David Horowitz spreading hatred at Brooklyn College crescentandcross | March 17, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p2dGk-1mT |
Thursday, March 17, 2011 at 12:03AM Gilad Atzmon
Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: In the coming days I will write a summery of our German tour, but I can already confirm that the amount of press we received here is huge. Clearly, the German press and public are open to discuss issues to do with Palestine, Zionism and the role of Jewish Identity. Our movement is growing rapidly. All we need is to be brave enough to speak out.
Pforzheimer Zeitung: Ten years for the Orient House Ensemble – how has your music changed in this decade?
Gilad Atzmon: I think that we learned to believe in ourselves and to be slightly less conscious about it all. We learned that some people out there love us. In general it was a much easier journey than I would have expected.
Pforzheimer Zeitung: And how has Gilad Atzmon changed?
Gilad Atzmon: Due to my engagement with some issues to do with Palestine and a constant confrontation with Jewish lobbies, my personal journey wasn't easy. But the reality on the ground proves that I was correct all the along. There is a massively expanding awareness of the Israeli brutality and a surge of antagonism against Zionist politics. In 2005-6 I was subjected to some extensive smear campaigns, I somehow managed to survive it. I am happy to be in great form and to see that the Tide Has Changed (which is also the name of our latest album).
Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 12:19AM Gilad AtzmonI spoke about Jewish Ideology & Zionism at Cafe Palestine, Freiburg, Germany last Sunday (13 March)
The room was full. The tide has changed, no one can stop us now!
 |
Where might the "wrong track" lead?
By Alan Hart
In the early days of the demonstrations of people power on Arab streets it could have been said (some did say) that they were a huge setback for all the various forces of violent Islamic extremism. This because the demonstrations, in Egypt especially, seemed to be sending a clear signal - that change could be brought about by peaceful means on a non-sectarian basis. But...
With Qaddafi at (more or less) one edge of the Arab world slaughtering his own people and the Saudi regime at the other edge closing down all possible room for dissent internally and then moving forces into Bahrain to assist the brutal suppression of those demonstrating for change there, the signal is not so clear.
Incidentally, I don't believe Qaddafi is "mad". I think he is quite clever and very cunning in a Zionist-like way, and was always prepared to stop at nothing to keep himself and his family in power. The single word I'd use to describe him is evil. I imagine he knew better than anybody else that his statement about his people loving him and being prepared to die for him was complete and utter rubbish. ("B.S" as President Carter once said in another context). But I also imagine Qaddafi calculated that such a statement would cause many correspondents not only to laugh but to write him off as nuts and therefore a leader who could be removed without too much more mayhem. And that, he probably also calculated, would give him more time to organize those of his army units he could rely on and his mercenaries for a counter offensive to crush the rebels for freedom.
I thought Frank Gardner, the BBC's security correspondent, was spot on with his first comments after Saudi Arabia's reinforcement of Bahrain's military. Drawing off four years experience of living in Bahrain, he said: "The Bahraini royal family has squandered chances for dialogue over many years. Now it's too late."
IF the Obama administration is to be believed, it didn't have advance notice of the Saudi move. That suggests there might now be some serious tension in the U.S.'s special relationship with Riyadh. What could be the real cause of it?
Through officials if not directly, Saudi Arabia's rulers made no secret of their displeasure with Obama for what they regarded as his failure to use America's influence with Egypt's generals to keep Mubarak in power. (I wonder if it bothered Saudi royals that keeping Mubarak in power would have required Egypt's generals to do a Qaddafi and slaughter their own people?)
My guess is that the present masters of the House of Saud have said to themselves something very like the following: "We can't rely on Obama. He cut Mubarak loose and he'll do the same to us if he continues his embrace with what he calls 'universal values'. Our survival is now dependent on what we do, not what Obama wants."
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was right when she said in an interview with CBS that the Gulf States were on the "wrong track" in sending troops to Bahrain. She added: "We find what's happening in Bahrain alarming. We think there is no security answer to the aspirations and demands of the demonstrators," (It's also true that there's no security answer to the aspirations and demands of the occupied and dispossessed Palestinians).
Question: Where does the wrong track that Qaddafi, the Saudis, the Bahraini's and other autocratic Arab leaders and regimes are on lead to?
It seems to me there are two possible answers.
One, as Zionism has demonstrated in its own context, is that if corrupt and repressive Arab regimes are prepared to be brutal enough, and even to commit war crimes against their own people (as I believe Qaddafi and the Bahrainis with Saudi complicity are doing), they may buy themselves some more survival time. But brutal repression will ultimately be counter-productive and feed the fire of Arab rage. In this scenario the regimes of a corrupt and repressive Arab Order are committing suicide, and change with a democratic face will come. The Arab peoples will be liberated from their own tyrants. Arab Spring becomes Arab Summer.
In the other possible scenario, Arab Spring becomes Arab Winter. This because autocratic and repressive Arab leaders and regimes succeed (with America's secret and unspeakable blessing?) in reconstructing the walls of fear which until the start of this year imprisoned their own peoples. In this scenario the main beneficiaries are most likely to be Al Qaeda and Co. (my shorthand for violent Islamic extremism in all of its forms).
I am not suggesting that Arab peoples who have been demonstrating peacefully for change will give their active allegiance and support in great numbers to Islamic groups and organizations which preach the need for and practise violence. I mean only that the re- suppressed rage, despair and loss of Arab hope for something much better will create environments in which violent Islamic extremism can take roots and grow. To understand why, it is necessary to have some idea of the essence of how terrorism can be defeated.
In Volume Three of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, sub-titled Conflict Without End?, I offer this explanation in 146 words:
Terrorists cannot operate, not for long, without the cover and the practical, emotional and moral support of the community of which they are a part. When that community perceives itself to be the victim of a massive injustice, and if that injustice is not addressed by political means, the community will cover, condone and even applaud the activities of those of its own who resort to terror as the only means of drawing attention to the injustice, to cause it to be addressed. It follows that the way to defeat terrorism - the only successful and actually proven way - is by addressing the genuine and legitimate grievances of the host community. The community will then withdraw its cover and support for its terrorists; and if they continue to try to operate, the community will oppose them by exposing them - reporting them to the authorities if reasoning fails.
As I go on to say, there are many case studies to support that analysis. In Northern Ireland, for example, the British Army did not defeat Provisional IRA terrorism. The terrorists called off their campaign when they had no choice - because the Catholic host community would not cover and support them any longer. And that happened only because the British government summoned up the will, about half a century later than it should have done, to risk the wrath of militant Protestantism by insisting that the legitimate grievances of the Catholics of Northern Ireland be addressed.
Modify and apply that to the Arab world if autocratic and repressive leaders and regimes manage to cling on to power by ever more brutal repression and you can understand why Secretary of State Clinton and her boss are alarmed (they damn well should be!) by what is happening.
Footnote:
My last post was headlined Could pariah status spell the end for Zionism? A possible alternative headline for this post is Could pariah status spell the end for autocratic, corrupt and repressive Arab leaders and regimes? (I probably won't be writing much if anything for the next three weeks because I'll be on a lecture and debating tour of South Africa with my very dear anti-Zionist, Jewish friend, Dr. Hajo Meyer).
Attachment(s) from ReporterNotebook
1 of 1 File(s)
I knew Dershowitz was a civil liberties lawyer but I didn’t know that he was also a criminal!
From: ReportersNotebook@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ReportersNotebook@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ReporterNotebook
Sent: Thursday, 17 March 2011 5:20 PM
To: reportersnotebook
Subject: Alan Dershowitz: Israel Has the Right to Attack Iran's Nuclear Reactors Now
Hi, MichaelSantomauro.
Alan Dershowitz wrote a new post Israel Has the Right to Attack Iran's Nuclear Reactors Now
|
Alan Dershowitz Posted: March 16, 2011 04:36 PM Israel Has the Right to Attack Iran's Nuclear Reactors Now Iran's recent attempt to ship arms to Hamas in Gaza is an act of war committed by the Iranian government against the Israeli government. The Israeli Navy seized the ship, loaded with weapons designed to kill Israeli civilians, and traced the weapons back to Iran. Nor is this the first act of war that would justify a military response by Israel under international law. Iran has sent other boatloads of anti personnel weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah. In addition, back in 1992, the Iranian leaders planned and authorized a deadly attack on Israel's embassy in Argentina. That bombing, which was carried out by Iranian agents, constituted a direct armed attack on the state of Israel, since its embassy is part of its sovereign territory. Moreover, the Iranian government has publicly declared war on Israel by calling for it "to be wiped off the map." Under international law, these acts of war -- known as Casus Belli -- fully justify an Israeli armed response. Even the UN Charter authorizes a unilateral response to an armed attack. Providing weapons to a declared enemy in the face of an embargo has historically been deemed an armed attack under the law of war, especially when those providing the weapons intend for them to be used against the enemy's civilians. So too is the bombing of an embassy. Two other recent events enhance Israel's right use military means to prevent Iran from continuing to arm Israel's enemies. The recent disaster in Japan has shown the world the extraordinary dangers posed by nuclear radiation. If anybody ever doubted the power of a dirty bomb to devastate a nation, both physically and psychologically, those doubts have been eliminated by what is now going on in Japan. If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, the next ship destined to Gaza might contain a nuclear dirty bomb and Israel might not intercept that one. A dirty bomb detonated in tiny Israel would cause incalculable damage to civilian life. Moreover, the recent killings in Itamar of a family including three children, demonstrate how weapons are used by Israel's enemies against civilians in violation of the laws of war. Even babies are targeted by those armed by Iran. Hamas praised the murders. Israel has the right to prevent its civilians from being murdered by Iranian weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction. Iran would have no legal standing to protest a surgical attack on its nuclear facilities that are designing weapons that could be used to achieve Iran's declared goal of wiping Israel off the map and killing millions of its citizens. The leaders of Iran have publicly declared that a nuclear exchange, killing millions of Jews and Muslims, would be acceptable to them because it would destroy Israel while only damaging Islam. A suicide nation cannot be deterred by the threat of retaliation. Israel's only realistic option may be a preventive military strike of the kind it conducted against Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. That surgical attack may have saved countless lives at the cost of one single casualty. By the way, Iran too tried to destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor, but failed. Certainly Israel has the right to do what Iran itself tried to do -- namely prevent a lethal enemy from developing weapons capable of mass murder of its citizens. This is not to say that Israel should attack Iran's nuclear reactors now. That it has the right to do so does not mean that it should not wait for a more opportune time. The law of war does not require an immediate military response to an armed attack. The nation attacked can postpone its counterattack without waiving its right. The military option should always be a last resort after all other efforts have failed. It may well be that efforts to permanently disable Iran's nuclear computers will succeed. Although it is unlikely that economic sanctions will ever persuade Iran's ideological zealots to end their nuclear weapons program, a combination of quasi military, tough economic and diplomatic sanctions may slow it down to a point where the military option can be postponed. But under no circumstances should the military option ever be taken off the table. Israel must preserve its ability to exercise its fundamental right of preventive self defense. If possible, it should act together with other allies. But if necessary, it has the right to act alone to protect its citizens. Nearly everybody hopes that it won't come to that, but hope is not a policy. As George Washington cautioned in his second inaugural address, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israel-has-the-right-to-a_b_836764.html |
|
|
--
Thank you and remember:
Peace is patriotic!
Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
"The Occidental Observer Newsletter" - 1 new article
The House I Live In by James Edwards PLUS blogs by John Graham and Kevin MacDonaldFeatured Article: The House I Live In by James Edwards
Blogs:
|
Hi, MichaelSantomauro.
Alan Dershowitz wrote a new post Israel Has the Right to Attack Iran's Nuclear Reactors Now
| |||
| To comment on this post, follow the link below: http://www.huffingtonpost.com//israel-has-the-right-to-a_b_836764.html |
(JTA) -- Rick Sanchez can put to rest the controversy over his remarks that implied the Jews control the media, the Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman said.
"I appreciate your willingness to look squarely at the incident that took place, to apologize for it, and to be willing to learn about the forms and threats of anti-Semitism," Foxman, the ADL's national director, said in a Feb. 24 letter to the broadcaster, who was fired last year from CNN.
Foxman was responding to a Feb. 23 letter from Sanchez that expressed "a newfound understanding of the suffering that the Jewish people have endured throughout their history." The two had met the week before.
In his reply, Foxman said the Sanchez letter "should put the matter to rest. I hope that you will now be able to move on with your life and to work, as we do every day, to make this a better and more respectful world."
Sanchez's publicist released the exchange on Tuesday.
The controversy erupted in October after Sanchez hit back at satirist Jon Stewart, who had made Sanchez a target of his "Daily Show." Sanchez, who is Cuban, told a radio host that Stewart was a bigot and implied that Stewart and other Jews control the media.
Sanchez subsequently apologized to Stewart.
