
Remove the Holocaust and victimhood from Israel and then ask yourself: If it’s permissible for this country to bomb Iran to free itself from a nuclear threat, then why are the Palestinians forbidden to launch rockets against Israel to free themselves of the occupation? Does Jewish construction in the occupied territories accord with the law and international consensus any more than the Palestinian request to be accepted as a UN member? For how long will the Holocaust save the world’s last colonialist government from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, when it is trying to withhold nuclear power from Iran?
Without entering into self-righteous symmetry, it must be said that many of the Palestinians have yet to wean themselves from their addiction to the Nakba (the so-called catastrophe of the creation of the Jewish state ) and their own victimhood. The key to their old house in Sheikh Munis (now Ramat Aviv ) that they wear around their necks will not open the door for them to a Palestinian state.
In this endless battle, the battle over victimhood, everybody loses.
Netanyahu’s contempt for the Holocaust: Haaretz
Contrary to previous Israeli leaders, Netanyahu’s political use of the Holocaust is a tactic; it is demagoguery and it is a bluff.
By Avner Cohen
In October 2006, Haaretz’s weekend magazine asked a number of cultural figures to describe how they would feel if Tel Aviv were to be wiped off the map. This was in response to one of the Israeli anxiety attacks over the non-existent Iranian atom bomb and the declarations made by the Iranian president in that vein. I was surprised that serious people were prepared at all to relate to such a weird and nihilistic question but I was even more surprised that the Haaretz editorial staff had initiated the project.
I could not contain my feelings and I called the publisher of the newspaper to ask how he had permitted “pornographic” projects of that kind. Even before I managed to express my anger, Amos Schocken cut me short: “You are correct,” he declared. “It was a serious editorial mistake. We won’t repeat it.”
That was indeed a miscalculation because a central newspaper must not, from the moral and normative points of view, grant legitimacy to this kind of illusory apocalyptic discourse. And if this is forbidden for a newspaper, how much more so is it forbidden for national leaders. A sane society will not permit its leaders to talk about “the generations that will not come after us.” The leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union, who lived through threats of mutual annihilation for most of the years of the Cold War, did not allow fears of that kind to spill over into the public political discourse. Even during the days of the missile crisis in Cuba, perhaps the most dangerous point of time in the history of the Cold War, their respective leaders, John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev refrained from apocalyptical descriptions. (Later the American secretary of defense at the time, Robert McNamara, would relate that at the height of the crisis he did indeed feel one day that the end of the world was likely to come. )
In Israel, the vow “Never again” has come to mean the creation of a national insurance policy against the possibility of another Holocaust. In the name of this vow, the Jewish state set up its nuclear project which it sees as combining something lofty with strength and a national taboo. In the name of this vow, the entire Western world kept quiet – sometimes it looked away and other times, particularly at the start of the road, it helped Israel to build its apocalyptic power. In a personal letter written in 1966 by the father of Israel’s nuclear program, Prof. Ernst David Bergmann, to Meir Ya’ari, the leader of the Mapam party, he explicitly stated that Israel had embarked on a nuclear path “so that we would never again be led like sheep to the slaughter”. According to the American journalist Seymour Hersh, in his book, “The Samson Option”, the vow “Never again” was physically engraved, in Hebrew letters, on the first product at Dimona. The fulfillment of the vow signifies that the Jewish state will never again remain helpless. Dimona is Israel’s response to the anxieties about the Holocaust, and to a large extent, the response of David Ben-Gurion to his own fears.
Keeping the vow, however, also entails the demand to recognize the uniqueness of the Holocaust and not to take its name in vain – that is to say to see it as a unique event that can never be repeated. If the State of Israel is indeed the most powerful entity in the region, something that Defense Minister Ehud Barak repeatedly declares, it has no need for manipulations of the fears about another Holocaust. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has twice desecrated the sanctity of this vow. The first time was my means of the deceptive and distorted analogy he made between [the site of the Iranian centrifuges at] Natanz and Auschwitz, during his speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – mere demagoguery which bears no real historic insight.
The second time was in the numerous interviews Netanyahu gave to the Israeli media after he returned home from his visit to the United States, in which he stated that if we put off the decision over Iran it could be too late, because after yet another Holocaust no one will remain to even express remorse for the mistake.
Netanyahu is not the first Israeli prime minister to use the Holocaust for political reasons and thus to show contempt for it. Menachem Begin did it aplenty before him, and even Ben-Gurion, who abhorred public remarks about the Holocaust, did not refrain from mentioning the possibility of another Holocaust in private letters that he sent to President Kennedy and other world leaders. But the difference between Ben-Gurion and Begin, and Netanyahu, is tremendous.
First, the two of them, as Jewish leaders during the period of the Holocaust, underwent in the most authentic manner the experience of total lack of salvation. For both of them, the fears of a Holocaust were genuine fears. Netanyahu has never in his life as a leader experienced the feeling of total Jewish helplessness. \
Second, Ben-Gurion, and to a not insignificant extent also Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir, used the Holocaust in order to vow: “Never again.” All of them, each according to his own style, referred to that Holocaust in order to justify the sacred mission of Dimona. Just as the Holocaust is unique, so is Dimona unique.
Netanyahu received Dimona ready made. Contrary to Israel’s former leaders, Netanyahu’s political use of the Holocaust is a tactic; it is demagoguery and it is a bluff. By scaring people about a future Holocaust, he breaks the vow and detracts from the unique quality of the Holocaust that was.
EDITOR: The special corner of Israeli parallel reality, is back by popular demand! This is where the unhinged speak their mind, where the earth is flat, and where Jews will always be victims, especially if they manage to kill many Palestinians, a fact which immediately increases their victimhood factor! This is the closest this site is coming to a humouristic section, though there is nothing funny in Israeli self-delusions. To separate the authors in this section from others above, their names have been put in RED. The daily Yedioth Ahronot, the largest in Israel, specialises in bizarre Op-Eds, that would not be out of place in Der Sturmer.
From the Horse’s Mouth: Mad Israelis Speak Out
Palestinians as ‘super victims’: YNet
Op-ed: Turning Palestinians into victims a case of emotional appeals triumphing over facts
Manfred Gerstenfeld
Last week the IDF responded with bombings on Gaza targets to the rockets shot from there on southern Israel. It took little time for some foreign media to equate the Palestinian aggressor with the Israeli aggressed. It took only slightly longer to mainly highlight Israel’s actions while shoving continued Palestinian aggression into the background.
Such distortions of the truth have to be seen in a much wider context. The overall propaganda war against Israel includes frequent falsifying of facts and many fallacious arguments. Among the latter are the use of double standards, moral equivalence, distorted analogies, appeals to pity and poverty and so on.
Turning the Palestinian aggressor into the aggressed is a prime example of how emotional appeals triumph over facts. Such appeals have a prominent place in contemporary society. The poor are considered victims, even if they are criminals. In the case of the Palestinians, there is sympathy for them in many circles as underdogs. This is not undone even by the fact that Hamas, the largest political party they voted in, has genocidal intentions. Its leaders declare this openly.
The Palestinians have understood for many years how to use sentimental appeals as part of their overall propaganda strategy. In this way, they mask the long-term profound criminal ideologies that permeate their society. As one has to pose as a victim to benefit from sentimental appeals to the world, the Palestinians have aimed to become super-victims. And if the Palestinians are super-victims, then Israelis can be presented as quintessentially evil.
Palestinian sentimental appeals are not incidental but systematic. Their greatest success was at the beginning of the second Intifada. The killing of Muhammad al-Dura in 2000 was perceived internationally as an Israeli crime. It is now known that the boy was most probably killed by Palestinian fire.
There are many other examples of similar sentimental appeals. Israel has constructed a fence – which at some points is a wall – to protect itself against Palestinian suicide terrorists. Their friends abroad present this as Palestinians having been shut out by Israel arbitrarily. Those politicians calling for removal of “the wall” present themselves as humanitarians. Yet in fact, they are facilitators of the future murder of Israeli civilians.
Israeli checkpoints are also in place to prevent murderous attacks by Palestinians. In the Palestinian propaganda machine, they are another subject for sentimental appeals. They are hyped up further by the emotional emphasis placed by their foreign allies on the fact that even pregnant women are subjected to checkpoints. As if Palestinian terrorists would hesitate to dress up as pregnant women.
The flotilla sham
Until now, the success of the al-Dura fallacy seems unbeatable as the Palestinian sentimental appeal par excellence. A good runner up is the fraudulent Gaza flotilla. It was presented as a humanitarian aid effort. However the Mavi Marmara, the largest ship, carried no humanitarian aid. Neither did two others. Some goods transported were for military purposes. Other items of the aid included pharmaceuticals which had already expired. Seven of the nine people killed on the Mavi Marmara had declared their desire to die as martyrs before setting sail.
None of this was relevant for the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security Affairs Catherine Ashton, or the European and German parliaments, as well as many others who condemned Israel. This despite the fact that Israel had the legal right to uphold a blockade on Gaza and thus stop the ships. The international reactions to the flotilla were a great victory of the sentimental Palestinian appeal over the legal rights of Israel.
The recurrent success of Palestinian sentimental appeals should have alerted the Israeli government long ago that these are not unrelated incidents. After more than a decade, it should have figured out that they are an integral and systematic part of Palestinian strategy in the propaganda war. Thus, Israel should have analyzed many years ago the impact of these appeals and how to counteract them.
Unfortunately, the precise nature of this process has escaped the Israeli authorities. Some senior people in the government have even told me that nothing can be done about the defamation of Israel. To make matters worse and in an act of major stupidity, the IDF apologized incorrectly for killing al-Dura.
The issue here is not that the Palestinians have won the propaganda war and Israel has lost it. The problem is that the winner of the propaganda war may ultimately defeat the winner of the physical war. The fight against this war is painstaking. It cannot be resolved by isolated actions. It is a complex process which requires money, time, multi-disciplinary teamwork, systematic application of methodological analysis and management skills. It is a hard road, but the horrible alternative is almost certain defeat.
Zionist? Take a stand!: YNet
Op-ed: Jewish State’s supporters should be advocates for Israel’s rights in Judea and Samaria
David Ha’ivri
Did you ever stop to ask yourself what your feelings are about Portugal or India or even Kazakhstan? I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that most people outside those countries and their immediate neighbors and descendants haven’t given the question much thought. Interestingly, you’d find a total contrast if you asked the same question about Israel.
I think that it is safe to say that the percentage of people who have an opinion about Israel in the world is much greater. Hundreds of millions of people around the world – who have no direct connection to Israel – do have a set opinion about it. Most either love or hate Israel; few are indifferent.
Where do you stand? Do you love Israel or hate it? If you are a lover of Israel, how do you express that love? I have found dedicated lovers of Israel in the most remote and unexpected places in the world. Recently, Newswire reported that a man in Morocco was arrested and prosecuted for flying the Israeli flag in public. Obviously, he and his government both have strong – and conflicting – feelings about expressing support for the Jewish State.
Just the other day, the Israeli flag was defaced at the University of Southern California during a visit from Israel’s oldest social media geek, President Shimon Peres. This is the way local students responded to his flashy music clip “Like Me for Peace.” So you can see that Israel’s most basic calls for peace can be seen as a threat demanding a violent reaction.
There, on the university campus, we can find the main fronts on which Zionism is being attacked. You don’t need to go there physically. Like Shimon Peres, the anti-Israel activists know their way around the social media platforms. Type “Israel” or “Zionism” on a Twitter or YouTube search, and you will quickly be exposed to campaigns of hate and misinformation about the land and people you love. Read their words and then ask yourself: What are they saying, and what are their ultimate goals?
Passive support isn’t enough
I can save you some time. They are saying that Israel is a racist apartheid state that oppresses people merely because they are Arabs, and that Israel illegally occupies a great area of Arab land in order to strip its people of their basic rights. If you read their posts, you will not see any mention of Israel being under any kind of security threat. Rockets being shot from Gaza and terrorists climbing though residential windows to kill children do not exist there – only hot-button terms like “rights,” “justice,” and “resistance.”
Do you express your support for Israel by planning your family vacations there when you have the means available, and by going to hear Israeli speakers when they come to your town? Are you more involved through paying dues to your local Zionist organization or by buying Israeli-made products from your local Trader Joe’s? All of that is nice and on behalf of all Israelis, I thank you for supporting our economy. But if you really want to assist Israel in these difficult times, you are going to have to take a more tangible stand.
Realize the simple fact that the “Two State Solution” is really a “No Jewish State” solution. Those who could not eliminate Israel through war are now working tirelessly to erase the country you love though manipulative maneuvers.
Understand that the opponents of Israel are fighting for a Palestinian State in the West Bank – not because it is right, or because that is their ultimate goal – but because it is the heartland of the Jewish State. It is easiest for them to assault Israel from this angle and hardest for supporters of Israel to defend. The threat of a Palestinian State is an existential threat to Israel. They know that. You must realize that and help Israel fight back. This is about the life or (G-d forbid) death of the Jewish State.
Passive support is not enough. We need your help. Become an active advocate for Israel by being an advocate for Israel’s rights in Judea and Samaria. Learn the history, know the facts – they are on our side. Not only the history of the Bible, but modern history too – from Balfour through San Remo and the Six-Day War.
Israel has the right to be here, and Israel cannot survive without its heartland. By supporting Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria, you are not siding with the extreme, but with the realistic.
Many might not realize that the entire width of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is only 70 kilometers. Some 55 kilometers of that is Samaria, with its mountains towering over Israel’s major population center in the Tel Aviv region. Could you believe that the people who are firing rockets from Gaza into Sderot and Ashkelon would have the ability to do the same to Tel Aviv and Netanya? Rockets aimed at Israel’s main airport in Lod would surely close the country to the outside world, and that is the goal of the Palestinian State – to isolate and close down Israel as a Jewish State.
Take a stand. Speak out for the land that you love. Visit Judea and Samaria and see for yourself.