DUTCH REPORT…FALSE PICTURES AND JEWISH ISSUE

 

The Netherlands were involved. So therefore they commissioned a report on what happened – which turned out to be a very serious study. It was on the one hand a reactionary and pro-Imperialist pro-Capitalist report. But here is the rub. Even though it was that … it adhered to at least some basic scientific and scholarly principles. For example it sources where it gets its information from. And this is why the “Dutch Report” was hated by all the liars of the Media who had demonised the Serbs. Mind you there is enough of that too in the Dutch Report. But the fact that it was based on other principles means that it is possible to see the truth through their bias, whereas the Media were just out and out liars. With educational issues in mind we will reprint some parts and also comment on them. I will also signpost later how you can read the whole thing. This work has almost disappeared from the net.

The British ITN team along with Vulliamy searched and searched but could not find the “concentration camp” demanded by their editors – who in turn were under orders from US and British/EU Imperiamism. Then they created the “Picture that fooled the world” based on a Bosnian Serb man Fikret Aliu who suffered not from hunger but from a congenital disease. The men above are not imprisoned anywhere nor would two wobbly strands of barbed wire on top of loose chicken wire (below) hold in a baby.

Part I The Yugoslavian problem and the role of the West 1991-1994

Chapter 6 Emotionalization of the debate following reports about the camps (‘Omarska’): June 1992 – August 1992

  1. Trnopolje: the famous pictures

‘Ironically, the first television images that shocked the world came from Trnopolje, the ‘best’ camp. No one ever saw the worst camps when they were at their worst.’[1]

When the British journalists were held up by red tape in Belgrade for several days, they took the opportunity to visit two of the camps in Serbia which were on the list of 94 plus 11 and to film there: the recreation centre at Loznica, where according to the list 1380 prisoners were detained and Subotica, where there were said to be 5000. However, both of these turned out to be purely refugee camps, in which Serbs were also accommodated. On 3 August the British journalists were able to fly from Belgrade to Pale. There they managed to obtain permission from Karadzic, who in the meantime had returned from London, to visit Omarska and Trnopolje. A visit to a prison in the vicinity of Pale, at the invitation of Karadzic, failed to supply proof of the existence of death camps.

On 5 August the ITN team and Vulliamy reached Banja Luka, from where they were taken to Omarska and Trnopolje under Bosnian Serb military escort. Omarska made an unpleasant impression on the British reporters, but they found no incontrovertible evidence that it was an extermination camp. However, there were several buildings to which the British journalists were not given access. What Marshall and her fellow travellers did not know was that almost immediately after the appearance of Gutman’s article about Omarska on 2 August, the Bosnian Serb authorities had decided to shut down the camp as soon as possible. When the ICRC was permitted to visit the camp on 12 August, one week after the British journalists, there were ‘only’ 173 prisoners left. By the time Vulliamy and the ITN team arrived, most of the prisoners, like those of Keraterm, had been taken to the Manjaca and Trnopolje camps,[2] which was to give the British journalists’ trip a twist which had not been intended by the Bosnian Serb authorities. After the visit to Omarska on 5 August they had only one more opportunity to find the proof they were looking for: Trnopolje.

The camp at Trnopolje covered a large area on which several buildings stood, including a school. It was originally not a prison camp but a transit camp for women, children and older men, mainly from the district of Prijedor and in particular from the town of Kozarac, which had 15,000, mainly Muslim, inhabitants.[3] After the Bosnian Serb army had shelled Kozarac in the spring, soldiers had told the Muslim inhabitants that they would be safe if they went to Trnopolje, where the primary school had been set up as a camp.[4] Groups of men who had been imprisoned in Omarska and had been classified by the Bosnian Serb camp leaders there as ‘not dangerous’ were also taken to this camp.[5] Shortly before the arrival of the ITN team, prisoners from Omarska and Keraterm who had to be removed from the eye of world opinion after Gutman’s articles had also been brought here to Trnopolje. So at the beginning of August there were several thousand people at Trnopolje.[6]

The camp was guarded mainly by Serbs from the direct vicinity. Some of those at Trnopolje, including some men of fighting age, had themselves chosen to stay in the camp because the situation outside the camp was even more dangerous.[7] Vulliamy recorded the story of a man who had tried to reach Trnopolje, but had been picked up by soldiers on the way and taken to Omarska.[8] Several people who had left the camp to revisit their houses or farms did not return, so that those in the camp thought it was safer to stay there. Marshall was later to say in her report that the people who had been brought to the camp did not really know themselves whether they were prisoners or refugees.[9] The American journalist Peter Maass, who visited Trnopolje a few days after the ITN team, observed that apart from former prisoners of Omarska and Keraterm the inmates of the camp were mainly women and children from the direct vicinity, and that they were there voluntarily:

‘Yes, voluntarily. It was one of the strangest of situations in Bosnia – people seeking safety at a prison camp. Trnopolje was no picnic, but the known brutalities dished out there were preferable to the fates awaiting Bosnians who tried to stay in their homes.’[10]

Although the situation in the camp was much better than in the other camps in north-west Bosnia,[11] this does not mean that the Trnopolje camp offered complete protection to its inmates. There were incidental cases of rape[12] and on one evening a gang referred to as El Manijakos is said to have carried out mass rape. According to a report by Amnesty International issued in October 1992 on serious violations of human rights in Bosnia between April and August 1992, reports of rape reaching this organization came mainly from the camp at Trnopolje.[13] The Yugoslavia tribunal was later to establish that ‘[b]ecause this camp housed the largest numbers of women and girls, there were more rapes at this camp than at any other’.[14] Men were also tortured and murders took place in the camp, mainly among the local Muslim elite.[15] People from the camp were sometimes allowed out of the camp for half an hour or an hour to look for food. If they were given permission to do this, they always had to leave something of value behind in the camp. If they came back too late, they were beaten up or killed. If they did not come back at all, they were shot dead as soon as they were found.[16] Diphtheria was also rife in the camp.[17]

The British journalists visit the camp

‘In war reporting access is everything, or nearly everything.’[18]

In Trnopolje, unlike Omarska, the ITN team was allowed to film everywhere. In the school building the team filmed blankets on the floor and belongings marking off sleeping places. According to pictures which were never broadcast, the ITN team talked to a nineteen-year-old Serb guard called Igor, the son of the camp commander cum Red Cross Official (!) Pero Curguz.[19] Igor, who had been stationed in Knin since 1991, had been appointed as bodyguard of camp commander Slobodan Kuruzovic a few days previously. He told the team that the Bosnian Serb army brought food and water for the people in the camp and asked the film crew to talk to a group of people standing in the shade of a tree behind a low fence. Igor explained that the group included some friends of his who were staying at the camp and a former teacher of his.

‘Do you want to live together again?’, asked the ITN team. ‘ I want’, answered Igor, ‘now a very big problem.’ Then the interviewer asked one of the men behind the low fence, without barbed wire, Azmir Causevic, who had been introduced as a friend of Igor’s: ‘Is he a guard?’ Answer: ‘Yes.’ ‘Is he your friend?’ Answer: ‘Yes.’ He said that they used to play in the street together. ‘Are you prisoners?’ ‘We are not in jail.’ Then another friend of Igor’s arrived on the other side of the fence and shook Igor’s hand. The film crew asked him: ‘What are you doing here? What is this place?’ But the man they addressed did not seem to understand. Then the ITN team turned to Igor again: ‘Are you here to keep people in?’ ‘No, I have a commander. He says I am here to protect, first me and these people.’ Then the cameraman filmed some of the little tents the people in the camp had set up to protect themselves from the blazing sun.[20]

The Serb camp commander cum Red Cross official Pero Curguz told the Britons that new inmates had arrived at the camp that day. They were a group from the Keraterm camp. At the medical centre the British journalists asked the interned doctor Idriz Merdzanic: ‘Have there been beatings?’, at which he nodded his head. He did not want to answer the next question, ‘Many?’ Later at an unguarded moment he gave the British journalists an undeveloped film with pictures of men’s tortured upper bodies.[21]

Then the camera crew made its way to the southern side of the camp. There was a small field there with a transformer house, a barn and farm equipment. Between this field and the northern side of the camp there was a fence made of chicken wire and – from chest height up – barbed wire. Along the other sides of the field where the men who had been transferred from Keraterm and Omarska had been taken there was a wall, a low fence, or no boundary at all between the site and the road going past it, but there were armed Serbs on guard (see map of the camp in this section).[22] The Britons stepped through a gap in the fence. In the camp itself, on the other side of the barbed wire, a crowd of curious people assembled, including those who had recently arrived from the Omarska and Keraterm camps. Penny Marshall first had a conversation with a Muslim on the other side of the fence called Mehmet, who spoke a little English. Later, in the bulletin which went on air, he would hardly appear at all, but in the film he was clearly visible next to the person who was to become the main figure of the ITN broadcast. Mehmet told Marshall that everything was ‘very fine, nothing wrong, but it’s very hot’.[23]

Then one of the Britons pointed to a person who was coming forward from the background, a man with his T-shirt in his hand, whose ribs were clearly visible in his bare upper body.[24] The cameraman zoomed in on him. This was to become the familiar picture of the emaciated Muslim Fikret Alic. The pictures also show clearly that there were three strands of barbed wire only at the top of the fence from behind which the cameraman was filming; below them was chicken wire. Then Marshall began a conversation with Alic.

On 6 August the British Channel 4 News broadcast the pictures at 7 pm, followed three hours later by ITN’s News at Ten. In the pictures broadcast on television the emaciated Alic was the central figure. Both broadcasts bore the character of eyewitness accounts, by Penny Marshall and Ian Williams respectively. In their commentaries, Marshall and Williams said that these people were refugees who had lost their homes and belongings, but that there was no first-hand evidence of atrocities in the camp. Later a sharp controversy would arise as to whether or not the pictures had been doctored; this will be discussed at greater length in section 11.

However, the text was not entirely free of suggestion. Marshall began her report by saying ‘The Bosnian Serbs don’t call Omarska a concentration camp’, thereby implying that others might well have a different opinion. Williams said that he had visited ‘seven alleged camps which were on the original Bosnian list of alleged concentration camps.’ Of five it could be said that ‘they are not concentration camps, at most they are refugee collection centres’, but there was ‘grave concern’ about ‘severe mistreatment’ in two of the others. Again, it seemed to be implied that Omarska and Trnopolje were in fact concentration camps.

Williams’s report was followed on ITN by a background story entitled ‘Crimes of war?’, in which black and white pictures of prisoners of war were shown and it was explained that war crimes had been prohibited after the horrors of the Nazi era. Then American politicians were asked for their reactions to the ITN films of Omarska and Trnopolje. They included the presidential candidate Bill Clinton, who reacted by saying: ‘you can’t allow the mass extermination of people and just sit by and watch it happen’.[25] In a lengthy interview Democrat and concentration camp survivor Tom Lantos said that ‘those horrendous pictures’ reminded him of ‘the concentration camps that the Nazis had during World War Two, minus the gas chambers (…)The civilised world stood by during the early 1940’s because they didn’t know what was going on. Well, we now know what is going on.’ In ITN’s News at Ten the influential American senator Alfonso d’Amato made similar statements.[26] Lantos also appeared on the programme and said that by 1992 the world should be able to distinguish the Churchills from the Chamberlains.

Comparisons with Jews and Nazis

‘We are not paid to moralize.’[27]

The impact these pictures made as they went around the world was enormous. After seeing just 45 seconds of uncut ITN footage by satellite, Tom Bettag, producer of the American television network ABC’s programme Nightline decided to scrap the programme planned for that evening in favour of one featuring the ITN pictures. ‘We knew those pictures would have enormous impact. It has clearly changed the political climate’, he was to say scarcely 24 hours later.[28] ‘They are the sort of scenes that flicker in black and white images from 50-year-old films of Nazi concentration camps’, wrote the Daily Mail the morning after the broadcast.[29] This was ‘footage reminiscent of scenes from Nazi concentration camps’, wrote Gutman’s paper Newsday.[30] Above the photo of Alic on its front page, the Daily Mirror placed the heading ‘Belsen 92’, and the Star ‘Belsen 1992’. With the pictures of Serb ‘concentration camps’, everything suddenly became ‘”crystal clear” in the West. Metaphorically speaking, the Serbs became the Nazis, and the Muslims became the Jews of World War II’.[31]

This was a reversal of the alliances that had existed until then. The regime in Belgrade had constantly emphasized that in the past there had always been close ties between Serbs and Jews and that in their historic role as ‘victims’ the lot of the Serbs was very similar to that of the Jews.[32] After the Jews, the Serbs were believed to be the people who had suffered most during the Second World War. It was not without reason that the nationalist Dobrica Cosic had been one of the founders of the Association of Serb-Jewish Friendship. In the United States, Serbs had run an aggressive campaign in an attempt to win the support of the Jewish community for their side, realizing that it was the best organized ethnic lobby in the country.[33]

Traditionally, Belgrade considered Israel, Russia and Greece as its best friends. The state of Israel had in fact always taken a strongly pro-Serb position.[34] In the autumn of 1991 Serbia had successfully placed a large secret arms order in Israel.[35] It was not until 5 August 1992 that Israel had decided to offer humanitarian aid to Bosnia.[36] On the same day Deputy Minister Yossi Beilin had broken the silence observed by the Israeli government since the outbreak of the hostilities. He then sharply condemned the reports about the camps, but added at once that Israel would never forget the special ties which had existed in the past between Serbs and Jews.[37]

The day after the pictures of Trnopolje were broadcast, the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the Jews, who remembered the Holocaust, were particularly afflicted by the reports, though he immediately added that in comparison with the extermination of the Jews during the Second World War, the murders in the Balkans were ‘on a very small scale’.[38] Nevertheless, it was a remarkable reaction from a government and a nation which during practically the entire conflict from 1991 to 1995 had painstakingly avoided offending the Serbian regime and its henchmen, on the basis of the incorrect and unjustified view that during the Second World War the Serbs, unlike the Croats and the Muslims, had been on the side of the Jews.[39] This statement of Rabin’s also reflected the divided reactions of the Jewish community, in which on the one hand Jewish organizations said that they observed the same indifference on the part of the world community as at the time of the extermination of the Jews during the Second World War,[40] while on the other hand someone like Simon Wiesenthal thought that any comparison with the Nazi extermination camps was completely misplaced.[41]

In the United States the Jewish mood turned against Serbia as a result of the reports and pictures of the camps. James Harff, director of the PR firm Ruder Finn regarded this about-face as the greatest success in enhancing the image of his customers in Zagreb and Sarajevo.[42] In the past, Tudjman had made anti-Semitic remarks and Izetbegovic was initially not an obvious protégé of the Jewish community. All this had now changed. After Gutman’s articles, on 5 August two hundred demonstrators led by the Anti-Defamation League and the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors held a protest march in front of the United Nations building in New York, with the support of twenty American Jewish organizations. The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham H. Foxman, himself a survivor of the Holocaust, pointed out to the demonstrators that what was going on in Bosnia was not the same as what had happened during the Holocaust. But in his opinion there were so many similarities that an international military force should be sent if necessary.[43] Maynard Wishner, chairman of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council called on Boutros-Ghali to begin at once with mobilizing ‘whatever U.N. peacekeeping forces are appropriate’.[44] Nobel prize winner Elie Wiesel wrote a letter informing the demonstrators that Jews in particular, who had such vivid memories of persecution, should take action in the free world against the systematic torture and murders.[45] On 5 August Harff also managed to persuade the B’nai Brith Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress to put an advertisement in The New York Times under the heading ‘Stop the Death Camps’.[46]

On 7 August the ITN Lunchtime News again devoted attention to Trnopolje. This time the British television company showed pictures of Dutch, Turkish and American broadcasts in which the camps were compared with photos of Nazi concentration camps. ITN quoted from the commentary of the ABC broadcast: ‘Faces and bodies that hint at atrocities of the past. But this is not history, this is Bosnia. Pictures from the camps: A glimpse into genocide.’ and: ‘The Dutch talked of concentration camps. In Muslim Turkey they said ITN’s pictures resembled Hitler’s camps and brought the greatest disgrace to mankind. And the Germans said the pictures were reminiscent of World War Two.’ Against a background of British morning newspapers and the familiar picture of Alic behind barbed wire, ITN reported that ‘today’s British press was unequivocal in its interpretation of the pictures, adding more pressure on the government to take action to intervene in the Yugoslav crisis.’

p1_

 

[1] Maass, Neighbor, pp. 41-42.

[2] Gutman, Witness, pp. xiii and xxxii; Ian Traynor, ‘We moesten over lijken en hersenen stappen’ (‘We had to step over corpses and brains’), de Volkskrant 07/10/92; Van Cleef, Wereld, pp. 137-138. In that same month the Bosnian government had quoted a figure of 11,000, eyewitnesses a figure of 8000, Amnesty International, ‘Bosnia-Hercegovina. Gross abuses of basic human rights’ (AI Index: EUR 63/01/92), p. 23; R. Gutman, ‘Deadly Transfer. Many reported killed, missing in move from Serb camp’, Newsday, 26/08/92.

[3] Cf. Van Cleef, Wereld, pp. 95-96.

[4] Rathfelder, Sarajevo, p. 66.

[5] See for example Rathfelder, Sarajevo, p. 67; Vulliamy, Seasons, p. 103.

[6] According to the ITN bulletin there were 2000 prisoners there when Penny Marshall visited the camp. During a visit six days later, the ICRC counted approximately 4000 internees, Amnesty International, ‘Bosnia-Hercegovina. Gross abuses of basic human rights’ (AI Index: EUR 63/01/92), p. 23.

[7] See for example Vulliamy, Seasons, p. 105.

[8] Vulliamy, Seasons, p. 102.

[9] Nightline, ABC News, 06/08/92.

[10] Maass, Neighbor, pp. 41-42.

[11] United Nations, S/1994/674, Appendix, clause 171. For the nature of the camp see also ‘Trnopolje detention camp. Helsinki Watch Report, October 1992 –February 1993.

[12] R. Gutman, ‘Bosnia Rape Horror’, Newsday, 09/08/92; Gutman, Witness, p. 64; Rathfelder, Sarajevo, p. 66.

[13] Amnesty International, ‘Bosnia-Hercegovina. Gross abuses of basic human rights’ (AI Index: EUR 63/01/92).

[14] Quoted in Ed Vulliamy, ‘We are all guilty’, The Observer, 11/05/97. See also the tribunal’s charge against Simo Drljaca and Milan Kovacevic, case no. IT-97-24-I.

[15] Trnopolje detention camp. Helsinki Watch Report, October 1992 –February 1993. According to the Yugoslavia tribunal’s charge against Slobodan Kuruzovic, commander of the camp at Trnopolje, hundreds of men were tortured and murdered there, Hartmann, Milosevic, p. 288. Cf. Van Cleef, Wereld, pp. 96-97, 251, 254. According to the main text of the Bassiouni report: ‘Rapes, beatings and other kinds of torture, and even killings, were not rare.’, United Nations, S/1994/674, Appendix, clause 171. According to an appendix of the same report a large number of men were murdered. This allegation does not include any indication of time, United Nations, S/1994/674/Add.2(Vol. I), 28/12/94, Appendix III.A, IV.A.32. Sells, Bridge, p. 19 classifies Trnopolje along with Manjaca and Batkovic as concentration camps as opposed to the ‘killing camps’ Omarska, Brcko-Luka, Susica and Keraterm: ‘killings and torture were common, but the majority of detainees did survive’. Report of murders also in Gutman, Witness, p. 85; Rathfelder, Sarajevo, p. 67. Report of the torture of a man in the Trnopolje camp in United States Senate, Cleansing, p. 23.

[16] Supplemental United States Submission of information to the United Nations Security Council in Accordance with Paragraph 5 of Resolution 771 (1992) and Paragraph 1 of Resolution 780 (1992), released on October 1992.

[17] ‘Trnopolje detention camp. Helsinki Watch Report, October 1992 –February 1993’.

[18] Bell, Way, p. 162.

[19] For father Curguz’s curious double function see also Van Cleef, Wereld, pp. 249-251.

[20] Information about the footage which was not aired has been taken from http://www.srpska-mreza.com/lm-f97/deichmann-press.html , ‘ITN vs Deichmann and Truth – Report on Jan. 31 press conference’.

[21] Nightline, ABC News, 06/08/92; T. Deichmann, ‘Es war dieses Bild, das die Welt in Alarmbereitschaft versetzte’ (‘It was this picture that put the world on alert’), Novo (1997)26 (January/February). The photos were published in the Daily Mail on 07/08/92; ‘ITN’s Penny Marshall tells how she made the world wake up’, Sunday Times, 16/04/92.

[22] Ed Vulliamy, ‘Poison in the well of history’, The Guardian, 15/03/00; Eric Alterman, ‘Bosnian camps: a barbed tale’, The Nation, 28/07/97.

[23] This paragraph is based on the account of Phillip Knightley, who saw the uncut ITN tapes, ‘Es stellt sich heraus, dass der Stacheldraht nur ein Symbol war’ (It becomes clear that the barbed wire only a symbol was), Novo(1997)27(March/April).

[24] Photos taken by Ron Haviv prove that this man, Fikret Alic, was by no means the only emaciated man in the camp’, Blood, pp. 87-89.

[25] Don Oberdorfer & Helen Dewar, ‘Clinton, Senators Urge Bush to Act on Balkans’, The Washington Post, 06/08/92.

[26] See also ‘Nightline’, ABC News, 06/08/92.

[27] James Harff, director of PR firm Ruder Finn, quoted in Nadja Tesich, ‘New and old disorder’, NATO, p. 188.

[28] Quoted in: R. Ciolli, ‘Bosnia Reports Prompt Outrage. Prison camp images drive home urgency’, Newsday, 08/08/92.

[29] ‘The Proof’, Daily Mail, 07/08/92.

[30] R. Howell, ‘Outrage. At UN Pressure For Armed Reply’, Newsday, 07/08/92. Similar utterances in Sandra Sanchez, ‘Horror in Serbian prison camps’, USA Today, 07/08/92.

[31] Mestrovic, Balkanization, p. 51.

[32] Levinsohn, Belgrade, pp. 15-17, 53, 259-260, 273; Sremac, War, pp. 30 and 61; Daniel Kofman, ‘Israel and the War in Bosnia’, Cushman & Mestrovic (eds.), Time, p. 93.

[33] Carol Matlack & Zoran B. Djordjevic, ‘Serbo-Croatian PR War’, The National Journal, 14/03/92.

[34] See also Daniel Kofman, ‘Israel and the War in Bosnia’, Cushman & Mestrovic (eds.), Time, pp. 91-92.

[35] Gajic Glisic, Vojska, pp. 23 and 47.

[36] Gwen Ackerman, ‘Israel Breaks Silence, Offers Aid to Distressed Yugoslavia’, The Associated Press, 05/08/92.

[37] Gwen Ackerman, ‘Israel Breaks Silence, Offers Aid to Distressed Yugoslavia’, The Associated Press, 05/08/92.

[38] R. Howell, ‘Rabin Calls On World for Action’, Newsday, 08/08/92. See also Hugh Orgel, ‘Israeli cuts Bosnia mission short as Rabin demands end to atrocities’, The Ethnic NewsWatch. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 11/08/92.

[39] Cf. Igor Primoratz, ‘Israel and genocide in Croatia’, Mestrovic (ed.), Genocide, pp. 195-206.

[40] G. DeWan, ‘Newsday Student Briefing Page on the News’, Newsday, 11/08/92. See also ‘A Demand for Action’, The Ethnic NewsWatch. Northern California Jewish Bulletin, 07/08/92; ‘A Terrible Throwback’, The Ethnic NewsWatch. Baltimore Jewish Times, 07/08/92; Nancy Hill-Hotzman, ‘Balkans: Jewish groups react to reports of tortures and murders’, Los Angeles Times, 08/08/92; Cohen, War, p. 122.

[41] F. Bruning, ‘Human-Rights Probe of Serbia Urged’, Newsday, 14/08/92. For a more detailed survey of the Jewish and Israeli attitude to Serb war practices in the early 1990s see Cohen, War, pp. 122-128; Primoratz, Israel.

[42] Jacques Merlino, ‘Da haben wir voll ins Schwarze getroffen.’Die PR-Firma Ruder Finn’, Bittermann (Hg.), Serbien, pp. 155-156.

[43] ‘Jewish Community Rallies for Action to End Atrocities in Bosnia’, U.S. Newswire, 05/08/92.

[44] Debra Nussbaum Cohen, ‘Jewish groups express outrage over atrocities in Bosnia’, The Ethnic NewsWatch; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 05/08/92.

[45] Cheong Chow, ‘US Jews calling on Bush, UN action for camps’, The Boston Globe, 10/08/92.

[46] Allison Kaplan & Tom Tugend, ‘US Jews call for action against Serb atrocities’, The Jerusalem Post, 06/08/92.

 

p1_c06_s009_

Part I The Yugoslavian problem and the role of the West 1991-1994

Chapter 6 Emotionalization of the debate following reports about the camps (‘Omarska’): June 1992 – August 1992

Impact on public image

With this bulletin, ITN itself raised the question of the impact made by its pictures. The pictures strengthened a feeling that had been present for some time, namely that this time the population of the free world would not be able to say, as they had during the Holocaust, that they had known nothing of the mass slaughter which was taking place. As the Dutch commentator W.L. Brugsma would later write: ‘Due to the disastrous invention called television, the saying “What you don’t know won’t hurt you” no longer applies.’[1]

Nevertheless, this is only relative. Television is highly dependent on the possibilities of visualizing a situation. As far as television newsrooms are concerned, if there are no pictures of a subject, it cannot be news.[2] ‘What cannot be shown in images, receives little attention (…) For instance, we were inadequately informed about the genocide in Congo because no cameras were set up there’, said the Belgian philosopher Bart Pattyn, an expert in media ethics.[3] The difference in Bosnia was that the cameras there had found the pictures the West was looking for.

Even before the pictures of Fikret Alic behind barbed wire had been broadcast Milosevic had been compared with Hitler,[4] the Muslims’ lot with that of the Jews in the Holocaust,[5] the actions of Croatian and Bosnian Serbs with those of the Sudeten Germans in the late 1930s[6] and incidents such as murder, rape, ethnic cleansing and deportation with those of the Second World War in general.[7] But thanks to the pictures of the emaciated Fikret Alic behind barbed wire, the image of the aggressive Serbs could be definitively linked to the actions of the Nazis during the Second World War. In the course of almost fifty years of peace in Europe, the Second World War had become a frame of reference for right and wrong. How much more effectively it could be used to make a divide between rogues and heroes, now that there was a war going on with ethnic cleansing which looked very similar to the pictures in Schindler’s List and now that there were again camps which evoked memories of what an earlier film had made known as the Holocaust?[8]

The pictures of Fikret Alic behind barbed wire were an answer for journalists and newsrooms who were wrestling with the problem that the public at large had lost track of the war in Bosnia.[9] The reports about refugees had already offered some elements the public could identify with, but it was not until the picture of Fikret Alic in the camp that there was something they could grasp hold of, in the form of a human figure.[10]

An analogy with the Nazi concentration camps and in particular the death camps or extermination camps of fifty years earlier was soon made. Even those who queried such a comparison admitted the possibility that it might as yet turn out to be justified. In Newsday for example the following appeared:

‘Is this the same as 1942? Is this a Final Solution? The answer to that is no. This is not systematic annihilation. (…) The Serbs, while imprisoning the Muslims, are not systematically killing them, though the conditions in which they are keeping them guarantee that many will die. (…) Yet, to some degree, this analogy is irrelevant because this is not a question of comparative suffering. The direct historical parallel to the Holocaust is to be found in the actions of the perpetrators and the bystanders (…)What is going on in Bosnia is not yet a Holocaust and we must ensure that it does not become one.’[11]

Nevertheless the analogy with the Nazi camps persisted for a long time. At the beginning of December 1992 the otherwise so diplomatic former American Minister of Foreign Affairs George Shultz advised television makers to show films of concentration camps from the Second World War the next time they devoted attention to Bosnia: ‘The message is the same.’[12] A year after the ITN broadcast the British newspaper The Independent wrote: ‘The camera slowly pans up the bony torso of the prisoner. It is the picture of famine, but then we see the barbed wire against his chest and it is the picture of Holocaust and concentration camps.’[13]

The notion upheld by Serb propaganda that Croats and their Muslim confederates had been fascists in the Second World War and that ‘therefore’ everything that Croats and Bosnian Muslims did in the 1990s should be regarded with the deepest suspicion vanished into thin air in the West. The dichotomy between Serb war criminals and Bosnian Muslim victims became a fixed idea.

The reports of Serb outrages made many outside Serbia deaf to any further Serb arguments. According to some, the Serbs had lost their right to be heard.[14] The reasoning was that their statements could not be trusted. Because the Serb camps were put on a par with concentration camps in the Second World War, anyone who asserted a different point of view was suspected of being a revisionist.[15] After the Bosnian Serb authorities had given the International Committee of the Red Cross permission to inspect Trnopolje, the American Assistant Secretary of State for international organizations John Bolton commented that during the Second World War the Nazis had also managed to mislead the Red Cross during visits to concentration camps. In his opinion it was also unlikely that much interest could be aroused in Croat or Muslim camps in which Serbs were held prisoner[16] and which, as was the case in the Croat-run camp in Mostar and the Muslim-run camp at Celebici fifty kilometres west of Sarajevo, were no less or little less atrocious than those of the Bosnian Serbs.[17] An ICRC report of 4 August, in which it was concluded after visits to ten camps in Bosnia that all parties in the conflict were guilty of serious human rights abuses was to a large extent snowed under in the media uproar.[18] There was also practically no interest in reports from (Bosnian) Serb leaders that possibly thousands of Serbs had died in Bosnian prison camps.[19] Shortly before the appearance of the films made at Trnopolje a Reuter photographer had printed a photo of Serb prisoners of war being forced by Bosnian Croats to give the Hitler salute; this was certainly also a picture evoking memories of the Second World War. However, this photo was scarcely shown in the West.[20]

When the ITN images appeared, they were, in the words of the then acting desk officer for Yugoslavia of the State Department George Kenney, ‘ruinous for the Bush administration’s hands off policy’. The pictures ‘could not but result in significant US actions’.[21] This seemed correct; a whole range of measures taken by national governments and international organizations followed in the wake of the pictures of Trnopolje. Immediately after hearing about the report, the American President George Bush, in a hastily convened press conference, urged a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in order to make sure humanitarian convoys reached their destinations.[22] On the evening of 6 August the NATO Political Committee decided to make plans to open corridors for humanitarian convoys. The member states were asked to indicate what resources they would be able to deploy.[23] On 13 and 14 August the UN Human Rights Committee held an emergency meeting for the first time since its foundation, with the situation in the former Yugoslavia as the sole point on its agenda. In fact the American government had already put forward a proposal for a meeting of this kind, which had been supported by the twelve EC countries, before the ITN broadcasts of the pictures of Trnopolje.[24] The motive for the American initiative was the American government’s deep concern about the mounting atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and the difficulties confronting the ICRC there. The government in Washington also saw this initiative as a gesture towards the Islamic countries.[25]

Mazowiecki is appointed rapporteur; the call for military intervention is heard

The committee demanded the release of all prisoners who were being held arbitrarily and also immediate free access for the ICRC to all camps and prisons. It decided to appoint the former Polish Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki as special rapporteur on the former Yugoslavia, with the task of reporting on human rights abuses and war crimes. His reports were also to be sent to the Security Council. On 13 August the Security Council passed Resolutions 770 and 771. Resolution 770 demanded access to the camps for aid organizations. The resolution also authorized the nations to make it possible to deliver humanitarian relief to Sarajevo and other places in Bosnia-Hercegovina if necessary, either on a national basis or through regional organizations, and ‘by all possible means’.

Resolution 770 was the first to authorize the use of force by the international community in Bosnia, in order to deliver relief supplies, but it did stipulate that this should take place ‘in co-operation with the United Nations’. It was only the second time in the UN’s existence that the organization had used the phrase ‘by all possible means’ in a resolution. The first time had been in the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, after troops from that country had invaded Kuwait. Resolution 771 held out the prospect of punishment for war criminals from the former Yugoslavia.

On 14 August the French government announced that it would make 1100 troops available for Bosnia. Confronted with a temporary consensus in British public opinion and the media as to military intervention[26] and with strong domestic criticism of his leadership with respect to the Bosnian crisis,[27] the British Prime Minister John Major cut short his holiday and called for an emergency Ministerial Council meeting on 18 August, at which it was decided to supply 1800 light infantry troops for the security of the UN convoys. Chancellor Kohl said that the German constitution, which prohibited the deployment of military troops outside the NATO area, should be revised.

The camps after the furore

Before going into the impact of the pictures in further detail, it seems appropriate to discuss what happened to the prisoners in the camps. After the TV broadcasts about Omarska and Trnopolje, the Red Cross was allowed to visit many Bosnian Serb camps. Camera crews of other television companies, UNHCR representatives and well-known people such as the French Minister Kouchner and the Israeli peace activist Elie Wiesel followed in the footsteps of ITN and the Red Cross. Inasmuch as people continued to be imprisoned in Serb camps, in general their lot immediately improved as a result of visits and inspections like these.[28] The women and children who had been in Trnopolje were permitted to leave a few days after the ITN pictures. Room had to be made for yet more prisoners from the Omarska and Keraterm camps, which had to be displayed to the world press in a spotless condition. On 13 August, eight days after Marshall and Williams made their films, Fikret Alic managed to hide amidst a transport of women and children and to escape from the camp. Later he ended up in Denmark. Reporters who visited Trnopolje one and a half weeks after the ITN teams, observed that the newly arrived men were allowed to go to houses and gardens in the vicinity under supervision in order to get hold of food, although by then there was practically nothing left except maize.[29] A few weeks later these internees were released and taken to Croatia.[30] After the furore over the camps, caused first by Gutman’s and O’Kane’s articles and later by the ITN broadcast, the inmates of the camps were generally no longer in direct bodily danger, although some former camp detainees still died in incidents during transports.[31] These transports were in fact the final episode of ethnic cleansing.

Between July and December 1992 the Red Cross visited 10,800 prisoners in 16 camps: 8100 imprisoned by Bosnian Serbs, 1600 in the hands of the Bosnian government and 1100 detained by Bosnian Croats.[32] Gradually they were released and on 1 October the ICRC concluded an agreement with the Bosnian Serb authorities stipulating that the remaining 7000 prisoners in 11 camps were to be released at the end of that month.

However, the ICRC was faced with a dilemma in relation to the prisoners’ future lot. If the Red Cross and the international community succeeded in getting the prisoners released, they would not be able to return to their homes. Even if those homes were still fit to live in, it was still too dangerous. For example, of a group of 15 people who were released from Manjaca, 13 were murdered when they returned to their homes.[33] But if the prisoners could not go back to their homes, the question was, where could they go? The governments in their Europe were not eager to welcome the former camp inmates.[34]

The human rights organization Amnesty International also pointed out these problems in a report issued on 23 October.[35] Amnesty International admitted that the fate awaiting the prisoners upon their release might well offer them little more security than they had had during their imprisonment. They therefore called on the international community to monitor the safe return of the former prisoners to their homes or, if those released did not want this because they feared for their safety, to ensure there was ‘an appropriate place of refuge’.[36] However, there was not a single European country that guaranteed to accept former camp internees on any significant scale.[37] After the first large group of released prisoners, 1560 people from Trnopolje, had arrived in a transit camp at Karlovac in Croatia, it turned out that there was not a single country that was prepared to take them. This meant that no new prisoners in Bosnia could be picked up by the International Committee of the Red Cross, because in Karlovac they would have to take the place of the group of 1560. The result of the attitude of the governments in the countries outside Bosnia-Hercegovina was that the ICRC had to ask the Bosnian Serb authorities to keep camps like Trnopolje open for months longer than the end of October, the date the Bosnian Serb leaders and the Red Cross had eventually agreed on.[38]

In the autumn of 1992 the Bosnian Serb authorities were even forced to open a new camp in Kotor Varos, on the outskirts of Banja Luka, to relieve Croats and Muslims who were trying to escape from the intimidation and incidental murders in their home surroundings. Every time the ICRC succeeded in getting a number of inmates out of the Bosnian Serb camps, their places were immediately filled by others who preferred the relative safety of the camp to the ‘freedom’ outside.[39] It is unpleasant to have to acknowledge that the pictures which caused such a commotion in the West had so little effect on international readiness to accept victims of the camps.

In the following months, thousands more prisoners were in fact released from the Bosnian Serb camps. On 18 December the last 418 prisoners from the Manjaca camp were released and taken to Karlovac in Croatia under supervision of the ICRC.[40] According to the ICRC, by about 1 January 1993 all but 2700 of the internees had been released from camps whose existence had been confirmed.[41] Then the CIA produced a report, which found its way to various newspapers, that approximately 70,000 more people were being detained in camps run by all three parties in Bosnia.[42] According to the CIA, information obtained by satellite espionage, conversations with prisoners who had been released or had run away, and reports made by humanitarian organizations seemed to indicate the existence of previously unknown camps.[43] However, this figure was entirely unfounded.[44] Apparently the American authorities, who had kept their knowledge of the camps silent for so long in the past, now wanted to give the impression that they could search better than the ICRC and other humanitarian organizations. In August 1993 the Red Cross named the figure of 6474 detainees still remaining in 51 camps, distributed throughout Bosnia.[45] In reports issued in April 1993 and addressed to all three parties in the Bosnian conflict, the International Committee of the Red Cross stated in bold terms that the conditions in which these people were detained were still no better than they had been in the summer of 1992.[46]

p1_c06_s009_b01.htmlp1_c06_s009_b01.htmlp1_c06_s010_b01.htmlp1_c06_s010_b01.html\l “\l “

 

[1] W.L. Brugsma, ‘Wat weet dat deert’ (‘What you know hurts you’), HP/De Tijd, 27/08/93, p. 46.

[2] Liesbet Walckiers, ‘De media en de derde Wereld’ (‘The media and the third world’), Becker (red.), Massamedia, p. 129.

[3] Bart Pattyn, ‘Verveling en mediagebruik’ (‘Boredom and media custom’), Becker (red.), Massamedia, p. 91.

[4] See for example ‘Milosevic Isn’t Hitler, But…’; The New York Times, 04/08/92. The American senator Bob Dole had even said that Miloševic was worse than Hitler, Maarten Huygen, ‘Bosnië plaatst VS voor dilemma’ (‘Bosnia places US in a dilemma’), NRC Handelsblad, 27/06/92.

[5] See for example John Omicinski, ‘War in Yugoslavia: The new Holocaust? Is Slobodan Milosevic the Hitler of 1992?’, Gannett News Service, 29/07/92.

[6] ‘Belgrado niet immuun’ (‘Belgrade is not immune’), de Volkskrant, 29/05/92.

[7] Richard J. Sideman, chairman of the American Jewish Committee, San Francisco, ‘Brutalities in Bosnia’, The San Francisco Chronicle, 30/07/92.

[8] For a striking example of this ‘almost parallel’ see T. Cushman and S.G. Mestrovic, ‘Introduction’, id. (ed.), This Time, especially pp. 6-9.

[9] Caroline de Gruyter, ‘In Kroatië is iedereen goed’, Elsevier, 08/08/92, p. 32.

[10] Michael Schiffler, analyst at the Center for War, Peace and the Media in New York, a few days after the broadcast of the ITN pictures, cited in R. Ciolli, ‘Bosnia Reports Prompt Outrage. Prison camp images drive home urgency’, Newsday, 08/08/92.

[11] D. Lipstadt, ‘Bosnia’s Horror Is Not a Holocaust. But the outrage also is not a question of comparative suffering’, Newsday, 13/08/92. See also Patrick Cockburn, Independent on Sunday, 09/08/92; Allcock & Milivojevic & Horton (eds.), Conflict, pp. 73-74.

[12] E. Sciolino, ‘Clinton faults Bush over Bosnia policy’, New York Times News Service, 11/12/92, 2053EST. See also Wall Street Journal, 23/02/93, p. A1: ‘Nazi-like detention camps’, quoted in T. Cushman and S.G. Mestrovic, ‘Introduction’, id. (ed.), This Time, p. 20.

[13] Independent, 05/08/93.

[14] See Thomas Cushman/Stjepan G. Mestrovic, ‘Introduction’, id. (eds.), Time, p. 15: ‘(…) the Serbs relinquished the right to be heard. Genocide committed by Serbian leaders in the name of Greater Serbia has nullified their right to be heard as an equal in the community of nations.’ Cf. M. Borogovic and S. Rustempasic, ‘The white paper on Alija Izetbegovic’, http://www.xs4all.nl/~frankti/Bosnian_congress/izetbegovic_white_paper.html consulted on 17/02/00, which finds the crimes committed by the Serb leaders against Bosnia so heinous ‘that they take away the right of their perpetrators to belong to the human race, let alone accuse anyone of anything.’

[15] Jacques Merlino, ‘Da haben wir voll ins Schwarze getroffen.’Die PR-Firma Ruder Finn’, Bittermann (Hg.), Serbien, p. 156.

[16] Cf. Peter Brock, ‘Meutenjournalismus’, in: Bittermann (Hg.), Serbien, pp. 29-30; Dorothea Razumovsky, ‘Gott will es!’, in: ibid., p. 98.

[17] For Mostar see Allcock & Milivojevic & Horton (eds.), Conflict, p. 75; for Celebici see Marlise Simons, ‘A War-Crimes Trial, but of Muslims, Not Serbs’, The New York Times, 03/04/97; Burg & Shoup, War, p. 180.

[18] See for example F. Bruning, ‘Human Rights Probe of Serbia Urged’, Newsday, 14/08/92.

[19] ‘Serbs Vow Fresh Offensive’, Newsday, 10/08/92; R. Howell, ‘Outrage. At UN, Pressure For Armed Reply’, Newsday, 07/08/92; Sremac, War, pp. 116-117.

[20] Caroline de Gruyter, ‘In Kroatië is iedereen goed’, Elsevier, 08/08/92, pp. 32-33, where the photo was in fact shown.

[21] G. Kenney, ‘How media misinformation led to Bosnian intervention’, http://www.suc.org/politics/conc-camps/html/Kenney.html , consulted on 26/02/00.

[22] ‘World News Night with Peter Jennings’, ABC News, 06/08/92; Jonathan Miller, ‘Death-camp scoop made the world sit up’, Sunday Times, 09/08/92; ‘ITN’s Penny Marshall tells how she made the world wake up’, Sunday Times, 16/08/92.

[23] Stephen Robinson & Peter Almond & John Hibbs, ‘NATO orders relief plan for Bosnia’, The Daily Telegraph, 07/08/92.

[24] ABZ, DWH/ARA/00844.COREU The Hague, 06/08/92, cpe/hag 439; Wagenmakers 564 to Van den Broek, 06/08/92.

[25] ABZ, DWH/ARA/00844. Meesman 740 to Van den Broek, 06/08/92.

[26] Simms, Hour, p. 44.

[27] See for example Michael Binyon, ‘Evidence mounts of executions and beatings in Serb-run camps’, The Times, 07/08/92; Craig R. Whitney, ‘Balkan Scenes Stir Europe, But Action Remains Elusive’, The New York Times, 08/08/92.

[28] Ian Traynor, ‘We moesten over lijken en hersenen stappen’, de Volkskrant 07/10/92.

[29] Marjolein Sebregts, ‘Vannacht waren het er tien’ (‘Tonight there were ten of them’), Elsevier, 15/08/92, p. 29.

[30] ABZ, DPV/ARA/01812. Statement by Ogata, Geneva, 09/10/92.

[31] See for example Vulliamy, Seasons, pp. 107 and 158; Gutman, Witness, p. 101.

[32] Mercier, Crimes, p. 226 n. 23.

[33] Vulliamy, Seasons, p. 113.

[34] Nina Bernstein, ‘Too dangerous to release Bosnian captives’, Newsday, 30/08/92.

[35] Amnesty International, ‘Bosnia-Hercegovina. Gross abuses of basic human rights’ (AI Index: EUR 63/01/92).

[36] p. 13.

[37] Mercier, Crimes, p. 115; Vulliamy, Seasons, p. 113; Gutman, Witness, pp. 87 and 105-107.

[38] Mercier, Crimes, pp. 64-65; Vulliamy, Seasons, pp. 113 and 158.

[39] Vulliamy, Seasons, pp. 113-114.

[40] ‘Veiligheidsraad veroordeelt verkrachtingen’ (‘Security Council condemns rape’), Brabants Nieuwsblad, 19/12/92.

[41] Mercier, Crimes, p. 226 n. 23.

[42] Gutman, Witness, p. 141.

[43] Interview Lord Owen, 27/06/01.

[44] Mercier, Crimes, p. 117

[45] Allcock & Milivojevic & Horton (eds.), Conflict, p. 74.

[46] Mercier, Crimes, pp. 116-117.

 

 

1916 anniversary…RAISE A GLASS FOR OLD IRELAND TODAY MY FRIENDS

“As down the glen one Easter morn to a city fair rode I
There Armed lines of marching men in squadrons passed me by
No pipe did hum, no battle drum did sound its dread tattoo
But the Angelus Bell o’er the Liffey’s swell rang out in the foggy dew”

One hundred years ago to this day Irish men and women threw down the gauntlet to the oppressive foreigner and stated the need to take control of their own country and send the foreigner back to his own country where he should be and nowhere else.

This action was the greatest event by far in Irish history and began to make up for centuries of oppression at the hands of perfidious Albion.

It is an event which stirred freedom loving peoples everywhere and none more so than the Jewish people who through their Zionist aspirations wanted to take back the country that THEY were forced out of by Roman Imperialism in 66AD when the Romans put down the First Jewish Revolt with the same cruelty that did the British against the Irish.

All leading Jews were in support of Irish national liberation against the hated British. Perfidious Albion indeed but also perfidious to the Jews when in the British Palrlaiment White Paper of 1939 these Parlaimentary wretches in Whitehall set the scene for the Holocaust. Yes the British had a big hand in the Holocaust.

There are many versions of th song The Foggy Dew…I like the Wolfe Tones version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9MRbek0JXk

Raise a glass for old Ireland today my friends

OBAMA ALWAYS ACTS AS AN ISLAMIST SUPREMACIST

This post is full of information about historical Islam as it presents itself int he present day. http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/03/the-innocence-of-barack-hussein-Obama/

 

…As has often been noted, whenever President Obama enacts policies that affects Muslims, his decisions always favor Muslims. Always.

So, for all practical purposes, we may consider him a Muslim.

And every now and then he does or says something that functions as what the defense policy analysts might call an “indicator”. One such tell emerged yesterday when Mr. Obama voiced his thoughts about the terror attacks in Brussels:

“The thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the people of Belgium and we stand in solidarity with them in condemning these outrageous attacks against innocent people,” Obama said.

For those who follow the Great Jihad closely, one word in that sentence leaps out: innocent. Why “innocent”? It’s a peculiar turn of phrase, if you think about it. A political leader might be expected to refer to the victims as “civilians”. But “innocent”? Is there a way that the dead and wounded could somehow be considered “guilty”?

Actually, there is: they could be non-Muslims. If you are a Muslim, and you obey Islamic law, then you believe the “murder of innocents” means “to kill Muslims without just cause”.

So there were presumably Muslims among the dead and wounded yesterday in Brussels — those were the “innocent people”.

This is the standard formula used by Muslim spokesmen after any Islamic terror attack: “We condemn all forms of terrorism. Islam forbids the killing of innocent people.” This is what you hear from CAIR, the OIC, the MCB, etc. When they say “innocent”, it’s a code word for “Muslim”.

Was Barack Hussein Obama using the word that way? There’s no way for us to tell, of course; it’s just another data point. And a lot of similar data points have accumulated over the past seven years.

The following summary is drawn from a comprehensive analysis of Islamic law by Maj. Stephen Coughlin.

There are certain terms of art that have variant meanings under Islam. Sometimes their use is dishonest, but not always. Islam is a religion of peace. Peace in Islam comes from submission to Islam, so when do you have true peace? When the entire world has been brought under Islamic law. There is an Islamic requirement to bring peace to the world, but when peace has been brought to the whole world, it means the whole world is now under the rule of Dar al-Islam. Muslims have a different understanding of “peace” than we do, but within the context of Islamic law, it makes complete sense.

Brigadier S. K. Malik’s important work The Quranic Concept of War was published in English in 1979. Malik was a serving brigadier general in the Pakistani Army. The then-chief of staff of the army, Zia ul-Haq, said the book would server as the army’s doctrine. So Gen. Malik’s work was more than just his opinion; it contained the operational guidelines for the Pakistani military.

When Gen. Malik talks about the Quranic concept of war (pp 57-58), he includes the four following quotes from the Koran to make his point.[1]

I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (Qur’an 8: 12)

Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. (Qur’an 3: 151)

And those of the People of the Book who aided them, Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, so that some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners [the women and the children]. And he made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things. (Qur’an 33: 26-27)

Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the Godly): they will never frustrate them. Against them make ready your strength of the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. (Qur’an 8:56-60)

Given that Allah “made you heirs of their lands…and of a land which ye had not frequented”, it could hardly be said that Mohammed and his followers were engaged in defensive warfare. On the contrary, the forces of Islam mounted an offensive and conquered another tribe or group.

It is well-established that this revelation is associated with the conquest of a Jewish tribe known as the Banu Qurayza.[2] All the men were beheaded, the women and children were taken into custody, and the land was confiscated.

In the final citation, Allah strikes terror “into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah any your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” When someone insists that Islam does not permit the killing of noncombatants, we need to remember this verse.

Interestingly enough, the argument can be made that Islam defines “noncombatants” as innocent Muslims. The infidel’s status is harbi, “enemy”, because he comes from the territory of war. Therefore, according to the inexorable logic of these Koranic verses — the uncreated word of Allah — there is no such thing as a noncombatant infidel. All non-Muslims in Dar al-Harb are enemies, and the believer may and should strike terror into their hearts and kill them when necessary.

Based on the above citations from the Koran, Brigadier General S. K. Malik concludes:[3]

TERROR struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means; it is an end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. TERROR is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him.

So Malik concludes that the Quranic concept of war is terror, with four quotes from the Koran to back up his argument. On page 60, the last paragraph of the last page of the same chapter is very important:

Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes to withdraw. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent. … To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, it is essential, in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror.[4]

The object of jihad is therefore the destruction of faith. It aims to destroy our faith in our God, in our government, in our legal system, in our entire world.

Once we lose faith in our world, we become subject to Dawah — an mission of outreach to convert to Islam.

Notes:

1. The Quranic Concept of War by Brigadier S.K. Malik, (Lahore, Pakistan: Wajid Al’s Ltd., 1979. (with a forward by General Zia-ul-Haq) (This paper relies on the 1986 First Indian Reprint), 57, 58. Cited hereafter as S.K. Malik.
2. Al-Hafiz Abu al-Fida’ ‘Imad Ad-Din Isma’il bin ‘Umar bin Kathir Al-Qurashi Al-Busrawi ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, Trans. Abdul-Malik Mujahid. (Riyadh: Darussalam, 2000), 670.
3. S.K. Malik, 59.
4. S.K. Malik, 60.

OBAMA IS NOW AT HIS MOST DANGEROUS TO THE JEWS AND NETANYAHU MAY REPEAT TREACHERY

AN AMAZINGLY PRESCIENT ARTICLE FROM DANIEL GREENFIELD ON FRONTPAGEMAG

Yossi Beilin (left) sitting at a cabinet meeting with then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres and then-Vice Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir , in 1984.

The situation has moved on to OSLO 1993. Beilin is not in this picture though. Peres is talking with Arafat but to me Rabin on the left was the person in charge and the biggest traitor, probably ever, of Israel

Read the comments on any Daniel Greenfield blog piece and you weill find that those comments (nearly always it is guaranteed) become a complete hate fest against communism and socialism, disguised by the word “leftist” very often. But this piece by Greenfield I feel is especially important, I agree with him in much and I am a Trotskyist/Communist in all ways, though never a dogmatist.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262233/obamas-final-solution-jewish-state-daniel-greenfield

 

Read this paragraph from Greenfield: “Netanyahu has tried to run out the clock on Obama. Now that the clock is actually running out, the danger hour is here. Obama is ideologically opposed to Israel. He has nursed a personal grudge against Netanyahu. And he refuses to leave office without a trophy to justify his disastrous foreign policy.”

 

There is great wisdom in this paragraph and actually in the whole article (which I hope to reprint on my blog)

 

The situation that Obama is operating in towards bringing about this destruction of Israel is in my honest opinion closer to the pre-OSLO period of the months leading to September 2003. Greenfield is saying look at what happened with the Kerry latest visit where Kerry did not (really) speak to the Arabs (I never use the word “Palestinians” which is a fake word) but cut the terrorists right out and spoke to Netanyahu as if he Kerry was THEM. it was finally what it has always been US Elites v Jews.

 

Greenfield is wise and knows this but the great majority of Israelis do not see it like this at all. Greenfield is correct and the great mass of Israelis are wrong.

 

In the year or so leading to OSLO 1 there was strict secrecy in Israel about the Peres/Belen talks in Norway. The key factor though was Rabin. If Rabin had taken a principled position he could have totally destroyed the treachery OF HIS TWO MINISTERS IN HIS GOVERNMENT. But the treachery WAS Rabin. Just as in the Madrid conference when all was said and done the treachery was Shamir. The person in charge has the power – thus the responsibility.

 

This is the greatest danger in the situation today. The danger in my opinion and drawing on those two key historical events – THE DANGER IS NETANYAHU.

 

By the time Shamir agreed to go to Madrid Israel had lost the game. At that very point! By the time Rabin gave his blessing to the two traitors Peres and Beilin it was over.

 

Now fast forward from these two pivotal moments into the present – the dangerous last months of this fiend’s rule. Is Netanyahu made of different stuff than Shamir and Rabin. That I doubt. Hence the danger from Obama. It comes down totally to leadership in Israel.

VISIT OF OBAMA TO CUBA BRINGS BACK THE MURDER OF LEON TROTSKY BY THE STALINIST MERCADER

 

BIG DEAL – OBAMA MEETS UP WITH THE CUBAN CASTRO STALINISTS

Jacques Mornard aka Ramon Mercader arrested after murder of Leon Trotsky august 1940 (Photo by Apic/Getty Images). On his reléase from prison after 20 years Mercader was to enjoy close friendship from the Castros in Cuba.

The greatest political mind who ever lived, the great socialist revolutionary Leon Trotsky, was murdered by a Stalinist assasin Ramon Mercader going under the alias of Frank Jacson who in the plot to assasinate the Russian leader had befriended a woman called Sylvia Ageloff thus allowing him entry into the Trotsky household.

Mercader was a Stalinist psychopath and on his release from his Mexican prison he travelled to Cuba where he was given red carpet treatment by the Castro Stalinists. Mercader went on to Russia where the Stalinists awarded him with the highest award. Later he felt so at one with the Castros that he travelled back to Cuba to live and die there.

Out of these Stalinists of the Castro and other kinds came the worst forms of Antisemitism in our times. It is therefore fitting that “Obummer” should be travelling there to meet these Antisemties yersterday.

Wikipedia has this interesting information which surely implicates the Castros…

 

QUOTE “Shortly after the assassination, Joseph Stalin presented Ramón’s mother Caridad with the Order of Lenin for her part in the operation.[17]

After the first few years in prison, Mercader requested to be released on parole, but the request was denied by the Mexican authorities, represented by Dr. Jesús Siordia and the criminologist Alfonso Quiroz Cuarón. After almost 20 years in prison, he was released from Mexico City’s Palacio de Lecumberri prison on 6 May 1960 and he moved to Havana, Cuba, where Fidel Castro‘s new revolutionary government welcomed him.

In 1961, Mercader moved to the Soviet Union and was subsequently presented with the country’s highest decoration, Hero of the Soviet Union, by the head of the KGB Alexander Shelepin. Later, he divided his time between Cuba and the Soviet Union for the rest of his life.

Ramón Mercader died in Havana in 1978. He is buried under the name “Ramon Ivanovich Lopez” (Рамон Иванович Лопес) in Moscow’s Kuntsevo Cemetery.[18] His name still has a place of honour in the Museum of Security Services in Lubyanka Square, Moscow.[2]” END QUOTE

https://goo.gl/ZsVWtj

 

On Monday 8today) Obama is meeting with Raul Castro in the “Palace of the Re volution”. But this was a struggle of the Cuban poor very much betrayed by the Stalinist Castros. The country has remained poor and was dependent on the Stalinised Soviet Union. It faced a blockade by US and EU/World capitalism or Imperialism. Now of course Imperialism closes in again. You cannot create a system in isolation as the Stalinists tried. This affirms what Lenin and Trotsky always maintained…that you cannot ever build socialism “in a single country” and requires a world socialist revolution against capitalism.

 

This is the real meaning of Obama visiting Cuba. Obama is a true representative of US Imperialism. It is believed he is taking with him thousands representing all the capitalist companies that want to fleece the Cubans “one more time”. But it is also a period of great economic decline of American capitalism. Nothing looks good any time soon for the Cuban poor.

 

Of great note here is the role of the Vatican. My Jewish friends will be taking especial note of this. Pope Francis has been totally involved in this coming together of the American Imperialists with the Stalinist Castros. Pope francis does tbhis at the same time as he betrays the Christian Yazedis and millions of others tot he Jihad. Also at the same time as he emerges as the great friend of the Nazi Palestinian Arabs and the Nazi Palestinian State.

 

From my own point of view and as a Trotskyist I am interested in the whole history of Mercader, in how he was able to (easily too easily) penetrate the Trotsky security. In this sense history is hanging over this Obama visit.

 

There is much to learn. Who for example would have known this about Vittorio de Sica! QUOTE…His half-sister, the actress María Mercader, was the second wife of Italian film director Vittorio De Sica.

Mercader’s contacts with and befriending of Trotskyists began during the Spanish Civil War. George Orwell’s biographer Gordon Bowker[5] relates how English communist David Crook, ostensibly a volunteer for the Republican side, was sent to Albacete where he was taught Spanish[6] and also given a crash course in surveillance techniques by Ramón Mercader.[7] Crook then, on orders from the NKVD, used his job as war reporter for the News Chronicle to spy on Orwell and his Independent Labour Party comrades in the POUM (Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification) militia.[7]

https://goo.gl/ZsVWtj

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ISRAELI LEADERS LIKE BEZALEL SMOTRICH ARE BANKRUPT (PART 1)

THE PLAN OF DEPUTY SPEAKER BEZALEL SMOTRICH IS UNWORKABLE AND IS (ALMOST) STUPID

by Felix Quigley

 

Israeli leaders are bankrupt and Deputy Speaker Smotrich engages in disarming lies to meet the Fascist threat in the above picture of Muslim Fascists rampaging to kill Jews (again)

I am a Trotskyist of Irish origin with a big interest in Jewish Nationalism, probably originating in my own Irish identity

Why I say the plan of Bezalel Smotrich is unworkable and although I have no doubt Bezalel (being deputy speaker of the Knesset) is highly intelligent, this “plan” is literally a waste of time. It will not work, will not even get off the ground and worse leads Jews in Israel into even worse situations.

There is good therein but there is also bad in the sense of disastrous. The good to some extent is that he proposes Israel take over Judea and Samaria as Caroline Glick has proposed. The report of Israel National News uses the term “annex”. But those who know the history understand that Judea and Samaria legally belong to the Jewish Homeland, and that OSLO was an illegal operation carried out by world Antisemitism, with Jewish traitors leading (such as Peres) see the interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93EFpsZs3d4

So in my opinion that idea is really no big deal. It is a response to and highlights the dismal reality of Jewish Israeli leadership since 1948 which has incrementally allowed this lamentable position to grow and fester. It should of course be done but not as a thing in itself. It should follow naturally from a correct perspective on leadership. For example what about Gaza, surely that too should be rapidly conquered, the Golan should be extended, and the position and threat from Southern Lebanon also considered. Finally the issue of Iran confronted at the same time …surely the latter above all else. But I emphasise I do agree with annexing as a partial step.

Then what to do. Let me take what Smotrich says quite carefully. It should be easy to deal with as he itemises it in 3 “solutions”.

Smotrich’s First Step…Paying to emigrate to a country of their choice. This I first saw put forward by Dr Martin Sherman in his weekly Into The Fray columns. To his credit he never offered this as a “thing in itself” solution. But many took it up like that.

Whatever about that the plan of Sherman has been passed by events, especially the chaos and turmoil in the world kicked off by Bill Clinton, I was nearly saying in Clinton’s very lively bed but actually and seriously in Yugoslavia. Then more chaos by the NeoCons drive into Iraq and the 2003 war to depose the bulwark against Jihad – the original contradiction Saddam Hussein. The building upon that Bushite chaos by the Great Black Hope Obama, who followed the EU and UN in getting rid of Gadhafi. You know the rest. The idea of any Arab from Palestine being taken in by anybody anywhere today – well everything is possible but I cannot see this clearly at all. At the very least the situation has changed hugely and Sherman’s idea should not be trotted out as is happening – in this case by Smotrich.

So that is the FIRST step. Not at all easy. But is it even doable any more in our changed world?

Smotrich’s Second Step(s)…The second step of Smotrich and here we enter into the world of the comedy club. He says permanent residency status as in East Jerusdalem post 1967. That has worked out so well! Surely he is being misquoted here. He follows up enthsuiastically with autonomy for these Jew Hating Arabs and I ask is the world going totally freakin mad? Surely not! Surely this deputy Speaker is not saying THAT!

To cover himself Smotrich raises the Palestinian State idea as a left wing idea. I can see in all fairness where this comes from. There is the role of the Stalinist Soviet Union in the post 67 defeat era. There is the role of people like Chomsky.

But who are these people? Would you confuse Norman Finklestein as being a Zionist? So how are these representative of socialism/communism?

The Palestinian State idea was surely a product post 1967 of an Antisemitic Christianity Capitalism/Imperialism/Stalinism linked to Arab Jew Hatred and Islamic Jihad, and the adaptation to these foul programmes by forgetful Jews.

But I do not want to labour this point at this stage because it requires peopole in general to know some history and all today are miseducated about history and those who know are cowards.

These ruminations of Deputy Speaker Smotrich are a severe attack on Israel and the Jews and are an encouragement to Bibi to perhaps join with Labour in the hope of a new traitorous association that will guarantee his elite some more staying power. Bibi has some good points, certainly over Livni, but is not the answer and never will be. There is a deep vacuum in Israeli leadership. This is not the same as saying there is a deep vacuum in Irish leadership, or English leadership, and there is indeed that. The difference being Jew Hatred. So there is no time to lose. But will people waken up and fight?

 

THE EU BUILDING RAPE OF ISRAEL THE JEWISH HOMELAND

 

Dutch EU officials sit down with PLO to plan illegal building in Judea and Samaria

EU flag over illegal EU building in Judea and Samaria

A recent article in the Daily Mail has exposed that the EU is intervening in Israel, especially in Judea and Samaria, to build a Palestinian Arab State, by means of creating Palestinian Arab villages, building without any permission whatsoever. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3480561/Outrage-EU-claims-diplomatic-immunity-using-aid-money-meddle-Middle-East-building-disputed-West-Bank-land.html

This quote from that article is very important:

QUOTE “This month, the EU approved a further £193million of aid to the Palestinian Authority.

Professor Eugene Kontorovich, an international lawyer from the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, said: ‘There’s no question, the EU is openly in violation of international law.’

But an EU spokeswoman argued that the construction was legal ‘in accordance with the humanitarian imperative’, and said the EU believed that Area C would be ‘part of any viable future Palestinian state’.

‘All EU activity in the West Bank is fully in line with international humanitarian law,’ the spokeswoman said. ‘Under international law Israel also has the obligation to protect and facilitate development for the local population, and to grant unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance.’ END QUOTE

 

As Trotskyists we say the following about this:

 

Begins with the continued hostility of Britain and other EU countries (the place after all of the Holocaust) to Jewish National Identity and Homeland.

 

The Arab and Muslim societies “build” on Jew Hatred – the Jew Hatred after all of Hajj Amin el Husseini and the German Nazis

 

The battle of the womb…Comes from Arab strategy to outbreed…a conscious strategy by PLO/FATAH and Hamas

 

Jewish Governments are often well meaning, often useless and in the last resort traitors. They do not assert national identity. Caroline Glick preaches a non-solution in that she ignores Arab Jew Hatred and Battle of the Womb.

 

As Troskyists we give qualified support to Regavim (the Israeli NGO) who work to expose this Arab and EU Jew Hating strategy. But they appear to not face up to “Battle of the Womb” at least not explicitely. In fact the only strategy is to clear this land of people who are HOSTILE TO THE JEWISH HOMELAND whoever they are.

 

Thus the issue is who is in control of the STATE, that is the GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL….THAT is the key issue. In the end the only issue to focus upon.

 

 

YOU ARE LYING GERRY DOWNING TROTSKY DID SUPPORT A JEWISH STATE

 

image from a lectura promo which is on youtube

Trotsky was in fact a supporter of the setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine

 

This is an extract from The Spectator which calls Gerry Downing a “Trotskyite”. Why Gerry is not even a Trotskyist as I hope to make clear.

 

AN: You’ve also said that we need to confront the Jewish question, what is the Jewish question?

GD: Well, the fact that Israel can commit absolutely heinous crimes against, Palestinians, they can bomb them without letter and this is presented in the Western media as an attack on terrorists.

AN: Your group says that Zionism plays a major role in politics of all the advanced capitalist countries. You say that Zionists are behind the witch hunt behind Jeremy Corbyn. You say that Zionists hold great sway over our three main political parties. You say that Zionism is the vanguard of injecting anti-Muslim hatred into Western politics. It would sound when you see all that that for you the Jewish question is a Zionist conspiracy?

GD: No, it’s not a Zionist conspiracy. It adds up to something very material and that is the number of millionaires and billionaires of Zionist persuasion which in the American ruling class and in the European ruling classes in general it is their economic and political power, that leads to ridiculous situations.

AN: And Zionists — as you call them — play a key role in that?

GD: They obviously do play a key role, they have duel-citizenship most of them.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/watch-labours-expelled-trotskyite-says-he-will-not-condemn-911/

 

In order to find out what Trotsky was writing about the Jews in the 1930s before his life was ended in Mexico 1940 by a Stalinist assasin it is a good idea to turn to (surprise surprise) his writings.

Indeed there are those who have done this and some of these have been Jewish historians. One of the first books I read on this was by a Jewish man called Joseph Nedava ( I still have the now battered hard cover copy which I received second hand but hardly touched therefore in pristine condition from a library surplus in New York)

After about 50 pages of reading Nedava I had realised that he was analysing Trotsky not from the viewpoint of how good he Trotsky was at leading, but how he had measured up as a Jew!!!

That aside Joseph Nedava was very objective and most fair to Trtosky. I saw glimpses of the same fairness and objectivity in the lectures of Robert Wistrich especially those in early 2015 just before his sudden and untimely death.

Even Norman Geras who is the most definite non-Trotskyist I have come across was filled with absolute astonishment as to how Trotsky was able in 1938 to write in such an accurately predictive way about the Holocaust of the Jews to come.

How was Trotsky able to do this? The answer is that he had spent long years studying the new phenomenon of Fascism, and how that interplayed with Antisemitism. How and why he did that is another matter for another time.

The result of all of this however,in a nutshell, was that Trotsky publicly called for the Jews to urgently get themselves out of Europe, make their way to Palestine by hook or by crook, and there set up a Jewish state which the Jews could defend. In this aspect of defence Trotsky also added to the German Nazis the concept of defence of the Jews against “Mohammedanism” – Yes that was the very word he used.

So really it seemed that in taking these positions Trotsky was a Zionist, but of course not a religious Zionist at all, but nevertheless he was calling for the Jews to return to their ancient Homeland, making this call on the basis of his dialectical materialist understanding of the realities of the world in 1938.

It is really all of a one – his analysis of capitalism in mortal decline (he called it death agony!), his analysis step by step from Italy to Spain to Germany of this new phenomenon of Fascism (Nobody but nobody has written in such detail about Fascism), his lifeling encounter with Antisemitism something he shared also with Lenin AND Marx, All came together.

It thus emerges that Gerry Downing in his encounter with the commie baiter Andrew Neil has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

Gerry calls himself a Trotskysit. the Spectator calls him a Trotskyite, Andrew Neil falls in line and obliges.

Gerry Downing that preserved in vinegar relic a Trotskyist…Pleeeeze!

PS

The following is from Nedava and is a more recent letter written in defence of his position on Trotsky…It is fairly self explanatory. I take it from an article I wrote on 4international and is a fairly good refutation of both Spectator and Downing

 

QUOTE

LEON TROTSKY IN THE 1930S

This is dealt with in the famous biography by Joseph Nedava. Trotsky did not think that Jews would ever be safe inside a capitalist world because like us on 4international Trotsky identified capitalism in crisis as the source of this very dangerous form of capitalist rule-Fascism.

But he was no dogmatist. Recognising in those all too real times the great danger to Jews from Hitler Trotsky in effect (despite Nedava’s confusion on some aspects of the issue) not in words but in deeds stated himself as a Zionist, a Zionist based on science not religion. This is what Nedava wrote quite recently:

“The one thing one cannot say of Trotsky, as Mr. Carmichael does, is that whatever he wrote of Jewishness was “banal and predictable.” In 1938 Trotsky predicted the Holocaust and expressed his fear of the physical annihilation of seven million Jews in Europe. A year earlier he admitted the need for a “territorial” solution to the Jewish problem. These are far-reaching views. To be sure, in subscribing indirectly to the Zionist solution, it did not follow that Trotsky himself would have become a pilgrim to Zion: Zionism dawned on him too late in the day for that, but I am convinced that had Stalin spared him another eight years of life to witness the establishment of the State of Israel, Trotsky would have sanctioned this historic fact, even if only as a “temporary” solution to the Jewish problem until the Communist “millennium” was finally ushered in. In this respect, Mrs. Beba Idelson’s interview with Trotsky in 1937, which I cite in my book, is very illuminating.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/trotsky-as-jew/

 

A NEW GENERAL LAW OF NATURE…ATTACK ISRAEL COVER FOR ISIS

February 26, 2016

INTO THE FRAY: To the Australian Jewish Establishment Embrace political truth, not political correctness

By submitting to fashionable untruths of political correctness, Australia’s Jewish Establishment is doing a grave disservice to its mission and values.

By Martin Sherman, JPOST

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!… Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities… but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world… The effects are apparent in many countries… Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live… The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men… Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science… the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
Winston Churchill, 1899

One of the false presumptions of our time is that people on the political Left are motivated by good intentions even when they do bad things, while people on the political Right are motivated by bad intentions even when they do good things.
Douglas Murray, May 7, 2015

I chose to commence this week’s column with these excerpts because they encapsulate the essence of what I wish to address in this somewhat critical appraisal of the conduct of the Australian Jewish establishment.

Why Australian Jewry?

Why Australian Jewry? Well, in recent years Australian Jewry has become increasingly important. Its involvement with Israel has grown, as has its influence. Australia has become an ever-more sought after destination for Israeli business, academics and public figures. Accordingly, Israelis should care about what happens there and express concern when it appears things are veering off kilter.

Hence this column which I have been mulling on for some time now ever since I learned (somewhat belatedly) of the shabby treatment meted out to two (very different) well-known Israelis for expressing views divergent from prevailing political correctness.

The one was a prominent academic and world-renowned expert on Islam, Raphael (Raphi) Israeli, professor emeritus of Middle Eastern, Islamic and Chinese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The other, a former Knesset member and deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament, a major in an IDF combat unit, and oh, the bitter irony former co-chairman of the Israel-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group, Moshe Feiglin, who also served on 10 Knesset panels, including the prestigious Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

Sadly, their fate seems indicative of a more pervasive malaise of chronic almost Pavlovian political correctness that permeates the mind-set of much of the Jewish establishment there.

Politically incorrect political truth?

Back in 2007, Prof. Israeli, an erudite scholar and entertaining lecturer, ran afoul of Australia’s Jewish establishment when he ventured to articulate an almost self-evident but brusquely politically incorrect truth. In an interview to the Australian Jewish News, Israeli had the temerity to suggest that if Muslim immigration to Australia reached the levels in Europe, then Australian society was likely to suffer much the same Muslim-related ravages as those afflicting Europe.

The learned academic was immediately excoriated by leading Jewish organizations, whose response reflected intimidation and/ or ignorance rather than informed enlightenment.

AIJAC (the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council), roughly the Down Under equivalent of AIPAC, and arguably the most visible Jewish group there, egregiously disowned Israeli, retracting its co-hosting of his planned lectures series, saying: “… his comments are both unacceptable and unhelpful, and AIJAC cannot be associated with them and therefore will not be co-hosting any of his further appearances in Australia.”

Subsequent events Muslim rioting in Sydney, lethal Muslim-related terrorist attacks and increased jihadi activism have imparted an ominous ring of truth to his recalcitrant politically incorrect caveats.

Indeed, it would appear that, today, many EU countries would embrace them eagerly, given the devastating effect their burgeoning Muslim populations are having on their socio-cultural fabric.

Churchill would be unwelcome?

Clearly nothing Israeli said was remotely as abrasive as Churchill’s words cited above. Yet it would be difficult to find any factual flaw in either his unflattering description of the socio-cultural realities in large swathes of the Muslim world, or in his chillingly prophetic prediction as to Islam’s quest for dominance in many other, as yet, non-Muslim countries across the globe.

Yet given its aversion to unpalatable political truths, one cannot help but wonder whether if Churchill, one of fiercest champions of liberty against fascism, were alive today, he too would be ostracized by much of the Australian Jewish establishment.

Indeed, despite the fact that “[i]ndividual Moslems may show splendid qualities,” the societal impact of large, unassimilated (and arguably, unassimilable) Muslim populations in the democratic West, which Israeli referred to, is becoming increasingly difficult to deny as many well-intentioned governments across Western Europe and Scandinavia are discovering to their consternation.

In its submission to the untruths of fashionable political correctness, the Australian Jewish community is doing a grave disservice to its mission and to the enlightened values to which it purports to subscribe. For not only has the European experience shown that increased Muslim populations are likely to inflame Judeophobic sentiments, if current trends continue unchecked a ban on bikinis at Bondi and Bronte beaches may soon be a far less unthinkable prospect than one may imagine today.

‘Condemned for terrible things he never said’

The question of attitudes to gender and sexual preferences leads naturally to the blackballing of former MK Moshe Feiglin on his visit to Australia last year. He was shunned and castigated by numerous Jewish organizations for his “unacceptable” views on women, gays and the Palestinian-Arabs. Thus Rabbi Benjamin Elton of Sydney’s Great Synagogue declared.

“He wouldn’t be welcome here… I’m absolutely opposed to any sexism, racism or homophobia.” (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 13, 2015) A headline in the US site Jewishpress.com sums up the establishment assault on the hapless visitor from Israel: “Australian Jews Reject Former MK Feiglin over Terrible Things He Never Said.”

It appears that Feiglin’s detractors were victims (albeit not necessarily unwilling ones) of disinformation, disseminated by some of his illiberal, far-left ideological, adversaries who seized upon a (Hebrew) article he wrote in mid-2008, which bore the unfortunate, and somewhat misleading, headline: “I am a proud homophobe.” Had anyone of his critics bothered to read the article, they would have discovered that it was far more a defense of traditional family structure than an attack on gays, and the suffix “-phobe” was used more in the sense of “fear” rather than “aversion,” conveying concern for societal stability, rather than opprobrium for same-sex liaisons.

But even if there are those who would dispute my interpretation of Feiglin’s offending article as overly and misleadingly lenient, his defamers certainly ignored (or concealed) the later development of his views on the topic, and the prominent expression given to them in the Israeli media even in, gasp, Haaretz!

How homophobic can you get?

Indeed, the following are excerpts from a report (Haaretz, February 8, 2013) by Ilan Lior, on a visit by Feiglin to a gay bar shortly after being elected to the Knesset: “Feiglin expressed support for education toward tolerance of homosexuals and lesbians in schools and providing training for educators and community leaders, including the Orthodox and haredi public. He also agreed, cautiously, to support an amendment to the law that would forbid discrimination in schools based on sexual preference…”

OMG! How homophobic can one get? The report continued: “Later, Feiglin went even a step further. ‘If we would define it as a pact of intimacy and not as same-sex marriage, would you support it?” asked one of those present.

“Very likely,” replied Feiglin. The audience applauded him at the end of the event.”

I kid you not. That’s what it said in Haaretz: “The [gay] audience applauded him.”

On leaving the event, the report concluded, Feiglin stated firmly “I am not a homophobe.”

Other media channels carried similar favorable accounts of the meeting. Thus, on the NRG website Lior Dayan, hardly a Feiglin adherent, described several moving moments of human interaction between the purported right-wing ogre and his gay interlocutors, particularly Feiglin’s poignant account of how the “coming out of the closet” of one of his best friend’s sons, had impacted him. Dayan quotes Feiglin as telling this audience: “I fight for the freedom of every person… including your freedom. I see myself committed to you no less than any other person.”

Just thought you guys Down Under might want to know in the interests of fair play, you know.

Endorsing pluralism on condition there is none?

A later piece in Haaretz (April 19, 2013), by Avi Shilon, provided this assessment of Feiglin: “He is the most interesting right-winger today.” According to Shilon, “… in many senses he is more enlightened… and is certainly a deeper thinker than [many others on the Israeli Right].”

Shilon observed: “The uniqueness of his views lies in his insistence on combining the Greater Land of Israel with extreme individual liberty and on combining clear preference for the Jewish people with liberal democracy.”

Liberal democracy? Feiglin? In Haaretz? What is the world coming to? How many of you out there in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and so on were aware of all this? I wonder.

Anyway, in concluding, Shilon offers a depressing explanation for Feiglin’s demonization: He asks: “What… is the reason for the shunning of Feiglin and the labeling of him as a deviant oddball?” and suggests an answer: “… in our political discourse… [t]ry presenting a complex worldview and you will immediately become weird and ominous.”

This certainly seems to be a condition that has afflicted a good number of Australian Jewish leaders. Thus, for example Johnny Baker, president of Ameinu Australia and a member of the AIJAC editorial board, declared: “Whilst we respect the right of different voices to be heard in our community, we are equally concerned that the impending visit of Israeli extremist Moishe Feiglin will bring the Jewish community into disrepute and play into the hands of our adversaries.” Heads of several other organizations expressed similar dismissive disapproval.

Surely then, one could be excused for reaching the conclusion that much of Australia’s Jewish establishment is all for pluralism on condition there’s none. Or, at least, not too much.

Hugely hypocritical


But, of course, Feiglin’s views on gender and sexual preferences really have nothing to do with the animosity he encountered. After all, whatever alleged bias against women and gays that might
rightly or wrongly be attributed to him, it pales into insignificance compared to the virulent discrimination against females and the barbarous persecution of homosexuals almost universal in Muslim society to which the Jewish establishment insists on demonstrating such benevolent tolerance, as part and parcel of its commitment to enlightened modernity.

This glaring disparity between the gross intolerance shown Feiglin and the protective defensiveness against criticism of Muslim society reeks of huge hypocrisy and blatant disingenuousness.

Indeed, the real reason for the hostility toward Feiglin is his heretical attitude toward the “holy grail” of the two-state paradigm and his alternative proposal very similar to a policy prescription I too have long promoted for the funded emigration of Palestinian-Arabs to third-party countries.

Sadly, Australia’s Jewish establishment has wedded itself, and its public prestige, to the dangerous delusion of the two-state principle.

Thus, AIJAC executive-director Colin Rubenstein wrote (The Australian, March 12, 2014): “AIJAC has consistently argued that a negotiated two-state settlement is the only path to genuine peace in the narrow strip of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean thus fulfilling the desire of all parents there to give their children a secure and fulfilling future free from terrorism and war.”

Immoral, irrational, incompatible

Of course nothing could be more dangerously divergent from the truth.

The two-state endeavor is immoral, irrational, and incompatible with the long-term existence of Israel as the Jewish nation-state.

It is immoral because it will create realties that are the absolute negation of the lofty values invoked for its implementation.

It is irrational because it will produce precisely the perils it was designed to prevent.

It is incompatible with Israel’s long-term existence as the Jewish nation-state because it will almost inevitably culminate in a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv.

These are issues that subject to breaking news I will elaborate on in greater detail in next week’s sequel to this appeal to Australian Jewry

http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63613127

 

 

 

DEVALERA AT THE 1937 CONFERENCE IS PREPARING THE GROUND FOR THE NAZI HOLOCAUST TO SWIFTLY FOLLOW

 

Lord Robert Peel (center), upon his arrival to British Mandate Palestine. This was the ultimate betrayal of the Jews by Britain (British Imperialism). At the later conference held by the League of Nations the Irish elites and deValera worked with the Arabs in setting the Jews up for the Holocaust

 

Without burdening the reader with too many details the League of Nations met to discuss the Peel Report in 1937 and DeValera made a speech to something called the “Sixth Committee”. It is the essence of his speech that is important.

In my opinion DeValera was demonstrating a deep Antisemitism. He turned his back completely on the sufferings of and dangers to the Jews in the world at that precise conjuncture.

In his address “deValera could not have been more opposed to any partition of Palestine, on the grounds that territorial division was the cruelest injustice that could be inflicted on a nation; the very idea of partition was to deValera like a rag to a bull”

Book mentioned here is (The Harp and the Shield of David… Ireland, Zionism and the State of Israel…Shulamit Emiash)

A Jewish man called Goldmann later speculated that “His real motive was obviously the bitter feeling of Ireland against the Irish partition”

What was left out by this excuse for an Irishman was the plight of the Jews in the world as Jewry faced the threat of Fascism in general and Hitler in particular.

Only a deep Antisemitism wrapped up inside the bubble of insular nationalism could reach such conclusions as deValera did in 1937 at that conference.

Shulamit Emiash adds: “deValera was condemning Britain…for the wrong that it had committed in partitioning Ireland”.

Is it possible to have a more evil position in 1937 than that? What a phoney politician was this man deValera! This political scoundrel had come to this key conference on which the fate of the Jews hung, and who were daily and monthly more and more threatened by the Nazis, to blow his own horn on the Partition of Ireland.

Nor was this unique to Eamon de Valera and the Irish elites. All of these governments were concerned only with themselves and the plight of the Jews when it came to their own interests could basically go to hell. That is the nature of the beast.

Antisemitism is indeed hardwired inside of the capitalist system and all are prepared to look on the Jews for the purpose only of their own opportunist interests.

It has happened time and again, the Evian Conference, the role of America, Britain and other countries in collaboration with the Nazis, then imperialist war, turning their back on the Jewish refugees, and during the slaughter allowing the Holocaust to continue when it was more than possible to halt it from 1943 onwards with Allied control of the air, total air control over the whole environments of the death camps.

Shulamit Emiash corrrectly sums up the Arab line at the Conference who “voiced the traditional Arab arguments against the Balfour Declaration, against the Jewish immigration to Palestine and against any partition of the land”.

Since the Arabs we know were then working in close alliance with the Nazis that spells only one thing – Holocaust.

That was also the position of deValera. It is no wonder he was later thanked by the Arabs who recognised this service which deValera was paying to Antisemitism.

It was also the position that ensured the murder of 6 millions of Jews by Hitler.

While pretending to be bitterly opposed to Britain deValera was actually helping not only Hitler but also the British Antisemitic programme against the Jews, which is really what the British role in the Mandate of Palestine consisted of…it was pure Antisemitism from start to finish.

But was there any answer for the Jews in 1937 or in any year along this continuum? Yes there definitely was but it involved stopping and asking the simple basic question…what is the nature of this system of capitalism in mortal decline and crisis…pondering on the answer to that would have led the Jews towards seeking the revolutionary socialist road. The next article in this historical series has Leon Trotsky predicting very precisely the future years of suffering for the Jews – the Holocaust. It will also answer why Trotsky is ignored by bourgeois Jews today and I will give examples of this.