Start A Petition

Obscene: Israel Plays the Holocaust Card to Justify War With Iran

World  (tags: Shalom?, Israeli Threat to World Peace, Zionist Entity, Iran, 'Israel'', Israeli Warmongers )

- 2755 days ago -
A war with Iran would end any possibility of Israel ever achieving either peace with the Muslim world or any semblance of security. Forever. The dream of a secure Jewish homeland, a dream that took 1900 years to achieve, would be over. . .


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


wolfNoFwdsPls a (135)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 7:19 am
assalam 'alaikum !
AIPAC conference itself, with more than half the Congress in attendance (!!???)
recommended viewing: AIPAC 101 — What Every American Should Know (utube, 9:39)

Ken D (32)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 7:51 am
Thank for that excellent link Wolf!:)

Henriette M (154)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 11:36 am
Thanks Ken for this article, once again another truth article! What is there more to say; I feel for the poor Americans who's tax money goes to Israel to support this insane war that will take place because this is what the Zionist Jews want on Iran & the poor Iranian innocent people. And the American people are starving & many have no shelter! And this war will result with more for the few & nothing changes, but a few more millions of innocent lives lost. Thanks Wolf for the video that every (American should know). A MUST view video to know what is really going on! But how many will believe it since it is TRUTH! And truth always must have (proof) to be believed, but lies & deceptions is accepted as usual as this is what most are accustomed too, brainwashed for so long with lies & deception mindset. When I comment on such, most consider me a "conspiracy nut case" & so be it! The Truth will set you Free. Thanks Ken.

Fiona O (562)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 1:26 pm
Thank you, Ken. The Holocaust card is worn out in the whole world except the US,

Jelica R (144)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 9:29 pm
"Is there anyone who still believe that Israel wants peace?" Yup, Jihad Watch does, and some dear carrying people here on care2 with whom I have short but warm encounters. You know who they are.

Jelica R (144)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 9:36 pm
Or should it be "PIECE", in terms of the 14th amendment?

Jelica R (144)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 9:49 pm
This is from ICH:

"On ideological grounds, a public and categorical religious decree (fatwa) against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons has been issued by the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic Ali Khamenei along with other clerics, while it is supported by others in the religious establishment.
(As president Ahmadinejad has no authority over Iran’s military.)"

Article: Bachmann Endangers the World with Her Lies

Jelica R (144)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 9:53 pm
Link Bachmann Endangers the World with Her Lies

Penelope P (222)
Friday December 2, 2011, 12:49 am
"a nuclear armed Iran would limit Israel's regional hegemony"

If Israel attacked itwould of course also endanger the whole world
On the interesting side Nostradamus envisioned the end of the worldwith such a scenario as starting point

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Friday December 2, 2011, 2:15 am
Oh if we want the 21st Century to make the 20th look peaceful bomb bomb Iran. Looks like the days of Luke 21:20 could be right ahead of us, when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies for her desolation to be at hand.

Someday may all of the children of Abraham lay down their swords and never train for war again.

jerry coleman (73)
Friday December 2, 2011, 2:49 am
I hope for peace but been worng before

Mary P (157)
Friday December 2, 2011, 3:20 am
Thank you Ken for article.

From the article, "For a politician, being an Iran hawk can be very lucrative while favoring diplomacy is a sure ticket to AIPAC purgatory. (Every candidate for the House and Senate must fill out an AIPAC questionnaire on attitudes toward Iran and the Palestinians. Providing the "wrong" answers or not responding means trouble)"

How sic and disgusting for AIPAC to be behaving like this?

Dismantling AIPAC, kicking its members to the kerb and out of the American Government ,is the only way to end these MASS MURDERS of Innocent Human Beings.

Parsifal S (96)
Friday December 2, 2011, 3:21 am

Thanks Ken.
I like the "Shalom ?" pic at the headline of your article above.

No, Ken, only the rabid ZioCons believe official Israel wants peace.
And their followers in their weird believe, they would survive Amageddon and be the chosen ones.....

Alamzeb Khan (401)
Friday December 2, 2011, 3:36 am
It would be a great political folly of Israel if it attacks on Iran.

Vukan Simic (121)
Friday December 2, 2011, 3:37 am
Thanks Ken!

Espen jorge (235)
Friday December 2, 2011, 3:39 am
there has been conflicts on the westbank and the surrounding areas for some 2000 years, I am an optimist by nature, but Israeli goverment must be on some kind of drugs, also many in the congress, well it is all about POWER and money or what?
Lockheed Martin are making huge ammounts of money in a new possible and unwinnable war for both sides, but to play that old card again is just childish,I believe the common jew would not give thumbs up for a war, wars never ever goes positive, only makes some people richer day by day, the victims are the loosers, on both sides....
The jewish people has got more land than they shoul according to the old settlement from 1948.....But still they are eating up Palestineland as we speak.SHAME on the Israeli and on the Us gov-people who let this happen without even concidering what the people there suffers from, they suffer cause of greed and greed,
Israel pumps up Palestine water just to sell it back to the poor farmers and others trying to survive.....
One big watercontainer, just like theese you get when the watersupply to your house is cut or under construction,costs a palestine farmer/family some 2£ a day, for everage people it is expencive, for the poor farmer it is cruelty, about the same ammount they get when they sell their crops or harvests for that they have been struggeling to get to grow....
If I would have been forced to buy my own water from my neighbour, i would be quite pissed at him you know, it`s just the same thing here...
I would not recommend a war against Iran, they have got a little problem now with this virus that made some facilities blow up, made by Israel and America in a neet little marriageholiday...

Mary P (157)
Friday December 2, 2011, 3:45 am
The Zionist regime of Israel and its members in Aipac are devoid of any conscience or compassion. Both the israeli lives and the iranian lives mean nothing to them. Its all about politics, greed and power. They are going to destroy earth and its people, all for the sake of their inner greed of material wealth.

Parsifal S (96)
Friday December 2, 2011, 3:49 am

@ Betsy Reiss: worn out AND rotten - but it STILL works ...

Ellen m (215)
Friday December 2, 2011, 4:06 am
The biggest bully is at it again, and they have crossed the line far to many times!
WE need to let them know AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE that are thinking of their actions goes much farther and deeper than the miked conversation between Sarkosy and Obama..without the political correctness and restraint those two leaders showed..

Ken D (32)
Friday December 2, 2011, 5:15 am
The Boys Who Cry “Holocaust”.
The same neocon hawks who lied us into Iraq are using the ultimate argument-stopper to push war with Iran.

In American politics, you can get away with even the most cracked warmongering, as long as you claim to be "pro-Israel." And the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for anything having to do with Israel is the Holocaust ... The Holocaust mind-set has led Israel into self-destructive policies. And its promiscuous invocation has helped ensure that Israel maintains a stranglehold over America's Mideast policy. That stranglehold has always been harmful to America, but it is now actually dangerous.

Ken D (32)
Friday December 2, 2011, 5:56 am
Iran and the IAEA.
Seymour M. Hersh -- The New Yorker

"... But it remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran is still not imminent nor is it inevitable." Greg Thielmann, a former State Department and Senate Intelligence Committee analyst who was one of the authors of the A.C.A. assessment, told me, "There is troubling evidence suggesting that studies are still going on, but there is nothing that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb." He added, "Those who want to drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of aggressively misrepresented the report." ... The new report, therefore, leaves us where we've been since 2002, when George Bush declared Iran to be a member of the Axis of Evil - with lots of belligerent talk but no definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons program.

Mary P (157)
Friday December 2, 2011, 6:19 am
Jess, "Israel has done and will continue to do whatever they have to, in order to survive, they don't need ano one's approval, they already have the ONLY important one, GOD'S , C O M P R E N D E "

Really Jess !! Does YOUR god condone Mass Murders of innocent men, women, and babies??? Does YOUR God
Condone Oppression, Theft, Destruction of Plantations, Apartheid Walls, Starving an entire nation,
Depriving fellow human beings of basic medical treatment, killing of
Zoo animals and torturing even the jewish people of israel who stand up
Against the evil of the Zionist Regime ? These traits
Belong to the Devil himself!!!

Research 'The TRUE TORAH JEWS' and read about their reference to the Zionist
Israeli Regime as the 'Followers of Satan'. Read the Condemnation of the actions
Of the Zionist Regime by the Holy Jewish RABBIS.

JustaHuman Here (53)
Friday December 2, 2011, 6:55 am
When I hear people talking about God I get goose bumbs. And even more by the ignorance of people talking about God's people, like God was a racist and they think that they are so wonderful and perfect that they belong to the chosen onest. Where is God? Where does he bring peace? Why did he let the (catholic) church let kill about 200 milliom people and torture countless others?

Your God did not mind, neither does he mind now. Ah,yes, the good old devil, alway a good argument for those who dn't think. Either is this devil stronger than God, or this loving god is too weak and therefore not god and does not exist.

But we can make God strong and exist if we act like God would like.

Many countries have nuclear weapons. But Iran, that seems to be a target that America thinks to be able to manage, is the new enemy. What about Russia, China, India etc, why not attack them if the nuclear weapons are the problem? A little to difficult? Well....

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Friday December 2, 2011, 7:06 am
Jess, the children of Abraham are those who do his deeds. In these days those are acts of compassion, peace and tolerance, none of which the Zionist in control of Israel would know if they were done to them. ''They'' are the same exact kind of people who killed their last king!

. (0)
Friday December 2, 2011, 9:13 am
noted...just another usual...thanks for the fwd Henriette and Ken for the video..and Amen, Michael

JustaHuman Here (53)
Friday December 2, 2011, 12:54 pm
Please note in case someone feels that he must his religion::

I have read the bible many times, but I am not going into any discussion with religious people because this goes nowhere.

If you want to know the origin of your religion I advisde ti watch this video:

The REAL Truth About Religion And Its Origins


Tim Redfern (581)
Friday December 2, 2011, 3:07 pm
Fewer and fewer people and nations believe Israel wants peace.
They will use the holocaust to justify anything, and it has worn
threadbare. Many Americans are refusing to believe the holocaust excuse, too,
because they see what and how Israel is today. They are the leading terrorist nation
in the world.

Caitlin G (29)
Friday December 2, 2011, 3:30 pm
I keep hearing more and more negative things coming out of Israel and it continues to make me sad... :(

LeMoyn Salmonsen (88)
Friday December 2, 2011, 4:42 pm
Peaceful Israel is an Oxymoron, is now and has been since before Truman signed the UN recognition of statehood. Whenever anyone pulls their coat on their persistent horrendous human rights violations they play the holocaust card. A horror without doubt, but not a forever get out of jail card for totally unrelated actions they choose to implement to suppress neighbors. Neighbors that have perfectly legitimate grievances that have continued unabated for most of my life time. Without big brother Americas unwavering saber rattling, financial and military equipment and munitions, including the atomic bomb, support of Israel, the Middle East and indeed the world at large would be a far different and more peaceful place.

Past Member (0)
Friday December 2, 2011, 5:38 pm

Kamila A (141)
Friday December 2, 2011, 5:42 pm
The whole world is watching. This war is not going to happen, no matter what card they pull, right or wrong, and in this case, definitely WRONG!

Sarah G (109)
Friday December 2, 2011, 5:46 pm
They will play this card once too often. It will lose its power one day.

Les F (121)
Friday December 2, 2011, 5:56 pm

Debra Holliday (38)
Friday December 2, 2011, 6:54 pm
I'll continue to stand with Israel, who is being threatened daily of being "wiped off the face of the earth" It makes me angry that the only news that ever gets out is about Israel lobbing a bomb -- article never mentions that the day before Israel was bombed as it is DAILY! The Christian news media always reports it, but the main stream never does. Why is that? Don't you all want the real truth about this? Surely is a sad situation for us all!

Walter Firth (45)
Friday December 2, 2011, 7:26 pm
What a lot of crap Give up Jew haters you're spitting against the wind.

Kamila A (141)
Friday December 2, 2011, 8:04 pm
why does it always become "anti-semitism?" is that the best you, who defend the indefensible stand on? See the difference, there is huge difference. No one hates the Jews here, its the state policy. Wake up. Israel is acting like the bully. Its the state of Israel, not Jews. Two different categories.

Jelica R (144)
Friday December 2, 2011, 9:02 pm
Hasbara paranoiacs are gathering, as expected.

I think Iran is off the hook for now. Russia, China and some other countries strongly oppose any intervention against Iran based on empty claims even US and Israeli Intelligence Agencies consider to be vague. Besides, Libya intervention is fresh and Putin is still upset for liberal interpretation of UN Mandate. As he put it (in English, which he almost never does): "Who gave NATO the right to kill Gaddafi?"

Also, with unstable Syria, any attack against Iran might rapidly spread all over to Mediterranean where, I believe, Israel is located. Israeli government might think that Israel is on another planet; All Eyes on Israel After Second Iranian Blast: Clouds of smoke billowed above the city of Isfahan - evidence that the latest strike against Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program had hit its target.

The war against Iran's nuclear program has already begun: Explosions, deadly computer viruses and other sorts of 'accidents' - someone is targeting Iran's nuclear project: either the Western intelligence agencies, internal opposition groups, or both.

According to many reports, Pakistan war is underway already.

Reporting from Pakistan, Alex Rodriguez writes in the Los Angeles Times that while the US and Pakistan have patched things up before, this crisis feels different. The rage coursing through Pakistani society over the Nov. 26 airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers suggests there may be permanent damage to the relationship. Former cricket star Imran Khan's popularity has skyrocketed with demands that Pakistan "withdraw from this American war."

In previous crises, Pakistan's willingness to find common ground with Washington has been influenced by the flow of U.S. aid, which opposition leaders are now urging the government to jettison. Many Pakistanis think China could fill the void. "If the U.S. refuses to give aid, this would be God's greatest blessing: to free Pakistan from the curse of aid," Khan said.

US and Pakistan Enter the Danger Zone

America: The Ally From Hell

NATO May Reap What They Sow in Pakistan, By George Galloway

This was no misguided drone attack, nor a missile misfiring. It was the mass murder of 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Kayani declares war on ‘Nato aggressors’: The Chief of the Army Staff issued these orders on Wednesday night. According to which, the Pakistani military officer in the area will be responsible for retaliation against any aggressors in that particular area and he will be provided all kind of assistance that he will ask for.


Past Member (0)
Friday December 2, 2011, 10:44 pm
No country in the world has earned the right to oppress or threaten others. This includes Israel.

Past Member (0)
Friday December 2, 2011, 11:19 pm
"I'l continue to stand with Israel, who is being threatened daily of being "wiped off the face of the earth"

On who is claiming to want to wipe them off the face of the earth? Iran?

P A (117)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 12:52 am
Wasn't it Einstein who said 'I don't know with what weapons the Third World War will be fought, but I do know what will be used in the Fourth - a stick and a stone." God send us all peace - before any war!

Carola May (20)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 1:56 am
Mary P you are up to your old ugly Islamist anti-semitism and hypocrisy. You, a Muslim, whose religion has murdered 270million people in forcing itself on the peoples of all the lands it now occupies and destroyed their cultures are sickening. When is Islam going to stop its Apartheid in all of its invaded occupied lands and allow true freedom of religion? Islam never allows any other religion to be treated with equality or fairness and never has, neither has it or does it treat non-Muslims as equals but as inferiors who will be tortured for eternity in your punishing deity's hell.

Islamist states have made it clear for centuries they want to eliminate the jewish people steal their land they built and the city they build as its capitol - Jerusalem and israel It is their land - not Arabs/Muslims,

Iran HAS stated many times it wants to destroy Israel. Look at that backward, tribal theocracy and they awful cruel place it is - killing rape victims, those who leave Islam or criticize it, women deemed 'immoral' as young as 9 y/o (20k when Khomeinii took over). It is a hate state that has no freedom, demeans women, kills gays, allows sex with children and infinite numbers of 'temporary marriages' for sex (and they call the West 'decadent'!) and persecutes all non-Muslims brutally. Where is all of your outrage for this dark age tyranny?

Israel is the only democracy and freed country surrounded by Islamist states without any freedoms. Muslims have religious freedom in Israel. "Palestine" doesn't. Gay people live well in Israel and have been accepted in their military for years - they are persecuted in the Palestinian occupied territories. Christians are persecuted in Palestinian occupied terr. and their women are being forced to wear the backward islamic veils or risk beatings or acid in the face - not so in Israel.

You anti-Jewish hatemongers are sickening. It is the Islamist states that are devoid of every human right and standard of modern decency, that treat women as servants of men, recognize no rights for children, persecute and kill gay people and are right now ethnically cleansing Christians in several of their holy Islamic lands. Where's the outrage over this ongoing Islamic Inquisition and arrogant effort to conquer us all still?

Where is your outrage over the invasion and occupation of Israel and jerusalem by the Islamists who've occupied the Jewish homeland for centuries and even built their blasphemy of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosque on the holiest site in the world to the Jews and won't even allow the Jews to pray their??? Hypocrites! The Jews have every right to tear that desecration down, but haven't, but you know if they had built a Temple on top of the old Arab pagan temple of the Kaba'a and mosque in mecca the Muslims would tear it down, burn every Torah and kill every Jew they could find, all the while chanting 'Allahu Akbar'.

There is no more hateful, aggressive, intolerant bunch than the 'Islamist Entity' who wants everything we have and is doing all it can to silence criticism of its ugly Medieval ideology and to conquer and force us all under its backward Islamic/Sharia law.

Camila K, if you ever had a reasonable thought it would be a miracle. Your statement should be applied to Israel.

Ken D (32)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 2:26 am
I think you'll find this story is about the impending danger to world peace by Zionism NOT Islam.

Jennifer Ward (40)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 2:31 am
If Israel was utterly destroyed the Muslims would still fight amongst themselves. I don't know why people get so worked up over a bit of real estate that they strap bombs to their children.

Parsifal S (96)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 2:41 am

Carola May:
Saturday December 3, 2011, 1:56 am
"Mary P you are up to your old ugly Islamist anti-semitism and hypocrisy."

You might not know, Arabs are semites too ?

And I wonder...
Where you get your information from?

Well, please keep up informing us about the 270mio ppl, Muslims have murdered

How very interesting.
Maybe you confuse something?

Are you really sure about your allegations you made in your comment?
Have you double checked your sources?

Maybe you also should know, media is in posession of 96% (owned) Zionists?

So please provide any reliable sources Carola........................................

I am an old man and still want to learn something new

Ken D (32)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 2:43 am
What Iranian President Ahmadinejad REALLY Said About Israel:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Iranian President Ahmadinejad. NOTHING there about wiping Israel off the map, but of course it's just so much easier to keep repeating the same lie over and over ad nauseam.

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 2:50 am
Day will come when Luke 21:20 is fulfilled with Jerusalem being surrounded by armies for her desolation to be at hand. Since you can find these words in Jeremiah 23, ''the latter days you will clearly understand it,'' that chapters rebuke of religious leaders applies now, as it did back then. Today, its the prophets of the church and Jerusalem from whom pollution has spread throughout the world. I'll say it again, the Zionist in charge of Israel are no more children of Abraham than the Scribes and Pharisees were, who killed their last king.

Ken D (32)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 2:52 am
Seriously Bernard - you need help.

Carola May (20)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 2:52 am
Ken D, how disingenuous you are. It has everything to do with Islam and the Islamist agenda to destroy all Jews and take Israel as another conquered land to plunder and force under its backward barbaric Islamic law.

Rob and Jay are spot on. Why is there no outrage here for the atrocities committed by the Arab Palestinians who lob rockets daily into Israel and send suicide bombers in to kill school children and others? The Palestinians started this Intifada just because the Jewish PM of Israel thought he should have the right to pray on his religion's most holy site, occupied by Islam and desecrated with their own buildings.

Israel has freedom of speech and religion, something not present in Islamist controlled Gaza. You are all defending those who don't believe in true democracy (Islam doesn't allow it), human rights (Sharia Law doesn't allow what more enlightened states call human rights - freedom of religion, speech, conscience, women's and children's rights, the right to change or abandon religion, and ALL Islamic states voted against the French/EU UN resolution to ban discrimination and persecution and state-sponsored murder of LGBT people, except Turkey which wants to get into the EU - they 'abstained').

Islam has been persecuting and killing Jews (along with all non-Muslims) for 1400 years, starting with Mohammed and his band of thugs beheading 900 Jewish men and boys in Medina (then raping their widows and selling their families into slavery - of course, not before taking the prettiest widows as forced 'wives' and sex slaves - something Islam still condones, as long as they're not Muslim, of course).

You hatemongers here are sickening.

Ken D (32)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 3:03 am
@Carola May

No matter how much you try to divert attention away from the actual topic. . . This story is STILL about the threat to world peace from the Zionist entity - otherwise known as the terrorist state of 'Israel'.

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 3:19 am
Most everyone has been at war for 1000s of years... I have not ever been able to get answer from anyone who blindly defends Israel, about why the Lamb said what he did in Luke 21:20?

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 3:34 am
Hope someday that the American Natives get justice. Though all they will want, is to teach us we can't eat money. The U.N. owes Palestine for the honest mistake it made of letting the Zionist drive them out of their homeland.

Jay S (116)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 3:39 am
Jelica R makes the silly comment about does anyone still believe that Israel want peace? Who's trying to destroy whom? It is the Islamist Entities of the Islamic conquered terrorist states that have sworn to destroy Israel, not the other way around.

The real question is "does anyone here still believe the Arab Islamist of the 'Islamist Entity' terrorist states really want peace?'

Many Jews were cleansed from their homes in Islamist states and fled to Israel which took them in and cared for them and built one of the most advanced countries and civilization on earth. The Palestinians who were displaced when Israel was re-established as the ancient homeland of the Jewish people have been locked out of their Arab Islamist 'brothers' lands and where they have gone they are persecuted and discriminated against. Where are the oil rich Islamist Entities in supporting the Palestinians? It is the 'decadent' hated West that has given them billions. Where are the Arab Islamists who claim to care so much for the Palestinians. Nowhere to be seen. Egypt closed its border with Gaza too, remember. Where were all of you Islamists with your outrage about that? Hypocrites.

The only reason Arab Islamist terrorist states care about the Palestinians is as a means of destroying Israel. Period. They do nothing for the Palestinians - no refuge, no money - nothing. Does anyone still believe these hate states that have no freedom really care about peace?

PS: yes Arabs are semites, but the term anti-semite is nowhere accepted as to pertaining to them, but has always pertained to the hatred of Jews, which makes most Arab Islamist anti-semitic too.

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 3:47 am
Since Abraham would not have destroyed Sodom had it been up to him, why would his children need the Nuclear bomb? Israel hasn't even signed the NPT. I've heard one of their leaders say this this century, ''If Israel goes down, we are going to take Europe with us.'' True deeds of Abraham...

Parsifal S (96)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 4:32 am

Carola, maybe I should have added in capitol letters, no Zionist media quoting as a source please.

And, lols, since WHEN is a blog a reliable source of info?

Come on you are so enthuiastic, you may find more what could make any sense - give it a try!

I am glad you eventually understood not to confuse the term semites.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

Brenda Towers (0)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 5:15 am
As God's Chosen People, they have certainly failed to behave like it!!

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 6:56 am
Carola, can you answer this question? Why did the Lamb say 2000 years ago in Luke 21:20, that when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know her desolation is at hand?

Ken D (32)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 7:11 am
A personal message from:

Jess and Chachi D.


Ken D.

Date: Saturday, December 3, 2011, 7:00 AM
Subject: re: Comment on: Obscene: Israel Plays the Holocaust Card to Justify War With Iran

"It can be seen your ignorance on the subject of Israel's history is humonguos. Say whatever you want, but they have never trained their kids or women to be suicidal bombers and then run and hide behind their women's skirts. Same skirts they humiliate and msitreat every day of the year. And you dare to call israel the terrorist state? Your are quite dumb, stupid and I wouldn't doubt if your a muslim"

I rest my case. . .


Ken D (32)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 7:21 am
Oh dear, I spoke too soon. . .

Yet another delightful personal message:

Date: Saturday, December 3, 2011, 7:02 AM
Subject: Introduction from Jess and Chachi Decristo

Hi Ken,

Jess and Chachi Decristo has sent you the following introduction. This system allows only brief introductions. If you would like to respond to this person, simply reply to this message.

"I'm here to help you use your medical insurance ja ja ja, one of these days, your gionna need it."

You need as much help as Bernard - you could save on the gas and go see psychiatrist together.

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 7:30 am
"Iran HAS stated many times it wants to destroy Israel."

Nope. Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. While this myth is repeated endlesslessly, it doesn't make it a true statement. The statement in question wasn't stated by Ahmadinejad even though it is always quoted to him. When the statement was said, he was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini. The statement made by the Ayatollah actually stated ""the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." That is quite different from what was quoted at the time and what has been stated since.

To make this even less of a threat, Ahmadinejad doesn't really hold the military power in Iran, the Ayatollah is who holds the power. The Ayatollah has never expressed nor supported any violence towards Israel. To continue to repeat the same discredited statements either means that you have no interest in peace, just in promoting an agenda against another country supported by lies (didn't we already learn our lesson about that) or that you really cannot be bothered to make sure what you are stating is correct and have no problem using whatever it takes to support Israel's insanity. Neither option is honorable.

Talk about hatemongering. People here are criticizing the practices of a goverment which is based on Zionism, has nothing to do with Judaism and you are making outrageous hatefilled statements. I think the racism, bigotry and hate resides with you, not everyone else. This makes me literally ill listening to these comments. These are from people who seem to claim that they are Christian?

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 8:04 am
"You forget that Israel has already been attacked and invaded by the Arab Islamist Entity and beat them all. They took the West Bank and Gaza as war spoils (something you Islamists are very good at). If the hateful anti-semitic Arab Islamist terrorists hadn't attacked Israel this wouldn't have happened."

Not factual. Israel attacked in 1967 not the other way around.

Vicky P (476)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 10:58 am
Bunch of idiots playing the race card again..well, this happened to me so I can do whatever I want now..

Lynn S (235)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 12:00 pm
I find it interesting that the picture should have the word “Shalom?” on it. The word is not simply ‘Hi’ but is more in sentiment to the Hindi word ‘Namasté’ which means I bow to the god within you. Shalom is a wish for the greatest good to the person whom one greets. So to combine ‘shalom’ with bombs and warfare is absolutely ludicrous. It makes me wonder if the Israelis have forgotten the real meaning of the word!

As to using the Holocaust to justify war with Iran, WWII ended 66 years ago and the state of Israel was created 63 years ago. I can certainly understand a grieving period for the souls lost during the Holocaust. However, I do not think that those souls would want additional blood spilled in their memory. They did not, nor do they now cry out for revenge. They cried out, and continue to cry out for life. As the author said,
“The annals of the Holocaust are filled with this same message: You must live.
An attack on Iran will be carried out in the name of the victims of the Holocaust. But that attack, rather than saving the Jewish state, will sound the death knell for it. Israel and its American supporters owe more to the millions of human beings whose last prayer, before their deaths, was that their children live.”

There is no doubt that Iran’s Ahmadinejad is full of bluster --- that is just his hunger for power and authority. He is known as being a Holocaust denier. But is that his real belief or is that just saber rattling to goad Israel in its soft underbelly? For his own part, Israel’s Netanyahu is stoking the fear of a second Holocaust as a rationalisation for war. Israel already has nuclear weapons and Iran knows this. Israel could easily kill thousands upon thousands of Iranians, and the Muslim countries around it could launch missiles at all of Israel’s cities. If this happens, who is the winner? The arms dealers! The military industrial complex! Certainly not the ordinary people of the Middle East, of the world!

I believe Israel is lost in a desert of fear, looking for the manna of life, but caught in a web of memories that sticks to them and keeps pulling them backwards to the Holocaust, and as the author says “. . . sometimes the reaction to a trauma ensures that it keeps happening again.”

I am NOT pro Zionism, nor am I pro Muslim. I AM PRO PEOPLE, ALL PEOPLE. I believe in the right of Israel to exist, but I also believe in the right for Palestine and all Muslim states to exist. There are fanatics in all countries who delight in saber rattling to keep others in fear. Look no further than the GOP in the US as an example. Usually fanatics engage in saber rattling out of fear and mistrust. This is more a game of political chicken or brinkmanship which is very dangerous.

JustaHuman Here (53)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 12:15 pm
Is this about peace, or only a fight about who is right? Many Care2 membners should feel deeply ashamed!

I feel wrong here!

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 12:31 pm
Israel's claim to that land, throughout The Torah, was always contingent on them treating the stranger as themselves, or the land would vomit them out. How many times did that happen 1000s of years ago. Christ broke the covenant between night and day while hanging on that tree, and Israel has not had a king on the throne of David since before that.

Parsifal S (96)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 12:55 pm

care2 or kill2?

Stelizan L (258)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 1:12 pm
Pars: 'the chosen ones' - alas, sadly no more? Can we not all 'agree to disagree'? May peace prevail!!! Kudos to all for their comments!

Beatrice B (112)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 1:15 pm

Wipe Israel 'off the map' Iranian says

. TEHRAN — Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesdaythat Israel must be "wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA press agency reported.

Ahmadinejad was speaking to an audience of about 4,000 students at a program called "The World Without Zionism," in preparation for an annual anti-Israel demonstration on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan.

His tone was reminiscent of that of the early days of Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979. Iran and Israel have been bitter enemies since then, and anti-Israel slogans have been common at rallies.

Senior officials had avoided provocative language over the past decade, butAhmadinejad appears to be taking a more confrontational tone than Iranian leaders have in recent years.

Ahmadinejad said in his remarks Wednesday that the issue of a Palestinian state would be resolved only when Palestinians took control of all their lands.

"The establishment of Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," he said, according to the press agency. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."

Referring to comments by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, Admadinejad said, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, in contrast, proposed a dialogue among civilizations and pursued a policy of détente.

In response to Ahmadinejad's remarks on Wednesday, Mark Regev, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said that, "Unfortunately, this is not the first time we've seen such extreme statements from senior Iranian leaders."

He added that, "We see today that there is a growing understanding in the international community that the extremist regime in Tehran is not just Israel's problem, but rather an issue that the entire international community must grapple with."

Israel contends that Iran finances a number of Palestinian armed factions that carry out attacks against Israel, including Islamic Jihad, the group that claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing that killed at least five people Wednesday in the Israeli coastal town of Hadera.

In his remarks on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad also called Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip a trick, and said Gaza was part of Palestinian territories.

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," he said. Any Islamic leader "who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

Greg Myre contributed reporting from Jerusalem.

White House concerns

The White House said Wednesday that Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" underlined U.S. concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, Agence France-Presse reported from Washington.

"It reconfirms what we've been saying about the regime in Iran," said the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan. "It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions."

Washington has accused Tehran of using a civilian nuclear program as cover for efforts to develop atomic weapons. Iran has denied the allegation.

In Paris,Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said that France would summon Iran's ambassador to Paris to question him about Ahmadinejad's comments."I condemn them very forcefully," Douste-Blazy said.

So why should not Israel do anything in her power to avoid annihilation?


Micahel Dewey (1021)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 1:49 pm
There is no danger of Islam taking control of the world. Corporate Empire has owned it for years now. You are morons who will stand behind a war with Iran for so called Israel. That's about what Iraq was about. There was no WMD found there.

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 1:51 pm
Beatrice, you could have easily find credible articles which show that the NY Times was debunked including the Ethan Bronner piece. This is typical of the media, just repeating something without even doing the basic checks, like having the quote attributed to Ahmadinejad, when in actuality he was quoting the Ayatollah and basic translation of what was said.

Lost in translation
Jonathan Steele, Wednesday 14 June 2006 12.49 BST

Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.

reddit this
Comments (163)

Jonathan Steele, Wednesday 14 June 2006 12.49 BST
Article history
My recent comment piece explaining how Iran's president was badly misquoted when he allegedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" has caused a welcome little storm. The phrase has been seized on by western and Israeli hawks to re-double suspicions of the Iranian government's intentions, so it is important to get the truth of what he really said.

I took my translation - "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" - from the indefatigable Professor Juan Cole's website where it has been for several weeks.

But it seems to be mainly thanks to the Guardian giving it prominence that the New York Times, which was one of the first papers to misquote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came out on Sunday with a defensive piece attempting to justify its reporter's original "wiped off the map" translation. (By the way, for Farsi speakers the original version is available here.)

Joining the "off the map" crowd is David Aaronovitch, a columnist on the Times (of London), who attacked my analysis yesterday. I won't waste time on him since his knowledge of Farsi is as minimal as that of his Latin. The poor man thinks the plural of casus belli is casi belli, unaware that casus is fourth declension with the plural casus (long u).

The New York Times's Ethan Bronner and Nazila Fathi, one of the paper's Tehran staff, make a more serious case. They consulted several sources in Tehran. "Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say 'wipe off' or 'wipe away' is more accurate than 'vanish' because the Persian verb is active and transitive," Bronner writes.

The New York Times goes on: "The second translation issue concerns the word 'map'. Khomeini's words were abstract: 'Sahneh roozgar.' Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as 'map', and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not 'Sahneh roozgar' but 'Safheh roozgar', meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word 'map' again."

This, in my view, is the crucial point and I'm glad the NYT accepts that the word "map" was not used by Ahmadinejad. (By the way, the Wikipedia entry on the controversy gets the NYT wrong, claiming falsely that Ethan Bronner "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map".)

If the Iranian president made a mistake and used "safheh" rather than "sahneh", that is of little moment. A native English speaker could equally confuse "stage of history" with "page of history". The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem.

Two other well-established translation sources confirm that Ahmadinejad was referring to time, not place. The version of the October 26 2005 speech put out by the Middle East Media Research Institute, based on the Farsi text released by the official Iranian Students News Agency, says: "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." (NB: not "wiped". I accept that "eliminated" is almost the same, indeed some might argue it is more sinister than "wiped", though it is a bit more of a mouthful if you are trying to find four catchy and easily memorable words with which to incite anger against Iran.)

MEMRI (its text of the speech is available here) is headed by a former Isareli military intelligence officer and has sometimes been attacked for alleged distortion of Farsi and Arabic quotations for the benefit of Israeli foreign policy. On this occasion they supported the doveish view of what Ahmadinejad said.

Finally we come to the BBC monitoring service which every day puts out hundreds of highly respected English translations of broadcasts from all round the globe to their subscribers - mainly governments, intelligence services, thinktanks and other specialists. I approached them this week about the controversy and a spokesperson for the monitoring service's marketing unit, who did not want his name used, told me their original version of the Ahmadinejad quote was "eliminated from the map of the world".

As a result of my inquiry and the controversy generated, they had gone back to the native Farsi-speakers who had translated the speech from a voice recording made available by Iranian TV on October 29 2005. Here is what the spokesman told me about the "off the map" section: "The monitor has checked again. It's a difficult expression to translate. They're under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be "eliminated from the page of history".

Would the BBC put out a correction, given that the issue had become so controversial, I asked. "It would be a long time after the original version", came the reply. I interpret that as "probably not", but let's see.

Finally, I approached Iradj Bagherzade, the Iranian-born founder and chairman of the renowned publishing house, IB Tauris. He thought hard about the word "roozgar". "History" was not the right word, he said, but he could not decide between several better alternatives "this day and age", "these times", "our times", "time".

So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.

A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out.

The same with regard to Israel. The Iranian president is undeniably an opponent of Zionism or, if you prefer the phrase, the Zionist regime. But so are substantial numbers of Israeli citizens, Jews as well as Arabs. The anti-Zionist and non-Zionist traditions in Israel are not insignificant. So we should not demonise Ahmadinejad on those grounds alone.

Does this quibbling over phrases matter? Yes, of course. Within days of the Ahmadinejad speech the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was calling for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations. Other foreign leaders have quoted the map phrase. The United States is piling pressure on its allies to be tough with Iran.

Let me give the last word to Juan Cole, with whom I began. "I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no."

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?
By Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann
Translation to English: Erik Appleby

04/19/06 "Kein Krieg!" -- -- - "But now that I'm on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course -- (applause) -- the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel, and -- (applause.)" George W. Bush, US-President, 2006-03-20 in Cleveland (Ohio) in an off-the-cuff speech (source: But why does Bush speak of Iran's objective to destroy Israel?

Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?

To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.

But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:

"They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
(source:, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)
It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam Hussein's dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed.

Certainly, Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate. To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy.

This is one chapter of the war against Iran that has already begun with the words of Georg Meggle, professor of philosophy at the university of Leipzig - namely with the probably most important phase, the phase of propaganda.

Marginally we want to mention that it was the former US Vice-Minister of Defence and current President of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz, who in Sept. 2001 talked about ending states in public and without any kind of awe. And it was the father of George W. Bush who started the discussion about a winnable nuclear war if only the survival of an elite is assured.

Let's pick an example: the German online-news-magazine writes the following about Iran's president on 2005-10-27: "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in countenance of the Islamic world." Instead of using the original word 'wave' they write 'wave of assaults'. This replacement of the original text is what we call disinformation. E.g. it would be correct to say: "The new movement in Palestine will erase the stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." Additionally this statement refers to the occupation regime mentioned in the previous sentence.

As a precaution we will examine a different translation of the speech - a version prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), located in Washington:

"They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved. [[[...]]] "'When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?' That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime [[[...]]] and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it. Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it. Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country [[[...]]] Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world. In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight. I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable."

(source:, based on the publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by MEMRI in squared brackets -- missing passages compared to the 'New York Times' in triple squared brackets)

The term 'map' to which the media refer at length does not even appear. Whereas the 'New York Times' said: "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map" the version by MEMRI is: "Imam [Khomeini] said: This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

MEMRI added the following prefixed formulation to their translation as a kind of title: "Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Be Purged From the Center of the Islamic World - and This is Attainable". Thereby they take it out of context by using the insertion 'i.e. Israel' they distort the meaning on purpose. The temporal tapering 'very soon' does not appear in the NY-Times-translation either. Besides it is striking that MEMRI deleted all passages in their translation which characterize the US-supported Shah-Regime as a regime of terror and at the same time show the true character of US-American policy.

An independent translation of the original (like the version published by ISNA) yields that Ahmadinejad does not use the term 'map'. He quotes Ayatollah Khomeini's assertion that the occupation regime must vanish from this world - literally translated: from the arena of times. Correspondingly: there is no space for an occupation regime in this world respectively in this time. The formulation 'wipe off the map' used by the 'New York Times' is a very free and aggravating interpretation which is equivalent to 'razing something to the ground' or 'annihilating something'. The downwelling translation, first into English ('wipe off the map'), then from English to German - and all literally ('von der Landkarte löschen') - makes us stride away from the original more and more. The perfidious thing about this translation is that the expression 'map' can only be used in one (intentional) way: a state can be removed from a map but not a regime, about which Ahmadinejad is actually speaking.

Again following the independent translation: "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a spiritual movement which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world".

It must be allowed to ask how it is possible that 'spirtual movement' resp. 'wave of morality' (as translated by MEMRI) and 'wave of assaults' can be equated and translated (like e.g published it).

Does Iran's President deny the Holocaust?

"The German government condemned the repetitive offending anti-Israel statements by Ahmadinejad to be shocking. Such behaviour is not tolerable, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated. [...] Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel proclaimed Ahmadinejad's statements to be 'inconceivable'" (published by 2005-12-14.

But not only the German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and the Federal Chancellor Merkel allege this, but the Bild-Zeitung,, parts of the peace movement, US-President George W. Bush, the 'Papers for German and international politics', CNN, the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, almost the entire world does so, too: Iran's President Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust.

What is this assertion based on? In substance it is based on dispatches of 2 days - 2005-12-14 and 2006-02-11.

"The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal attacks against Israel and the Western states and has denied the Holocaust. Instead of making Israel's attacks against Palestine a subject of discussion 'the Western states devote their energy to the fairy-tale of the massacre against the Jews', Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday in a speech at Zahedan in the south-east of Iran which was broadcasted directly by the news-channel Khabar. That day he stated that if the Western states really believe in the assassination of six million Jews in W.W. II they should put a piece of land in Europe, in the USA, Canada or Alaska at Israel's disposal." - dispatch of the German press agency DPA, 2005-12-14.

The German TV-station n24 spreads the following on 2006-12-14 using the title 'Iran's President calls the Holocaust a myth': "The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal attacks against Israel and called the Holocaust a 'myth' used as a pretext by the Europeans to found a Jewish state in the center of the Islamic world . 'In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets' the Iranian head of state said."

The Iranian press agency IRNA renders Ahmadinejad on 2005-12-14 as follows: "'If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions.' [...] 'If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there.' [...] Ahmadinejad said some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets [...] The president further said, 'If your civilization consists of aggression, displacing the oppressed nations, suppressing justice-seeking voices and spreading injustice and poverty for the majority of people on the earth, then we say it out loud that we despise your hollow civilization.'"

There again we find the quotation already rendered by n24: "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth." We can see that this is completely different from what is published by e.g. the DPA - the massacre against the Jews is a fairy-tale. What Ahmadinejad does is not denying the Holocaust. No! It is dealing out criticism against the mendacity of the imperialistic powers who use the Holocaust to muzzle critical voices and to achieve advantages concerning the legitimization of a planned war. This is criticism against the exploitation of the Holocaust.

CNN (2005-12-15) renders as follows: "If you have burned the Jews why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

The Washingtonian ''Middle East Media Research Institute' (MEMRI) renders Ahmadinejad's statements from 2005-12-14 as follows: "...we ask you: if you indeed committed this great crime, why should the oppressed people of Palestine be punished for it? * [...] If you committed a crime, you yourselves should pay for it. Our offer was and remains as follows: If you committed a crime, it is only appropriate that you place a piece of your land at their disposal - a piece of Europe, of America, of Canada, or of Alaska - so they can establish their own state. Rest assured that if you do so, the Iranian people will voice no objection."

The MEMRI-rendering uses the relieving translation 'great crime' and misappropriates the following sentence at the * marked passage: "Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions." This sentence has obviously been left out deliberately because it would intimate why the Israeli state could have forfeited the right to establish itself in Palestine - videlicet because of its aggressive expansionist policy against the people of Palestine, ignoring any law of nations and disobeying all UN-resolutions.

In spite of the variability referring to the rendering of the statements of Iran's President we should nevertheless note down: the reproach of denying the Holocaust cannot be sustained if Ahmadinejad speaks of a great and huge crime that has been done to the Jews.

In another IRNA-dispatch (2005-12-14) the Arabian author Ghazi Abu Daqa writes about Ahmadinejad: "The Iranian president has nothing against the followers of Judaism [...] Ahmadinejad is against Zionism as well as its expansionist and occupying policy. That is why he managed to declare to the world with courage that there is no place for the Zionist regime in the world civilized community."

It's no wonder that such opinions do not go down particularly well with the ideas of the centers of power in the Western world. But for this reason they are not wrong right away. Dealing out criticism against the aggressive policy of the Western world, to which Israel belongs as well, is not yet anti-Semitism. We should at least to give audience to this kind of criticism - even if it is a problematic field for us.

2006-02-11 Ahmadinejad said according to IRNA: "[...] the real holocaust should be sought in Palestine, where the blood of the oppressed nation is shed every day and Iraq, where the defenceless Muslim people are killed daily. [...] 'Some western governments, in particular the US, approve of the sacrilege on the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), while denial of the >Myth of Holocaust

. (0)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 4:05 pm
For the love of God, if you who responded would have listened to the news today, all your presumptions would have been eliminated. Israel has not intent on invading Iran. If they develop nuclear capabilities, they will be watched. Story over.
By the way, for Michael Dewey, Israel is not "so called."

Jelica R (144)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 7:01 pm
The case against war with Iran

George Galloway vs. war mongering parrot

Jelica R (144)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 7:14 pm
Carola May (15) Saturday December 3, 2011, 6:38 am
"... None of you Jew/Israel haters here has answered the question earlier ..."

If you feel so strongly about it, post something we can talk about. Don't force off-topic issues on this post. And NO NAME CALLING!

Topic here is "Obscene: Using the Holocaust to Justify War With Iran", and the article at Huffington Post starts with:

The drums of war with Iran will be beating loudly in the three months leading up to AIPAC's policy conference early next March. The Republican candidates for president (with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul) will try to outdo each other in professing devotion to Israel coupled with calls to inflict more "crippling sanctions" on Iran while pledging to keep the war option "on the table."

The White House will dispatch deputies throughout the country to assure Democratic donors that the president is as hawkish on Iran as any Republican and that the war option is on his table, too.

The AIPAC conference itself, with more than half the Congress in attendance, plus the president, will be all about the Iranian threat. Speaker after speaker will claim that Iran is on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons that would be used to finish the work Hitler began.

To stay on-topic, please simply read that article.

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 10:22 pm
Thank you Alisa.

Parsifal S (96)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 11:08 pm

Beatrice B.
You quote the NYT:

A 100% Zionist paper in a media landscape of 96 % Zionist owned media.
No wonder why they had to change Mr. Achmadinejads speech for their benefit.

But - Beatrice - have you any reliable source to quote?

And what does this, your comment has to do with the topic's headline?

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Sunday December 4, 2011, 12:59 am
Allan, The leaders of Israel are the same exact kind of people who killed their last king. So they are so called children of Abraham, would would not know his deeds if they were done to them.

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Monday December 5, 2011, 1:52 am
Patrica and EDW. Why did the Lamb say in Luke 21:20 that in these times Jerusalem would be surrounded by Armies, for her desolation to be at hand? As is said in Jeremiah 23, from the prophets if Jerusalem and America's right wing nuts, pollution has spread throughout the world.

Ken D (32)
Monday December 5, 2011, 4:50 am
@patrica and edw jones

If 'Israel' is a really a democracy then I'm really Santa Clause! LOL!

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Monday December 5, 2011, 5:04 am
I'd be right behind Israel if they had a King on David's Throne as wise as Solomon. It appears a strange mix to me, that the Christians defend them, yet Israel has yet to admit it killed its last king. And why should Israel care for the Christian Church, when its faith is built on Israel killing its last king?

Past Member (0)
Monday December 5, 2011, 5:08 am
@ Patricia and Edw Jones - Why so much anger in people having a different perspective than yours? As for the "only democracy in the ME", the "only democracy" is behaving very non democratic. Perhaps you should read this, Clinton concerned over Israeli democracy, before you defend Israeli policy.

Micahel Dewey (1021)
Monday December 5, 2011, 5:19 am
US, Israel increasingly isolated in ME

Past Member (0)
Monday December 5, 2011, 5:53 am
Thanks Michael. What is really remarkable is the statement from the newscaster who stated "While in office it is quite unprecedented for someone to come out like this and to criticize Israel". Why is it so unprecedented for a country that flaunts international law, is introducing severe antidemocratic legislation in its country to be criticized? This is part of the problem, the years and years of the US not applying the same standards of behavior to Israel as it does to all the other countries in the world.

patrica and edw jones (190)
Monday December 5, 2011, 7:35 pm
Alisa - if you read history - recent or past - you would not have to ask that question. Comprende? Shabbat shalom.

Past Member (0)
Monday December 5, 2011, 7:39 pm
It was a rhetorical question and if you understood the history, you wouldn't be supporting Israel's policies.

patrica and edw jones (190)
Monday December 5, 2011, 7:50 pm
Israel has tried many times to initiate peace talks - and if you anti septic people read or listen to the news you will recall recently that Abbas stated(covertly) he wanted Israel annihilated and Iran is constantly threatening Israel with war. Now consider this - Israel being the tiny scrap of country that it is - surrounded by baying wolves out for its blood- any sane person would say that Israel must defend its borders come what may. Israel does not go out of its way to provoke confrontation - the opposite is true - or contravene any international laws.
Shabbat Shalom.

patrica and edw jones (190)
Monday December 5, 2011, 7:59 pm
Jess and Chachi D sent a personal message to us - and blocked our reply. They claim to be supporters of Israel- but that being the case they have not propertly understood our comments. Now I doubt they are supporters at all.

Jelica R (144)
Monday December 5, 2011, 8:26 pm
patrica and edw jones (186), Monday December 5, 2011, 12:54 am
"The ugly ignorance and hatred of this band of unholy brothers and sisters coming together once again to feed their bull sh......g egos - beggars belief. ..."

Let's resume: here is a blanket accusation of "unholy brothers and sisters"; who are "ugly ignorant and hatred", so that they "coming together once again to feed their bull sh......g egos - beggars belief."

Names, please! Who are they? Next, provide some proof of their "ugly ignorance" and "hate". Citations of their "feeding their bull sh......g egos - beggars belief." would be in order, too.

Do you want to insult everybody commenting on this post and call it "a discussion"? Manners, please! Prove your claims or apologize.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 6, 2011, 1:08 am
They never will. They are hateful people, I'm afriad.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 6, 2011, 1:11 am
In the meantime:--

NOVEMBER 11, 2011
By Dave Gahary

http://americanfree ?p=1390

Rachel Corrie’s brutal murder by the operator of an Israeli Defense Force bulldozer in 2003 shone the light on her hometown, Olympia, Wash., that has a long history of social activism. Perhaps infused with her fighting spirit, a local business has picked up Olympia’s tradition by banning products made in Israel. Olympia Food Co-op’s (OFC) 10-member board voted in favor of the boycott in July 2010 as a way to “compel Israel to follow international law and respect Palestinian human rights.” Israeli products removed include crackers, ice cream cones and moisturizing cream.

OFC isn’t picking solely on Israel. Whaling and human rights violations led to its boycott of products from Norway and China.

Spearheaded by officials of the Israeli government, five people, including several Jewish attorneys, filed civil lawsuit in September alleging that the boycott was unfair and violated the co-op’s rules and bylaws. Interestingly, three of the five complainants actually tried to run for election to OFC’s board of directors but each lost by substantial margins.

Last week, a motion to strike the lawsuit filed by OFC’s attorneys, including lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights, asserts that the complaint is what is known as a “SLAPP,” or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, which is illegal in Washington.

According to the group Olympia Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, SLAPP lawsuits are “a form of legal and financial intimidation used to undermine social and environmental justice movements by penalizing political participation and free speech.” A hearing is set for Jan. 13.

Electronic Intifada (EI), the pro-Palestinian group responsible for fingering Israeli government involvement in the U.S. lawsuit, is in the vanguard of these types of battles. According to its website, EI “focuses on Palestine, its people, politics, culture and place in the world.”

The EI report, which revealed the Israeli Consul General for the Pacific Northwest’s involvement with the lawsuit, also revealed the involvement of the Los Angeles based pro-Israel group StandWithUs, which has been behind other efforts to strangle Americans’ right to free speech.

The report “uncovered plans by StandWithUs to file a federal civil rights complaint against Evergreen State College, the alma mater of Rachel Corrie, in an attempt to suppress campus Palestine solidarity activism.” Additionally, “Similar complaints have been filed against the University of California- Santa Cruz and Columbia University, as part of a strategy masterminded by pro-Israel activist and former U.S. government official Kenneth Marcus.”

In a press release, one of OFC’s attorneys explained the importance of defending the lawsuit: “Our nation was born in the middle of a boycott of British goods, and boycotts have played an important role over the centuries in our system of freedom of expression.”

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 6, 2011, 5:12 am
Israel, upon application is signatory to the UN Charter and promises to abide by the UN Security Council Resolutions. Israel obviously doesn't.


"On behalf of the State of Israel, I, Moshe Shertok, Minister for Foreign Affairs, being duly authorized by the State Council of Israel, declare that the State of Israel hereby unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertake to honour them from the day when it becomes a member of the United Nations."

UN Charter (1945)

Article 25. The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

1. Acquisition of Territory through Force

UN Charter (1945)

Article 2. The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
Paragraph 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations (1970)

PRINCIPLE I: The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Hague Regulations IV (1907)

Article 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Article 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

Geneva Conventions IV (1949)

Article 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Article 54. The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience.

2. Right of Return

Hague Regulations IV (1907)

Article 20. After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Geneva Conventions IV (1949)

Article 45. Protected persons shall not be transferred to a Power which is not a party to the Convention.
This provision shall in no way constitute an obstacle to the repatriation of protected persons, or to their return to their country of residence after the cessation of hostilities.

Article 46. In so far as they have not been previously withdrawn, restrictive measures taken regarding protected persons shall be cancelled as soon as possible after the close of hostilities.

Restrictive measures affecting their property shall be cancelled, in accordance with the law of the Detaining Power, as soon as possible after the close of hostilities.

Article 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)

Article 5. In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:
(d) Other civil rights, in particular:
(i) The right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State;

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

Article 12.
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

Geneva Conventions Protocols I (1977), article 85:

Article 85. Repression of breaches of this Protocol

4. In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:

(b) unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war or civilians;

5. Without prejudice to the application of the Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes.

3. Hague Regulations IV (1907),Illegality of Occupier to Significantly Change Local Existent Laws

Article 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

4. Military and Occupation Forces required to respect religious, educational and cultural institutions, allow for ministers of religion to preach and give religious counsel to civilians

Hague Regulations IV (1907)

Article 18. Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete liberty in the exercise of their religion, including attendance at the services of whatever church they may belong to, on the sole condition that they comply with the measures of order and police issued by the military authorities.
Article 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

Article 56. The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.

Geneva Conventions IV (1949)

Article 30. Apart from the visits of the delegates of the Protecting Powers and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, provided for by Article 143, the Detaining or Occupying Powers shall facilitate, as much as possible, visits to protected persons by the representatives of other organizations whose object is to give spiritual aid or material relief to such persons.

Article 38. With the exception of special measures authorized by the present Convention, in particularly by Article 27 and 41 thereof, the situation of protected persons shall continue to be regulated, in principle, by the provisions concerning aliens in time of peace. In any case, the following rights shall be granted to them:

(3) they shall be allowed to practise their religion and to receive spiritual assistance from ministers of their faith.
Article 58. The Occupying Power shall permit ministers of religion to give spiritual assistance to the members of their religious communities.

The Occupying Power shall also accept consignments of books and articles required for religious needs and shall facilitate their distribution in occupied territory.

Article 76. Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein. They shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtaining in prisons in the occupied country.

They shall also have the right to receive any spiritual assistance which they may require.

Article 78. If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment.

Article 86. The Detaining Power shall place at the disposal of interned persons, of whatever denomination, premises suitable for the holding of their religious services.

Article 93. Internees shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the services of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the detaining authorities.

Ministers of religion who are interned shall be allowed to minister freely to the members of their community. For this purpose the Detaining Power shall ensure their equitable allocation amongst the various places of internment in which there are internees speaking the same language and belonging to the same religion. Should such ministers be too few in number, the Detaining Power shall provide them with the necessary facilities, including means of transport, for moving from one place to another, and they shall be authorized to visit any internees who are in hospital. Ministers of religion shall be at liberty to correspond on matters concerning their ministry with the religious authorities in the country of detention and, as far as possible, with the international religious organizations of their faith. Such correspondence shall not be considered as forming a part of the quota mentioned in Article 107. It shall, however, be subject to the provisions of Article 112.

When internees do not have at their disposal the assistance of ministers of their faith, or should these latter be too few in number, the local religious authorities of the same faith may appoint, in agreement with the Detaining Power, a minister of the internees' faith or, if such a course is feasible from a denominational point of view, a minister of similar religion or a qualified layman. The latter shall enjoy the facilities granted to the ministry he has assumed. Persons so appointed shall comply with all regulations laid down by the Detaining Power in the interests of discipline and security.

Article 142. Subject to the measures which the Detaining Powers may consider essential to ensure their security or to meet any other reasonable need, the representatives of religious organizations, relief societies, or any other organizations assisting the protected persons, shall receive from these Powers, for themselves or their duly accredited agents, all facilities for visiting the protected persons, for distributing relief supplies and material from any source, intended for educational, recreational or religious purposes, or for assisting them in organizing their leisure time within the places of internment. Such societies or organizations may be constituted in the territory of the Detaining Power, or in any other country, or they may have an international character.

Geneva Conventions Protocol I (1977)

Article 85. Repression of breaches of this Protocol

4. In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:

(d) making the clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement, for example, within the framework of a competent international organization, the object of attack, causing as a result extensive destruction thereof, where there is no evidence of the violation by the adverse Party of Article 53, subparagraph (b), and when such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives;

5. Without prejudice to the application of the Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes.

4. Illegality of Collective Punishment

Geneva Conventions IV (1949)

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Geneva Conventions (Protocol I) (1977)

Article 75. Fundamental guarantees

1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.

2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place
whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:

(a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
(i) murder;
(ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;
(iii) corporal punishment; and
(iv) mutilation;
(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
(c) the taking of hostages;
(d) collective punishments; and
(e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

5. The Occupier (or Occupant) must strike a balance between its own Military Safety and Public order against what benefits the native people with the latter being more important.

Hague Regulations IV (1907)

Article 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Geneva Conventions IV (1949)

Article 54. The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience.
This prohibition does not prejudice the application of the second paragraph of Article 51. It does not affect the right of the Occupying Power to remove public officials from their posts.

Article 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.

There is much, much more, but I think that this give a gist of the scope of the illegal actions of the Israel government and IDF upon the Palestinian people. Also, I want to point out that the term occupation is applicable and it has been shown that Israel is an occupier as per the International Court of Justice rulling of July 2004.

You want to discuss the peace process as you believe that "Israel has tried many times to initiate peace talks? Which peace talks are you referring to? Camp David, Annapolis, Madrid, Taba? Which one? Which fable do you want us to believe in?

I find it very strange that your argument contains name calling of "anti septic" and "The ugly ignorance and hatred of this band of unholy brothers and sisters coming together once again to feed their bull sh......g egos - beggars belief" as you put it. What did anyone do or state to desreve name calling for expressing their opinion? I don't quite know why you have the need to respond with name calling and character assassination, while not providing one scrap of evidence to support your arguments. It is beyond me that those who speak about "baying woves out for its blood" respond in the most uncivilized manner.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 6, 2011, 9:01 am
Sorry for the length, but there is nothing I cannot stand (which should be on my things that bug me list is people who make claims they cannot substantiate. This claim that Israel does not "contravene any international laws" is hugely amusing. Also this claim about Israel's willingness to negotiate - That is not and had never been the case. Since the peace process began, Israel has always been less willing then their Palestinian partner. You cannot negotiate peace while you are building illegal settlements.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 6, 2011, 2:31 pm
Well, people, I have been called as much and worse. I have been told what I can do with my pillow when I have criticised Zionism, I've been told I am an inadequate and asked if Zionism had caused my complexes directly.

It's anything apart from addressing the facts for the Hasbara crowd - their assertions are just that, a rewriting of history whose weft has begun to unravel.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 6, 2011, 3:05 pm
I am a little offended that someone who told me to "read history " didn't provide anything in the way of lending support to his/her argument. Darn, those dual personalities, I don't know whom I am speaking to, Why can't the facts be discussed? I think we all know the answer to that question. They don't have a clue of what the facts actually are., because if anyone even bothered to take the time to read the history, read the international law objectively, there wouldn't be an argument to begin with.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 6, 2011, 4:23 pm
It used to be the same on the Guardian newspaper TalkBoards until they were closed down. One US guy was banned for racism 34 times, but kept coming back under different usernames. The hatred that - and I hate using the cliche - spewed out ffrom the pro-Zionist faction was awful. And it got worse if you presented them with irrefutable facts until all they could say was "anti-semite" to you. It ws a lonely battle, just with me and a couple of others trying to post sensible, provable facts and all we got back was a fairy tale - but a vicious one.

I was accused 100s of times as being a fundie Muslim. I'm not, not even interested in being one as I'm an atheist, but this didn't stop them. And I was accused of being Moroccan, as if this was an insult, as I visited N Africa and the ME frequently and now live there.

Quite horrible.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 6, 2011, 4:29 pm
And on this side of the pond:--

Fighting 'hate speech' smears on Sheikh Salah
Palestinian activist Sheikh Raed Salah was barred from the UK due to unfair allegations from neo-conservatives.
Robert Lambert Last Modified: 01 Jul 2011 08:04

http://www.aljazeer opinion/2011/ 06/2011630182815 99335.html

Writing in the Guardian newspaper Hanan Zoabi, a member of the Knesset, where she represents the Balad Party, asks how Sheikh Raed Salah's "struggle for equality" has become a "form of racism?"

She is no doubt perplexed to find a fellow defender of the Palestinian liberation struggle defined as a 'hate-preacher' by the British Government. "Since when" she pleads, "have states that boast of their democratic credentials acquired the right to arrest people for their political views?"

To answer Zoabi's questions and to explain the extraordinary decisions to ban, arrest and deport the Palestinian leader Sheikh Raed Salah from Britain it is necessary to understand the long standing role of influential pro-Israel, neo-conservative lobby groups in Westminster and Washington.

The best place to start is 9/11. As we approach the tenth anniversary of al-Qaeda's terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon it has become fashionable to suggest that the worst excesses of the war on terror are behind us.

In truth, the pro-Israel, neo-conservative architects of the war on terror in Washington will be celebrating their ongoing success in falsely conflating a war against Palestinian resistance with what might otherwise have been a legitimate counter-terrorism strategy against al-Qaeda terrorists.

A key ingredient in this success has been to adopt the powerful and pejorative term 'hate-preacher' to describe leaders of Palestinian resistance against Israeli oppression and to put them in the same category as al-Qaeda terrorists.

Although taking their cue from sister think-tanks like Middle East Forum in Washington, Westminster based lobby groups and their media acolytes including Policy Exchange, Henry Jackson Society and the Centre for Social Cohesion, have been at the forefront of a decade long campaign to reduce Palestinian resistance leaders to the same status as al-Qaeda terrorists.

When the Washington based cheerleader for the war on terror Daniel Pipes came to Westminster in 2006 to chastise Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London at the time, for inviting Sheikh Yusef al Qaradawi to London, he insisted that politicians in Westminster should adopt a tougher response to 'hate preachers' like Qaradawi. Policy Exchange led the Westminster based campaign to endorse and cement Pipes' recommendation as policy.

Regrettably Westminster politicians like Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn, who was due to share a platform with Sheikh Raed Salah in London this week, are few and far between. Whether Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, those politicians with their hands on the levers of power in Westminster have consistently adopted pro-Israeli recommendations to denigrate Palestinian support as anti-Semitic 'hate speech'.

'Hate speech' and 'hate preacher' has also been used to conflate Palestinian resistance leaders with leaders of far right organisations like Nick Griffin of the British National Party. This invidious denigration has been aimed at Muslim leaders in Britain as well as those abroad. Dean Godson, the architect of Policy Exchange's strategy in this arena, was the first to argue that mainstream Muslim leaders in Britain who failed to condemn Palestinian resistance in the same terms as al-Qaeda terrorism were on par with racist leaders like Griffin.

Established visitors to Britain like popular Muslim speaker Zakir Naik have also fallen foul of this same policy to ban 'hate preachers'. Naik's case in particular highlights the double standard that is being applied to the detriment of Muslim leaders in and outside Britain. It is inconceivable to think that a charismatic religious speaker of any other faith would have been banned from Britain for saying exactly the same as Naik.

Since British Home Secretary Theresa May unveiled a tough new 'Prevent' strategy last month that aims to crackdown on 'extremists' it has become inevitable that the pro-Israel, neo-con think-tanks in Westminster would become pro-active in their efforts to highlight candidates for exclusion like Sheikh Raed Salah. They will be delighted with the outcome, notwithstanding an apparent administrative slip up that initially allowed Sheikh Salah to enter Britain without question.

It is the great success of the pro-Israel, neo conservative lobby in Washington and Westminster that they have achieved an exceptional status for Palestinian and Muslim leaders. The war on terror has provided them with perfect cover.

However, Sheikh Salah and his supporters may have the last laugh. The British judiciary remains a thorn in the side of Westminster politicians who attempt to side step legal process in the name of the war on terror – or now, as part of a strategy to prevent extremism and hate speech as this counter-subversion strategy has been re-branded. If he is allowed to appeal the deportation decision, a British judge may well take the view that Sheikh Salah has far more in common with Nelson Mandela than the late Osama bin Laden or Nick Griffin.

Anger and frustration with Israeli oppression is hardly the same as unwarranted hatred of a minority or majority community of any kind.

Moreover, it is widely understood in Britain that Mandela's resort to terrorism against the apartheid regime in South Africa is inherently distinguishable from al-Qaeda's development of the same terrorist tactic. Former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband went further and suggested that the terrorist tactics of Mandela's group, the African National Congress, could be morally justified.

However, unlike Palestinian and Muslim leaders since 9/11, Mandela has never been asked to renounce the political grievances that prompted his resort to terrorism – merely the tactic of terrorism. The same is true of former Sin Fein and IRA leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness who remain staunch Irish republicans to this day.

It is difficult to find anything in Sheikh Salah's so-called hate speech that would not have occasioned an entirely opposite response from the British Home Secretary had the words been uttered by a non-Muslim visiting Britain.

It is to be hoped that common sense will prevail in this case. If Sheikh Salah is able to share future platforms with the London MP Jeremy Corbyn they will form a strong alliance against political injustice which is the only sound basis for public safety in the age of al-Qaeda inspired terrorism. Corbyn has demonstrated how effective Palestinians such as Mohammed Sawlaha have been against al-Qaeda propagandists in London. Together Corbyn and Salah offer justice and hope against the real purveyors of hate speech in Westminster and Washington.

Dr Robert Lambert is Co-Director of the European Muslim Research Centre and the University of Exeter and author of Countering al-Qaeda in London which will be published by Hurst in September 2011.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 6, 2011, 5:52 pm
Thanks for the post John!

Jelica R (144)
Tuesday December 6, 2011, 8:03 pm
I think that UK has a "Tzipi Livni Act". Remember when she cancelled a visit to UK because she could be arrested and interrogated for Cast Lead involvement. How low can a democracy go?

About those accusations I've commented yesterday; I decided not to flag them any more. Let Pat & co stand up and testify about their character and humanity. Let them show who they are. If I ever portray Pat & co like they present themselves, I bet they will explode thru the roof and demand that care2 send a squat team to get me. Leaving the ugly comment saves me lots of trouble. Also, there is some gloomy satisfaction in leaving particularly ugly comment for everybody to read.


Jelica R (144)
Tuesday December 6, 2011, 8:15 pm
The Clash; Safe European Home

Second album!


Past Member (0)
Wednesday December 7, 2011, 2:21 am
Jelica R.

I am saddened to report that our new government changed this act a short while ago after strong pressure from the US and the Zionist lobby. The universal jurisdiction law still stands, but an individual or an organisation can no longer make the arrest application on their own behalf - the Attorney General must do it for them. This means that, in practise, he will disallow complaints and not apply on (possibly) spurious grounds, such as the parties not having a sufficient interest or for matters of public policy/interest. His decision would still be open to challenge, but by then, Lipni or whoever would be safely out of the country again.

And Belgium has done a similar thing after the US quite openly stated that they would remove all US participation in NATO and international bodies taking place there unless the law was changed.

pete O (242)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 6:30 am
Damn those anti Semetic knesset members wanting to bomb the Jews in Iran all the time -there should be a law about that going about creating new holocausts !!!

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 9:10 am
Well, the day that Iran is attacked by the Zionist Entity is the day that 1000s of innocent Jews will be massacred all over the world, along with innocent Iranians. I care about these people dying but the Zionist regime does not.

SANDRA R (145)
Friday December 9, 2011, 3:17 am
Thank you for the article Ken.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.