#Why is the day of Arafat so important

[mossadspypigeon]

As a late comer to some of the nonsense, can you explain or point to something explaining what watermelons have to do with Palestine? Asking google "what the fuck do watermelons have to do with Palestine" was not a productive search. Where did that come from?

hello anon! yes indeed i can. this is gonna be a long post, so buckle in lmao.

so the main and simplified reason the watermelon is used (and i'll get into some more complex stuff and context because both are important to understand with this) is because red/black/green represent the PLO flag, which is known as the "palestinian flag."

now, i don't know if you know who the PLO are, so:

(this notice to include secondary sources is so faulty btw. this is based on primary sources written BY the plo, which removes bias of interpretation)

i recommend reading this wiki page at least and clicking on the sources for more information. it isn't as bad as some wikipedia pages and it can provide a good introduction.

now, the PLO is an internationally recognized terrorist org. it split into numerous factions, including yasser arafat's "fatah." fatah controlled groups like black september, which committed the munich massacre and also murdered the king of jordan.

the PLO itself has committed numerous acts of terror, including the hijacking of the Achille Lauro. terrorists who hijacked this ship shot and tossed a disabled jewish man in a wheelchair named Leon Klinghoffer overboard, etc. so no, they are not a resistance group. this act was sponsored and supported by arafat.

if you want to know more about their bullfuckery, which i recommend, read their charter here.

okay, now moving on to the flag:

you've probably noticed that the red/black/green/white thing is a motif used by several countries. this is because of "pan arabism."

rootsmetals did some good posts on arabization:

the specific colors have meanings, and those meanings are either religious or secular. the religious and secular connect though. let's take a look. i'm going to use arab sources without commentary on any biases:

on the other hand:

so. we know about the flag's history and its meaning. we know what it represents. now, let's go into the whole "watermelon" thing:

the reason it's used depends on who you ask. if you ask the pro palestine crowd, the watermelon is used in place of the "palestine flag" due to "censoring" and "silencing."

this goes back to the propaganda that israel banned the palestinian flag. israel DID NOT ban this flag legally, but it did have it taken down because...guess why? why would israel want the flag of the plo not flown? it's like flying a kkk flag in the usa, that's why.

yes, you have freedom of speech in israel, but it has its limits. those limits are hate and incendiary speech. the plo flag is a symbol of hate based on the charter and acts of the plo itself. also, fatah/the palestinian authority, which currently governs the palestinian section of the west bank/judea samaria and east jerusalem still pays terrorists who murder jews and israelis and are imprisoned. sooooo you can guess why the flag was taken down, but here is some of the propaganda:

the lack of sources in this article lmao.

again, hilarious lack of sources.

if you ask the pro israel crowd, it's an appropriation of a very zionist crop and a symbol of decolonization.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Bracha (@themakeabracha)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jessica's Art Space (@jessicasartspace)

if i find more sources on this, i will do another post.

but yes, the watermelon emoji is used because "the internet silences palestine," which is hysterical, considering google favors palestinian sources and most major news networks employ either palestinians or palestinian allied supporters.

and of course, tiktok and the rest of social media won't remove antisemitism, but will constantly ban jews and israelis. hence why finding sources on the jewish history of the watermelon is difficult.

anyway. hope this helps. <3 if you're comfy, definitely dm me sometime if you want to discuss things and/or get sources.

@matan4il do you happen to have any sources on the israeli/jewish/zionist history of the watermelon? if you do, it would be so appreciated.

[sethshead]

"Update for October 28.

"On Thursday I sat down to write at 10. By the time I had finished emptying most of the thoughts that were crashing inside me, and cutting out entire paragraphs that made the whole thing impossible to navigate, it was 5pm, and I hadn't eaten lunch or looked up from the computer for 7 hours. I hit send, and then spent the next evening and day trying to understand why a quarter of the people on my mailing list don't seem to be getting the posts, all the while pushing down inside myself the next paragraph I want to write, the next paragraph I have to write.

"Friday afternoon a correspondence with a friend I haven't seen since Harvard brought home that she doesn't understand the context of things that I take for granted. She wants to understand. I want her to understand. But I can't assume that when I use words like 'settlements' or 'kibbutzim' she knows who I am referring to and gets the right pictures in her head: that I can't use the shorthand I am accustomed to when I try to explain our predicament. Our bloody, ancient, convoluted, cruel predicament, that cannot be boiled down to black vs. white, good vs. bad, truth vs. lies or justice vs. injustice. It's all shades of black and bad and lies and injustice.

"By evening I was shaking. As my husband and daughter cooked Shabbat dinner for me and the boys and my mother who came in from Jerusalem, I was falling apart. My saint of a husband saw this and said – would you like a Lorivan? I have never in my life taken anti-anxiety pills. Yesterday I took one, gratefully.

"My every hour is a vacillation between grief, anger, horror and guilt. Yes, guilt. I needed to read posts by more than one psychologist on Facebook to realize that guilt is currently the normal response felt by most people. Guilt for what we might have done to prevent this situation, guilt for what we might have done to protect our children, guilt for what we are currently neglecting – all these hours in front of the computer, for example, are coming at the expense of my family, of my work which I used to believe makes a difference in the world. Guilt for what is being done in my name. Guilt for my anger. Guilt for drowning in my own pain while all around me others are suffering so much worse.

"In fact I think that at a time like this, the only people who feel no guilt are psychopaths. Unfortunately, our Prime Minister is one of them, his attitude expressed perfectly by the Minister of Communications, Shlomo Karhi, who in a brief television interview this week said: 'I hear people telling us to apologize, to ask forgiveness – for what?'

"When my eldest son, Roi was born, the size of a premature baby though he was carried to full term (due to undiagnosed toxemia), he was placed in a neonatal intensive care unit. There in a metal cot, lay an infant so small and wrinkled, trussed up in so many wires and sensors so that I was afraid to even touch him for fear of detaching something important. All these wires were hooked up to monitors that were constantly beeping. Every few seconds a new alarm would go off at one cot or another. When it happened at our cot, we panicked, until an NIC nurse, worn and weary, came over and gave the monitor a heavy thunk to silence the beeping. After that we learned to ignore the alarms. They call this 'Alarm Fatigue'. And I realize that for much of my adult life in Israel, I've been suffering Alarm Fatigue.

"It's not that we didn't know that life for people in Gaza was hellish. That even after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 'The Disengagement' of 2005 – a highly traumatic rift in the political fabric of Jewish Israel – life in Jewless Gaza did not improve much. On the contrary. Take it from Palestinians like Yasmine Mohammed, whose father's perspective is that the heaviest blows to civil rule in Gaza came in 1994, when the Palestinian National Authority under Yassir Arafat took control of administration and policing in Gaza following the Oslo accords; and worse again in 2007, when Hamas violently wrested control of Gaza from Fatah, the ruling party of the PNA. As Prime Minister of Israel since 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu's policy was to support Hamas against the more moderate PNA, so as to delay talks and foil the option of a two state solution. Netanyahu raised Hamas much as one would raise a Pitbull for dogfights, keeping it just healthy enough to stay alive, just angry enough to preserve the killer instinct.

"The simplistic narrative that Gaza was peaceful and self-ruled before the Israelis came along is simply not true, historically. Gaza was under centuries of occupation, with control shifting from the Ottomans to the British to the Egyptians and then – only for a few decades – to Israel. There had been continuous Jewish presence in Gaza from the days of the Second Temple (600 BC) until the Palestine Riots of 1929, when British Mandate forces evacuated the Jewish community of Gaza for their own protection. Jewish colonialism? Were the waves of Jewish refugees fleeing pogroms and persecution all over the world – NOT JUST IN EUROPE – from the 19th century onward – NOT JUST AFTER THE HOLOCAUST – a colonial movement? To an independent state established by a multi-national vote of the United Nations, on land that had been under British rule for the previous 30 years? Whether this is colonialism or not is a matter for historians to argue and politicians to leverage. My concern is with human suffering. And human suffering has been going on for centuries, on all sides, with responsibility shared by any number of entities.

"The problem for me, my guilt, is that I developed Alarm Fatigue. I developed Learned Helplessness (this is also a term in psychology that you can look up). I knew things were bad in Gaza. I knew – and know – of human rights violations and terrible injustice in the West Bank. Pogroms now, too. I vaguely knew of the terrible atrocities and suffering to the north of Israel, in Syria and Lebanon, with minimal Israeli involvement, and felt comfortable slipping into the Israeli mindset that as long as they're busy killing each other, they'll be less concerned with killing us. But I also knew of a whole slew of social injustices in Israel that were growing and festering, feeding off neglect, prejudice, global hypocrisy, despair.

"In the past decades since I reached adulthood we've had strikes, rallies, riots, police brutality, roads blocked, violence and assassinations related to so many social issues: • Disabled citizens demonstrating for their disability allowances to match minimum wage, so that they can have a living pension • Israelis of Ethiopian origin protesting racism and discrimination • African asylum seekers, whose petitions to be recognized as refugees have been ignored for nearly a decade • Riots of Eritrean asylum seekers between supporters of the Eritrean regime and rebels • Protests against the expulsion of children born in Israel to migrant workers whose civilian status was never granted • Teachers striking for livable wages, improved work conditions and smaller class sizes • Interns and medical students striking for livable wages and work conditions • An assassination at a Gay Pride parade • Discrimination against "the periphery", towns not in central Israel that for years have been neglected and kept poor • The mass social protests of 2011, crying out against the rising cost of living and housing

"And on and on it goes. All so painful. All so unjust. Which cause takes precedence? Which can I care about today?

"'You bore me,' said Benjamin Netanyahu in October of 2018, to a resident of the far north town of Kiryat Shemona who cried her plight in his ears. We all bore him. Election after election I cast my ballot, only to see Netanyahu return, while the parties I vote for shrink and shrink.

"Years ago, my husband Hemmy volunteered to oversee a voting station at one of the elections. He tells of a woman who walked into the room where she was to cast her ballot, loudly cussing out Netanyahu and the Likkud and how much they are responsible for her terrible quality of life, for everything bad in the country, talking so loudly and angrily that overseers hushed her, because political campaigning is forbidden in the voting room. She went behind the curtain, selected the paper ballots to put in her voting envelope, came back and threaded the envelope into the ballot box. 'F8ck me,' she said. 'I voted Bibi again.'

"How does he survive? Unfortunately, there is one thing Netanyahu does better possibly than any politician in the world, and that is to sow hate. Netanyahu is master at pointing you in the other direction: look, there! THEY are to blame! THEY are living the good life at your expense! THEY think they're superior to you! THEY want to keep you poor! THEY want to see you die! Because as long as we're busy hating each other, we're less concerned with hating him.

"Most of the citizens in Israel believe they are, by some measure or other, second class citizens. Most of them feel discriminated against. Most of them feel neglected and ignored. And they are – but they're busy blaming each other.

"And Gaza? Since 2007 we've been treating Gaza as though it's an unruly lawn to mow from time to time. Life may have been intolerable in Gaza, but it was tolerable enough for us, and we had our own injustices to attend to. Occasionally they sent missiles, we bombed them. They sent thousands to stand at the fences, we shot them, then bombed them. They sent balloons with explosive devices to ignite fields, we mocked them, then bombed them. They dug tunnels under the fence, we mocked the Kibbutzniks' alarm over this, and bombed Gaza some more. We keep chopping the head off the snake, ignoring the fact that it's a hydra: that for every head chopped off, three more grow. We keep orphaning children, ignoring the fact that a few years later those children will no longer be children, but adults who were orphaned as children, who grew to adulthood festering in injustice, in privation, in hatred, in revenge. When there is nothing to lose in life, thoughts to turn to glorifying revenge in death.

"So, what now? Some of you have asked me.

"Ceasefire? How can we cease firing, when Hamas is still firing daily at us? Thousands and thousands of rockets. Yesterday some of them evaded the Iron Dome defense system, and Israelis were killed in my city, too. Missiles landed on buildings across the street from where my cosmetician lives with her daughters aged 4 and 8. Next door to where one of my husband's employees lives. These are not detached hypotheticals for us to discuss.

"How can we lay down our arms when Hamas still holds over 200 hostages, and refuses to even grant access to Red Cross representatives who can tell us how many of these people are still alive, are still intact? Not that Bibi cares about the hostages. A bunch of peacenik kibbutzniks who never voted for him, foreign migrant workers who can't vote for him and maybe some boring lower class citizens from the periphery towns who will always vote for him, no matter what.

"So, what CAN we do?

"I don't know. I'm helpless. Talks? Who will do the talking? Netanyahu, on our behalf? He can't even talk to his own citizens. Talks should have been the solution years ago. Decades ago. Who is there left to talk to? Who cares what I think, anyway? I'm boring.

"And I'm guilty. You are too. You know it. You know that the computer you are staring at could not have been manufactured without exploitative sweatshops in distant countries, where people suffer out of sight, out of mind. You know the land you live on is steeped in the blood of indigenous peoples, the wealth of your country was built upon slave labor, through the pillage of colonies. What About-ism works without fail, because we all carry this guilt inside us, guilt we were born into, for crimes we are complicit in every day just by living our lives and ignoring the suffering of others. I would walk away from Omelas, but where to?

"I don't know what Israel can do right now. I don't know what you can do right now. I don't even know what I can do right now, except maybe take another Lorivan in a few hours, and reach out to the people I love and tell them that I love them, that I am grateful for them, that I wish for them to survive, and hope by some miracle that this will pass so that someday we can help each other rebuild a more just and caring society.

"#gili_from_telaviv"

h/t Gili Bar-Hillel Semo

[hajjumrahblogs-blog]

The significance of Mount Arafat in Islam

Have you ever wondered about Mount Arafat? Just think if it’s also called Mountain of Mercy. That’s true, Mount Arafat is also known as Mountain of Mercy. This mountain is almost 20 kilometres on the east of Mecca. But do you know that why this mount is significant in Islam?

Mount Arafat is mostly visit by Hajj pilgrims during the annual pilgrimage. But this also serves as a Ziyarat point for pilgrims who came to perform Umrah by consulting with reliable Umrah travel specialists. As you should know, visiting Mount Arafat is the core ritual of Hajj.

Through History of Mount Arafat

Just like the history of every location and site, Mount Arafat also has its interesting history. According to some narrations, it was the first place where Adam and Eve get forgiveness from Allah (SWT) after falling from heaven. However, when we talk about historic narrations, we must consider proper source and scholars guide.

According to other Islamic beliefs, that are strongest, this is the plain where Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) gave last sermon to Muslims. The sermon’s main focus was unity, equality, and the importance of following the Islamic principles. This sermon is also known as Farewell sermon as it was the last delivered by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Here are the main points of farewell sermon:

Equality and sanctity of life

Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) finality on prophet hood

Importance of Holy Quran and Sunnah

Day of judgement

Foundation of Islamic life

Call to righteousness

Significance of Mount Arafat in Islam

Discussing the Mount Arafat will take you through some points/steps that we will discuss below. Its significance can’t be defined by just one step. Now, let’s dive in!

A legacy of History and Spirituality:

No doubt, Arafat has a deep history that we have discussed above. But it also believe to be the place of spirituality. Remember, when Allah Almighty forgives the Adam on this mount and grant Him a new way of life.

It’s a place of Mercy and Forgiveness:

Mercy and forgiveness are the core parts of this holiest mount. It’s place when Allah (SWT) accepts all of your Duas and prayers. He will bless you with His mercy and forgiveness when you have proper dedicated intention while doing religious acts there.

The Day of Arafah: 9th day of Dhul Hijjah

Hajj pilgrims must have to visit there this mount when doing certain rituals. So, to visit there, there is a fixed day which is 9th day of Dhul Hijjah when all pilgrims must visit the mountain. They stand there by facing the Qiblah direction from noon to sunset while praying and invoking Allah’s (SWT) mercy.

Tips When Visiting the Mount Arafat

You will visiting there undoubtedly, so be prepared for a long day standing.

If possible, drink plenty of water and take snacks or something like that with you.

Give respect to the holy sites and be modest.

Dress comfortably as Mecca is typically a warm city.

Please follow the guidance of authorities on how to reach there or what are the issues you may face.

Ask for forgiveness from God and make sure your aim in your mind.

Learn some specific Duas and prayers to do in Mount Arafat.

[drmaqazi]

March 15, 2001, Israeli army targets Palestinian children in grenade attack on playground

Palestinian child, wounded in Israeli army grenade attack on his schoolyard, is carried to an ambulance

“In the Old City of Hebron, (March 15, 2001), Israeli soldiers lobbed a stun grenade into a schoolyard during an elementary students’ demonstration. The students were throwing stones at Israeli cars, Israeli officials said. Six students suffered moderate or light wounds, including burns, broken bones and blisters, Palestinian officials said. The Israelis said five Palestinian children had experienced ‘light impact injuries from the grenade.’

“‘The army sees the removal of children from the circle of violence as extremely important,’ an Israeli army statement said. The army will ‘continue to act against anyone trying to compromise the security of Israeli citizens,’ it said.”

Source: N.Y. Times, March 16, 2001, p. A-10

“Six Palestinian children suffered burns on Thursday (March 15, 2001) when Israeli soldiers threw a stun grenade into a West Bank schoolyard in new violence after an Israeli pledge to ease its blockade on Palestinians. Doctors in Hebron said three of the six children sustained burns to the head, hands and back and the other three were suffering from blisters and shock. ‘Why did they throw the grenade into the yard? This is only a provocation,’ said teacher Mohammed Hawaismah as parents carried children out of the school and into ambulances.”

Source: Reuters, March 15, 2001

May 7, 2001, Israelis Kill Baby Girl and School-Teacher, Wound Ten other Children in Refugee Camp

Khan Yunis Refugee Camp, Palestine, Israeli troops shelled homes in this Arab refugee camp today and fired large-caliber machine guns, killing a 4-month-old baby girl and wounding 24 civilians. Doctors said 10 Palestinian children were among the injured.

One Israeli cannon shell hit the shack of the Hijo family in the refugee camp, instantly killing 4-month-old Iman Hijo, with shrapnel tearing a hole into the infant’s back. The girl’s 19-year-old mother, as well as three brothers and sisters, were wounded, including 18-month-old Mahmoud Hijo, was in intensive care at Nasser Hospital with shrapnel wounds, doctors said.

The slain infant’s uncle, Wael Hijo, carried the girl’s body from the hospital’s autopsy room to the X-ray department. In the emergency room, Iman’s 7-year-old aunt, Dunya, sat on a bed with a dazed look on her face, her frilly white-and-green dress pulled up above scraped and bandaged legs. “They killed the baby,” Dunya said, then burst into tears.

Israeli troops also fired on the refugee camp’s Khaldieh School in the West Bank, killing a Palestinian school-teacher.

June 2001, Ali Murad Abu Shaweesh was 12 when Israeli soldiers shot him in the back. Ali was killed on the same day in June, 2001 that Sharon refused to let the Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, meet with Yasir Arafat, yet his death also went unnoticed by American television news. But not entirely unnoticed, since the Israeli soldiers, who taunted the Palestinian boys over loudspeakers outside the Khan Yunis refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, goading them to come out and throw rocks, did so under the gaze of Chris Hedges, a reporter for the New York Times.

July 7, 2001, Israeli Army Opens Fire on Children’s Playground

“Ibrahim Al-Mugrabi weeps over his 11-year-old son, Khalil Ibrahim, who was slain in the Rafah section of the Gaza ghetto after the Israeli army strafed the boy’s playground with machine gun fire.

Khalil Ibrahim al-Mugrabi, 11, was shot in the head and killed July 7, 2001 near Rafah in the Gaza ghetto. Two other Arab children playing with him were wounded, one seriously, after the Israeli army sprayed machine gun fire at a crowd of Arab children.

The children were gunned down by Israeli soldiers from a Jewish guard tower as they were playing. Doctors said the dead Palestinian boy was shot in the head and that a 10-year-old boy was seriously wounded with a gun shot to the stomach. A third Palestinian boy, age 12, was injured less seriously.

Mohammed Abu-Shikadem, 29, who was nearby when the shootings took place, said that a group of some 30 children were playing near the refugee camp when he heard a burst of machine gun fire from the Israeli guard tower. ‘Two of the children fell in front of my eyes,’ Abu-Shikadem said.”

Ibrahim Al-Mugrabi weeps over his 11-year-old son, Khalil Ibrahim, who was slain in the Rafah section of the Gaza ghetto after the Israeli army strafed the boy's playground with machine gun fire.

July 19, 2001, “The body of murdered 3-month-old Palestinian infant Diya Tmaizi, center, is flanked by murdered Palestinian civilians Mohammed Hilmy Tmaizi, 20, right, and Mohammed Salameh Tmaizi, 22, left, in the West Bank village of Idna, near Hebron. The Palestinian baby and the other civilians were shot and killed, and at least four other Palestinian civilians were injured late Thursday, July 19, 2001, near Idna. According to Israeli radio, a Jewish ‘settler’ group took responsibility for the murders.”

July 31, 2001, Israeli government assassinated Palestinian leaders Jamal Mansour and his cousin Omar Mansour, in an attack on their office in the West Bank town of Nablus. Six other Palestinians were killed in the Jewish ambush, including two little boys, Bilal Abu Khader, 8, and Ashraf Abu Khader, 5.

August 5, 2001, Amer Mansour Habiri 23, who was assassinated by Israelis in a missile attack on Aug. 5, 2001 in the West Bank town of Tulkarem.

August 12, 2001, Israeli soldiers shot eight-year-old Palestinian girl, Sabreen Abu Sneineh, in the head, in Hebron.

August 15, 2001,  27 year old Emad Abu Sneineh was assassinated by Israeli agents outside his home in Hebron.

August 19, 2001, Mohammed Abu Arrar, 14, shot to death in the Gaza ghetto by Israeli soldiers.

Aug. 22, 2001, The automobile of an 18 year old Palestinian incinerated by an Israeli death squad at the Bureij refugee camp, outside the Gaza ghetto, Aug. 22, 2001. The Israelis sought to assassinate his father. The teenage son was killed instead. Murders of goyim (non-Jews) in this manner are dismissed as “collateral damage” by the Judeo-masonic establishment in America.

August 23, 2001, Mohammed …Zionist occupation troops shot dead the 11-year old Palestinian boy in the Gaza ghetto on August, 23, 2001. Haaretz newspaper reported: “Witnesses said that Mohammed Zurub was shot in the heart after throwing stones at IDF (Israeli) troops.”

September 9, 2001, 13-year-old Mohammed Abu Libda, who was shot to death by Israeli troops.

The sister of 13-year-old Mohammed Abu Libda, who was shot to death by Israeli troops, cries during his funeral as her brother's body is brought home in southern Gaza, September 9, 2001.

November 22, 2001, five Palestinian school boys ages 7 to 14 were on their way to classes in the Gaza strip when they were killed by a bomb planted by Israeli forces.

Israel “....places explosive charges where children are likely to pass and then claims that only the other side practices terrorism?”

Gideon Levy,“On The Way To School,” Ha’aretz, Nov. 26, 2001

December 10, 2001, Two-year-old victim, Burhan Sidir blown apart by Israelis blew him apart. His head was found in the street. His legs were in different places. 13 year old Shadi Arafi killed by Israeli forces. Two brothers, aged 8 and 10 were also seriously injured in the Dec. 10 Israeli attack.

13 year old Shadi Arafi

December 10, 2001, “Palestinian activist Muhammad Sidir, 24, had his face maimed and burned and his eyes blinded by a U.S. made Israeli helicopter firing missiles in a crowded intersection during an assassination attempt on Sidir. Two Palestinian children died in the attacks and two other children were injured. Israeli helicopter gunships hovered over the carnage for five minutes, preventing immediate medical attention from being administered to the wounded and dying.”  http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine7.html

December 17, 2001, Israeli troops murder Palestinian activist Yacoub Aidkadik

December 18, 2001, Mohammed Houmeduk, 12, shot and killed in cold blood Dec. 18, 2001 in the Khan Younis refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, by Israeli soldiers.

[mood2you]

Harry understands politics better than the majority of his fans. There will be one teocratic Islamic republic of Palestine. All Palestinians will be liberated. All Palestinian lands. As long as Iran exists there will never be Two States one of which is an Occupier of Palestinian lands. Why can't you understand that? Arafat was KGB. Soviet Union aka Russia together with Iran and China will finish what Soviet Union started and erase Israel. Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Axis of Resistance will liberate all Palestinians. Palestine with Jews living in Palestine. Do you understand why Russia gave that Ultimatum to US and NATO in December 2021? It is a win-win for the  Moscow-Tehran-Beijing Axis. Why do you think Putin is so happy after all those recent high-level meetings with Iran, Hamas in Moscow and China? When they win as US/NATO will capitulate in Ukraine/Europe, in the Middle East, Central Asia, South China Sea/Taiwan, having already lost Africa, Latam. BRICS will dethrone the dollar and thus democracies. That is new world order that Putin was talking about a few days ago, that will be the 21st century under dictatorships. China plans for 100 years. US/NATO/EU already lost. Democracies already lost. Netherlands is only another domino falling. It is work camps next. Some rainbow coloured. ��

Harry Styles?? Anyways, yeah but there's already a lot of displaced people. And you've "predicted" a lot of stuff that's already happened, I agree we need to change our paths or it will get worse for people. US will never capitulate, silly, it hasn't left Korea, Middle East, or Russia. I think it's wrong to carve up land. Iran is diverse like Palestine. I appreciate your bluntness of implying the US has no 100 year plan, it's dismal but it made me laugh. I think pushing important things like climate change and "going cashless" off for four years each time is no good, I'm sure there's a third option between democracy and dictatorship, at least hyptothetically.

[back-and-totheleft]

Going Nuclear

Oliver Stone’s brand is antiestablishment controversy. In his features and documentaries, Stone has blazed a trail as a cinematic scourge of the status quo. Platoon (1986), the Vietnam War veteran’s unflinching, grunt’s-eye view of that imperial debacle, won the Best Picture Academy Award, while Stone scored the golden statuette for Best Director. That year, Stone was also nominated in a screenwriting category for Platoon, as well as for his excoriating look at the Ronald Reagan regime’s Central America foreign policy and mass murder in Salvador.

Stone tackled the “greed is good” capitalist class in 1987’s Wall Street and the extremist right wing in 1988’s Talk Radio. The combat vet returned to Vietnam’s battlefields to win another Best Director Oscar and Best Picture nomination for 1989’s Born on the Fourth of July, a stirring ode to antiwar activism. The iconoclastic JFK (1991) received eight Oscar noms, including for Best Picture and Director, and forever shattered the myth of the Warren Commission’s “lone gunman theory,” pointing a finger at CIA and right-wing renegades for conspiring to assassinate President John F. Kennedy.

Although lesser known than his fiction movies, Stone’s documentaries — about Castro, Hugo Chávez, and Yasser Arafat; 2012’s The Untold History of the United States; and so on — helped solidify his reputation as, arguably, Hollywood’s most left-wing director. But now Stone is going against the grain with his latest nonfiction film. In Nuclear Now, Stone makes a frontal assault on the underlying beliefs of antinuclear activists, arguing that nuclear energy is a solution to the climate crisis.

Stone recently spoke with Jacobin about why he made Nuclear Now, the film’s funding, Three Mile Island, alternative energy, and more, including his next film, chronicling the life of another progressive leader, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

ED RAMPELL How did the recipient of a Purple Heart and creator of some of the best antiwar films ever made observe Memorial Day?

OLIVER STONE I went to Austin to be on The Joe Rogan Show. It’s very important – [the podcast] has a huge audience.

ED RAMPELL So how did Nuclear Now come about?

OLIVER STONE I was scared. In the 2006 movie [An Inconvenient Truth by] Al Gore, I was obviously conscious that he was giving solutions to the problems of clime change. But I was confused by the many different sides I was hearing. It was confusing — and I wanted to straighten it out for myself. I saw a book in 2019 that was well reviewed in the New York Times by Richard Rhodes: it was called A Bright Future. It was written by Josh Goldstein, an emeritus professor of international relations, and by a nuclear scientist named Staffan A. Qvist, from Sweden. It was a small little book, but it was simple and commonsensical. Common sense is important. It was very different in the sense that it was saying: “What’s wrong with nuclear power?”

Because that’s all you had heard for many years. I didn’t know; I just went along with the consensus that nuclear power was a bad thing. But when you read the book, you begin to understand that it is not a bad thing — it has been confounded with nuclear war; war and power are not the same thing — and that we have lost, bypassed a great opportunity, in America anyway, [compared to] if we had followed through on “Atoms for Peace,” what presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy had started in the 1950s and ’60s.

Nuclear power was working. It worked for many years with the Navy, with Hyman Rickover, and then he transferred his acumen to building civilian power stations. Shippingport, Pennsylvania, was the first one in the United States; in 1958 and 1959 it came online. Many of those same reactors are still going; they’re called “legacy reactors,” but they’re almost finished now. But they worked seventy years [laughs], and nobody complained.

Except there was a scare at Three Mile Island, where no one died, and in fact, the containment structure worked. But a lot of hysteria and brouhaha — as you know, I’m not a guy who believes in passion, necessarily, when it’s wrong. You’ve got to call it out; I wanted the truth, and this is the truth.

I’ve been talking to many scientists. I went to Idaho National Laboratory; I went to France, and I went to Russia and talked to a lot of people. It’s all a lot of hooey from a lot of scared types who love to tell you what’s wrong with everything. You’ve got to scale it down and say, “Relative to what?” Relative to climate change — coal, oil, and gas?

ED RAMPELL In Nuclear Now, you criticize the fossil fuel energy industry for spreading disinformation regarding climate change. Did the nuclear industry have anything to do with the funding of Nuclear Now?

OLIVER STONE No, no, no. This was done with private investors. And the nuclear industry [laughs] has not done a very good job defending itself, if you look at the history. It has had no sense of fighting back. When Jane Fonda and Ralph Nader started their attacks, there was no really interesting response from the industry. It kind of folded up. Which was a shame, because I think when history is written, if we presume the planet will survive, and there’ll be a civilization, and I’d very much like. . . . I am an optimist. When this is written, they’ll say: “This was a huge mistake in the 1970s to stop building nuclear reactors in the United States.” Thank God they did not stop in Russia or China or France, which has kept it going.

But as we said in the film, “It’s too good to die. You cannot kill it off.” The United States is now slowly getting back into, of course, smaller reactors and more modern, new-generation reactors. There’s a lot promise. But the big building is still going on in China, Indonesia, Eurasia, India and so on.

ED RAMPELL You mentioned Three Mile Island. There are disputed accounts of what happened there. For example, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists says there was a 64 percent increase in cancer after the meltdown, and activists like Harvey Wasserman make similar claims. What’s your response?

OLIVER STONE There’s always some — excuse me — protesters who will say, “I saw this and I saw that,” but I’m going off of the facts from the World Health Organization and the United Nations. They do very thorough surveys, and they go back and go back. No one died as a result of Three Mile Island. If someone got cancer, we don’t know that it was a result of Three Mile Island. You can scare anybody about anything.

Why doesn’t Harvey Wasserman go to all the fucking oil wells and all the gas and coal plants and do his horror number? I saw his clip, and I think he’s a scaremonger. He’s like a Ralph Nader, who to this day will still tell you that nuclear is very dangerous and that it can blow up Cleveland and all that. It’s just not possible. You cannot confound nuclear power with nuclear war. It’s not the same thing. They have not enriched the plutonium; it’s not dangerous in the same way. It’s a different process.

ED RAMPELL In Nuclear Now, you have lots of archival footage with clips of antinuclear activists. But correct me if I’m wrong: you, Oliver Stone, did not per se do any original interviews for your film, which made it onto the screen, with antinuclear protesters.

OLIVER STONE No, in the same way that I didn’t in my JFK documentaries interview the people who defend the Warren Commission. There’s so much defense out there — you can go to their interviews. I’m not trying to run a debate society; I’m trying to run a fact-oriented science, where it says this is what scientists say. It’s not what protesters say. I hope you understand there’s also an issue of time and clarity. I had a lot of ground to cover— I couldn’t cover everything.

But I had to go, from the past, what is nuclear energy? Through the history of it, from the origin, through the protest movements of the ’70s, which is a part of it, then what happened in the 1980s and ’90s, then I got into the Al Gore debate about renewables — it’s a long way to go — and the future of nuclear energy. That took an hour and forty-four [minutes], and that’s pretty much at the edge of the attention span of most people. I wanted this film to play for ninth graders, eighth graders. I wanted it to not be too wonky.

ED RAMPELL You used the word “debate.” Wasserman has challenged you to a debate.

OLIVER STONE I didn’t know.

ED RAMPELL I’m going to quote what he told me about Nuclear Now, and I’d like your response.

OLIVER STONE What did he say?

ED RAMPELL “It’s the most dishonest, dangerous, dishonorable film I’ve ever seen. [Stone chuckles.] It’s the Triumph of the Will of the nuclear industry. It’s an abomination.” What’s your response.

OLIVER STONE He’s insane, I think. [Laughs.] I don’t know where he’s coming from. I don’t know the man. He should have a debate with the coauthor of the book, Josh Goldstein, I think, rather than me, because I’m sure he’s got all his arguments, as do some of the other people from that world. It’s not my duty to debate them. I’ve been interpreting a book that I bought. I believe the book; I’ve talked to people at Idaho — that’s who you should be talking to. People who have worked with nuclear and deal with it all the time and who have built these plants.

Where does he come from? He’s an amateur in this world. People who work with nuclear know it. They know these things. And you can’t argue with a guy who’s a zealot.

ED RAMPELL Most of Nuclear Now deals with fission; I know at the end you start to talk about fusion.

OLIVER STONE We went from fission . . . at the end we talk about fusion. We talk about the time period from 2020 to 2050. That’s our concern, that thirty-year IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] prediction. Fusion has not worked out yet. I went to Livermore back in 2003 or so, and I saw the fusion experiments. I know there’s been lots of new work, and I just saw Dennis Whyte over at MIT Lab, who’s working very promisingly in plasma fusion, and it’s really interesting work. But it still doesn’t seem to be something practical for this point in time. It might well come into being by 2050 and be the answer to all of our problems for the rest of this century. That would be ideal. We’re all for it.

ED RAMPELL I just returned from Germany. From the air and from the Rhine, you can see solar and windmills everywhere, very widespread.

OLIVER STONE Wonderful. We’re not against it. It’s ok. The problem is renewables don’t work all the time. The maximum capacity so far in Germany of wind is something like 25 percent, and wind has helped Germany. Solar is much less successful: about 11, 10 percent capacity. That means it’s not working most of the time. So what do they do? They bring in gas to back up wind and solar.

Gas, as we explain in the film, is methane. Methane is horrible for the climate. Nobody really talks about methane, and it’s invisible pollution. We show it in the film with an infrared camera. It’s deadly. Although it wears off ultimately, it has very bad short-term effects. So it contributes to pollution, to the warming of the planet. As such, it’s not the perfect solution — it’s the worst solution, next to coal. More coal is worse. But that works for advertising purposes, to say we’re a perfect partner for renewables. People don’t realize it’s methane. It’s certainly better than coal, but there’s no question we need to go back to nuclear in a big way.

ED RAMPELL Before we wrap up, I want to touch on the question of radioactive waste.

OLIVER STONE Waste is the most monitored, supervised industry of all. There’s nothing like it. Compare it to gas, to coal. The waste from those is all over the country. There’s leakage from methane. There’s the oil. In terms of, compared to what? Nobody has died from it. It’s intense and a relatively small amount. After seventy years, they could put all of it into a Walmart, according to some scientists I’ve talked to. It’s not a huge amount. Radioactive decay kicks in; 99 percent of it is over by forty years in. Right now, they cool [the waste] in water and they put it in concrete and steel casks; it’s good for a hundred years. And then you could even move it over to another hundred years on another one.

People like we’re talking about, people who are against it, are talking about a million years, ten thousand years. There’s no end to their concern, but the point is radioactive waste decays, and most of it is not harmful at a certain point. And it’s watched very carefully; it’s actually an advantage of this industry. Also, there’s a new development with a lot of the reactors burning the waste, using the waste. The one in Russia, the breeder reactor, and other reactors in France are burning the waste.

ED RAMPELL What’s next for Oliver Stone?

OLIVER STONE [Laughs.] What’s next for the world, you should be asking. This is important for my children, for your children, for grandchildren; it’s really the future. We have to really think how we get energy, and we’re not doing that in a sober, analytical way. We’re listening to too many nutcases who told us it’s no good. We have to be positive, because this is important. Nuclear energy was a gift from the gods — think of it that way. From the very beginning, we’ve had nuclear energy in the world. What Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, and Enrico Fermi did was bring it to our attention.

Unfortunately, the climax of it came in World War II, and it was used to build a bomb, in a separate process. But Fermi proved we could control, through his rods, the power in the radium. That is an amazing scientific breakthrough,. That’s what Eisenhower understood. Those people who doubt Eisenhower would say, “Well, he was using that to cover for building more and more bombs” — and he did build bombs, ok. I fault him for that.

But at the same time, he did have an idealistic vision of the future, a world powered by nuclear energy. America would not be in this hole it is in now. We’d have a thousand nuclear plants, at least five hundred. We have to build; that’s the important thing. And we have to build fast and on the assembly line, like planes. That’s the message we’re trying to give.

ED RAMPELL You’re nearing completion of a documentary about [Luiz Inácio] Lula [da Silva]. When can we look forward to seeing that?

OLIVER STONE That’s right, hopefully before the end of the year. As you know, I had him in the other films with Hugo Chávez. And of course, he’s gotten a very dramatic story, with his going to jail after his second term. Now he’s back — he’s won a third term. It’s quite a story. He’s a wonderful man.

-"Oliver Stone Goes Nuclear," Jacobin, Jun 8 2023

[khutbahs]

What is special about the day of Arafat?

The Day of Arafah (Arabic: يوم عرفة‎, romanized: Yawm 'Arafah) is an Islamic holiday that falls on the 9th day of Dhu al-Hijjah of the lunar Islamic Calendar. ... Muslims hold that part of the Qur'anic verse announcing that the religion of Islam had been perfected was revealed on this day.

What are the first 10 days of Dhul Hijjah?

Why is the day of Arafat so important?

This day is also known as the day of repentance; hence, those who did not go to Hajj, or are unable to go, can spend their day fasting to repent their sins. The Minister of Awqaf, Mohamed Mokhtar Gomaa, said that the Day of Arafat is a day of God's mercy on the pilgrims and all believers.

What should we read on the day of Arafah?

We should fast on Arafat Day.While at Mecca, worshippers carry out a series of rituals including gathering for a vigil on the plain of

Arafat, near to Mount Arafat They pray to be forgiven for all their sins committed over the preceding year and the coming year. It's traditional to take part in fasting on the Day of Arafah

What should I do on the day of Arafah?

Fasting is also prohibited on the Day of Arafat for the pilgrims performing Hajj.2) Stay clear of Major sins. ...3) Make Fard Salah your TOP priority. ...4) Recite Tahleel, Takbeer, Tahmeed and Tasbeeh multiple times a day. ...5) Make lots of Duas and ask for Allah's forgiveness. ...6) Recite Quran abundantly.

[eretzyisrael]

What We Can Do About It

Last week I explained How They Did It, how the enemies of Israel – the Arabs, the Soviets, the international Left, and others – turned much of the West against us. What can we do about it?

I concentrated on the ‘softer’ aspects of cognitive warfare, such as the infiltration of higher education and international organizations like NGOs and UN agencies, corporations, the use of social media, the exploitation of minorities with grievances, and the support of public antisemites (e.g., Ilhan Omar). But we should keep in mind that more kinetic actions can also have primarily cognitive objectives. The PLO’s European terrorism during the 1970s paved the way for its conversion from a gang of despicable terrorists into a member of the UN, and for murderer and thief Yasser Arafat to become a “statesman.” The 9/11 attacks against the US changed the media portrayal of its Arab and Muslim citizens from “billionaires, bombers, and belly dancers” to hardworking citizens who are targets for islamophobic hatred (this is not the case with Jews, despite the fact that Jews are far more likely to be the victims of hate crimes today).

Terrorism works on various levels, but on the deepest, visceral one it creates paralyzing fear, which the mind – still subconsciously – tries to rationalize away by distancing itself from the victims and identifying with the terrorists. “Don’t kill me, I am on your side!” the terrorized mind shouts. “I’m one of the good ones!” (e.g, a “Jew for Palestine”).

The counterattack has to be planned, coordinated, and specifically targeted in all of the arenas, soft and hard, in which cognitive war is being waged against us. This is something the State of Israel has never come close to doing. Our efforts at public diplomacy have often been most charitably described as a bad joke, like the campaign to advertise Israel as a destination for gay tourism(“Come to Israel! We have nice beaches and we won’t hang you!”) At best we are reactive, responding to vicious accusations of war crimes, apartheid, and other depravities, usually long after the damage has been done. And we often ignore the cognitive implications of our actions, or the lack thereof.

It won’t be easy. Organized support for anti-Israel organizations (including those connected with terrorism) has been going on for decades, with millions of dollars annually flowing from sources like the George Soros organizationsand the European Union. Social media, especially, is constantly changing and new battlefields appear almost daily. Everywhere you look (e.g., Wikipedia) there is anti-Israel bias. And for every pro-Israel activist there are ten, or a hundred, attacking us.

An effective cognitive counterattack must have two parts: how we speak to the world, and – most important – how we act. Let me take the second part first.

There are basic human instincts that precede the ideas expressed in the UN charter by hundreds of thousands of years. Our actions must affect those instincts in a way that will cause others to respect us, and our enemies to fear us. I am not suggesting that we follow the example of the PLO and hijack planes in Europe, but our response to terrorism and threats from enemy countries (e.g., Iran) can be designed to have the appropriate effect. Humans are attracted to strength. They want to be on the side that’s stronger. They talk about the importance of moral and legal principles, but they bet on the winner. Our actions should radiate power and control, and even ruthlessness.

For example, no terrorist should survive his attack. Israeli security forces and the individuals involved have been sharply criticized, both by Israelis and others, for the “Bus 300 affair” in 1984, when two captured terrorists were executed in the field after interrogation. My contention is that this action sent exactly the right message, both to our enemies – “don’t try this or you will die” – and to the rest of the world – “Israel does not tolerate terrorism against her citizens.”

Our pusillanimous responses to Hamas, which has on numerous occasions killed Israelis and which today holds two Israeli citizens and the bodies of two soldiers hostage, is supposed to be justified for practical reasons, but is a total failure from the standpoint of cognitive warfare. When Israel bombs an unoccupied Hamas installation after arson balloons or even rockets from Gaza have burned crops or damaged buildings, the message that is sent is that we are too weak to protect ourselves. When our citizens are held captive while we supply electricity and water to the Gaza Strip, the message is that Hamas is in control, not Israel. I understand the limitations of our power, as viewed by the IDF, but I believe that they are not weighing the cognitive aspects of the question heavily enough.

Recently, the IDF demolished the home of a terrorist murderer, a citizen of the PA who was also an American citizen, despite a request from the US State Department to desist. This was the correct action from the cognitive point of view, sending the message that Israel is a sovereign state which controls Judea/Samaria, and which does not tolerate terrorism. On the other hand, the continued presence of the illegal Bedouin settlement of Khan al-Ahmar as a result of pressure from the EU and the UN tells the world that Israel does not control the land.

Our greatest enemy is Iran, whose regime has explicitly threatened to destroy us on numerous occasions and is developing nuclear weapons. There are obviously multiple considerations that play into choosing the best response, from a pre-emptive strike on her nuclear installations to a continuation of the campaign of sabotage that Israel has been waging for the last few years. Cognitively, the best approach is the one that publicly demonstrates that Israel has the power to destroy the installations, regardless of the distance or their fortification. This could be a massive aerial attack, or it could be covert action that is made public after the fact. The worst case is that we refrain from taking action because of pressure from the US.

In the soft realm, one priority is to put an end to Israel’s self-imposed cognitive failures. There is no reason that Israelis should be allowed to act as paid agents of the EU or the international Left, as is the case with B’Tselem and numerous other anti-state organizatons. There is a weakly enforced law that requires Israeli NGOs that receive half of their funding from foreign governments to report that, on penalty of a relatively small fine; and even that was opposed by the Left and the Arab parties in the Knesset. It is absurd that these groups should be allowed to operate in Israel. All foreign funding – private or governmental – for political NGOs should be forbidden, period. Representatives of foreign NGOs hostile to Israel should not be allowed into the country.

Speaking of Arab parties, there is a Basic Law that says that in order to run for election to the Knesset, a candidate or list must not “[negate] the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” This law is interpreted loosely by the Supreme Court, so that Arabs who do precisely that can sit in the Knesset. That must end.

Israel has military censorship, which sometimes makes us look foolish when foreign publications are revealing details that Israelis are not allowed to read or hear from their own media, but at the same time, the Ha’aretz newspaper is allowed to attack the state, day in and day out, often using material from the foreign-funded NGOs. Foreign propaganda outlets make good use of it, saying “even Israelis admit…” This is unacceptable; it borders on treason, and it must stop.

There is a place for traditional hasbara, explanation, or presentation of the news from the viewpoint of the state. I am not sure why everyone is entitled to an opinion and a platform from which to broadcast it, while the state is not. Why not a government TV/radio/Internet news outlet, staffed with professionals who could respond immediately and accurately to false accusations? Doing this properly, so that it would be both authoritative and not boring, would be expensive and require high quality personnel that would not be easy to find; but it is worth doing.

Much of what I have suggested will be criticized because “it violates human rights” or it is “antidemocratic,” or similar things. I don’t disagree. But the idea that Israel has to be a paragon of human rights and democracy is wrong. It is an expression of the antisemitic idea that Jews must always be held to the highest of standards – indeed, to a standard that is continually raised so as to always be out of reach. Israel is not a Platonic ideal state; it is not even the United States. It is a tiny nation with no strategic depth that is surrounded by enemies who themselves violate every standard of civilized behavior. National survival is more important than human rights – especially when those defining the concept of human rights are indifferent (or worse) to our survival.

Abu Yehuda

[clairebeauchampfan]

NYT; wrongthink vs. groupthink

The resignation letter of Bari Weiss, an Op-Ed editor of the New York Times. My highlighting in bold. 

“It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper's failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn't have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I'm 'writing about the Jews again.' Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly 'inclusive' one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I'm no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper's entire staff and the public. And I certainly can't square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person's ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed 'fell short of our standards.' We attached an editor's note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it 'failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa's makeup and its history.' But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed's fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its 'diversity'; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the 'new McCarthyism' that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they'll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you'll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. 'An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It's an American ideal,' you said a few years ago. I couldn't agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don't still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: 'to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.'

Ochs's idea is one of the best I've encountered. And I've always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.

Sincerely,

Bari “

It’s all there; the Left’s engrained anti-semitism (so often now cloaked by ‘respectable’ anti-Zionism), the refusal to admit of other opinions, let alone to acknowledge the possibility of  their validity, the narrowing of the mind, the cancel culture, the terror of the twitter storm and the mob in the street (”the people” as they like to call themselves) , the sheer spinelessness of the institutional ‘leadership’ unless it is in support of those people who have the ‘right’ opinions.   Sadly, exactly the same process is going on at The Guardian, the BBC and our once great universities. Only Illiberal Groupthink is allowed, and former bastions of liberalism close down independent thought, the better to signal their virtue. 

[didanawisgi]

Bari Weiss Resignation Letter from New York Times

Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.

Sincerely,

Bari

Source: https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

[drmaqazi]

March 2, 2001, 9-year-old Palestinian boy shot to death in his home by Israeli Army

The boy, Obei Darraj, age nine, was killed on Friday March 2, 2001 in his family’s home, in El Bireh. The little boy was watching his father paint the wall of a brother’s bedroom when gunfire crashed through its window, and hit the child in the chest.The Israeli army took credit for the killing, saying: “The gunfire came in retaliation to Palestinian shots aimed at the Psagot settlement” (Ha’aretz, March 4, 2001).

March 15, 2001, Israeli army targets Palestinian children in grenade attack on playground

Palestinian child, wounded in Israeli army grenade attack on his schoolyard, is carried to an ambulance

“In the Old City of Hebron, (March 15, 2001), Israeli soldiers lobbed a stun grenade into a schoolyard during an elementary students’ demonstration. The students were throwing stones at Israeli cars, Israeli officials said. Six students suffered moderate or light wounds, including burns, broken bones and blisters, Palestinian officials said. The Israelis said five Palestinian children had experienced ‘light impact injuries from the grenade.’

“‘The army sees the removal of children from the circle of violence as extremely important,’ an Israeli army statement said. The army will ‘continue to act against anyone trying to compromise the security of Israeli citizens,’ it said.”

Source: N.Y. Times, March 16, 2001, p. A-10

“Six Palestinian children suffered burns on Thursday (March 15, 2001) when Israeli soldiers threw a stun grenade into a West Bank schoolyard in new violence after an Israeli pledge to ease its blockade on Palestinians. Doctors in Hebron said three of the six children sustained burns to the head, hands and back and the other three were suffering from blisters and shock. ‘Why did they throw the grenade into the yard? This is only a provocation,’ said teacher Mohammed Hawaismah as parents carried children out of the school and into ambulances.”

Source: Reuters, March 15, 2001

May 7, 2001, Israelis Kill Baby Girl and School-Teacher, Wound Ten other Children in Refugee Camp

Khan Yunis Refugee Camp, Palestine, Israeli troops shelled homes in this Arab refugee camp today and fired large-caliber machine guns, killing a 4-month-old baby girl and wounding 24 civilians. Doctors said 10 Palestinian children were among the injured.

One Israeli cannon shell hit the shack of the Hijo family in the refugee camp, instantly killing 4-month-old Iman Hijo, with shrapnel tearing a hole into the infant’s back. The girl’s 19-year-old mother, as well as three brothers and sisters, were wounded, including 18-month-old Mahmoud Hijo, was in intensive care at Nasser Hospital with shrapnel wounds, doctors said.

The slain infant’s uncle, Wael Hijo, carried the girl’s body from the hospital’s autopsy room to the X-ray department. In the emergency room, Iman’s 7-year-old aunt, Dunya, sat on a bed with a dazed look on her face, her frilly white-and-green dress pulled up above scraped and bandaged legs. “They killed the baby,” Dunya said, then burst into tears.

Israeli troops also fired on the refugee camp’s Khaldieh School in the West Bank, killing a Palestinian school-teacher.

June 2001, Ali Murad Abu Shaweesh was 12 when Israeli soldiers shot him in the back. Ali was killed on the same day in June, 2001 that Sharon refused to let the Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, meet with Yasir Arafat, yet his death also went unnoticed by American television news. But not entirely unnoticed, since the Israeli soldiers, who taunted the Palestinian boys over loudspeakers outside the Khan Yunis refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, goading them to come out and throw rocks, did so under the gaze of Chris Hedges, a reporter for the New York Times.

July 7, 2001, Israeli Army Opens Fire on Children’s Playground

“Ibrahim Al-Mugrabi weeps over his 11-year-old son, Khalil Ibrahim, who was slain in the Rafah section of the Gaza ghetto after the Israeli army strafed the boy’s playground with machine gun fire.

Khalil Ibrahim al-Mugrabi, 11, was shot in the head and killed July 7, 2001 near Rafah in the Gaza ghetto. Two other Arab children playing with him were wounded, one seriously, after the Israeli army sprayed machine gun fire at a crowd of Arab children.

The children were gunned down by Israeli soldiers from a Jewish guard tower as they were playing. Doctors said the dead Palestinian boy was shot in the head and that a 10-year-old boy was seriously wounded with a gun shot to the stomach. A third Palestinian boy, age 12, was injured less seriously.

Mohammed Abu-Shikadem, 29, who was nearby when the shootings took place, said that a group of some 30 children were playing near the refugee camp when he heard a burst of machine gun fire from the Israeli guard tower. ‘Two of the children fell in front of my eyes,’ Abu-Shikadem said.”

Ibrahim Al-Mugrabi weeps over his 11-year-old son, Khalil Ibrahim, who was slain in the Rafah section of the Gaza ghetto after the Israeli army strafed the boy's playground with machine gun fire.

July 19, 2001, “The body of murdered 3-month-old Palestinian infant Diya Tmaizi, center, is flanked by murdered Palestinian civilians Mohammed Hilmy Tmaizi, 20, right, and Mohammed Salameh Tmaizi, 22, left, in the West Bank village of Idna, near Hebron. The Palestinian baby and the other civilians were shot and killed, and at least four other Palestinian civilians were injured late Thursday, July 19, 2001, near Idna. According to Israeli radio, a Jewish ‘settler’ group took responsibility for the murders.”

July 31, 2001, Israeli government assassinated Palestinian leaders Jamal Mansour and his cousin Omar Mansour, in an attack on their office in the West Bank town of Nablus. Six other Palestinians were killed in the Jewish ambush, including two little boys, Bilal Abu Khader, 8, and Ashraf Abu Khader, 5.

August 5, 2001, Amer Mansour Habiri 23, who was assassinated by Israelis in a missile attack on Aug. 5, 2001 in the West Bank town of Tulkarem.

August 12, 2001, Israeli soldiers shot eight-year-old Palestinian girl, Sabreen Abu Sneineh, in the head, in Hebron.

August 15, 2001,  27 year old Emad Abu Sneineh was assassinated by Israeli agents outside his home in Hebron.

August 19, 2001, Mohammed Abu Arrar, 14, shot to death in the Gaza ghetto by Israeli soldiers.

Aug. 22, 2001, The automobile of an 18 year old Palestinian incinerated by an Israeli death squad at the Bureij refugee camp, outside the Gaza ghetto, Aug. 22, 2001. The Israelis sought to assassinate his father. The teenage son was killed instead. Murders of goyim (non-Jews) in this manner are dismissed as “collateral damage” by the Judeo-masonic establishment in America.

August 23, 2001, Mohammed …Zionist occupation troops shot dead the 11-year old Palestinian boy in the Gaza ghetto on August, 23, 2001. Haaretz newspaper reported: “Witnesses said that Mohammed Zurub was shot in the heart after throwing stones at IDF (Israeli) troops.”

September 9, 2001, 13-year-old Mohammed Abu Libda, who was shot to death by Israeli troops.

The sister of 13-year-old Mohammed Abu Libda, who was shot to death by Israeli troops, cries during his funeral as her brother's body is brought home in southern Gaza, September 9, 2001.

November 22, 2001, five Palestinian school boys ages 7 to 14 were on their way to classes in the Gaza strip when they were killed by a bomb planted by Israeli forces.

Israel “....places explosive charges where children are likely to pass and then claims that only the other side practices terrorism?”

Gideon Levy,“On The Way To School,” Ha’aretz, Nov. 26, 2001

December 10, 2001, Two-year-old victim, Burhan Sidir blown apart by Israelis blew him apart. His head was found in the street. His legs were in different places. 13 year old Shadi Arafi killed by Israeli forces. Two brothers, aged 8 and 10 were also seriously injured in the Dec. 10 Israeli attack.

13 year old Shadi Arafi

December 10, 2001, “Palestinian activist Muhammad Sidir, 24, had his face maimed and burned and his eyes blinded by a U.S. made Israeli helicopter firing missiles in a crowded intersection during an assassination attempt on Sidir. Two Palestinian children died in the attacks and two other children were injured. Israeli helicopter gunships hovered over the carnage for five minutes, preventing immediate medical attention from being administered to the wounded and dying.”  http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine7.html

December 17, 2001, Israeli troops murder Palestinian activist Yacoub Aidkadik

December 18, 2001, Mohammed Houmeduk, 12, shot and killed in cold blood Dec. 18, 2001 in the Khan Younis refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, by Israeli soldiers.

[eretzyisrael]

The Biden Administration and the “War of Return”

Judging from the few public statements made so far and what is known about his appointees, the Biden Administration will take the same stance toward Israel and the Palestinians as the last Democratic administration, led by Barack Obama.

That means that it will return to the idea of establishing a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria more or less on the pre-1967 lines. It will go back to financing the Palestinian Authority, which will find a way to pay terrorists and support their families while pretending not to, in order to circumvent the Taylor Force Act which requires the US to deduct such payments from aid to the PA. The administration will likely close its eyes to the subterfuge. It will go back to funding UNRWA, the agency that supports the exponential growth of a stateless population made up of the descendants of Arab refugees from the 1948 war, despite the fact that it exists to perpetuate the problem posed by this population, not to solve it.

I believe that it will return to the principle that the main reason the conflict has not ended is that Israel has not made enough concessions to the Palestinians, and that the way to end it is to pressure Israel to give in to Palestinian demands: for Jew-free land, for sovereignty without restrictions, for eastern Jerusalem, and perhaps even for the “return” of the refugee descendants. Although not directly part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it will probably reduce pressure on Iran and possibly even return to the JCPOA, the nuclear deal.

It’s too early to tell if it will also adopt the open hostility to the Jewish state that characterized Obama’s reign. That will depend on who influences Biden, both among his official advisors as well as the numerous think tanks, lobbies, and pressure groups that have an interest in the conflict – including the one operated by Barack Obama himself.

I suspect that the administration will have its hands full with other matters and so will not immediately launch a new “peace” effort. But one never knows. Sometimes rationality goes out the window when the subject turns to the Jews and their state.

Although nothing can be done with those who take a position because they see it as a step in the direction of the ultimate elimination of our state, there are still “people of good faith” who believe that the Land for Peace paradigm that inspired the Oslo Accords does provide a path to ending the conflict. If the new administration is dominated by the latter type of people, there is hope that correcting their fundamental misapprehensions might lead to a more productive policy.

These misapprehensions are spelled out persuasively in a recent book, The War of Return, How Western Indulgence of the Palestinian Dream has Obstructed the Path to Peace, by Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf (All Points Books, 2020). Schwartz and Wilf fall on the left of the Israeli political spectrum (Wilf was a Member of the Knesset for the Labor Party), and they still favor a two-state solution. But unlike most of their comrades, they have listened to the Palestinians, and understand their actual concerns and objectives. In their book, they explain why the traditional approach has failed and propose the initial steps that are necessary for any settlement of the conflict.

All previous Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations have miscarried because Israelis and Western interlocutors have failed to realize the paramount importance of one issue – the “right of return” demanded by the Palestinians. This is possible because they have systematically misunderstood the language – whether English or Arabic – used by the Palestinians. The “constructive ambiguity” that often characterizes diplomatic language and allows parties that don’t quite agree with each other to nevertheless sign agreements has made it possible for the same words to have diametrically opposed meanings when uttered by Westerners or Palestinians.

The prime example of this is the phrase “a just solution to the refugee problem.” To an Israeli or Westerner, this can include the normalization of the refugees* in their countries of residence, their emigration to other countries, or their resettlement in a Palestinian state, should one be created. This has been the approach taken by the international community to the numerous refugee populations, including Germans living in Eastern Europe after WWII, Holocaust survivors, Jews who were forced out of Arab countries after 1948, and so on. But the Palestinian position is that there is only one “just solution”: anyone with refugee status has the inalienable right to “return” to his “home” in Israel if he wishes to do so, or to receive compensation if he prefers. And that is what this phrase means when they use it.

Naturally, given the numbers of Arabs who claim this “right,” such a mass return would change Israel into an Arab-majority state, even assuming Jews were prepared to leave their homes and peacefully give them to their “rightful owners.” The absurdity of the demand is evident. Yet Yasser Arafat walked away from Camp David precisely because Israel would not agree to it.

Another phrase whose ambiguity has prevented agreement is “two-state solution.” Virtually every Israeli that favors this understands it as “two states for two peoples.” But the Palestinians want one totally Jew-free Palestinian state, and one state in which the right of return for Arab refugees has been implemented (and which theoretically might contain Jews, at least for a while). They have never accepted the idea of any Jewish sovereignty between the river and the sea, and hence reject the formulation “two states for two peoples.”

Schwartz and Wilf explain that Western and Israeli negotiators have always assumed – perhaps because the demand is so extreme – that the right of return was a bargaining chip that the Palestinians would cash in for the currency of borders, the removal of settlements, or rights in Jerusalem. But they were wrong. The demand for “return” is the essence of the Palestinian movement.

Palestinian children learn about it, down to the particular locations to which each has the “right” to return, in UNRWA schools where they are taught by Palestinian teachers (99% of UNRWA’s employees are Palestinians). Someday, they are told over and over, they will return. Guaranteed.

Everything UNRWA does is geared toward increasing this population of angry people, convinced that a massive injustice has been done to them, and that the only solution will be for them to return, and through this return, wipe the Jews from the face of the land they are convinced we stole from them.

UNRWA was created after the 1948 war with the intention of providing temporary assistance to the refugees until they could be resettled and normalized the way all other groups of refugees had been. But the only country that cooperated was Jordan, which gave the Palestinians citizenship and allowed them to integrate into their own populations. In Lebanon there were especially harsh restrictions and poor conditions. Little by little, the Arab nations changed the temporary UNRWA into a permanent tool to mold a refugee army that they hoped would ultimately do what their conventional armies could not: eliminate the Jewish state.

Today UNRWA is the main obstacle to solving the refugee problem. But it need not be. Schwartz and Wilf provide a relatively detailed, step by step program for phasing out UNRWA in the various places that it operates, and providing solutions for the refugees from the host countries and other agencies. For example, in the Palestinian Authority areas, they propose shifting both the responsibility for the refugees, and the money that supports UNRWA, to the PA. Former refugees would study in PA schools, go to PA health clinics, and so on. There are similar programs for Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon where the remaining refugee “camps” (today mostly neighborhoods on the outskirts of cities) are located.

Real peace can only be achieved when the consciousness of the Palestinians changes and they understand that the dream of return will not be realized. This would be a long and difficult process that could only begin with the elimination of UNRWA. But it has to start before it can finish. It will require cooperation of all of the Western donor countries that have been supporting UNRWA. Perhaps the fact that from a financial standpoint UNRWA will soon be unsustainable (after all, the number of “refugees” is growing exponentially) will encourage them to cooperate.

In the short term, it’s essential that everyone involved in relations between Israel and the Palestinians understand the real issues that underlie the conflict. And it would be a good thing if all parties could agree to use words the same way. Schwartz and Wilf say that “constructive ambiguity” should be replaced by “constructive specificity.” If the European Union, for example, believes that the State of Israel should be replaced by a Palestinian state, it should say so. Otherwise, it should unambiguously oppose a right of return, and work to dismantle UNRWA as quickly as is practical.

Back to the incoming Biden Administration. I hope it will resist the attempts of the anti-Israel Left to revive the hostility of the Obama days, and instead choose to be a force for real peace.

To that end, I will be sending Joe Biden a copy of this book, with a suggestion that he read it and pass it around among his foreign policy team.

Abu Yehuda

[safirah63]

[newstfionline]

The Day of Shame

By Uri Avnery, CounterPunch, May 21, 2018

On Bloody Monday, when the number of Palestinian killed and wounded was rising by the hour, I asked myself: what would I have done if I had been a youngster of 15 in the Gaza Strip?

My answer was, without hesitation: I would have stood near the border fence and demonstrated, risking my life and limbs every minute.

How am I so sure?

Simple: I did the same when I was 15.

I was a member of the National Military Organization (the “Irgun”), an armed underground group labeled “terrorist”.

Palestine was at the time under British occupation (called “mandate”). In May 1939, the British enacted a law limiting the right of Jews to acquire land. I received an order to be at a certain time at a certain spot near the sea shore of Tel Aviv in order to take part in a demonstration. I was to wait for a trumpet signal.

The trumpet sounded and we started the march down Allenby Road, then the city’s main street. Near the main synagogue, somebody climbed the stairs and delivered an inflammatory speech. Then we marched on, to the end of the street, where the offices of the British administration were located. There we sang the national anthem, “Hatikvah”, while some adult members set fire to the offices.

Suddenly several lorries carrying British soldiers screeched to a halt, and a salvo of shots rang out. The British fired over our heads, and we ran away.

Remembering this event 79 years later, it crossed my mind that the boys of Gaza are greater heroes then we were then. They did not run away. They stood their ground for hours, while the death toll rose to 61 and the number of those wounded by live ammunition to some 1500, in addition to 1000 affected by gas.

On that day, most TV stations in Israel and abroad split their screen. On the right, the events in Gaza. On the left, the inauguration of the US Embassy in Jerusalem.

In the 136th year of the Zionist-Palestinian war, that split screen is the picture of reality: the celebration in Jerusalem and the bloodbath in Gaza. Not on two different planets, not in two different continents, but hardly an hour’s drive apart.

The celebration in Jerusalem started as a silly event. A bunch of suited males, inflated with self-importance, celebrating--what, exactly? The symbolic movement of an office from one town to another.

Jerusalem is a major bone of contention. Everybody knows that there will be no peace, not now, not ever, without a compromise there. For every Palestinian, every Arab, every Muslim throughout the world, it is unthinkable to give up Jerusalem. It is from there, according to Muslim tradition, that the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven, after tying his horse to the rock that is now the center of the holy places. After Mecca and Medina, Jerusalem is the third holiest place of Islam.

For the Jews, of course, Jerusalem means the place where, some 2000 years ago, there stood the temple built by King Herod, a cruel half-Jew. A remnant of an outer wall still stands there and is revered as the “Western Wall”. It used to be called the “Wailing Wall”, and is the holiest place of the Jews.

Statesmen have tried to square the circle and find a solution. The 1947 United Nations committee that decreed the partition of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state--a solution enthusiastically endorsed by the Jewish leadership--suggested separating Jerusalem from both states and constituting it as a separate unit within what was supposed to be in fact a kind of confederation.

The war of 1948 resulted in a divided city, the Eastern part was occupied by the Arab side (the Kingdom of Jordan) and the Western part became the capital of Israel. (My modest part was to fight in the battle for the road.)

No one liked the division of the city. So my friends and I devised a third solution, which by now has become a world consensus: keep the city united on the municipal level and divide it politically: the West as capital of the State of Israel, the East as capital of the State of Palestine. The leader of the local Palestinians, Faisal al-Husseini, the scion of a most distinguished local Palestinian family and the son of a national hero who was killed not far from my position in the same battle, endorsed this formula publicly. Yasser Arafat gave me his tacit consent.

If President Donald Trump had declared West Jerusalem the capital of Israel and moved his embassy there, almost nobody would have got excited. By omitting the word “West”, Trump ignited a fire. Perhaps without realizing what he was doing, and probably not giving a damn.

For me, the moving of the US embassy means nothing. It is a symbolic act that does not change reality. If and when peace does come, no one will care about some stupid act of a half-forgotten US president. Inshallah.

So there they were, this bunch of self-important nobodies, Israelis, Americans and those in-between, having their little festival, while rivers of blood were flowing in Gaza. Human beings were killed by the dozen and wounded by the thousand.

The ceremony started as a cynical meeting, which quickly became grotesque, and ended in being sinister. Nero fiddling while Rome was burning.

When the last hug was exchanged and the last compliment paid, Gaza remained what it was--a huge concentration camp with severely overcrowded hospitals, lacking medicines and food, drinkable water and electricity.

A ridiculous world-wide propaganda campaign was let loose to counter the world-wide condemnation. For example: the story that the terrorist Hamas had compelled the Gazans to go and demonstrate--as if anyone could be compelled to risk their life in a demonstration.

Or: the story that Hamas paid every demonstrator 50 dollars. Would you risk your life for 50 dollars? Would anybody?

Or: The soldiers had no choice but to kill them, because they were storming the border fence. Actually, no one did so--the huge concentration of Israeli army brigades would have easily prevented it without shooting.

Almost forgotten was a small news item from the days before: Hamas had discreetly offered a Hudna for ten years. A Hudna is a sacred armistice, never to be broken. The Crusaders, our remote predecessors, had many Hudnas with their Arab enemies during their 200-year stay here.

Israeli leaders immediately rejected the offer.

So why were the soldiers ordered to kill? It is the same logic that has animated countless occupation regimes throughout history: make the “natives” so afraid that they will give up. Alas, the results have almost always been the very opposite: the oppressed have become more hardened, more resolute. This is happening now.

Bloody Monday may well be seen in future as the day when the Palestinians regained their national pride, their will to stand up and fight for their independence.

Strangely, the next day--the main day of the planned protest, Naqba Day--only two demonstrators were killed. Israeli diplomats abroad, facing world-wide indignation, had probably sent home SOS messages. Clearly the Israeli army had changed its orders. Non-lethal means were used and sufficed.

My conscience does not allow me to conclude this without some self-criticism.

I would have expected that all of Israel’s renowned writers would publish a thundering joint condemnation while the shooting was still going on. It did not happen.

I would have expected that the dozens of our brave peace organizations would unite in a dramatic act of condemnation, an act that would arouse the world. It did not happen. Perhaps they were in a state of shock.

The next day, the excellent boys and girls of the peace groups demonstrated opposite the Likud office in Tel Aviv. Some 500 took part. Far, far from the hundreds of thousands who demonstrated some years ago against the price of cottage cheese.

In short: we did not do our duty. I accuse myself as much as I accuse everybody else.

But what topped everything was the huge machine of brain-washing that was set in motion. For many years I have not experienced anything like it.

Almost all the so-called “military correspondents” acted like army propaganda agents. Day by day they helped the army to spread lies and falsifications. The public had no alternative but to believe every word. Nobody told them otherwise.

The same is true for almost all other means of communication, program presenters, announcers and correspondents. They willingly became government liars. Probably many of them were ordered to do so by their bosses. Not a glorious chapter.

After the day of blood, when the army was faced with world condemnation and had to stop shooting (“only” killing two unarmed demonstrators) all Israeli media were united in declaring this a great Israeli victory.

Israel had to open the crossings and send food and medicines to Gaza. Egypt had to open its Gaza crossing and accept many hundreds of wounded for operations and other treatment.

The Day of Shame has passed. Until the next time.

[fyp-psychology]

33 Unusual Tips to Being a Better Writer

via James Altucher

Back in college, Sanket and I would hang out in bars and try to talk to women but I was horrible at it.

Nobody would talk to me for more than thirty seconds and every woman would laugh at all his jokes for what seemed like hours.

Even decades later I think they are still laughing at his jokes. One time he turned to me, 

“the girls are getting bored when you talk. Your stories go on too long. From now on, you need to leave out every other sentence when you tell a story.”

We were both undergrads in Computer Science. I haven’t seen him since but that’s the most important writing (and communicating) advice I ever got.

33 other tips to be a better writer:

A) Write whatever you want. Then take out the first paragraph and last paragraph

Here’s the funny thing about this rule. It’s sort of like knowing the future. You still can’t change it. In other words, even if you know this rule and write the article, the article will still be better if you take out the first paragraph and the last paragraph.

B) Take a huge bowel movement every day

You won’t see that on any other list on how to be a better writer. If your body doesn’t flow then your brain won’t flow. Eat more fruit if you have to.

C) Bleed in the first line

We’re all human. A computer can win Jeopardy but still not write a novel. If you want people to relate to you, then you have to be human.

Penelope Trunk started a post a few weeks ago: 

“I smashed a lamp over my head. There was blood everywhere. And glass. And I took a picture.” 

That’s real bleeding. My wife recently put up a post where the first line was so painful she had to take it down. Too many people were crying.

D) Don’t ask for permission

In other words, never say “in my opinion” (or worse “IMHO”). We know it’s your opinion. You’re writing it.

E) Write a lot

I spent the entire 90s writing bad fiction. 5 bad novels. Dozens of bad stories. But I learned to handle massive rejection. And how to put two words together. In my head, I won the pulitzer prize. But in my hand, over 100 rejection letters.

F) Read a lot

You can’t write without first reading. A lot. When I was writing five bad novels in a row I would read all day long whenever I wasn’t writing (I had a job as a programmer, which I would do for about five minutes a day because my programs all worked and I just had to “maintain” them). I read everything I could get my hands on.

G) Read before you write

Before I write every day I spend 30-60 minutes reading high quality short stories poetry, or essays. Here are some authors to start:

Denis Johnson

Miranda July

David Foster Wallace

Ariel Leve

William Vollmann

Raymond Carver

All of the writers are in the top 1/1000 of 1% of writers. What you are reading  has to be at that level or else it won’t lift up your writing at all.

H) Coffee

I go through three cups at least before I even begin to write. No coffee, no creativity.

I) Break the laws of physics

There’s no time in text. Nothing has to go in order. Don’t make it nonsense. But don’t be beholden to the laws of physics. My post, Advice I Want to Tell My Daughters, is an example.

J) Be Honest

Tell people the stuff they all think but nobody ever says. Some people will be angry that you let out the secret. But most people will be grateful. If you aren’t being honest, you aren’t delivering value. Be the little boy in the Emperor Wears No Clothes. If you can’t do this, don’t write.

K) Don’t Hurt Anyone

This goes against the above rule, but I never like to hurt people. And I don’t respect people who get pageviews by breaking this rule.

Don’t be a bad guy.  Was Buddha a Bad Father? addresses this.

L) Don’t be afraid of what people think

For each single person you worry about, deduct 1% in quality from your writing.

Everyone has deductions. I have to deduct about 10% right off the top.

Maybe there’s 10 people I’m worried about. Some of them are evil people. Some of them are people I just don’t want to offend.

So my writing is only about 90% of what it could be. But I think most people write at about 20% of what it could be. Believe it or not, clients, customers, friends, family, will love you more if you are honest with them. We all have our boundaries. But try this: for the next ten things you write, tell people something that nobody knows about you.

M) Be opinionated

Most people I know have strong opinions about at least one or two things… write about those. Nobody cares about all the things you don’t have strong opinions on.

Barry Ritholz told me the other day he doesn’t start writing until he’s angry about something. That’s one approach. Barry and I have had some great writing fights because sometimes we’ve been angry at each other.

N) Have a shocking title

I blew it the other day. I wanted to title this piece: “How I torture women” but I settled for “I’m Guilty Of Torture.” I wimped out. But I have some other fun ones, like “Is It Bad I Wanted My First Kid To Be Aborted” (which the famous Howard Lindzon cautioned me against).

Don’t forget that you are competing against a trillion other pieces of content out there. So you need a title to draw people in. Else you lose.

O) Steal

I don’t quite mean it literally. But if you know a topic gets pageviews (and you aren’t hurting anyone) than steal it, no matter who’s written about it or how many times you’ve written about it before. “How I Screwed Yasser Arafat out of $2mm” was able to nicely piggyback off of how amazingly popular Yasser Arafat is.

P) Make people cry

If you’ve ever been in love, you know how to cry.

Bring readers to that moment when they were a child, and all of life was in front of them, except for that one bittersweet moment when everything began to change. If only that one moment could’ve lasted forever. Please let me go back in time right now to that moment. But now it’s gone.

Q) Relate to people

The past decade has totally sucked. For everyone. The country has been in post-traumatic stress syndrome since 9/11 and 2008 only made it worse. I’ve gone broke a few times during the decade, had a divorce, lost friendships, and have only survived (barely) by being persistent and knowing I had two kids to take care of, and loneliness to fight.

Nobody’s perfect. We’re all trying. Show people how you are trying and struggling. Nobody expects you to be a superhero.

R) Time heals all wounds

Everyone has experiences they don’t want to write about. But with enough time, its OK. My New Year’s Resolution of 1995 is pretty embarrassing. But whatever…it was 16 years ago.

The longer back you go, the less you have to worry about what people think.

S) Risk

Notice that almost all of these rules are about where the boundaries are. Most people play it too safe.

When you are really risking something and the reader senses that (and they WILL sense it), then you know you are in good territory. If you aren’t risking something, then I’m moving on. I know I’m on the right track if after I post something someone tweets, “OMFG.”

T) Be funny

You can be all of the above and be funny at the same time.

When I went to India I was brutalized by my first few yoga classes (actually every yoga class). And I was intimidated by everyone around me. They were like yoga superheroes and I felt like a fraud around them. So I cried, and hopefully people laughed.

It was also a case where I didn’t have to dig into my past but I had an experience that was happening to me right then. How do you be funny? First rule of funny: ugly people are funny. I’m naturally ugly so its easy. Make yourself as ugly as possible. Nobody wants to read that you are beautiful and doing great in life.

U) The last line needs to go BOOM!

Your article is meaningless unless the last line KILLS.

Read the book of short stories “Jesus’ Son” by Denis Johnson. It’s the only way to learn how to do a last line. The last line should take you all the way back to the first line and then “BOOM!”

V) Use a lot of periods

Forget commas and semicolons. A period makes people pause. Your sentences should be strong enough that you want people to pause and think about it. This will also make your sentences shorter. Short sentences are good.

W) Write every day

This is a must. Writing is spiritual practice. You are diving inside of yourself and cleaning out the toxins. If you don’t do it every day, you lose the ability. If you do it every day, then slowly you find out where all the toxins are. And the cleaning can begin.

X) Write with the same voice you talk in

You’ve spent your whole life learning how to communicate with that voice. Why change it when you communicate with text?

Y) Deliver value with every sentence

Even on a tweet or Facebook status update. Deliver poetry and value with every word. Else, be quiet.

Z) Take what everyone thinks and explore the opposite

Don’t disagree just to disagree. But explore. Turn the world upside down. Guess what? There are people living in China. Plenty of times you’ll find value where nobody else did.

AA) Have lots of ideas

I discuss this in “How to be the Luckiest Man Alive” in the Daily Practice section.

Your idea muscle atrophies within days if you don’t exercise it. Then what do you do? You need to exercise it every day until it hurts. Else no ideas.

BB) Sleep eight hours a day

Go to sleep before 9pm at least 4 days a week. And stretch while taking deep breaths before you write. We supposedly use only 5% of our brain. You need to use 6% at least to write better than everyone else. So make sure your brain is getting as much healthy oxygen as possible. Too many people waste valuable writing or resting time by chattering until all hours of the night.

CC) Don’t write if you’re upset at someone

Then the person you are upset at becomes your audience. You want to love and flirt with your audience so they can love you back.

DD) Use “said” instead of any other word

Don’t use “he suggested” or “he bellowed,” just “he said.” We’ll figure it out if he suggested something.

EE) Paint or draw.

Keep exercising other creative muscles.

FF) Let it sleep

Whatever you are working on, sleep on it. Then wake up, stretch, coffee, read, and look again.

Rewrite. Take out every other sentence.

GG) Then take out every other sentence again.

Or something like that.

Sanket didn’t want to go to grad school after we graduated. He had another plan. Lets go to Thailand, he said. And become monks in a Buddhist monastery for a year. We can date Thai women whenever we aren’t begging for food, he said. It will be great and we’ll get life experience.

It sounded good to me.

But then he got accepted to the University of Wisconsin and got a PhD. Now he lives in India and works for Oracle. And as for me…

I don’t know what the hell happened to me.

About the Author:

James Altucher is an American hedge fund manager, entrepreneur, bestselling author, venture capitalist and podcaster. He has founded or cofounded more than 20 companies, including Reset Inc. and StockPickr and says he failed at 17 of them.

via jamesaltucher.com

[drmaqazi]

JEWISH TERRORISM & GENOCIDE OF PALESTINIANS IN THE HOLY LAND (OCCUPIED PALESTINE)  SINCE 1948, AND STILL CONTINUING TODAY BY KILLING OF HELPLESS & INNOCENT CHILDREN, WOMEN & OLD PEOPLE UNDER THE EYES OF IMPOTENT SO-CALLED WORLD LEADERS, GOD FORBID, AMEN. 

                                                                                                                                                      March 2, 2001, 9-year-old Palestinian boy shot to death in his home by Israeli Army

The boy, Obei Darraj, age nine, was killed on Friday March 2, 2001 in his family’s home, in El Bireh. The little boy was watching his father paint the wall of a brother’s bedroom when gunfire crashed through its window, and hit the child in the chest.The Israeli army took credit for the killing, saying: “The gunfire came in retaliation to Palestinian shots aimed at the Psagot settlement” (Ha’aretz, March 4, 2001).

March 15, 2001, Israeli army targets Palestinian children in grenade attack on playground

Palestinian child, wounded in Israeli army grenade attack on his schoolyard, is carried to an ambulance

“In the Old City of Hebron, (March 15, 2001), Israeli soldiers lobbed a stun grenade into a schoolyard during an elementary students’ demonstration. The students were throwing stones at Israeli cars, Israeli officials said. Six students suffered moderate or light wounds, including burns, broken bones and blisters, Palestinian officials said. The Israelis said five Palestinian children had experienced ‘light impact injuries from the grenade.’

“‘The army sees the removal of children from the circle of violence as extremely important,’ an Israeli army statement said. The army will ‘continue to act against anyone trying to compromise the security of Israeli citizens,’ it said.”

Source: N.Y. Times, March 16, 2001, p. A-10

“Six Palestinian children suffered burns on Thursday (March 15, 2001) when Israeli soldiers threw a stun grenade into a West Bank schoolyard in new violence after an Israeli pledge to ease its blockade on Palestinians. Doctors in Hebron said three of the six children sustained burns to the head, hands and back and the other three were suffering from blisters and shock. ‘Why did they throw the grenade into the yard? This is only a provocation,’ said teacher Mohammed Hawaismah as parents carried children out of the school and into ambulances.”

Source: Reuters, March 15, 2001

May 7, 2001, Israelis Kill Baby Girl and School-Teacher, Wound Ten other Children in Refugee Camp

Khan Yunis Refugee Camp, Palestine, Israeli troops shelled homes in this Arab refugee camp today and fired large-caliber machine guns, killing a 4-month-old baby girl and wounding 24 civilians. Doctors said 10 Palestinian children were among the injured.

One Israeli cannon shell hit the shack of the Hijo family in the refugee camp, instantly killing 4-month-old Iman Hijo, with shrapnel tearing a hole into the infant’s back. The girl’s 19-year-old mother, as well as three brothers and sisters, were wounded, including 18-month-old Mahmoud Hijo, was in intensive care at Nasser Hospital with shrapnel wounds, doctors said.

The slain infant’s uncle, Wael Hijo, carried the girl’s body from the hospital’s autopsy room to the X-ray department. In the emergency room, Iman’s 7-year-old aunt, Dunya, sat on a bed with a dazed look on her face, her frilly white-and-green dress pulled up above scraped and bandaged legs. “They killed the baby,” Dunya said, then burst into tears.

Israeli troops also fired on the refugee camp’s Khaldieh School in the West Bank, killing a Palestinian school-teacher.

June 2001, Ali Murad Abu Shaweesh was 12 when Israeli soldiers shot him in the back. Ali was killed on the same day in June, 2001 that Sharon refused to let the Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, meet with Yasir Arafat, yet his death also went unnoticed by American television news. But not entirely unnoticed, since the Israeli soldiers, who taunted the Palestinian boys over loudspeakers outside the Khan Yunis refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, goading them to come out and throw rocks, did so under the gaze of Chris Hedges, a reporter for the New York Times.

July 7, 2001, Israeli Army Opens Fire on Children’s Playground

“Ibrahim Al-Mugrabi weeps over his 11-year-old son, Khalil Ibrahim, who was slain in the Rafah section of the Gaza ghetto after the Israeli army strafed the boy’s playground with machine gun fire.

Khalil Ibrahim al-Mugrabi, 11, was shot in the head and killed July 7, 2001 near Rafah in the Gaza ghetto. Two other Arab children playing with him were wounded, one seriously, after the Israeli army sprayed machine gun fire at a crowd of Arab children.

The children were gunned down by Israeli soldiers from a Jewish guard tower as they were playing. Doctors said the dead Palestinian boy was shot in the head and that a 10-year-old boy was seriously wounded with a gun shot to the stomach. A third Palestinian boy, age 12, was injured less seriously.

Mohammed Abu-Shikadem, 29, who was nearby when the shootings took place, said that a group of some 30 children were playing near the refugee camp when he heard a burst of machine gun fire from the Israeli guard tower. ‘Two of the children fell in front of my eyes,’ Abu-Shikadem said.”

Ibrahim Al-Mugrabi weeps over his 11-year-old son, Khalil Ibrahim, who was slain in the Rafah section of the Gaza ghetto after the Israeli army strafed the boy's playground with machine gun fire.

July 19, 2001, “The body of murdered 3-month-old Palestinian infant Diya Tmaizi, center, is flanked by murdered Palestinian civilians Mohammed Hilmy Tmaizi, 20, right, and Mohammed Salameh Tmaizi, 22, left, in the West Bank village of Idna, near Hebron. The Palestinian baby and the other civilians were shot and killed, and at least four other Palestinian civilians were injured late Thursday, July 19, 2001, near Idna. According to Israeli radio, a Jewish ‘settler’ group took responsibility for the murders.”

July 31, 2001, Israeli government assassinated Palestinian leaders Jamal Mansour and his cousin Omar Mansour, in an attack on their office in the West Bank town of Nablus. Six other Palestinians were killed in the Jewish ambush, including two little boys, Bilal Abu Khader, 8, and Ashraf Abu Khader, 5.

August 5, 2001, Amer Mansour Habiri 23, who was assassinated by Israelis in a missile attack on Aug. 5, 2001 in the West Bank town of Tulkarem.

August 12, 2001, Israeli soldiers shot eight-year-old Palestinian girl, Sabreen Abu Sneineh, in the head, in Hebron.

August 15, 2001,  27 year old Emad Abu Sneineh was assassinated by Israeli agents outside his home in Hebron.

August 19, 2001, Mohammed Abu Arrar, 14, shot to death in the Gaza ghetto by Israeli soldiers.

Aug. 22, 2001, The automobile of an 18 year old Palestinian incinerated by an Israeli death squad at the Bureij refugee camp, outside the Gaza ghetto, Aug. 22, 2001. The Israelis sought to assassinate his father. The teenage son was killed instead. Murders of goyim (non-Jews) in this manner are dismissed as “collateral damage” by the Judeo-masonic establishment in America.

August 23, 2001, Mohammed …Zionist occupation troops shot dead the 11-year old Palestinian boy in the Gaza ghetto on August, 23, 2001. Haaretz newspaper reported: “Witnesses said that Mohammed Zurub was shot in the heart after throwing stones at IDF (Israeli) troops.”

September 9, 2001, 13-year-old Mohammed Abu Libda, who was shot to death by Israeli troops.

The sister of 13-year-old Mohammed Abu Libda, who was shot to death by Israeli troops, cries during his funeral as her brother's body is brought home in southern Gaza, September 9, 2001.

November 22, 2001, five Palestinian school boys ages 7 to 14 were on their way to classes in the Gaza strip when they were killed by a bomb planted by Israeli forces.

Israel “....places explosive charges where children are likely to pass and then claims that only the other side practices terrorism?”

Gideon Levy,“On The Way To School,” Ha’aretz, Nov. 26, 2001

December 10, 2001, Two-year-old victim, Burhan Sidir blown apart by Israelis blew him apart. His head was found in the street. His legs were in different places. 13 year old Shadi Arafi killed by Israeli forces. Two brothers, aged 8 and 10 were also seriously injured in the Dec. 10 Israeli attack.

13 year old Shadi Arafi

December 10, 2001, “Palestinian activist Muhammad Sidir, 24, had his face maimed and burned and his eyes blinded by a U.S. made Israeli helicopter firing missiles in a crowded intersection during an assassination attempt on Sidir. Two Palestinian children died in the attacks and two other children were injured. Israeli helicopter gunships hovered over the carnage for five minutes, preventing immediate medical attention from being administered to the wounded and dying.”  http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine7.html

December 17, 2001, Israeli troops murder Palestinian activist Yacoub Aidkadik

December 18, 2001, Mohammed Houmeduk, 12, shot and killed in cold blood Dec. 18, 2001 in the Khan Younis refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, by Israeli soldiers.