The "Hitlerization" of Hamas is the title of an article published by Palestinian author and thinker Nawaf Al-Zarou on Aljazeera website. I thought to translate it from Arabic (English is not a target language for me, my colleagues will forgicve my many errors), since it gives a large panorama from the Palestinian point of view of the bloody Israeli wars on Palestinians, civils and fighters altogether.

The article tries to understand through a thourough reading the ideology behind the rulers of the State of Israel. Those governments that are 'democratically elected' and chosen by a majority of Israelis.

Part 1 -

The Israeli agendas behind Israel's wars on Palestinians.

Nawaf al-Zarou (Palestinian thinker)

Eretz Israel in the thought of Olmert

The basement of the political agenda

The hidden agenda behind the hitlerization of Hamas

An eathquake in Middle East

The Army plans to destroy Hamas Institutions and the Palestinian Authority

The story of the hidden plans, intentions and agendas

As we have seen in the Sharonian case a dialectic and organic combination between idelogy, strategies, political programs and military plans and campaigns including all kinds and levels of butcheries and horrible crimes against all Palestinians; today in the Olmertian case, we see the same combination standing in front of us and visible on the ground.

Olmert started his rule by stating clearly the ideology of "Eretz Israel", he also announced the basements of his political agenda and the borders of the Jewish State he wants, packing it with the philosophy of "separation, enclosure and gathering"; which at the ends fulfills his political project bearing the contents and the goals of Sharon.

But considering that fulfulling the political and strategic goals from the Isareli point of view, is not possible unless they break the Paletinian will and force them to accept any political deal offered by Israel;

And considering that the Palestinian situation has seen democratic and evident evolutions that brought Hamas to the government and the Legislative Council, giving thus power and decision to Hamas;

And since all the secret Israeli attempts to undermine from the inside the Palestinian centre of power, failed in rising intestine fight among Hamas and Fatah;

And considering that the national palestinian dialogue ended in finding compromises and united formula, that the Israelis did not account for;

For all this, they brought out of their bags those military plans that have been lying for a long time, and whose implementation was just a question of time.

Al-Qassam missiles were a strong pretext, from the media point of view (public opinion). The "Vanishing illusion" operation and the sequestration of the Israeli soldier came in time to bring the right justifying context, to launch the campaign of "the summer rain", that hides behind it a sum of malign strategic goals, as weakening or impeaching Hamas government and its Legislative Council, and the total political cancellation of the Palestinian Authority, in the intent of creating the appropriate context to continue the project of "separation, enclosure and gathering".

But before the planned deterioration of the situation leading to "the summer rain", the Israeli security and political institution was preparing the local, regional and world context through the launching of intensive media campaigns against Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

It has used its falsening and usual pretext that "Hamas is a terrorist movement and the Hams Government is terrorist". It can only accept the Israeli and Internationl conditions, otherwise it will be empeached".

The inciting Israeli media campaigns were volontary and had hidden intentions. They had conditions, basements, lines and political as well as strategic goals at the service of the Israeli agendas, and that stand behind the open Israeli wars against the Palestinian people.

The first of them is the ideological approach conccected to "Eretz Israel".

Eretz Israel in the thought of Olmert

We read this Olmertian period of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as an extension of the Sharonian period, that was never stopped, and because Olmert –as he declared himslef- is an extension of that period and the continuator of Sharon road.

We can therefore state firmly that the same Sharon political/strategic and ideologic/Toratic dimensions stand also behind the policies and the wars of Olmert against the Paletinian people.

Exactly as Sharon would launch his wars according to his idelogical pretentions about "Eretz israel from the sea to the river" and that "the Jews have the right to colonize any place, and that therfore they have the right to defend themselves when fighting the Goliaths", Olmert was showing day after day that he's not less extremist, fundamentalist, and bloodthirsty and not less holding the classic Sionist fundamentals as his predecessor the Bulldozer (Sharon).

Salaam,

Ouadoud

Part 2

The declarations given by Olmert in front of "the Noble Peace Meeting – Petra 2006" that took place in Wadi Moussa in South Giordania 22/6/2007, may give an eloquent expression of the contents and ideological fundaments of this Olmertian war, crowned by the terrorist missile "Summer rain", and the butcheries bleeding there in Gaza.

When Olmert was asked during this Meeting about the volume of his regional withdrawal, he answered: "We, Israeli Jews state firmly that Historic israel extending from the Giordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is our land and our heritage, and we, the Jews possess the historic rights. The monuments on the ground belong to the Jews not to the Palestinians".

This means, according to their concrete practices "that the roles partition between America and Israel in the region fits in the frame of fulfilling the old legend consisting of opening the space separating the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea and the Gulf to Israel, so that it moves as it wants, as an introduction to control it from the security, economics and military point of view".

The basements of the political agenda

Starting from the above-cited, we can read the fundamentals and the true contents of the strategic political agenda of the coaltion government of Olmert – Perez – Peretz that declared the "Summer rain" war against the Palestinian people. (note of the translator: after the article was written, the extremist zionist Avigdor Lieberman-widely regarded as an outright racist- joined the Olmert government after that Israel army could not reach its goals in its August war against Lebanon).

Concerning the land of the alleged historic Israel, and concerning the drawing of the borders of the State of Israel, and contrary to the zionist movement and the continuous avoiding of the Israeli State to draw the borders of the zionist state, we have heard many Israeli declarations and analysis, in the period of Olmert, that speak about the drawing of borders of the State of Israel in the next two years. Can you imagine that ?

So let's read then, in the useful summary, what Olmert intends for us in his program and his fake political declarations.

We say: here's the Sharonian Olmert who brings things back to the departure case, and who inaugurates his rule by "the summer rain" and comes back to the language of helicopetrs, missiles, assassinations, collective butcheries against Palestinian women, children and elder, and who threatens of invading and re-colonising Gaza.

The hidden Agenda behind the hitlerization of Hamas

It seems as if the the State of the Israeli occupation was waiting those legislative elections, to declare that the Palestinian Authority has changed from now on to a terrorist enemy body.

The former Head of Israeli General Security Apparel "Shapak", Avi Dikhter, compared the Covenant of Hamas to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (note of the translator: dear Scott, as you can see, you did not invent your comment, 'somebody' else said it before you!).

The current head of Shapak, Yoval Disken said "that Hamas tries to show itself as pragmatic and moderate, but from the popular point of view, it saved its ideology in the Palestinian street, it speaks about the borders of 1967 and its ambition are those of 1948".

Disken considered that Hamas was a strategic threat to Israel, and Dan Halutz, head of the Israeli Armed Forces said "that Israel should decide from the first day and draw its policies, because our fundamental hypothesis is that Hamas will not change, and will continue to be a threat to Israel".

Ehud Olmert reaches the summary and the conclusion that they want, and that is as he declared himself "that the ability to reach an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is finished and over".

And this is the most important fact for the Israeli policies since the bulldozer Sharon started his unilateral invasion war and the unilateral steps that have proved the saying: "There is no Palestinian partner we can negociate with", succededing thus to mobilize the American Administration.

The political, Media and diplomatic Israeli institutions adopted a sum of inciting slogans against the Palestinians with the intent of accusing them of incapacity and failure and inability to be partners in the negociations, and in order to hitlerize Hamas and al-Qaidaze the Palestinians, and I mean to accuse them to become part of al-Qaida, and to convince thus the American and European world of the legitimacy of the Israeli wars against them.

Part 3 will follow

Salaam,

Ouadoud

Original Arabic article:

http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/16376FCA-1ECB-48A3-B794-BBB38C4322C5.htm

ROBERT FISK, the famous Journalist has published an article called: "Journalists' Coverage of Middle East Shallow and Distorted" that starts as follow:

"DEARBORN, MI – Journalists in the "West" should feel a burden of guilt for much that has happened in the Middle East because they have, with their gullibility, sold a fictitious version of events.

Their constant references to a "fence" instead of a wall, to "settlements" or "neighborhoods" instead of colonies, their description of the West Bank as "disputed" rather than occupied, has bred a kind of slackness in reporting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict..."

Then he continues his open-eyes journalism and he asks this question

"Much worse, however, is the failure to enquire into the real policies of governments. Why, for example, was there no front-page treatment of this year's Herzliya conference, Israel's most important policy-making jamboree? Most of the important figures in the Israeli government - they had yet to be electe - were in attendance..."

But thanks God, we know something of what happened in this jamboree, R. Fisk tells us:

"The conference was the place where Ehud Olmert first suggested handing over slices of the West Bank: "The choice between allowing Jews to live in all parts of the land of Israel" - the "land of Israel" in this context included the West Bank - "and living in a state with a Jewish majority mandate giving up part of the land of Israel. We cannot continue to control parts of the territories where most of the Palestinians live."

However, most speakers agreed that the Palestinians would be given a state on whatever is left after the huge settlements had been included behind the wall. Benjamin Netanyahu even suggested the wall should be moved deeper into the West Bank. But the implications were obvious.

A Palestinian state will be allowed, but it will not have a capital in East Jerusalem nor any connection between Gaza and the bits of the West Bank that are handed over. So there will be no peace, and the words "Palestinian" and "terrorist" will, again, be inextricably linked by Israel and the U.S."

And as a honest American "journalist, he asks some crucial questions:

"All these details are available in the Arab press - and of course, the Israeli press, but are largely absent from our own. Why? Even when Norman Finkelstein wrote a damning academic report on the way Israel's High Court of Justice "proved" the wall – deemed illegal by the Hague - was legal, it was virtually ignored in the West. So, for that matter, was the U.S. The academics' report on the power of the Israeli lobby, until the usual taunts of "anti-Semitism" forced the American mainstream to write about it, albeit in a shifty, frightened way. There are so many other examples of our fear of Middle Eastern truth."

He concludes, with irony:

"It's always been my view that the people of this part of the earth would like some of our democracy. They would like a few packets of human rights off our supermarket shelves. They want freedom. But they want another kind of freedom - freedom from us."

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ee76423b8455640d0e7e168675751cab

Salaam,

Ouadoud

Hi Ouadoud

I am proud to say that Robert Fisk is actually British, not American - and more important, his principal employer is The Independent, one of the top 3 UK newspapers. The Independent (وفقا لإسمها) does not follow the rest of the British press in its non-committal Middle East reporting and frequently gives Fisk the entire front page - as in today's edition:

http://www.independent.co.uk/

It could be said that the Independent is biased against Israel but at present it is the only serious UK newspaper that presents an alternative view to the status quo. Sometimes it is like صوت صارخ في البرية - "a voice crying out in the wilderness..."  

Ahlan Colin,

Thanks so much for the info. You may legitimately indeed be proud of That guy. An exceptional journalist who didn't sell his soul. There are still people defending the weak and the poor.

BTW, you're a perfect witness for me, you have command of English and Arabic. Thanks again and salaam!

Ouadoud

I would like to introduce you a maestro: Gilad Atzmon.

"Born in Israel on 9th June 1963

Instrument: Soprano, Alto, Tenor and Baritone Saxes. Clarinet, Sol, Zurna and Flutes.

Musical Training: Rubin Academy of Music, Jerusalem (Composition and Jazz).

Raised as a secular Israeli Jew in Jerusalem, Gilad Atzmon witnessed and
empathised with the daily sufferings of Palestinians and spent 20 years
trying to resolve for himself the tensions of his background. Finally
disillusioned, he moved away from Israel and went to England to study
philosophy. Yet when he met Asaf Sirkis, a drummer from his homeland, Atzmon
recovered an interest in playing the music of the Middle East, North Africa
and Eastern Europe that had been in the back of his mind for years. Atzmon
founded the Orient House Ensemble in London and started re-defining his own
roots in the light of political reality. He now regards himself as a devoted
political artist."

Well. I think you see the relation with our thread. Not yet ? Here's more:

"Gilad Atzmon's music moves more and more towards a cultural hybrid. On his latest album, "Exile" (ENJA/TIPTOE), Atzmon and his colleagues try to
tell the story of Palestine, a country that was stormed by radical Zionists
in the 20th century. Asking himself how the Jewish - who themselves have
suffered so much and for so long - can inflict so much pain on the Other,
Atzmon takes up Israeli traditional and nationalistic melodies and turns
them around deliberately. For instance, "Al-Quds" is an Arabic
interpretation of an Israeli tune that became the anthem of the '67 War.
Beside other guests (like Tunisian singer Dhafer Youssef), "Exile" features
the moving voice of Palestinian lady singer Reem Kelani. This thrilling
vocalist will also be featured in concert with the band."

If you want to have a healthy idea about what zionism looks like, explained by a Jew who was born in Israel and left it: just read Gilad's articles ("Deconstructing Grossman" is particularly interesting. It just shows what the rising star, the left-wing soft-zionist Grossman is in reality)

http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/politics.html

Salaam To Gilad first and then to all of you, and enjoy the music too!

Ouadoud

I think so, according to this forum where Palestinians discuss their matters, the moderator writes:

في هذه الحلقات إن شاء الله تعالى ستكون المنهجية على النحو التالي:
أولا: سأضع فقرات الميثاق بشكل تدريجي كما وردت في الطبعة الاولى علم 1988م مع إرفاق فقرة معدلة في إحدى مواد الميثاق وردتنا من المصدر وأدرجت في الطبعة الثانية ...

Tr: The methodology in these episods, God willing, will be as follow:

one: I will post the paragraphs of the Covenant progressively, as they were published in the first edition 1988, and I will attach an emended paragraph on The Covenant article as we received it from the font and that was published in the second edition...

http://www.palestinianforum.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17636&pp=20

Salaam,

Ouadoud

US vetos at the UN Security Council (Shamelessly granting immunity to Israel over International Law)

List of UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel and vetoed by the USA, 1972 - 2006

(Russia has used their veto TWICE in resolutions other than those condemning Israel)

Year: Resolution Vetoed by the USA

·  1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.

·  1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

·  1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.

·  1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.

·  1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.

·  1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.

·  1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.

·  1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.

·  1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.

·  1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.

·  1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.

·  1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.

·  1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.

·  1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.

·  1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.

·  1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.

·  1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.

·  1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.

·  1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.

·  1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.

·  1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).

·  1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.

·  1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.

·  1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.

·  1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.

·  1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.

·  1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.

·  1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.

·  1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.

·  1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.

·  1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.

·  1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.

·  1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.

·  1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).

·  1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.

·  1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resolutions.

·  1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.

·  1995 Affirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.

·  1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.

·  2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

·  2001 Condemns Israel for acts of terror against civilians in the occupied territories.

·  2002 Condemns the killing of UK worker for the United Nations by Israeli forces. Condemns the destruction of the World Food Programme warehouse.

·  2003 Condemns a decision by the Israeli parliament to "remove" the elected Palestinian president, Yasser Arafat.

·  2003 Condemns the building of a wall by Israel on Palestinian land.

·  2004 Condemns the assassination of Hamas leader, Sheik Ahmad Yassin.

·  2004 Calls for an end to Israeli military incursions and attacks on Gaza.

·  2006 Calls for an end to Israeli military incursions and attacks on Gaza.

·  November 2006 Condemns the Israeli killing of civilian children and women in Beit Hanun.

Sources:

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/geoff/UNresolutions.htm

Salaam,

Ouadoud

Question: do you think it's still possible to build peace between Arabs and Israel ?

Poll ends tomorrow.

Answers until now: Total voters = 19077

YES = 8.5%

NO = 91.5%

مدة التصويت: من12/11/2006 إلى 15/11/2006

موضوع التصويت:

هل تعتقد أنه ما زال بالإمكان صنع سلام بين العرب وإسرائيل؟

الخيارات النسبة عدد الأصوات نعم 8.5% 1622 لا 91.5% 17455

إجمالي المصوتين 19077

نتيجة التصويت لا تعبر عن رأي الجزيرة وإنما تعبر عن رأي الأعضاء المشاركين فيه.   Source: http://www.aljazeera.net/Portal/

From http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?em&ex=1163653200&en=26d498c7e13f22f3&ei=5070:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — As Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon for a second week last July, the Rev. John Hagee of San Antonio arrived in Washington with 3,500 evangelicals for the first annual conference of his newly founded organization, Christians United For Israel.

At a dinner addressed by the Israeli ambassador, a handful of Republican senators and the chairman of the Republican Party, Mr. Hagee read greetings from President Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and dispatched the crowd with a message for their representatives in Congress. Tell them “to let Israel do their job” of destroying the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, Mr. Hagee said.

He called the conflict “a battle between good and evil” and said support for Israel was “God’s foreign policy.”

The next day he took the same message to the White House.

Many conservative Christians say they believe that the president’s support for Israel fulfills a biblical injunction to protect the Jewish state, which some of them think will play a pivotal role in the second coming.

[...]