person:alan dershowitz

  • “National security” cited as reason Al Jazeera nixed Israel lobby film | The Electronic Intifada

    Al Jazeera’s investigative documentary into the US Israel lobby was censored by Qatar over “national security” fears, The Electronic Intifada has learned.

    These include that broadcast of the film could add to pressure for the US to pull its massive Al Udeid air base out of the Gulf state, or make a Saudi military invasion more likely.

    A source has confirmed that broadcast of The Lobby – USA was indefinitely delayed as “a matter of national security” for Qatar. The source has been briefed by a high-level individual in Doha.

    One of the Israel lobby groups whose activities are revealed in the film has been mounting a campaign to convince the US to withdraw its military forces from Qatar – which leaders in the emirate would see as a major blow to their security.

    The tiny gas-rich monarchy houses and funds satellite channel Al Jazeera.

    In April, managers at the channel were forced to deny a claim by a right-wing American Zionist group that the program has been canceled altogether.

    In October 2017, the head of Al Jazeera’s investigative unit promised that the film would be aired “very soon.”

    Yet eight months later, it has yet to see the light of day.

    In March, The Electronic Intifada exclusively published the first concrete details of what is in the film.

    The film reportedly identifies a number of lobby groups as working directly with Israel to spy on American citizens using sophisticated data gathering techniques. The documentary is also said to cast light on covert efforts to smear and intimidate Americans seen as too critical of Israel.

    Some of the activity revealed in the film could include US organizations acting as front operations for Israel without registering as agents of a foreign state as required by US law.

    The latest revelation over the censored film shows how seriously Qatar’s leadership is taking threats of repercussions should it air.

    The Israel lobby groups reported on in the film could be expected to take legal action against Al Jazeera if it is broadcast.

    However, such threats alone would be unlikely to deter Al Jazeera from broadcasting the film.

    The network has a history of vigorously defending its work and it was completely vindicated over complaints about a documentary aired in January 2017 that revealed how Israel lobby groups in Britain collude with the Israeli embassy, and how the embassy interfered in British politics.

    Israel’s supporters are also pushing for the US Congress to force the network, which has a large US operation, to register as a “foreign agent” in a similar fashion to Russian channel RT.

    But the high-level individual in Doha’s claim that the film is being censored as “a matter of national security” ties the affair to even more serious threats to Qatar and bolsters the conclusion that the censorship is being ordered at the highest level of the state.

    A year ago, with the support of US President Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates cut off diplomatic relations with Qatar and imposed a transport and economic blockade on the country.

    Saudi rulers and their allies see Qatar as too independent of their influence and too open to relations with their regional rival Iran, and the blockade was an attempt to force it to heel.

    The Saudis and Israel accused Qatar of funding “terrorism,” and have taken measures to restrict Al Jazeera or demanded it be shut down altogether over what they perceive as the channel’s anti-Israel and anti-Saudi-monarchy biases.

    The blockade and the diplomatic assault sparked existential fears in Qatar that Saudi-led forces could go as far as to invade and install a more pliant regime in Doha.

    French newspaper Le Monde reported on Friday that the Saudi king has threatened “military action” against Qatar should it go ahead with a planned purchase of a Russian air defense missile system.

    In 2011, Saudi and Emirati forces intervened in Bahrain, another small Gulf nation, at the request of its ruling Khalifa monarchy in order to quell a popular uprising demanding democratic reforms.

    For three years, US and British-backed Saudi and Emirati forces have been waging a bloody and devastating war on Yemen to reimpose a Saudi-backed leadership on the country, clear evidence of their unprecedented readiness to directly use military force to impose their will.

    And no one in the region will have forgotten how quickly Iraqi forces were able to sweep in and take over Kuwait in August 1990.

    Air base
    The lesson of the Kuwait invasion for other small Gulf countries is that only the protection of the United States could guarantee their security from bigger neighbors.

    Qatar implemented that lesson by hosting the largest US military facility in the region, the massive Al Udeid air base.

    The Saudi-led bloc has pushed for the US to withdraw from the base and the Saudi foreign minister predicted that should the Americans pull out of Al Udeid, the regime in Doha would fall “in less than a week.”

    US warplanes operate from the Al Udeid air base near Doha, Qatar, October 2017. US Air Force Photo
    It would be a disaster from the perspective of Doha if the Israel lobby was to put its full weight behind a campaign to pull US forces out of Qatar.

    Earlier this year, an influential member of Congress and a former US defense secretary publicly discussed moving the US base out of Qatar at a conference hosted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).

    FDD is a neoconservative Israel lobby group that happens to be one of the subjects of the undercover Al Jazeera film.

    As The Electronic Intifada revealed in March, FDD is one of the groups acting as an agent of the Israeli government even though it is not registered to do so.

    In July 2017, FDD’s Jonathan Schanzer testified to Congress that it would be an “insane arrangement” to keep US forces at the Al Udeid air base while Qatar continued to support “terror.”

    It will concentrate minds in Doha that FDD was one of the lobby groups most dedicated to destroying the international deal with Iran over its nuclear energy program, a goal effectively achieved when the Trump administration pulled out of it last month.

    In a sign of how vulnerable Qatar feels over the issue, Doha has announced plans to upgrade the Al Udeid base in the hope, as the US military newspaper Stars and Stripes put it, “that the strategic military hub will be counted as one of the Pentagon’s permanent overseas installations.”

    The final straw?
    The cornerstone of Qatar’s effort to win back favor in Washington has been to aggressively compete with its Gulf rivals for the affections of Israel and its Washington lobby.

    Their belief appears to be that this lobby is so influential that winning its support can result in favorable changes to US policy.

    Qatar’s charm offensive has included junkets to Doha for such high-profile Israel supporters as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and Morton Klein, the head of the Zionist Organization of America who publicly took credit for convincing Qatar’s ruler Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani to veto broadcast of the documentary.

    While an all-out Saudi invasion of Qatar over a film series may seem far fetched, the thinking in Doha seems to be that broadcast of The Lobby – USA could be the final straw that antagonizes Qatar’s enemies and exposes it to further danger – especially over Al Udeid.

    With an administration in Washington that is seen as impulsive and unpredictable – it has just launched a trade war against its biggest partners Canada and the European Union – leaders in Doha may see it as foolhardy to take any chances.

    If that is the reason Al Jazeera’s film has been suppressed it is not so much a measure of any real and imminent threat Qatar faces, but rather of how successfully the lobby has convinced Arab rulers, including in Doha, that their well-being and longevity rests on cooperating with, or at least not crossing, Israel and its backers.

    Asa Winstanley is associate editor and Ali Abunimah is executive director of The Electronic Intifada.

    Qatar Al Jazeera The Lobby—USA Al Udeid air base Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani Donald Trump Jared Kushner Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates Bahrain Iran Kuwait Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Jonathan Schanzer Morton Klein Alan Dershowitz Zionist Organization of America

    Gaza medic killed by Israel as she rescued injured
    Ali Abunimah 2 June 2018

    Who is the Labour Party’s “witchfinder general”?
    Asa Winstanley 31 May 2018

    Israeli minister threatens to destroy Gaza “once and for all”
    Ali Abunimah 30 May 2018

    Main menu
    FeaturesOpinion and analysisReviewsBlogs
    Search form Search

  • The sinister reason behind Qatar’s wooing of the Jews

    Doha wants to influence D.C. elites. But rather than targeting Congress or the media, they’re lavishly, and disproportionately, focusing on right-wing, pro-Israel Jews

    Jonathan S. Tobin Feb 08, 2018 2:20 PM

    A debate over the good name of Qatar has become a burning issue in Washington. The Emirate has been waging an all out charm offensive aimed at convincing Americans not to back Saudi Arabia’s efforts to isolate it. 
    But while efforts seeking to influence D.C. elites are commonplace, the most prominent targets of Qatar’s public relations push aren’t the usual suspects in Congress or the media.
    Instead, Qatar’s PR team has focused on winning the hearts and minds of a very specific niche of opinion leader that is not generally given much attention, let alone love, by Arab states: the pro-Israel community in general and right-wing Jews in particular.

    Women walk past artwork on the corniche waterside looking towards the city skyline in Doha, Qatar. Nov. 22, 2012Bloomberg
    This has not only reaped some benefits for the Qataris but also set off something of a civil war on the right between those who buy the Emirate’s arguments and those who dismiss them as propaganda intended to cover up its support for terrorism.
    But as interesting as this nasty intramural quarrel might be, it’s worth pondering if there’s something more to Qatar’s efforts than a generic Washington influence operation. It is, after all, logical for them to seek out those who may have Trump’s ear.
    Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email* Sign up

    Yet the disproportionate attention given the Jews may have a more sinister origin that should be familiar to students of Jewish and Zionist history.
    The obvious explanation for Qatar’s strategy is the increased importance of pro-Israel opinion in the Trump administration, especially when compared to its predecessor. With supporters of the settlement movement appointed to posts like the U.S. ambassador to Israel and an Orthodox Jews like presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner at Trump’s side, the Jewish right’s stock is at an all-time high.
    That elevates the importance of pro-Israel organizations and lobbyists who might otherwise be assumed to be hostile to any Gulf nation, especially one that is host and sponsor of the rabidly anti-Israel Al Jazeera network and is believed to have played a major role in funding Hamas.

    Alan Dershowitz addresses an audience at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass. Jan. 23, 2007ASSOCIATED PRESS
    That has led to a stream of invitations for pro-Israel figures to visit Qatar and to hear its leaders make the case that it has gotten a bum rap from critics. Some, like the Zionist Organization of America’s Mort Klein, insist they were only there to insist that the emirate cease funding terrorism. Others returned from a tour of Qatar singing its praises or at least, willing to give its assertion that it no longer has ties with Hamas the benefit of the doubt.

    One prominent convert to the pro-Qatar side is attorney and author Alan Dershowitz, a longtime liberal Democrat who is also a pillar of the pro-Israel community. Dershowitz was impressed by Qatar’s efforts to put its best face forward to the Jews noting that Israeli athletes were welcomed to compete in Doha while Saudi Arabia - which has established strong under-the-table ties with Israel and is a Trump administration favorite - continued its discriminatory attitude towards Israelis. Dershowitz even went so far as to call Qatar “the Israel of the Gulf States.” 
    That in turn generated some fierce pushback from other pro-Israel figures with scholar Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies pointing out there is proof that Qatar’s alibis about Hamas and terror ring false and urging Dershowitz to stick to topics he knows something about. More extreme was the reaction from the always-incendiary Rabbi Shmuley Boteach who branded Dershowitz a sellout.
    Who is right in this dispute?

    Members of Qatar’s armed forces during national day celebrations in Doha. Qatar is using its extraordinary wealth to fund a massive push in defense spending. December 17, 2017 STRINGER/AFP
    Until proven otherwise, the skeptics about Qatar have the better arguments. Qatar’s involvement in Gaza can’t be written off as mere philanthropy.
    But as even Schanzer pointed out, there’s no harm in Jews going there to learn more about the place. Nor, despite the close ties it is establishing with Israel, is there any reason for pro-Israel figures to get involved in the politics of the Arabian Peninsula, let alone take the side of the Saudis in their feud with Qatar. The Gulf emirate has always had an ambivalent relationship with the West, with Doha being a U.S. Navy base while also serving as a beachhead for Iranian influence. Drawing firm conclusions about its behavior is probably unwarranted.
    But there’s another factor here that needs to also be examined.
    While their Washington PR representative — a former aide to Senator Ted Cruz - may have told his client that winning over supporters of Israel is the path to success, the attention given the American Jewish community is still disproportionate. Conservative Jewish groups may have loud voices and some influential backers but their ability to influence events, let alone national opinion is limited. That’s why most lobbyists don’t squander that much attention on them.

    The newsroom at the headquarters of the Qatar-based and funded Al Jazeera English-language channel in Doha. February 7, 2011REUTERS
    Another plausible explanation for all this attention stems from the traditional anti-Semitic belief that Jews and Zionists can exert mysterious control over major powers like the United States. Just like the well-meaning British statesmen who really thought the Balfour Declaration would boost the Allied war effort because of the unique and sinister ability of Jews to influence the United States and Russia, others have similarly bought into unfounded notions about Jewish power.
    The contemporary Arab and Muslim world has become a place where anti-Semitic texts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion freely circulate. Those who demonize Israel and its supporters are prone to attribute exaggerated powers to Jews in this way. If the Qataris are that focused on American Jews and right-wingers at that, it’s just as likely to be as much the product of this sort of distorted thinking as anything else.
    Seen in that light, the dustup on the Jewish right about Qatar is even sillier that it seems. Reports about Qatar dangling the prospect of spiking an Al Jazeera documentary about pro-Israel lobbyists is particularly absurd because few in the U.S. take the network seriously.
    Rather than argue about the virtues of the Emirate, supporters of Israel need to wonder about the reasons they are being wooed and conclude they’d be better off staying out of this dispute altogether.
    Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of and a contributing writer for National Review. Twitter: @jonathans_tobin

  • #Qatar turns to #Israel to escape Saudi squeeze | The Electronic Intifada

    The Qatari government has been sponsoring trips for right-wing Americans and staunch supporters of Israel in an apparent bid to salvage the emirate from its regional isolation.

    Earlier this month, Israel apologist Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz made a trip to Doha at the invitation of Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the emir of Qatar, who financed the trip.

    Dershowitz, one of the Israel lobby’s most prominent US figures, wrote an article upon his return in which he reflected on numerous meetings with Qatari officials.

    But he first professed to being surprised at learning that an Israeli tennis player was to participate in a Doha tournament and that Qatar is open to welcoming the Israeli national soccer team, should it qualify for the World Cup which Qatar will host in 2022.

    He contrasted this with Saudi Arabia’s refusal to grant a visa to an Israeli chess player, concluding that “the Saudis were not necessarily the good guys in their dispute with Qatar.”

    #dirigeants_arabes #indigents_arabes

  • Norman Finkelstein : Charlie Hebdo n’est pas satyrique, il est sadique PAR WILL SUMMER le 20 JANVIER 2015 - RipouxBlique des CumulardsVentrusGrosQ

    Par Mustafa Caglayan, le 19 janvier 2015

    Dans l’Allemagne nazie, il y avait un journal hebdomadaire antisémite appelé Der Stürmer.

    Dirigé par Julius Streicher, il était réputé comme l’un des défenseurs les plus virulents de la persécution des Juifs pendant les années 1930.

    Tout le monde se souvient des caricatures morbides de Der Stürmer sur les Juifs, le peuple qui était alors confronté à une discrimination et à une persécution généralisées.

    Ses représentations validaient tous les stéréotypes communs sur les Juifs – nez crochu, avarice, avidité.

    « Imaginons qu’au milieu de toute cette mort et de toute cette destruction, deux jeunes juifs aient fait irruption dans le siège de la rédaction de Der Stürmer, et qu’ils aient tué tout le personnel qui les avait humiliés, dégradés, avilis, insultés », se demande Norman Finkelstein, un professeur de sciences politiques et auteur de nombreux ouvrages dont L’industrie de l’Holocauste. Réflexions sur l’exploitation de la souffrance des Juifs et Méthode et démence [consacré aux agressions israéliennes contre Gaza].

    « Comment réagirais-je à cela ? » se demanda Finkelstein, qui est le fils de survivants de l’Holocauste.


    Finkelstein dressait ainsi une analogie entre une attaque hypothétique contre le journal allemand et l’attaque mortelle du 7 janvier au siège parisien du magazine satirique Charlie Hebdo qui a causé la mort de 12 personnes, dont son éditeur et ses principaux dessinateurs. L’hebdomadaire est réputé pour sa publication de contenus controversés, y compris des caricatures dégradantes sur le prophète Mahomet en 2006 et en 2012.

    L’attaque a déclenché un énorme tollé mondial, avec des millions de personnes en France et dans le monde qui ont défilé dans les rues pour soutenir la liberté de la presse derrière le cri de ralliement « Je suis Charlie » ou « I am Charlie ».

    Les caricatures du Prophète Mahomet que Charlie Hebdo a réalisées « ne sont pas de la satire », et ce qu’ils ont soulevé n’était pas des « idées », a soutenu Finkelstein.

    La satire authentique est exercée soit contre nous-mêmes, afin d’amener notre communauté à réfléchir à deux fois à ses actes et à ses paroles, soit contre des personnes qui ont du pouvoir et des privilèges, a-t-il affirmé.

    « Mais lorsque des gens sont misérables et abattus, désespérés, sans ressources, et que vous vous moquez d’eux, lorsque vous vous moquez d’une personne sans-abri, ce n’est pas de la satire », a affirmé Finkelstein.

    « Ce n’est rien d’autre que du sadisme. Il y a une très grande différence entre la satire et le sadisme. Charlie Hebdo, c’est du sadisme. Ce n’est pas de la satire. »

    La « communauté désespérée et méprisée » d’aujourd’hui, ce sont les musulmans, a-t-il déclaré, évoquant le grand nombre de pays musulmans en proie à la mort et à la destruction, comme c’est le cas en Syrie, en Irak, à Gaza, au Pakistan, en Afghanistan et au Yémen.

    « Donc deux jeunes hommes désespérés expriment leur désespoir contre cette pornographie politique qui n’est guère différente de celle de Der Stürmer, qui, au milieu de toute cette mort et de toute cette destruction, a décrété qu’il était en quelque sorte noble de dégrader, d’avilir, d’humilier et d’insulter les membres de cette communauté. Je suis désolé, c’est peut-être très politiquement incorrect de dire cela, mais je n’ai aucune sympathie pour [le personnel de Charlie Hebdo]. Est-ce qu’il fallait les tuer ? Bien sûr que non. Mais bien sûr, Streicher n’aurait pas dû être pendu. Je ne l’ai pas entendu dire par beaucoup de personnes », a déclaré Finkelstein.

    Streicher fut l’un de ceux qui furent accusés et jugés au procès de Nuremberg, après la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Il a été pendu pour ses caricatures.

    Finkelstein a également fait référence au fait que certaines personnes soutiendront qu’elles ont le droit de se moquer de tout le monde, même des gens désespérés et démunis, et elles ont probablement ce droit, a-t-il concédé. « Mais vous avez aussi le droit de dire : ‘Je ne veux pas publier ça dans mon journal…’ Lorsque vous le publiez, vous en prenez la responsabilité. »

    Finkelstein a comparé les caricatures controversées de Charlie Hebdo à la doctrine des « propos incendiaires », une catégorie de propos passibles de poursuites dans la jurisprudence américaine.

    Cette doctrine se réfère à certains propos qui entraîneraient probablement la personne contre qui ils sont dirigés à commettre un acte de violence. C’est une catégorie de propos qui n’est pas protégée par le Premier Amendement.

    « Vous n’avez pas le droit de prononcer des propos incendiaires, parce qu’ils sont l’équivalent d’une gifle sur le visage, et ça revient à chercher des ennuis », a déclaré Finkelstein.

    « Eh bien, est-ce que les caricatures de Charlie Hebdo sont l’équivalent des propos incendiaires ? Ils appellent cela de la satire. Ce n’est pas de la satire. Ce ne sont que des épithètes, il n’y a rien de drôle là-dedans. Si vous trouvez ça drôle, alors représenter des Juifs avec des grosses lèvres et un nez crochu est également drôle. »

    Finkelstein a souligné les contradictions dans la perception occidentale de la liberté de la presse en donnant l’exemple du magazine pornographique Hustler, dont l’éditeur, Larry Flynt, a été abattu et laissé paralysé en 1978 par un tueur en série suprématiste blanc, car il avait publié des illustrations de sexe interracial.

    « Je n’ai pas le souvenir que tout le monde l’ait glorifié par le slogan »Nous sommes Larry Flynt » ou »Nous sommes Hustler », a-t-il souligné. Est-ce qu’il méritait d’être attaqué ? Bien sûr que non. Mais personne n’a soudainement transformé cet événement en un quelconque principe politique. »

    L’adhésion occidentale aux caricatures de Charlie Hebdo est due au fait que les dessins visaient et ridiculisaient les musulmans, a-t-il affirmé.

    Le fait que les Français décrivent les musulmans comme des barbares est hypocrite au regard des meurtres de milliers de personnes durant l’occupation coloniale française de l’Algérie, et de la réaction de l’opinion publique française à la guerre d’Algérie de 1954 à 1962, selon Finkelstein.

    La première manifestation de masse à Paris contre la guerre « n’a eu lieu qu’en 1960, deux ans avant la fin de la guerre », a-t-il rappelé. « Tout le monde soutenait la guerre française annihilatrice en Algérie. »

    Il rappela que l’appartement du philosophe français Jean Paul Sartre a été bombardé à deux reprises, en 1961 et en 1962, ainsi que les bureaux de son magazine, Les Temps Modernes, après qu’il se soit déclaré absolument opposé à la guerre.

    Finkelstein, qui a été décrit comme un « Radical Américain », a déclaré que les prétentions occidentales sur le code vestimentaire musulman révèlent une contradiction remarquable lorsqu’on les compare à l’attitude de l’Occident envers les indigènes sur les terres qu’ils occupaient durant la période coloniale.

    « Lorsque les Européens sont arrivés en Amérique du Nord, ce qu’ils ont déclaré à propos des Amérindiens, c’est qu’ils étaient vraiment barbares, parce qu’ils marchaient tout nus. Les femmes européennes portaient alors trois couches de vêtements. Et maintenant, nous marchons tout nus, et nous proclamons que les musulmans sont arriérés parce qu’ils portent tant de vêtements », a-t-il affirmé.

    « Pouvez-vous imaginer quelque chose de plus barbare que cela ? Exclure les femmes qui portent le voile ? », a-t-il demandé, faisant référence à l’interdiction du voile dans les emplois de service public français promulguée en 2004.

    Les travaux de Finkelstein, accusant les Juifs d’exploiter la mémoire de l’Holocauste à des fins politiques et dénonçant Israël pour son oppression des Palestiniens, ont fait de lui une figure controversée même au sein de la communauté juive.

    Sa nomination en tant que Professeur à l’Université De Paul en 2007 a été annulée après une querelle très médiatisée avec son collègue académique Alan Dershowitz, un ardent défenseur d’Israël. Dershowitz aurait fait pression sur l’administration de De Paul, une université catholique de Chicago, afin d’empêcher sa nomination. Finkelstein, qui enseigne actuellement à l’Université de Sakarya en Turquie, affirme que cette décision fut fondée sur des « motifs politiques transparents ».

    Source :

    Traduction :

    Via :

  • Suddenly it’s okay to be pro-Israel and anti-Semitic
    When friendship for Israel is judged solely on the basis of support for the occupation, Israel has no friends other than racists and nationalists.

    Gideon Levy Nov 20, 2016
    read more:

    All of a sudden it’s not so terrible to be anti-Semitic. Suddenly it’s excusable as long as you hate Muslims and Arabs and “love Israel.” The Jewish and Israeli right has issued a sweeping amnesty to anti-Semitic lovers of Israel – yes, there is such a thing, and they’re en route to taking power in the United States.
    So now we know: Not just pornography but also anti-Semitism is a matter of geography and price. Right-wing American anti-Semites are no longer considered anti-Semites.
    The definition has been updated: From now on, anti-Semites are only found on the left. Roger Waters, a courageous man of conscience without stain, is an anti-Semite. Steve Bannon, a declared racist and closet anti-Semite who has been appointed chief strategist in the Trump White House, is a friend of Israel.
    Jewish and Israeli activists who left no stone unturned in their effort to discover signs of anti-Semitism, who viewed every parking ticket for an American Jew as an act of hate, who moved heaven and earth every time a Jew was robbed or a Jewish gravestone was cracked, are now whitewashing an anti-Semite. Suddenly they’re not convinced we’re talking about that particular disease.
    Alan Dershowitz, one of the biggest propagandists in this field, has already come out in defense of the racist Bannon. In a Haaretz piece late last week, Dershowitz wrote that the man whose wife said he didn’t want their children to go to school with Jews isn’t anti-Semitic. “The claim was simply made by his former wife in a judicial proceeding, thus giving it no special weight,” Dershowitz wrote, with specious logic.
    After all, Dershowitz’s former research assistant, an Orthodox Jew who later worked with Bannon, assured him that he had seen no signs of anti-Semitism in Bannon. And suddenly that’s enough for Dershowitz. Suddenly it’s possible to separate racism from anti-Semitism.

  • Suddenly it’s okay to be pro-Israel and anti-Semitic
    When friendship for Israel is judged solely on the basis of support for the occupation, Israel has no friends other than racists and nationalists.
    By Gideon Levy | Nov. 20, 2016 | 4:25 AM

    All of a sudden it’s not so terrible to be anti-Semitic. Suddenly it’s excusable as long as you hate Muslims and Arabs and “love Israel.” The Jewish and Israeli right has issued a sweeping amnesty to anti-Semitic lovers of Israel – yes, there is such a thing, and they’re en route to taking power in the United States.

    So now we know: Not just pornography but also anti-Semitism is a matter of geography and price. Right-wing American anti-Semites are no longer considered anti-Semites.

    The definition has been updated: From now on, anti-Semites are only found on the left. Roger Waters, a courageous man of conscience without stain, is an anti-Semite. Steve Bannon, a declared racist and closet anti-Semite who has been appointed chief strategist in the Trump White House, is a friend of Israel.

    Jewish and Israeli activists who left no stone unturned in their effort to discover signs of anti-Semitism, who viewed every parking ticket for an American Jew as an act of hate, who moved heaven and earth every time a Jew was robbed or a Jewish gravestone was cracked, are now whitewashing an anti-Semite. Suddenly they’re not convinced we’re talking about that particular disease.

    Alan Dershowitz, one of the biggest propagandists in this field, has already come out in defense of the racist Bannon. In a Haaretz piece late last week, Dershowitz wrote that the man whose wife said he didn’t want their children to go to school with Jews isn’t anti-Semitic. “The claim was simply made by his former wife in a judicial proceeding, thus giving it no special weight,” Dershowitz wrote, with specious logic.

    After all, Dershowitz’s former research assistant, an Orthodox Jew who later worked with Bannon, assured him that he had seen no signs of anti-Semitism in Bannon. And suddenly that’s enough for Dershowitz. Suddenly it’s possible to separate racism from anti-Semitism.

    Israel’s ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, naturally hastened to join the party. Over the weekend, he said he expects to work with Bannon. And boy, does he expect to work with that racist. After all, they’ll agree about everything: that there’s no Palestinian people, that there’s no occupation, that the settlement of Yitzhar should remain forever, that leftists are traitors.

    For Dermer – ambassador of the illegal outpost of Amona, friend of the Tea Party and boycotter of J Street; a man who if the bilateral relationship had been normal would have been declared persona non grata by the United States – the new appointments are like the dawn of a new day.

    He’ll feel so at home with Frank Gaffney, another hater of Muslims who’s likely to receive a senior appointment in the new administration; he’ll be so happy working with Bannon. And Mike Huckabee is exactly his cup of tea. Dermer, after all, was given the Freedom Flame Award by the Center for Security Policy, a hate group that proudly flies the flag of Islamophobia.

    These racists and their ilk are Israel’s best friends in the United States. They’re joined by the racists of the European right. If you discount the guilt feelings over the Holocaust, they’re the only friends Israel has left. When friendship for Israel is judged solely on the basis of support for the occupation, Israel has no friends other than racists and nationalists. That ought to have aroused great shame here: Tell us who your friends are and we’ll tell you who you are.

    These racists love Israel because it’s carrying out their dreams: to oppress Arabs, to abuse Muslims, to dispossess them, expel them, kill them, demolish their houses, trample their honor. This bunch of trash would so dearly love to behave as we do.

    But for now this is only possible in Israel, so it’s the light unto the nations in this field. What happened to the days when Jews in South Africa went to prison with Nelson Mandela? Nowadays Jewish activists in America support the new rulers – the racists and anti-Semites.

    The Palestinian-American author Susan Abulhawa wrote on Facebook over the weekend: Palestinians are calling white nationalist Bannon an anti-Semite, while AIPAC and Dershowitz think he’s not such a bad guy. What more proof do you need that Zionism is a face of white supremacy, and ultimately antithetical to Judaism?

    Last summer, Abulhawa was deported via the Allenby Bridge. And she’s right. The United States and Israel now share the same values – and woe to that sense of shame.

  • #Scandal #Epstein The #Billionaire #Pedophile #Network #Who #BringDown #Trump and #Clinton - PEUPLES OBSERVATEURS

    EpsteinThe Billionaire Pedophile network Who Could Bring Down Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
    Trump’s supporters have long wondered whether he’d use billionaire sicko Jeffrey Epstein as ammo against the Clintons—until a lurid new lawsuit accused The Donald of raping one of Epstein’s girls himself.

    Editor’s note: This article has been updated to reflect the withdrawal of Virginia Roberts Guiffre’s allegations against Alan Dershowitz and the striking of the allegations from the court record by a federal judge.

    For Jeffrey Epstein and his famous friends, the Aughts were a simpler time, when the businessmen, academics, and celebrities who counted themselves among the playboy philanthropist’s inner circle could freely enjoy the fruits of his extreme wealth and connections.

  • Le maire de Tel Aviv impute l’attaque meurtrière contre un café à l’occupation israélienne
    MEE | 9 juin 2016

    Ce jeudi, le maire de Tel Aviv a attribué à l’occupation israélienne des territoires palestiniens l’attaque meurtrière menée par deux Palestiniens armés qui a tuée quatre Israéliens dans cette ville de la côte méditerranéenne.

    Le maire travailliste Ron Huldai (71 ans) a déclaré à la radio de l’armée israélienne que l’occupation était responsable de l’attaque de mercredi soir, au cours de laquelle deux Palestiniens armés, originaires des alentours de Hébron dans le sud de la Cisjordanie, sont entrés dans un café populaire et ont ouvert le feu sur des personnes faisant la fête.

    « Nous sommes sans doute le seul pays au monde, où une autre nation est sous occupation sans aucun droit civique », a-t-il déclaré. « Vous ne pouvez pas maintenir les gens dans une situation d’occupation et espérer qu’ils vont conclure que tout va bien. »

    Ron Huldai a ajouté que « personne n’a le courage » de faire la paix avec les Palestiniens et il a demandé de tenter de conclure un accord lorsque les attaques se seront calmées.

    « Il y a eu une occupation qui dure depuis 49 ans, dont j’ai fait partie, et dont je connais la réalité, et je sais que les dirigeants ont besoin de courage pour ne pas se contenter de parler.

    « Nous devons montrer à nos voisins que nous avons véritablement l’intention de revenir à une réalité avec un État juif plus petit, avec une nette majorité juive. »

    Le vice-ministre de la Défense Eli Ben-Dahan a répondu à Ron Huldai, qualifiant ses remarques d’« étranges » et « délirantes ».

    • Reste à convaincre Obama, Hollande, Juppé, Fillon, Merkel et entre 50 à 90% (estimation perso ;-) ) des juifs-israéliens.
      Et la poignée de salopards de familles juives américaines qui, depuis leur loft à New York financent l’extrême droite et les colons extrémistes en Israël.

    • Tel Aviv mayor says the occupation is a cause of Palestinian terror
      By Edo Konrad |Published June 9, 2016

      (...) Huldai is a former Israeli Air Force pilot and a Labor Party stalwart, through and through, and his comments come at a time of crisis for both Labor and the Israeli Left at large. Labor Chairman Isaac Herzog is in dire straits with his party after repeatedly taking hawkish positions vis-a-vis the Palestinians and what can only be described as groveling at the feet of Prime Minister Netanyahu to join his far-right coalition.

      Herzog’s sycophantic behavior did little to bolster his support. On the contrary, it only widened an already existing chasm between the right and left flanks of the Labor Party. Enter Huldai, whose comments on the source of Palestinian violence can be viewed as the opening shot in his race for the Labor leadership. Like Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat — who seems to be perpetually mulling a run against Prime Minister Netanyahu to lead Likud — Huldai could be playing the long game.

      Huldai’s comments come at a time when the occupation has all but disappeared from the Israeli public consciousness, and Palestinian violence is seen as senseless and random. However, they also harken back to a time when Israeli leaders and public figures were able to speak more frankly about what drives Palestinians to terrorism and armed struggle. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak once famously stated that if he were a Palestinian of the right age, he would have joined a terrorist group. Alan Dershowitz wrote an entire book on why terrorism — and specifically Palestinian terrorism — actually made gains for the Palestinian cause, and was thus a rational, thought-out strategy. Saying anything to that effect in Israel’s current political climate is a recipe for suicide.

      Ron Huldai is not the savior of the Israeli Left. He is, regardless of political opportunism, simply speaking the truth in a country where the idea that 50 years of military dictatorship might just have something to do with Palestinian violence is now popularly viewed as something akin to treason. And for that he is to be commended.

    • @intempestive oui, c’est bien ça :

      Après, il y a un petit côté Louis de Funès assez ridicule dans ces articles (il ne faut jamais passer à côté du ridicule de situation) :

      After Rosenberg and Goldberg tweeted about changing their names, dozens of other people on Twitter followed suit.

      et dans ton article :

      Par exemple, les noms de famille Cohen ou Rosenberg étaient réécrits pour apparaître comme (((Cohen))) et (((Rosenberg))).

      Plus sérieusement, ce n’est pas l’aspect « religieux » en tant que tel que je considère comme débile. Je suis même persuadé qu’une bonne proportion de ceux qui mettent le noun ou les triples parenthèses sont des gens peu religieux, voire pas du tout.

      (1) Avant tout, il s’agit d’accepter la logique de l’ennemi : les propriétés des chrétiens marquées d’un noun par ISIS, les personnes de confession juive signalées d’une triple parenthèse par les antisémites. En le faisant, je ne vois pas qu’on fasse autre chose que ce pour quoi ces symboles ont été conçus par nos ennemis.

      (2) L’aspect « solidarité au-delà des confessions » de ces symboles est, en pratique, extrêmement faible. Je suppose qu’on peut toujours trouver trois contre-exemples, mais ce sont bien des chrétiens qui s’identifient d’un noun, et des juifs qui s’identifient avec les parenthèses. Si le motif politique est généralement mis en avant, dans la pratique on reste dans des marqueurs qui restent très confessionnels.

      (3) Wikipédia est déjà le meilleur outil pour, depuis des années, établir des listes de juifs, de chrétiens, de sunnites, de chiites… La religion des gens est systématiquement signalées dès la première phrase de leur biographie. Alors qu’on se signale maintenant soi-même en polluant Twitter de marqueurs confessionnels, c’est vraiment un sacré progrès de l’internet…

      (4) Puisque la justification prétend être un marqueur de solidarité avec les personnes persécutées (par ISIS, par les néo-nazis), on accepte bien l’idée de mettre en avant à chaque message posté une solidarité sur une base confessionnelle. Avec le noun j’annonce ma solidarité prioritaire avec les Chrétiens d’Orient (pas les Sunnites ni les Yazidis, pas les Syriens ni les Irakiens en général, etc.) Je ne vois pas plus terrible moyen de renforcer l’impression de classification et de concurrence confessionnelle des victimes et des solidarités. Quand on verra apparaître un marqueur de ce genre strictement sunnite et un marqueur strictement chiite, je pense qu’il ne fera aucun doute que l’effet est catastrophique, et enfin on verra des gens s’indigner d’une pratique dont la conséquence est, de manière tout à fait évidente, de provoquer cette catastrophe.

      (5) Et je pense qu’on a aussi besoin de se méfier des logiques politiques qui sous-tendent certaines de ces mises en avant (même si les causes affichées sont parfaitement légitimes). Le soutien affiché aux Chrétiens d’Orient n’est généralement pas neutre :,1300,1300
      et que Jeffrey Goldberg et Yair Rosenberg prétendent se sentir persécutés en tant que juifs, c’est tout de même un vieux thème sioniste, et ces deux personnes sont justement des acteurs politiques de cette cause (encore une fois, même si le refus de l’antisémitisme est légitime)... Tiens, pour être bien clair, qui associe systématiquement l’identité juive des gens à leurs activités politiques ?

      While some commentators have already suggested that these picks are a clear attempt to appeal to young women voters, they’ve neglected another demographic being pandered to: Jews.

      After all, Portman and Johansson are two of Hollywood’s most prominent Jewish starlets. And both are renowned for their Jewish literacy and commitment. While an undergraduate, Portman served as a research assistant on Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz’s bestseller, The Case for Israel (she is credited under her real name, Natalie Hershlag). And Johansson is famed for her wide knowledge of Jewish ethnic foods and willingness to sing the Dreidel Song on MTV.

      C’est un des nombreux articles de Yair Rosenberg sur Tablet magazine (un magazine qui fait ça absolument tout le temps…).

    • @intempestive : oui et non. Je vois bien l’idée de l’inversion, c’est un peu mon point (1).

      (a) Mais je pense qu’en l’occurence, on joue sur une confusion entre identity politics et geste de solidarité. Je suis solidaire des racisés et des gays, mais je n’ai aucune légitimité par exemple à dire « nègre », « bougnoule » ou « pédé ». Or les chrétiens ne sont pas persécutés en occident (où s’affiche lourdement le noun).

      (b) Quant à évoquer la persécution des juifs pour jouer d’une identity politics qu’on prétend juive américaine (persécutée ?), alors qu’on est avant tout connu pour être un militant politique sioniste, ce n’est malheureusement ni nouveau ni original.

  • Woman who sued convicted billionaire over sex abuse levels claims at his friends -

    A woman allegedly kept as a sex slave by politically-connected billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein, who went to jail for having sex with underaged girls, is accusing several prominent friends of the financier of having taken part in the debauchery, according to a new court filing.

    The woman—referred to in court papers as Jane Doe #3—leveled the allegations Tuesday against Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz and Britain’s Prince Andrew, as well as British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and French model scout Jean Luc Brunel.

    Dershowitz flatly denied the claims about him Wednesday in an interview with POLITICO.

    “It’s totally, unequivocally and completely false,” the celebrated attorney said.

    A spokesman for Prince Andrew denied the allegations Friday, while a lawyer who handled related matters for Maxwell did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment. Representatives of Brunel’s modeling firm also did not reply to e-mail messages.


  • Alan Dershowitz: BDS a strategic threat to Israel in the long term - By Judy Maltz | Jun. 10, 2014 |Haaretz

    One of Israel’s staunchest defenders abroad on Tuesday warned that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement could pose a strategic threat to the country in the future.

    Speaking at the annual Herzliya Conference, Harvard University Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said the danger of the boycott was that it was turning a new generation of future American leaders against Israel. “I think that anything that diminishes American popular support for Israel poses a security threat,” he said.

    Based on his observations of trends on campuses around the United States, Dershowitz said that the boycott movement was gaining momentum chiefly among undergraduate students and graduate students in the social sciences, but was having no impact, as far as he could see, on students in the hard sciences and in professional programs, such as law, medicine and business.

    At a special session devoted to the boycott movement, Dershowitz argued that its main effect in the short term had been to stall the peace process.

    “I think what it does is it disincentivizes Palestinians to aggressively seek peace now,” he said. “I think it sends a powerful message to the Palestinian leadership – and this has been conveyed to me personally by two Palestinian leaders at the very very top – that we can get a better deal if the BDS movement catches on.”

    Dershowitz said he feared that the boycott movement had become so entrenched that even if Israelis and Palestinians were to strike a peace deal, its supporters would not back down.

    “I do think that a combination of factors – the occupation, the settlements – were the cause of it, but the BDS movement now questions the legitimacy of Israel’s very existence,” he said. “My great fear is that tomorrow, if Israel were to end most of the settlements and make peace, the BDS movement might be weakened a little bit in some parts of the United States. But I don’t think it would have any impact in Europe. I don’t think it would have any impact on the hard hard left. I think that they have become so wedded to Israel’s demonization and delegitimization that nothing Israel does can change that effectively today.”

    Also sitting on the panel was Dr. Shavit Matias, a former deputy attorney general for international affairs, who challenged this contention, saying she believed only extremists would continue to support the boycott in the event of a peace agreement.

    “For large numbers of followers of the BDS movement – the students, the diplomats, the international institutions who are influenced by the rhetoric - they look at the occupation, they look at the status of the Palestinians and that is what turns their hearts against us many times,” said Shavit, currently a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

  • Josh Block purged the Democratic Party

    — Zaid Jilani left CAP last winter for Republicreport. Jilani had used the term “Israel firster.” 
    –- MJ Rosenberg also used the term “Israel firster.” He left Media Matters last spring, not long after Alan Dershowitz said he was going to Obama to make sure 
    Rosenberg’s head was displayed on the White House fence. Rosenberg now has his own blog.
    –- Eli Clifton left CAP earlier this summer. He now works at the American Independent News Network. Clifton is notable for this genius post of last summer saying that AIPAC’s push for war on Iran mirrored its conduct leading up to the Iraq war. CAP issued a lengthy correction of that post after the neocon campaign was launched, four months after it was published.
    –- Now Gharib. Gharib duly apologized for his remarks (calling them flippant and crude), but he seemed to be operating with a muzzle after the neocon campaign began. (Just look at his output at Open Zion in the last week, including this important piece saying the Jerusalem platform fight is a fight between Romney and Obama for Jewish money.)

    So: the blacklist worked.

    Only Matt Duss among those named in the original smear campaign of last November is still in his job at the Center for American Progress.
    I find it shocking that no one has written about this important story. No; Israel lobby beheadings are common. Move along now.

  • Alan Dershowitz : Norway to Jews—You’re Not Welcome Here - Anti-Semitism doesn’t even mask itself as anti-Zionism. -

    It was then that I realized why all this happened. At all of the Norwegian universities, there have been efforts to enact academic and cultural boycotts of Jewish Israeli academics. This boycott is directed against Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian land—but the occupation that the boycott supporters have in mind is not of the West Bank but rather of Israel itself. Here is the first line of their petition: “Since 1948 the state of Israel has occupied Palestinian land . . .”

    The administrations of the universities have refused to go along with this form of collective punishment of all Israeli academics, so the formal demand for a boycott failed. But in practice it exists. Jewish pro-Israel speakers are subject to a de facto boycott.

    Toujours subtile, Alan. C’était en mars dernier. Maintenant que cette bande d’antisémites réunis sur l’île d’Utoeya a été massacrée par un fanatique pro-israélien, tu te sens mieux, Alan ?