Paul Eisen

Paul Eisen

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

The War That Had Many Fathers


You've seen the film, now read the book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/1939-The-That-Many-Fathers/dp/144668623X/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1413918926&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=the+war+that+had+many+fathers

Interview with Dr Milena Rampoldi of ProMosaik

This is an interview with Dr Milena Rampoldi of the website ProMosaik about the recent British 'recognition' of a Palestinian state. 

The website is excellent and Milena is a joy to work with but I was interested in her choice of title - so interested that I wrote:
"It’s interesting (and perfectly okay with me) that you choose the only ‘as a Jew’ part of my response for the title of what is essentially a political response to a political question which could be answered by anyone. As I said, that’s absolutely fine with me, but my only real expertise that isn’t freely available elsewhere is that I know what it feels like to be a Jew and I’m prepared to tell."


Stop before it’s too late. This is my message to my fellow Jews.


1- What do you think will change in the world order if Western Nations will recognize the Palestinian State?
As thing are, probably very little. The entire West is under Jewish political control (which in this day and age, means Zionist control). Notice how even the opposition is under control. For example, BDS, the most ‘successful ‘ civil opposition to Israel so far, is funded by George Soros, a soft Zionist. As we say in England, “He who pays the piper calls the tune”

And I think the same is true for wishful charades like the recent vote in the British parliament. Firstly, though largely unreported, over half the House of Commons was absent for the vote, the absentees being mainly Conservative (The ruling party) MPs and remember, 80% of all Conservative MPs are members of Conservative Friends of Israel. So the vote in no way represents the opinion of the British political elites

But even the mainly Labour and Liberal Democrat support for ‘recognition’ is all but useless. After all, how many of those MPs who voted for recognition really want true Palestinian liberation? Did their ‘recognition’ define the borders of this new state and the borders of Israel? Did it account for the huge Jewish settlements that already take up so much of any proposed Palestinian state? And what about the Right of Return, does this recognition of a Palestinian state depend on Palestinians giving up 78% of their own homeland?

But most importantly, how will this new state be armed? Will it be able to defend itself or will it lie defenceless under the guns of the Israeli military? We know who will defend Israel against Palestinians but who will defend Palestine against Israel?

And who will dominate the area economically? Judging by Israel’s past intentions towards the Palestinians, what will Israeli economic dominance mean for Palestinians? My guess is they’ll be given food to eat, video games to play and work to do in Israeli industrial parks

All in all, such playacting such as this ‘recognition’ is simply a new, and more palatable, way of neutralizing Palestinian resistance and getting the Palestinians to go into the cage peacefully


2- How important is the recognition of Palestine by the UK?

The real answer to your question is that yes, this charade of recognition, lulling the Palestinians and the world into a false sense of progress, IS of huge importance- but only to Israel and its supporters and then only as a further step towards the final conquest of Palestine.


3- What do you think will change in the UK society?

Depends what you mean by ‘society’. If you mean the ruling elites, nothing much will change, except for a token turn in the eternal good cop/bad cop squabble between those who want to eliminate Palestinians in Palestine completely and those who want them to go into the cage quietly. But if you mean the ordinary people – well, again pretty much nothing. The people will continue to do as they are told, except that the growing resentment against Jewish/Zionist control will grow just that little bit more, just as it has been doing for years. Will that resentment show itself? It certainly will and when it does, the results may not be pretty. Remember, when Jewish power is finally confronted, it won’t be done by nice folks like you, me and your readers – it will be done by the mob whether on the streets or on the internet and all Jews, including the relatively innocent, will pay the price of their leaders’ perfidy


4- Which impact will the recognition of Palestine have for Muslims and Jews in the UK?
On the surface, relations between the Muslim and Jewish elites seem good. Underneath, Muslims are seething with rage, not only about Israeli behaviour in Palestine but also about Jewish and Zionist influence in western policy towards the whole Muslim world. So, on the surface, this charade may seem to improve Muslim/Jewish relations, underneath it will, in the end, only inflame them more.


5- How just and absolutely necessary is the recognition of Palestinian State for you as a Holocaust-Denier, as you name yourself?
First it’s important that I clarify my naming of myself as a ‘Holocaust Denier”.

“Holocaust denier” is usually a term of abuse, used to imply that those who question the Holocaust narrative are crazy people who believe that nothing bad at all ever happened to Jews - a bit like ‘flat-earthers’. This is not true of all Holocaust revisionists and certainly not true of me. I do ­not deny that there was a terrible assault by National Socialist Germany on Europe’s Jews, nor do I deny that many Jews, innocent and guilty, suffered and died. In fact, the real story of discrimination, incarceration and deportation moves me far more than the standard Holocaust with its premeditated, planned and industrial extermination of Europe’s Jews with its iconic gas-chambers and magical six million

I am a Holocaust denier because for me, the Holocaust narrative as currently constructed, maintained and enforced is a godless, idolatrous and abusive ideology bringing misery to the world and disaster to my fellow Jews guilty and innocent alike and, as such, I want to put as much distance between it and myself as I can - so I deny it.

But to answer your question, of course, the recognition of any Palestinian state, whether real or a sham, has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity or otherwise of the Holocaust narrative which is (or should be) simply a matter of historical inquiry. After all, what possible relevance is there between hydrogen cyanide traces in brickwork and what is happening in the Middle East? But, for me as someone who ‘denies’ the godless, abusive Holocaust narrative, the struggle in Palestine means a great deal.

Palestinians are by no means the only victims of Jewish power though, along with the German people, they are the main and most pressing ones, so obviously any strengthening of the Palestinian position will weaken Jewish power and therefore weaken the power of the Holocaust. And conversely any weakening in the power of the Holocaust, must strengthen the position of the Palestinians. So for me, as a ‘Holocaust denier’ any true achievement of Palestinians’ (or indeed any other victims of abusive Jewish power) liberation is a matter for celebration – and any false or obfuscating liberation, as with these recent events in Britain, are a matter for concern


6- Do you think that a general recognition of Palestine by Western Nations will stop Israeli violence, or do you think Zionist Israel will start a new invasion?

The Israelis have shown themselves pretty immune to world opinion. Of course there are transitory limits and, as we have seen, the current limits seem to be at about the 2000 plus Palestinian dead as was reached in the recent Gaza atrocity. Or was it perhaps that, given Hamas resistance, the limit was the unacceptable Israeli casualties that any further ‘boots on the ground’ operations would have entailed? However all in all, Israelis and the Jewish elites around the world that egg them on, don’t seem to give a damn what the world does or thinks.

By the way, this is a very common feature in Jewish history. For all our seeming astuteness in maintaining our survival, we Jews have one fatal ethnic flaw – we never know when to stop. We are never able to look into the eyes of the other and know when he/she has had enough.

Stop before it’s too late. This is my message to my fellow Jews.



Saturday, 4 October 2014

Hellstorm

I'm just reading Thomas Goodrich's 'Hellstorm' subtitled "The Death of Nazi Germany 1944-1947". It's some story and I recommend you read it. In the meantime, listen to this.


Thursday, 2 October 2014

Peter Hitchens on the latest war

This is by British journalist Peter Hitchens writing in The Daily Mail

Hitchens is  one of the very few mainstream truth-tellers in the western world. Pat Buchanan is another but I can't think of any more off the top of my head. I suppose John Pilger comes close, though he still seems to follow the lefty/liberal post-war, post-Holocaust line.

Here, Hitchens treats the latest war in the Middle East and UK policy just as it should be treated - with complete and utter contempt- and I agree with him.

But I'd like to add a proposal:  If the West really wants to deal with the events in the Middle East and lessen the threat to the West, I'd make two recommendations: 

1) Bring Israel under control 

2) Start serious but friendly negotiations with ISIL, Assad, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, the Kurds, Peshmerga, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Jordan, - in fact, just about everyone.

If you want to view the videos, go to the original article


Dragged into a war by clowns who can't even run a railway

By PETER HITCHENS


28 September 2014

Wars cause far more atrocities than they prevent. In fact, wars make atrocities normal and easy. If you don’t like atrocities, don’t start wars. It is a simple rule, and not hard to follow.

The only mercy in war, as all soldiers know, is a swift victory by one side or the other. Yet our subservient, feeble Parliament on Friday obediently shut its eyes tight and launched itself yet again off the cliff of war. It did so even though – in a brief moment of truth – the Prime Minister admitted that such a war will be a very long one, and has no visible end.

The arguments used in favour of this decision – in a mostly unpacked House of Commons – were pathetic beyond belief. Most of them sounded as if their users had got them out of a cornflakes packet, or been given them by Downing Street, which is much the same.



Those who favour this action claim to care about massacres and persecution. But in fact they want to be seen to care, writes Hitchens

Cameron: Britain to join airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq  


British fighter jets fly over Iraq, ready to strike


Wild and unverifiable claims were made that Islamic State plans attacks on us here in our islands. If so, such attacks are far more likely now than they were before we decided to bomb them. So, if your main worry is such attacks, you should be against British involvement.

The same cheap and alarmist argument was made year after year to justify what everyone now knows was our futile and costly presence in Afghanistan. Why should the Afghans need to come here to kill British people when we sent our best to Helmand, to be blown up and shot for reasons that have never been explained?20/09/14. Bombs won’t save anyone. Weeks of bombing have already failed to tip the balance in Iraq, whose useless, demoralised army continues to run away.

A year ago, we were on the brink of aiding the people we now want to bomb, and busily encouraging the groups which have now become Islamic State. Now they are our hated foes. Which side are we actually on? Do we know? Do we have any idea what we are doing?

The answer is that we don’t. That is why, in a scandal so vast it is hardly ever mentioned, the Chilcot report on the 2003 Iraq War has still not been published. Who can doubt that it has been suppressed because it reveals that our Government is dim and ill-informed?

As this country now has hardly any soldiers, warships, military aircraft or bombs, Friday’s warmongers resorted to the only weapon they have in plentiful supply – adjectives (‘vicious, barbaric’, etc etc). Well, I have better adjectives. Those who presume to rule us are ignorant and incompetent and learn nothing from their own mistakes. How dare these people, who can barely manage to keep their own country in one piece, presume to correct the woes of the world?

Before they’re allowed to play out their bathtub bombing fantasies, oughtn’t they to be asked to show they can manage such dull things as schools (no discipline), border control (vanished), crime (so out of control that the truth has to be hidden), transport (need I say?) and hospitals (hopelessly overloaded and increasingly dangerous)?

None of them will now even mention their crass intervention in Libya, which turned that country into a swamp of misery and unleashed upon Europe an uncontrollable wave of desperate economic migrants who are now arriving in Southern England in shockingly large numbers.

We have for years happily done business with Saudi Arabia, often sending our Royal family there. It is hard to see why we should now be so worried about the establishment of another fiercely intolerant Sunni Muslim oil state, repressive, horrible to women and given to cutting people’s heads off in public. Since we proudly tout our 1998 surrender to the IRA as a wonderful and praiseworthy peace deal, it is hard to see why we are now so hoity-toity about doing business with terror, or paying ransom.

We gave the whole of Northern Ireland to the IRA, to ransom the City of London and to protect our frightened political class from bombs. Why can we not pay (as other NATO members do) to release innocent hostages? We conceded the principle of ransom years ago. Talk about swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat.

How is it that we have allowed our country to be governed by people so ignorant of history and geography, so unable to learn from their mistakes and so immune to facts and logic?

Can we do anything about it? I fear not.

Wednesday, 1 October 2014

Amira Hass and Birzeit University

This, from Ha'aretz, is by left-wing (her words) Israeli journalist Amira Hass and is about how she was banned from speaking at Birzeit University. It seems the university has a policy of not allowing Israeli Jews to speak there and I think Ms Hass feels this shouldn't apply to her. 

Last weekend I attended a meeting of intellectuals, activists and supporters of what has come to be known as "The New Right. There's no doubt that Jews, as they are currently behaving, are in opposition to the ideas of the New Right and there's also no doubt that many adherents of the movement are suffering severe persecution at the hands of Jewish activists, so it wouldn't have surprised me at all if I had been asked to leave or at least if I had felt some kind of hostility.

In the event neither happened but if it had, I would have left amiably (as did Amira Hass) but unlike Ms Hass, I would have had no further comment to make.


For the record, I think any Israeli, no matter what their opinions, should be welcomed at Birzeit (so long as they have come to listen and behave themselves) and I also believe that by the same token, any Jew should be welcome at any New Right gathering. But until that happy day dawns I'll accept the feelings of those oppressed by my people.

I also recall an incident when the British journalist Robert Fisk was attacked by villagers in Afghanistan and beaten. Fisk had no complaints. Sure, he believed he was a friend of the Afghans and sure, he had done a lot to support their cause but, as he implicitly acknowledged, that didn't mean the Afghanis felt the same.

Finally, in her article, Hass notes that Ilan Pappe faced the same problem but he (supportively, I'd guess) chose to give his talk off-campus. 

Amira Hass, as a self-identifying Israeli Jew, may think she's a friend of the Palestinians but that doesn't mean the Palestinians think she's a friend of the Palestinians. She might ask herself why.

When a Haaretz journalist was asked to leave a Palestinian university
An isolated incident snowballed into a wide debate whether Birzeit students' right to a safe space where Israelis are not allowed should apply to leftists, as well.

By Amira Hass | Sep. 28, 2014



Haaretz correspondent Amira Hass. Photo by Tomer Appelbaum

Birzeit University. Photo by Wikimedia Commons
The German Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and The Center for Development Studies (CDS) at Birzeit University organized a conference entitled, "Alternatives to Neo-Liberal Development in the Occupied Palestinian Territories – Critical Perspectives."

During the first presentation on Tuesday, two lecturers from the CDS approached me within ten minutes of each other, asking me to step outside, saying that they needed to talk to me. I asked them to wait until the break, but after they asked me a third time, I stepped out of the conference hall. "Am I not allowed to be here?" I asked, half-kidding, but one of the lecturers answered that there was a problem.

When I registered at the entrance of the conference I wrote next to my name the institution I belong to, Haaretz. For the past two decades, the lecturer said, there has been a law at Birzeit stipulating that Israelis (Jewish Israelis, that is) are not allowed on the university grounds. The students manning the conference registration desk saw that I had written "Haaretz," realized I was an Israeli, and ran to tell the university authorities. The security department in turn went to the conference organizers, the lecturer said. She and her colleagues were afraid, she told me, that students would break into the conference hall in protest over my presence.

From where we were standing in the entrance hall, I didn't see a throng of students approaching in order to oust me, the representative of the 'Zionist entity.' But when friends and acquaintances (including lecturers) telephoned afterward to find out what had happened, I then understood that the rumor going around was that students had attacked me. And so, for the sake of truth, this is not what happened. What did happen was that two lecturers demanded that I leave. So I left.

One of the lecturers explained that it is important for students to have a safe space where (Jewish) Israelis are not entitled to enter; that while the law is problematic, this was not the time or place to discuss amending it; and that, just as she could ask to treat me differently as an exception to the rule, another lecturer might ask for the same preferential treatment for Yossi Beilin, Israel's former justice minister who is known as one of the architects of both the Oslo Accords and Geneva Initiative and the initiator of the Taglit Zionist project. She also told me that Professor Ilan Pappe, author of the book 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,' among others, had been invited to deliver a lecture at Birzeit, but owing to the law, gave the talk off campus. The other lecturer told me that if I didn't write "Haaretz" in the registration form, I would have been able to stay. Still, another faculty member who I have known for 40 years walked past and said: "This is for your own protection [from the students]." And I was at that moment reminded of the image that Israelis commonly have of Palestinians: irrational hotheads. A Palestinian citizen of Israel who came to the conference left out of disgust, in her words, at my ouster.

In the meantime, Katja Hermann, director of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation's Regional Office in the Occupied Territories, was told about the complication. Despite her appreciation of the importance of preserving a safe space for Palestinian students, much like feminists have created women-only spaces, she failed to understand why it is impossible to explain to protesting students ("who I don't even see," she noted) that this puritanism misses the mark. I am regularly invited to events organized by "Rosa," as the foundation is fondly nicknamed. The shocked Hermann then said that had she known about the law at Birzeit, and the decision to exclude me from the conference's audience, she wouldn't have agreed to hold the event within the university walls.

In the past twenty years, I have entered Birzeit University dozens of times, and have been an audience member at various academic conferences there. I have also interviewed faculty members both on and off campus. A year ago, an economics lecturer refused an interview, telling me, "It's not personal. But you know what the rules are." I didn't know there was a rule against being interviewed by Haaretz.

It is well known that the university doesn't employ Israeli Jews as academic staff, even from anti-Zionist left-wing circles. In 1998, my application to an Arabic course for foreigners was rejected. (A sarcastic friend, Iyad from Gaza, said back then: "With your Gazan accent, how can they accept you?") But I was never told that there was a university law against my very presence, as an Israeli Jew, on Birzeit's campus. The claim that the law applies to me because I am representing an Israeli institution is a shaky one: Palestinian citizens of Israel who teach at Israeli universities are not subject to the same policy. If I had known about the existence of such a law, I wouldn't have come to the conference. I have other places to invest my subversive energies.

I am writing about this incident precisely because I did not take it personally. I do not take personally the fact that some faculty members were hiding behind hypothesized angry students and a law that many others seem to be unaware of. In my opinion, it would have been more dignified to tell me explicitly: We do not differentiate between those who support the occupation and those who are against it, between those who report on policies to forcibly evict the Bedouin or those who carry out that policy; for us, there is only one place for every Israeli Jew - outside.

At the final session of the conference on Wednesday, a lecturer from another department asked to discuss the fact that I had been kicked out, and the issue of banning left-wing Israeli Jews in general. The lecturer and others, who weren't present at the time of the incident, were shocked and expressed their protest, I was told. When it was announced that I was asked to leave, "for my own protection," a number of people left the hall in anger. Meanwhile, a storm erupted on Facebook. Acquaintances have since called me to apologize. The owner of my local grocery store apologized "in the name of the Palestinian people."

Meanwhile, the university published a statement Saturday saying: "The administration has nothing against the presence of the journalist Hass. The university as a national institution differentiates between friends and enemies of the Palestinian people… and works with every person or institution that is against the occupation."

I understand the emotional need of Palestinians to create a safe space that is off limits to citizens of the state that denies them their rights and has been robbing them of their land. As a leftist, however, I question the anti-colonialist logic of boycotting left-wing Israeli Jewish activists. In any case, such leftists do not seek kosher certificates while opposing the occupation and striving to put an end to the Jewish regime of privileges.