When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty
I can tell you there is no apartheid here in Israel.



Arabs all over living side by side with Israelis. 

Also, you should have accepted an Arab state in 1948.

And when you attack Israel in 1967 what do you expect Israel to do? 

Not my fault you cannot accept Jews living in our home land. 

It’s funny that you say that, coincidentally the whites who lived in South Africa once said that exact same thing. “There is no apartheid in South Africa, we live side by side with the blacks”, and in the same breath they subjected black South Africans to all types of brutality.

On the basis of your argument, when Israel attacks Gaza every single chance they get, what do you expect Hamas to do? What do you expect a guerilla fighter to do, when he witnesses his home get obliterated, do you expect him to stand by? 

Arabs do not live side by side with Israelis in Israel, neither do the black Ethiopians or non-Jews. That has become pretty evident, when it is much harder for a non-Jew to be able to work in Israel than it is for a Jew. An apartheid does exist, and you refusing to admit it is insulting and regressive. 

It isn’t your homeland, it was never your homeland. Not for a second did that piece of land ever belong to you, religious entitlement does not conclude social constructs. That’s like trying to claim that America is the homeland of the white colonialists, and not the Natives. Of course they couldn’t accept a deal, where their land was being robbed.

This is brilliant. I love this. Well said and rebutted. Some people may need a dictionary to understand what Apartheid actually means.


Today, Oct. 5th, Zionist Forces invaded Al-Aqsa Mosque and abused worshipers.

Witness how they threw a young boy to the floor, and punched him in the head…

The democracy of “Israel”, ladies and gentlemen…

So this is what democracy looks like?

It’s a paper entitled: Preparing for a Post-Israel Middle East, an 82-page analysis that concludes that the American national interest in fundamentally at odds with that of Zionist Israel. The authors conclude that Israel is currently the greatest threat to US national interests because its nature and actions prevent normal US relations with Arab and Muslim countries and, to a growing degree, the wider international community.

The study was commissioned by the US Intelligence Community comprising 16 American intelligence agencies with an annual budget in excess of $ 70 billion. The IC includes the departments of the Navy, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Defense Intelligence Agency, Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, State, Treasury, Drug Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Agency and the
Central Intelligence Agency commissioned the study.

There are some findings that Ros-Lehtenin and Kristol and other unregistered agents of Israel will likely try to exploit politically between now and November 6, by using them to attack the Obama Administration. A sampling of the findings includes the following:

Israel, given its current brutal occupation and belligerence cannot be salvaged any more than apartheid South Africa could be when as late as 1987 Israel was the only “Western” nation that upheld diplomatic ties with South Africa and was the last country to join the international boycott campaign before the regime collapsed;

Ahh, so even in the land of the blind, a few people have gathered enough data to come to the same conclusion the rest of us have for years now:

Brutal, bully-style governments are always going to get cracked down upon by the USA. As well they should, too. If they were too powerful in their brutality, it may lead to the demise of their brutal, quick to anger and faster to escalate overseer - The ol’ USA.

YOU FUCKING SCUM SUCKERS! They basically admit to having an agenda to destabilize the Middle East!!

It is not easy to escape from one’s skin, to see the world differently from the way it is presented to us day after day. But it is useful to try. Let’s take a few examples.

The war drums are beating ever more loudly over Iran. Imagine the situation to be reversed.

Iran is carrying out a murderous and destructive low-level war against Israel with great-power participation. Its leaders announce that negotiations are going nowhere. Israel refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow inspections, as Iran has done. Israel continues to defy the overwhelming international call for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. Throughout, Iran enjoys the support of its superpower patron.

Iranian leaders are therefore announcing their intention to bomb Israel, and prominent Iranian military analysts report that the attack may happen before the U.S. elections.

Iran can use its powerful air force and new submarines sent by Germany, armed with nuclear missiles and stationed off the coast of Israel. Whatever the timetable, Iran is counting on its superpower backer to join if not lead the assault. U.S. defense secretary Leon Panetta says that while we do not favor such an attack, as a sovereign country Iran will act in its best interests.

All unimaginable, of course, though it is actually happening, with the cast of characters reversed. True, analogies are never exact, and this one is unfair — to Iran.

Like its patron, Israel resorts to violence at will. It persists in illegal settlement in occupied territory, some annexed, all in brazen defiance of international law and the U.N. Security Council. It has repeatedly carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon and the imprisoned people of Gaza, killing tens of thousands without credible pretext.

Thirty years ago Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, an act that has recently been praised, avoiding the strong evidence, even from U.S. intelligence, that the bombing did not end Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program but rather initiated it. Bombing of Iran might have the same effect.

Iran too has carried out aggression — but during the past several hundred years, only under the U.S.-backed regime of the shah, when it conquered Arab islands in the Persian Gulf.

Iran engaged in nuclear development programs under the shah, with the strong support of official Washington. The Iranian government is brutal and repressive, as are Washington’s allies in the region. The most important ally, Saudi Arabia, is the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime, and spends enormous funds spreading its radical Wahhabist doctrines elsewhere. The gulf dictatorships, also favored U.S. allies, have harshly repressed any popular effort to join the Arab Spring.

The Nonaligned Movement — the governments of most of the world’s population — is now meeting in Teheran. The group has vigorously endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and some members — India, for example — adhere to the harsh U.S. sanctions program only partially and reluctantly.

The NAM delegates doubtless recognize the threat that dominates discussion in the West, lucidly articulated by Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command: “It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East,” one nation should arm itself with nuclear weapons, which “inspires other nations to do so.”

Butler is not referring to Iran, but to Israel, which is regarded in the Arab countries and in Europe as posing the greatest threat to peace In the Arab world, the United States is ranked second as a threat, while Iran, though disliked, is far less feared. Indeed in many polls majorities hold that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons to balance the threats they perceive.

If Iran is indeed moving toward nuclear-weapons capability — this is still unknown to U.S. intelligence — that may be because it is “inspired to do so” by the U.S.-Israeli threats, regularly issued in explicit violation of the U.N. Charter.

Why then is Iran the greatest threat to world peace, as seen in official Western discourse? The primary reason is acknowledged by U.S. military and intelligence and their Israeli counterparts: Iran might deter the resort to force by the United States and Israel.

Furthermore Iran must be punished for its “successful defiance,” which was Washington’s charge against Cuba half a century ago, and still the driving force for the U.S. assault against Cuba that continues despite international condemnation.

Other events featured on the front pages might also benefit from a different perspective. Suppose that Julian Assange had leaked Russian documents revealing important information that Moscow wanted to conceal from the public, and that circumstances were otherwise identical.

Sweden would not hesitate to pursue its sole announced concern, accepting the offer to interrogate Assange in London. It would declare that if Assange returned to Sweden (as he has agreed to do), he would not be extradited to Russia, where chances of a fair trial would be slight.

Sweden would be honored for this principled stand. Assange would be praised for performing a public service — which, of course, would not obviate the need to take the accusations against him as seriously as in all such cases.

The most prominent news story of the day here is the U.S. election. An appropriate perspective was provided by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who held that “We may have democracy in this country, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”

Guided by that insight, coverage of the election should focus on the impact of wealth on policy, extensively analyzed in the recent study “Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America” by Martin Gilens. He found that the vast majority are “powerless to shape government policy” when their preferences diverge from the affluent, who pretty much get what they want when it matters to them.

Small wonder, then, that in a recent ranking of the 31 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in terms of social justice, the United States placed 27th, despite its extraordinary advantages.

Or that rational treatment of issues tends to evaporate in the electoral campaign, in ways sometimes verging on comedy.

To take one case, Paul Krugman reports that the much-admired Big Thinker of the Republican Party, Paul Ryan, declares that he derives his ideas about the financial system from a character in a fantasy novel — “Atlas Shrugged” — who calls for the use of gold coins instead of paper currency.

It only remains to draw from a really distinguished writer, Jonathan Swift. In “Gulliver’s Travels,” his sages of Lagado carry all their goods with them in packs on their backs, and thus could use them for barter without the encumbrance of gold. Then the economy and democracy could truly flourish — and best of all, inequality would sharply decline, a gift to the spirit of Justice Brandeis.

Oh Noam, you are the weaver of intelligent thought for a generation. I hope we can make you proud.



Someone Told me Achmedinischmuck has never threatened Israel



Here is Achmedinischmuck calling for the death of Israel

EDIT: I put this under read more cause it gers long. So check out the rest of this

Read More

Incredibly incorrect translation, the video was only created in order to create tension and further isolate Iran from the world. Ahmadinejad constantly bashes neo-Zionism, rather than Israel. Another piece of propaganda against Iran, nice one buddy. When he bashes the regime, he is condemning one that has resulted in the deaths of innocent Palestinians, and he is right to do so. Just like how the West constantly condemns the regimes that were run by the Middle Eastern dictators.

So, shut up.



CJPME is delighted to announce that the United Church of Canada (UCC) voted earlier today to boycott products from Israel’s illegal colonies (a.k.a. “settlements.”) CJPME was present at the Church Convention, and had been speaking with (and distributing information) to church delegates attending the convention since Saturday. This vote, and related church resolutions represent a significant and exciting step forward for the boycott movement in Canada.

The vote today solidified broad support within the church for Palestinian human rights. CJPME representatives found church convention delegates to be highly informed on the issue of Israel-Palestine. Many of the church delegates had been to Israel-Palestine, and had observed first-hand the human rights abuses against Palestinians. The UCC resolution echoes similar motions passed by Presbyterian and Methodist churches in recent months in the United States.

The resolution, however, was not without its powerful opponents. The pro-Israel lobby was also active at the church convention, as evidenced by the presence of the “Centre for Israel and Jewish Advoacy” (CIJA), and “Faithful Witness,” a Christian Zionist organization.

The United Church of Canada (UCC) has been considering some type of economic action in support of Palestinian human rights for several years. CJPME supported this direction within the church as actively as it could, both formally and informally. For example, in 2011, CJPME leaders met with the UCC Working Group on Israel-Palestine and challenged the church to act on its deep knowledge of the human rights abuses suffered by the Palestinians.

CJPME and the other Solidarity organizations active on the UCC file have much to celebrate through this vote. CJPME members and supporters have much to be proud of. May the momentum from this vote carry on to other boycott issues, organizations and companies in the coming months and years in Canada.


Thomas Woodley

President, CJPME

CJPME Email - CJPME website    

#fuck yea boycott israel

IDF chief Benny Gantz has further confirmed the outright reluctance of the Israeli military to attack Iran, a position that goes directly counter to that of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.  Channel 10′s Immanuel Rosen reported (video report) about an allegedly off the record conversation (possibly with Rosen himself), in which Gantz said that the Israeli home front was not prepared for the Iranian response to an Israeli attack.  He added that such a military strike would have a “limited effect” on Iran.

While it’s no surprise that Israel’s military and intelligence branches are outright opposed to military action (the political echelon is in favor), such differences usually aren’t expressed so publicly and so baldly.  The truth of this can be seen in the fact that the military censor ordered the report deleted from the Channel’s website.  The video of the broadcast no longer contains this portion of the interview.  You can see the cut at 7:20 of this video.

Interesting stuff. I wonder how long he will be employed now?


Israel is no democracy, it’s a joke.



shoutout to stuckbetweeniraqandahardplace!