Netanyahu uses his pals Sarkozy and Miliband to bury Goldstone report

al-Manar reports:

“A joint French-British UN initiative would call on Israel and the Palestinians to hold immediate, independent investigations into war crimes allegations stemming from the war in Gaza, as part of a bid to send the Goldstone report back to Geneva and out of the hands of the Security Council or the International Criminal Court at The Hague,” Haaretz reported Tuesday.

The proposal comes before the United Nations General Assembly is scheduled Wednesday to deliberate on the Goldstone report on the Israeli war in the Gaza Strip earlier this year. A source at the Israeli Foreign Ministry in occupied Jerusalem said that French President Nicolas Sarkozy informed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the details of the initiative during a telephone conversation.

Netanyahu asked the French President to take action among European Union partners in an effort to form collective opposition to any resolution at the UN on the Goldstone report.

The initiative is a list of "red lines" which was adopted by the 27 members of the European Union. Its main points:

1. A resolution brought for the approval of the General Assembly will not include operational steps, like taking the matter to the Security Council or the International Court of Justice.

2. The resolution would call on Israel and the Palestinians to embark on an independent investigation into the events of Operation Cast Lead, and the allegations of war crimes.

3. The handling of the Goldstone report will return to the Human Rights Council, the UN body in Geneva. The parties will have to report to the council on the findings of their investigations in a few months.

According to the Foreign Ministry source, the document was delivered yesterday by the British and French permanent representatives at the UN to the Palestinian Authority delegation at the international body, as well as the representatives of Arab states, and the members of the Security Council.

Arab representatives at the UN are expected to complete Tuesday the first draft of a resolution that will be brought to the General Assembly for a vote. That report accused Israel of war crimes and was prepared by a UN fact-finding commission led by South African jurist Richard Goldstone.

The French and British has emphasized in their exchanges with the Arab representatives that if the "red lines" are not part of the resolution being prepared, the European Union will abstain, and may even vote against it - and expects that much of the international community will too.

"If you agree to go for a simple resolution which calls on Israel to carry out an investigation you will receive full support," a source familiar with the proposal said. "However, if you attempt to go further there will be at least 60 abstentions and only 120 votes in support."

Any resolution the Palestinians put forth will receive a large majority, but there is great importance to the weight of EU votes, and other countries who will vote in line with the EU.

Assessments in Israel hold that there is little chance the Palestinians will agree to the Franco-British proposal and Tel Aviv wants any resolution torpedoed.

Meanwhile, the Arab draft resolution, obtained by Reuters, says the assembly "requests the Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon to transmit the report ... to the Security Council." It also urges Israel and the Palestinians to comply with the report's recommendations for launching investigations into allegations of war crimes.

The draft also tells Ban to report back to the assembly within three months on implementation of the resolution. Arab and Western diplomats told Reuters there was little doubt a majority of the General Assembly would vote in favor of the Arab draft. But negotiations were underway as Arab delegates sought to persuade Western powers to back the text.

Western diplomats said the United States would most likely vote against the resolution. Unless it is revised, they said, most European delegations would join Washington and reject it.

Resolutions of the General Assembly, unlike those of the Security Council, are nonbinding. But UN diplomats say such a resolution would intensify pressure on Israel to launch a full investigation into the actions of its army during the war. The Goldstone report lambasted both sides in the war, but was harsher toward Israel.

The Arab draft resolution does not explicitly endorse a Human Rights Council resolution from last month that censured Israel for its actions in the Gaza war without referring to any “wrongdoing” by Hamas. The United States voted against that resolution while France and Britain abstained from the vote.

But it does endorse an HRC report that included the resolution. Sudan's UN Ambassador Abdalmahmoud Abdalhaleem said it amounted to a full endorsement of the HRC resolution. "It endorses the Human Rights Council resolution, that is the point," he told Reuters. "And it exposes the double standards that some permanent Security Council members have towards the occupying power (Israel) in Palestine."

Several Western diplomats told Reuters the Arab draft was "unacceptable" because of its endorsement of the HRC actions and for requesting Security Council intervention. Abdalhaleem said the Arabs had rejected an earlier European draft that said the General Assembly would merely "take note" of the Goldstone report and pass the issue back to the HRC.

Zionism and the Colonization of Language

by Roger Tucker

Part 1 - Misplaced Concreteness

Martin Luther famously said that "reason is the Devil's greatest whore." This fundamental insight into the subservience of the intellect to the emotions must be at the heart of any discussion of the manipulation of language to serve particular interests. In the ancient Hellenistic world this was well understood, giving rise to the numerous schools of Rhetoric that taught aspiring politicians and the like their art. Many centuries later, the Jesuits honed this knowledge and skill into a powerful instrument to combat the Reformation. In Renaissance Italy, Machiavelli schooled the powerful in this art of persuasion, combining it with other means of accomplishing one's ends that most people recognize as the modus operandi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_operandi of the Mafia. As we know, the supreme practitioners of this craft nowadays are the Zionists, whose main purpose has been to pull off and sustain one of the most audacious real estate heists in history. In order to do so they had to colonize the consciousness of the West, something that could only be accomplished through a deliberate perversion and manipulation of language to serve their purpose.

As the purpose of this exercize is to discuss how language is used to distort rather than reveal the truth, with attention to the specific case of Zionism, we need to begin by defining our terms. So, let's start by asking who are the Zionists, as opposed to other collective terms such as "the Jews," or "the Israelis." These terms are often conflated, because they have overlapping boundaries, but they do have different referents. All of these terms are very slippery because they refer to abstractions, general categories rather than things that actually exist. When we say "a chair" we are referring to something non-specific that is presumably bounded by such a category, but if we say "that chair" we are referring to a particular object with all of its unique characteristics.

When we say "Zionists," who are we referring to? Jews who actively support Israel, passively support Israel, "Christians" eagerly awaiting the Rapture, complicit goyim like Dick Cheney, Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton, or what? It's an abstraction, a broad sweep of the brush that covers a lot of ground but is inherently vague. In linguistic terms such words have "fuzzy boundaries," as do all words that refer to classifications of things or people, as opposed to particular examples of such a class. Even Linnaean taxonomy, the effort to properly classify all living things, continues to evolve, with its categories constantly mutating. The misuse of language and the resulting confusion almost always starts with the solidifying of abstract concepts. Technically, this is referred to as "reification," or "misplaced concreteness," and it's as common as dirt.

To proceed with some definitions, let's start with "Zionism." Briefly, it is the collection of interlocking concepts, stories, rationalizations and myths that provided the intellectual foundation for establishing the State of Israel and since then has sustained it rhetorically. That is the nature and function of an "ideology," a conceptual framework that constitutes a particular political view. "Zionists," then, are people who have adopted that view, who believe (quite often for very different and conflicting reasons) that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state was legitimate and that it continues to have a moral and legal right to exist.

The broad class of ideologies to which Zionism belongs is fascism, a term that is both widely used and misunderstood. Let us consider the meaning of the word "fascism." The dictionary definition doesn't help us much as it associates the word with the particular eruption of fascism in Europe in the 20th Century. But the fascisti of Mussolini's Italy and the Nazis of Hitler's Germany were manifesting a phenomenon that dates from the first attempts of human beings to figure out their place in the world, an effort which required the use of language. Language evolved as a means of distinguishing "this" from "that," the most basic function of communication. Certain sounds became associated with particular things, but these "things" were not really things; they were classes of things. Some of these classes of things referred to material objects, like stones and trees, or tigers and mammoths. Other utterances classified sensations, like hot and cold, soft and hard. Still others, probably the last to develop at this stage, expressed emotions such as like and dislike, want or don't want. But the most fundamental distinction was the one between "self" and "other," me and you. This was a necessary and very useful building block of language, but the unnecessary and mistaken solidification of these basic concepts has bedeviled humanity ever since.

Along with the differentiation between self and other came the natural extention of those constructs into "us" and "them." Again, the terms had enormous utility, but most of the confusion and conflict in human societies arises from the reification of these concepts. Misunderstood, solidified, they set one against the other and tribe against tribe, nation against nation. All of the great spiritual traditions, including the great Western tradition of secular humanism, each in their own way, point this out.

The solidified notion of self is referred to as "ego," the concept that oneself and others are independent, self-existing, continuous entities. This fundamental example of misplaced concreteness lies at the root of human suffering. Sigmund Freud made an audacious stab at unraveling the underlying cause of mental suffering, which he misidentified as infantile sexuality, but he famously acknowledged that the best that his method could accomplish was to return people to a state of ordinary, manageable neurosis. He just didn't look deeply enough. He was looking in the right place, the early stage of life during which the notion of ego arises and solidifies, but he didn't recognize it as a natural by-product of language acquisition. Without language there are no concepts, only feelings, and without concepts there is no way to make the distinction between self and other, and thus no self-consciousness. Once the notion of self solidifies into ego, it becomes possible to take the next step, which is to reify the notion of "us" as opposed to "them."

Our concern here is not with individual human psychology, but with the political phenomenon of fascism. If we don't understand fascism then we can't understand Zionism, of which it is a speciaI case, and to understand fascism we have to dig deep. It has been said that politics is what happens when two or more people get together. The primitive impulse that gives rise to fascism is what happens when two or more people form themselves into a group that first distinguishes itself from others and then asserts its dominance over them. In its everyday, innocuous manifestation, it is the mindset of sports fans rooting for "their" team. When this assertion comes with a full-blown ideology, an elaborate rationalization for exerting organized power over others, it has evolved into fascism. Fascism is group ego writ large, and it requires the creation of a group identity, so that we can distinguish between "us" and "them" in the first place. Street gangs are formed on the basis of geography; the notion of defending "our" turf from the kids from neighboring streets. There is a great variety of possible group identities. They can be generally classified based on factors like ethnicity, "race," nationality, language, religion, economic status, even gender. It starts, innocently enough, with identification with our immediate family, and spreads from there to kin, clan, neighborhood, tribe, nation and so forth. First and foremost it depends on the reification of the notion of "Us," the linguistic trap we have been discussing.

Normally we think of fascism as a phenomenon associated with the political right, but it is found equally on the left. The French Revolution depended on the emergence of a group identity among the underclass, "the people." That constituted the Us, which was then able to set itself against the aristocracy, who had long since lost their martial prowess, the original basis of their privileged position. Accordingly, they soon lost their heads. Karl Marx, updating those ideas to accommodate the conditions of the succeeding century, postulated the existence of a "working class," consisting of the people who worked in the rapidly proliferating industrial factories. This identification of a new tribe, purely an intellectual construct, required an opposing group, who were discovered to be the "owners of the means of production." Marx borrowed most of his intellectual furniture from his teacher Hegel, who had pioneered the notion of historical determinism to apotheosize the Prussian Junker state. Marxist musings, based on the "scientific" notion of dialectical materialism, then blossomed in the 20th Century into various mutations resulting in the Soviet Union, Communist China and various other instances of left-wing fascist states.

The etymology of the word "fascism" derives from the Etruscan language, ironically enough, a people who were conquered and more or less erased by the Romans, a settler-colonialist tribe from which Italian Fascismo drew its mythology and symbolism. It was initially depicted as a bound sheaf of wheat (fasces), symbolizing the bounty of the harvest, planted, tended and finally gathered by the tribal collective. As such, it has both a secular and a religious significance. The Romans then utilized it in the design of a staff of authority, embellished now with a naked blade, employed by those empowered to collect taxes and perform other services for the state. The image of the Roman fasces is a common motif in government sponsored design in a number of Western countries, particularly in the U.S. (I prefer my version to the one presented in the Wikipedia link, but the idea is clear enough either way).

Returning to the notions of Zionism, and now armed with an understanding of how tribal/group identification can turn nasty, we can take a closer look at the mixture of historical and mythological language that supports the infrastructure of this particular manifestation of fascism. Zionism developed among European Jews, starting in the late 19th Century, as an answer to "the Jewish Problem." The problem, boiled down to its essence, was that Jews were a generally distrusted and despised minority in all the European countries to which they had wandered, subjected to numerous restrictions on their freedom of activity, dispossession, random violence, and, something like 39 times, mass expulsion. What happened to Jews under the Third Reich, if that number is correct, was the 40th iteration of this understandably depressing pattern. It was the development of Zionism over a period of some 50 years up until the 1930's, the construction of a political movement to establish a Jewish homeland (presumably a place where they could only be tormented by one another), combined with the occurrence of the Shoah, which turned a rather outlandish, even laughable, scheme into a virulent reality, one that has become a grave danger to the continued existence of the human race, even more threatening than global warming, AIDS and so forth. Like the latter, it is a pandemic, but this one is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, and has demonstrated a totally ruthless propensity to destroy anyone perceived as "the enemy," no matter what the cost. When Israel is finally surrounded by nothing but enemies (all, by the way, of their own making) will be the time of greatest danger.

Who, then, were "the Jews," also known as "the Jewish People?" Because such classifications are abstractions, there can be no clearcut answer. On October 19th, the English translation of Israeli historian Shlomo Sand's book, 'The Invention of the Jewish People,' will (has - VS) become available. This book effectively demolishes the notion that there was any such thing until it was cobbled together about 150 years ago as the essential building block in the construction of the Zionist ideology. The notion of "the Jews" is derived from the linguistic misperception that we have been talking about, the solidification of an abstract generalization. The Nazis created a definition based on parentage, going back in some cases several generations. They themselves were under the impression that they were "Aryans," a wholly mythical people which, like the notion of the Jewish people was pretty much invented out of whole cloth. Much of the confusion about such things derived from attempts by students of the new discipline of anthropology in the 19th Century to establish the notion of "race," a term meant to separate all of humanity into specific ethnic groups for the purpose of analysis by academics under the impression that they were doing "science.". The idea of "race" was promptly solidified into something that actually exists and has bedeviled humanity ever since. So much for "social science," a vague and ever mutating set of academic disciplines replete with numerous examples of misplaced concreteness and usually gussied up with highly dubious statistics, mind-numbing jargon and elaborate grant proposals.

The Zionist ideology depends on the presumed existence of "the Jewish People," so the ideas are interlocked. However, many so-called Jews (like the author of this piece) are quite adamantly anti-Zionist, so it is obvious that the two ideas are not congruent. As the old syllogism goes, all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs. To complicate matters further, the majority of Zionists are not even Jews; the number of "Christian" Zionists is purported to be somewhere upwards of 50 million in the U.S. alone, far outnumbering the world population of "Jews" (however one chooses to define them). The whole thing gets quite surrealistic when "the Jews" try to define themselves. The State of Israel, deferring to the Israeli representatives of the equally non-existent "Jewish Religion," determined that a Jew is someone whose mother was a Jew. Simple enough, eh? But the ever lurking "demographic problem" forced this definition to mutate, so that now the Israelis, as in so much else, have simply imitated the Nazis, requiring that at least someone in the family, way back when, was Jewish. Logically, that would mean that all the Palestinians would instantly become legally Jewish, but that of course isn't going to happen. Instead, the definition includes only Europeans willing to claim Jewish ancestry (in practice, this meant many thousands of people from the former Soviet Union who made at least some vague claim to have "Jewish" antecedents. They could be relied upon to support the Zionist State and fight "the enemy," which was the whole point of the exercize.

When looked at linguistically, much of the fabric that constitutes the underlying rationale for their being a Jewish State in the first place simply falls apart, like the white suit" in that wonderful old film starring Alec Guiness. Much the same thing happened in South Africa, when the Afrikaaners, who interestingly enough, in their own tribal mythology thought of themselves as the Lost (or Thirteenth) Tribe of Israel, were forced to create legal distinctions between "White," "Colored," and "Black." Given those good old fuzzy boundaries, the Japanese (a First World people given to trading with anyone - kind of like the Chinese nowadays - and therefore seen as "friendly") were obligingly classified as "White." South Africa during Apartheid, like Nazi Germany, offers wonderful analogies and precedents regarding the problem of Israel, because it was so recent, and the situations are so similar, almost congruent. The whole Rube Goldberg contraption of Israel would instantly crumble if it had the same enemies as So. Africa then had, whose only consistent ally (other than Rhodesia, the neighboring white European supremacist state) was - guess who - the State of Israel - two peas in a pod. But at the time, the whole of the Western World, in its typically self-righteous and hypocritical way, was solidly unified against the Nationalists (they had no oil, no nuclear weapons, and no powerful allies), so the whole structure just collapsed (after a little prodding, but it didn't take that much - the handwriting was clearly on the wall). That an Israeli version of F.W. de Klerk will arise at just the right time seems unlikely, but one never knows.

One would think that the same thing would long ago have happened vis a vis the Western democracies and Israel, since Israel so closely resembles both Nazi Germany and Nationalist South Africa, but a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. The Zionists maneuvered their way into the halls of power in the West, and Israel effectively colonized the Empire. You've got to hand it to them; that was quite a trick. I strongly recommend Greg Felton's book, "The Host and the Parasite," for an excellent recap of how that came about (eBook available from the author for $18.95).

And who are "the Israelis?" The term is generally understood to refer to the residents of the State of Israel. They are a hodgepodge of people from all over the world who share the fuzzy characteristic of being "Jewish," except of course for the 20 percent of the hapless indigenous population who remain from the initial ethnic cleansing (the Nakba of 1948). The Jewish Israelis have little in common with one another but the mythical notion of belonging to a putative tribe, and now a sense of nationhood, as well as speaking a common language which was resurrected specifically for this purpose. The vast majority of them, or their recent forebears, were induced to immigrate through the machinations of the Zionists, initially a diverse group of European utopian idealists who self-identified as "Jews," the vast majority of whom felt no need to actually go there themselves. Prior to the 1940's, the Zionist enterprise had no attraction for most Jews in the West. In the meantime, the movement in Palestine was being effectively taken over by a small group of Eastern European terrorists who acquired the sobriquet of "political Zionists." Like the "Bolsheviks" in Russia (it is interesting, in terms of the perversion of language, that the Russian word means "the majority"), they were a small, single-minded group of opportunistic fanatics able to wrest control of a much larger but inchoate political movement that was unable to match them in zealotry, organization and ruthlessness. Interestingly, these people were the very Eastern European Jews who were utterly repellant to the cultivated Western European Jews, particularly the Viennese, who had invented Zionism in the first place.

The political Zionists and their descendents, whether Labor or Likud, have constituted the Israeli power elite and ruled the country since its inception in 1948. National office is reserved for those who have an unimpeachable terrorist resume or bloodline. These were the folks who lured European Jewish immigrants by playing on their understandable paranoia, as well as many thousands of Jews from the Islamic countries, where they had lived quite peaceably for centuries, through the use of agents provocateurs who were sent to stir up trouble between them and their neighbors. The marketing approach, using tactics to fit particular circumstances, was simple, "we're here to rescue you, come help to settle the Promised Land," reminiscent of the real estate speculators in the 19th Century who marketed the arid and unproductive plains of America, coincidentally already populated by innocent, indigenous people. Had it not been for the rise of Nazi Germany the whole misbegotten enterprise would have quickly dissolved into nothing more than a comical anecdote in the annals of history. The Nazis not only provided the enterprise with new life, but closely collaborated with the Zionists right up to the end of WWII . They were, after all, of a like mind.

It should be clear from the above that neither "the Jews" nor "the Israelis" are "the enemy." They are, by and large, ordinary folks who inadvertently got caught up in the appalling schemes of a small group of unscrupulous fanatics - they can mostly only be accused of guilt by association, although it is true that many Israelis, people indocrinated from birth by their power elite, have since then committed serious war crimes and crimes against humanity and continue to do so on a daily basis. Nor are we speaking of the fuzzy category of people generally labeled "Zionists." Most of them are afflicted with an infectious mental disease, of which support for Israel is the primary symptom, but otherwise are for the most part perfectly decent people, albeit in a profound state of denial. We must be careful not to label people, even Zionists, as "the enemy," or as "evil," or we ensure a continuation of the same cycle of mindless violence. It is Zionism, a deadly fascist ideology, that is evil in the same sense that cancer is evil; it causes unnecessary harm to living beings and therefore must be eradicated. In Part II of this essay we will discuss the nature and etiology of the disease. Part III will consists of the specifics for a cure.

"The world is made out of stories, not atoms." - Muriel Rukeyser

Israel lobby commits major blunder in France: tries to silence a comedian

Amazing stuff is happening in France. It all began with a relatively well-known French-Cameroonian comedian, Dieudonné M'bala M'bala was invited to participate on a TV show on the channel France 3. The show also featured a Maghrebian artist and Dieudonne decided to impersonate an extremist Israeli settled infuriated by the presence of an Arab on a French show (for those of you who understand French, you can see an excerpt of his appearance that day here).

Dieudonne who, in the past, had always enjoyed ridiculing pretty much every segment of French society clearly had never expected the hysterical uproar that his humor would trigger that day: the huge constellation of French Zionists organizations lead by the notorious CRIF ("Representative Committee of Jewish organization in France" - the French version of AIPAC) immediately attacked Dieudonne, suing him for racists comments and suing him for "anti-Semitism" (a criminal offense in France). This was hardly the first time that the French Zionist mob had decided to crush an outspoken critic of its role in French politics or its unconditional support for the last racist state on the planet: Israel. But this time, the Ziomob miscalculated, badly.

Dieudonne began making the accusations of anti-Semitism made against him a central piece of his shows. Here is a sampling of the kind of the hilarious skits Dieudonne came up with:

Les racistes anonymes

L'antisemitisme

Peuple Elue

Mes excuses premiere partie

Mes excuses deuxieme partie

J'ai fait le con

Dieudonne et Faurisson au Zenith de Paris

Dieudonne et Faurisson 1

Dieudonne et Faurisson 2

This was not at all what the Ziomobsters in France had hoped to achieve when they attacked Dieudonne for his appearance on France 3. In response to his defiant stance, they then used their total control over the French political class to shut down his shows under the pretext that they would "threaten the public order". Dieudonne immediately replied that France is capable of providing the security needed for an event like the G8 summit, but not to let one comedian make his show.

Still, while in the past he had filled the biggest concert halls in France, Dieudonne was forced to perform his skits in a rented bus (you can see a report about this here). But Dieudo, has he is known, had one more thing up his sleeve.

His logic was simple: if I cannot use my freedom of speech as a comedian, why not use it as a politician?

Dieudo had already tried one to run for office a couple of times, but he never achieved any measure of success. This time, however, he came up with a stunning argument. Basically, Dieudo claims that the Left-Right chasm is an artificial and meaningless chasm in French politics and that the real issue which separates the parties in France is their attitude towards the Zionist ideology, the state of Israel, and the role of the Israel Lobby in France. Check out his press conference here:

Conference de presse de Dieudonne 1

Conference de presse de Dieudonne 2

Conference de presse de Dieudonne 3

Conference de presse de Dieudonne 4

Needless to say, the French political elites had a total hysterical breakdown at such inpudence. Doubleplusgoodthinking reporters and commentators declared that his political party had to be banned and that Dieudonne was probably mentally insane (the latter reminds me of the old trick invented by Yuri Andropov's KGB who used to declared that Soviet dissidents were "obviously" insane because how could any mentally sane person oppose the Soviet rule: QED).

Still, Dieudo did not back down and he has recently presented some of the members of his political movement "the Anti-Zionist Movement" running as candidates for the European Parliament. Here is the press conference of this event:

Conference de presse liste UE 1

Conference de presse liste UE 2

Conference de presse liste UE 3

Conference de presse liste UE 4

Candidats du Parti anti-sioniste: presentation

What is most interesting in this list is that its candidates come from every political movement imaginable. Unionists, nationalist conservatives, Roman-Catholics, Muslims, ex-Communists, Socialists, etc. Ethnically, everybody is also present. It appears that the Zionist threat is truly uniting many of those who until recently were virulently opposed to each other.

What is the potential of this political movement?

On one hand, the entire weight of the French political establishment is now coming crashing down on Dieudonne. Every politician, every newspaper, every commentator either completely ignores Dieudonne and his movement or, when they speak of him at all, it is with a vitriolic loathing which cannot be imagined. The French newspaper even calls him a "comedian" in quotation marks, showing that such a hideous figure as Dieudonne cannot be called a comedian or somebody who makes people laugh. The fury of the establishment is such that I find it very likely that Dieudonne's political movement will be simply banned and declared a criminal organization (in France, the membership in an organization declared illegal is considered a crime in itself). If not, Dieudonne might do very, very well.

The fact is that there are literally millions of French citizens from all parts of the society who are sick and tired of being ruled by a small group of mutually interchangeable elite (all of which is 100% loyal to anything Zionist or Israeli). The fact is that in the French "banlieue" (suburbs) there are hundred of thousands of Muslims who are outraged by the events in Gaza, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the constant threats against Iran. The fact is that the economic crisis had hit France - and the rest of the Eurozone - very badly and that more and more people are making the link between the Israeli-American model of globalization and the economic collapse of the world markets. In fact, I would say tha the potential of Dieudonne's movement is huge and that it represents a very real threat to the French and, beyond that, USraelien elites in the West.

The fact that Dieudonne himself is (half) Black, and that he succeeded in federating very different currents of the French society under his stance will make it impossible to simply ignore him. Can the French political establishment engage Dieudonne and prevail over him in an open political debate? Not in a million years. Banning Dieudonne's political party will, at best, be a stop-gap solution as we can be certain that Dieudo will sue the French courts in Brussels and that, if needed, he will simply re-compose his movement under another name.

Under the infulence of the recent immigrants to France, the French society is changing and it appears that while the "native" French did not have the wits and guts to take on the Ziomob in power, those who immigrated to France do have what it takes.

It is amazing to listen to these recent immigrants defending the secular and multi-ethnics nature of the French Republic and denoucing the ethnic and tribal nature of Jewish ortanizations in France. For example, Dieudo was once asked what he thought of the attemps made by such French Blacks to create an organization which woud speak for them. Dieudo rejected this approach, saying that the organization which should speak for them should be the French Parliament. Amazing idea, no?

Thanks to Dieudonne, Zionism is now finally being denounced as a tribal and racist, ideology and suport for Israel is now becoming as morally repugnant as support for Apartheid. The entire intellectual edifice which was carefully built by the Zionists in France for many decades is not coming crashing down because once these issues are out in the open, the Ziomob has already lost the key battle. In fact, Dieudo has said that he has already won the next election.

What will happen next? Dieudonne does not take his participation in the upcoming elections too seriously. As a typical comedian, he can sit there and say "I will bring you all to the light" with a serious face. When asked if he is really serious, her replies that nobody in French politics is serious and that the difference between him the the rest of the French politicians is that they are lousy comedians whereas he is a professional.

Humor as a weapon of liberation can be very powerful. The ridicule which Dieudonne is now heaping on the previously sacred cows of French Ziopropagnda, such as the "The Eternal Memory of the Shoah" (all in caps), and all the rest of the Zionist brainwashing toolkit might well prove to be a formidable weapon for which the Ziomob does not have a standard answer.

It will be very interesting to see what happens between now and June 7th - the next election.

In the meantime, here are some links to Dieudonne's non-political skits. Enjoy!

L"equipe du 11

Avant le mariage

Apres le mariage

Le garagiste

La prison

Le journaliste premiere partie

Le journaliste deuxieme partie

L'institutrice

L'avocat

Did you know that Israel attacked Sudan in January?

Did you know that Israel attacked Sudan in January?

Probably not. After all, if democracy is the best political system money can buy, then the corporate media is the best media the Israel Lobby can buy too...

There were some reports and rumors before, but now the quasi official New York Times confirms the story.

So after bombing Syria Israel also bombed Sudan. Makes me wonder which country is next. Iran probably.

Whatever maybe the case, it is quite clear that Israel does not give a damn about international law or public opinion. Clearly, Israel's rulers realize that keeping up a facade of compliance with civilized norms of international relations has become utterly futile. Following years of criminal behavior which peaked with the building of the Wall and the rampage in Gaza, Israel has totally given up on trying to maintain an appearance of respectability. That, in itself, is an admission of defeat, a sign of weakness. Long gone is the myth of Leon Uris' like heroic Zionists who came to "make a desert green" ("an land without people for a people without land"). The Israelis now openly behave like baseball bat wielding skinheads who "proudly" display their hatred and violence. Their rabid racism and contempt for the rest of mankind is now fully in the open, "out of the closet" so to speak. Good.

Combine that with the Rahm Obama Presidency and the prognosis is clear: much, much worse to come. Soon.

Israel lurches into Fascism

by Ali Abunimah for The Electronic Intifada

Whenever Israel has an election, pundits begin the usual refrain that hopes for peace depend on the "peace camp" -- formerly represented by the Labor party, but now by Tzipi Livni's Kadima -- prevailing over the anti-peace right, led by the Likud.

This has never been true, and makes even less sense as Israeli parties begin coalition talks after Tuesday's election. Yes, the "peace camp" helped launch the "peace process," but it did much more to undermine the chances for a just settlement.

In 1993, Labor prime minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo accords. Ambiguities in the agreement -- which included no mention of "self-determination" or "independence" for Palestinians, or even "occupation" -- made it easier to clinch a short-term deal. But confrontation over irreconcilable expectations was inevitable. While Palestinians hoped the Palestinian Authority, created by the accord, would be the nucleus of an independent state, Israel viewed it as little more than a native police force to suppress resistance to continued occupation and colonial settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Collaboration with Israel has always been the measure by which any Palestinian leader is judged to be a "peace partner." Rabin, according to Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, "never thought this [Oslo] will end in a full-fledged Palestinian state." He was right.

Throughout the "peace process," Israeli governments, regardless of who led them, expanded Jewish-only settlements in the heart of the West Bank, the territory supposed to form the bulk of the Palestinian state. In the 1990s, Ehud Barak's Labor-led government actually approved more settlement expansion than the Likud-led government that preceded it headed by Benjamin Netanyahu.

Barak, once considered "dovish," promoted a bloodthirsty image in the campaign, bolstered by the massacres of Gaza civilians he directed as defense minister. "Who has he ever shot?" Barak quipped derisively about Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the proto-fascist Yisrael Beitenu party, in an attempt to paint the latter as a lightweight.

Today, Lieberman's party, which beat Labor into third place, will play a decisive role in a government. An immigrant who came to Israel from the former Soviet republic of Moldova, Lieberman was once a member of the outlawed racist party Kach that calls for expelling all Palestinians.

Yisrael Beitenu's manifesto was that 1.5 million Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel (indigenous survivors or descendants of the Palestinian majority ethnically cleansed in 1948) be subjected to a loyalty oath. If they don't swear allegiance to the "Jewish state" they would lose their citizenship and be forced from the land of their birth, joining millions of already stateless Palestinians in exile or in Israeli-controlled ghettos. In a move instigated by Lieberman but supported by Livni's allegedly "centrist" Kadima, the Knesset recently voted to ban Arab parties from participating in elections. Although the high court overturned it in time for the vote, it is an ominous sign of what may follow.

Lieberman, who previously served as deputy prime minister, has a long history of racist and violent incitement. Prior to Israel's recent attack, for example, he demanded Israel subject Palestinians to the brutal and indiscriminate violence Russia used in Chechyna. He also called for Arab Knesset members who met with officials from Hamas to be executed.

But it's too easy to make him the bogeyman. Israel's narrow political spectrum now consists at one end of the former "peace camp" that never halted the violent expropriation of Palestinian land for Jewish settlements and boasts with pride of the war crimes in Gaza, and at the other, a surging far-right whose "solutions" vary from apartheid to outright ethnic cleansing.

What does not help is brazen western hypocrisy. Already the US State Department spokesman affirmed that the Obama administration would work with whatever coalition emerged from Israel's "thriving democracy" and promised that the US would not interfere in Israel's "internal politics." Despite US President Barack Obama's sweet talk about a new relationship with the Arab world, few will fail to notice the double standard. In 2006, Hamas won a democratic election in the occupied territories, observed numerous unilateral or agreed truces that were violated by Israel, offered Israel a generation-long truce to set the stage for peace, and yet it is still boycotted by the US and European Union. Worse, the US sponsored a failed coup against Hamas and continues to arm and train the anti-Hamas militias of Mahmoud Abbas, whose term as Palestinian Authority president expired on 9 January. As soon as he took office, Obama reaffirmed this boycott of Palestinian democracy.

The clearest message from Israel's election is that no Zionist party can solve Israel's basic conundrum and no negotiations will lead to a two-state solution. Israel could only be created as a "Jewish state" by the forced removal of the non-Jewish majority Palestinian population. As Palestinians once again become the majority in a country that has defied all attempts at partition, the only way to maintain Jewish control is through ever more brazen violence and repression of resistance (see Gaza). Whatever government emerges is certain to preside over more settlement-building, racial discrimination and escalating violence.

There are alternatives that have helped end what once seemed like equally intractable and bloody conflicts: a South African-style one-person one-vote democracy, or Northern Ireland-style power-sharing. Only under a democratic system according rights to all the people of the country will elections have the power to transform people's futures.

But Israel today is lurching into open fascism. It is utterly disingenuous to continue to pretend -- as so many do -- that its failed and criminal leaders hold the key to getting out of the morass. Instead of waiting for them to form a coalition, we must escalate the international civil society campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions to force Israelis to choose a saner path.

Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006). A version of this article first appeared on the Guardian's Comment is Free website with the headline "No peace for Israel."