|Contents by Subject||
Contents in Alphabetical Order
The author of the article below is a leading Peace Now activist who seems to be constantly simply aching for the Arabs to take over the State of Israel.
His organization is at least partially strongly funded by European elements AND HE HIMSELF WAS PAID BY A SWEDISH NEWSPAPARER for the article below.
The article claims that the Ghanem family mistakenly thought that organs had been taken from their son.
Even this however is UNTRUE as show by the article (b) following this one.
Despite the reprehensibility of his views and the lie about the Ghanem family that it repeats the article is still worth reading.
Swedish theatre and the reality of the occupation
by Adam Keller
www.gush-shalom.org, Aug. 26, 2009
For days the Israeli political establishment and mainstream media engaged in an unrestrained campaign of demonization of Sweden. Only after having already castigated Swedes as `antisemites` did mass circulation newspaper Yediot Aharonot take the elementary journalistic step of sending a reporter to check the facts. Ronny Shaked`s Aug. 24 article revealed no organ harvesting horror - but showed quite clearly how such a story could emerge from the grim occupation reality.
It is an old story, going back seventeen years, the story of a young man named Bilal Ahmad Ghanem from the small West Bank village of Amatin. Ghanem was one of those which official Israel castigates as terrorists and their own people praise as freedom fighters. In the early 1990`s he figured on the Israeli `wanted` list.
In May 1992 Israel was in the midst of a crucial elections campaign. Opposition leader Yitzchak Rabin was asking for the voters` mandate on a pledge to make peace with the Palestinians - a pledge he would eventually seriously try to implement and for which he would pay with his own life three and a half years later. All of that was part of a future, which Bilal Ahmad Ghanem would not live to see. On the night of May 13, 1992, Israeli hunters ambushed him outside his parents` home, and killed him on the spot with a bullet directly to the heart. This in itself excludes the possibility that Ghanem`s organs were used for transplantation. It is an elementary medical fact that organs are taken from brain-dead patients whose heart is still beating.
There was not, and could not have been, a `harvesting of organs`. But it is true that Ghanem`s body was taken away, restored to the family only after a week, in which it evidently was subjected to an autopsy, to which the family did not consent nor was asked for consent. (In Israel itself, an autopsy is only performed with the consent of the family or by court order, but such rules do not apply in military-ruled territory). When at last the body was given back, the family was shocked to see a scar running from his neck down to his abdomen. They were not given much time to speculate, and nobody was there to answer questions. Soldiers on the spot urged them to get on with the funeral and disperse to their homes. A Swedish journalist made some photos of Ghanem`s scarred body - arousing the ire of the soldiers, who promptly confiscated his camera. But he had managed to extract the film and throw it among the bushes. On the following day he returned, recovered the photos and recorded the angry and pained reactions of Ghanem`s mother, who could not be expected to know or care about medical facts and the conditions where organ transplanting is or is not possible.
The photos and report were published in 1992 Sweden, without getting much attention. They were included as one of many items in an 2001 book on the situation in the Occupied Territories, to whose publication the Government of Sweden apparently contributed though it was unlikely to have closely and minutely supervised its contents. Again, not many people noticed or paid attention. And now it has surfaced again and became - seventeen years after the fact - the center of a raging storm.
Why resurrect this affair at exactly this time? Possibly because the mass killing of civilians in the recent Gaza war, which is an undoubted fact, has made also implausible Israeli atrocities seem plausible. But even so, a newspaper should have carefully checked its facts, and any doctor could have told them that this particular accusation could not be true. There had been a month ago an ugly case of illicit trade in organs for transplantation, in which the American citizens implicated happened to be Jewish. But linking this affair with the misconduct of the armed forces of Israel was an ugly and unacceptable analogy which the editors of `Aftonbladet` should have avoided. Still, there was no need for the Netanyahu Government to blow it up to a head-on confrontation between the two countries. Indeed, the leaders of the Jewish community in Sweden were far from pleased with the Israeli overreaction. But the Israeli government did not act out of concern for them. It had its own specific agenda for making the maximum noise.
Almost from the first day he assumed power, Netanyahu is under constant pressure from President Barack Obama to cease all settlement activity in the occupied territories. The fanatic hardliners in his cabinet call for Israel to defy all pressures, continue and extend the building of Jewish settlements and tell the Americans to go to hell. Deep in his heart Netanyahu might sympathize - but he knows well enough that such a course would be suicidal, and that it would be Israel which would get to hell in short order. Sweden is a convenient alternative target, which could be attacked with relative impunity. Moreover, Sweden - having the Presidency of European Union - has itself quite recently lodged a strong protest about the settlements and the expulsion of Palestinian families from their homes is the Sheikh Jarah Neighbourhood in East Jerusalem. It makes perfect sense for Netanyahu to try and put the Swedish government on the defensive.
The row also helps to divert the criticism on Netanyahu from inside his government coalition. Israel`s historically-loaden ambivalent relation to Europe is a Pandora box easily opened.
On the one hand, Israelis like to think of themselves as belonging to Europe; on the other hand when encountering criticism, wild accusations of antisemitism immediately fly around and the history of the Second World War and the Holocaust is very selectively referenced.
Israelis are delighted that their country was admitted to the European Song Festival and that their football and basketball teams can participate in European championships. But the same people would not opt for Israel becoming subject to the authority of the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, and to have that court give the actions of the Israeli armed forces the kind of scrutiny it gave to the British army in North Ireland.
In today`s Europe it is taken for granted that a democratic state is, by definition, `The State of All Its Citizens`. The Israeli mainstream would like Israel to be accepted as a European State while rejecting any such definition and insisting that `A State of All Its Citizens` is a subversive and extremist idea where Israel is concerned.
The present confrontation with Sweden is the latest - and probably not the last - of such cases.
Written at the invitation of the Swedish weekly `Efter Arbetet` for its Aug. 28 edition
(b) Ghanem Family: We Never Said Son's Organs Were Stolen
Tuesday, August 25 2009
This Swedish blood libel was further undermined when the family of Bilal Ahmed Ghanem said they never told any reporter that their son was missing organs.
Jerusalem Post reporter Khaled Abu Toameh tracked down the family:
The mother denied that she had told any foreign journalist that her son's organs had been stolen.
However, she said that now she does not rule out the possibility that Israel was harvesting organs of Palestinians . . . .
Jalal said that he and other villagers recall that a Swedish photographer was in the village during the funeral and that he managed to take a number of pictures of the body before the funeral. "That was the only time we saw this photographer," he recounted.
Ibrahim Ghanem, a relative of Bilal, said that the family never told the Swedish photographer that Israel had stolen organs from the dead man's body.
"Maybe the journalist reached that conclusion on the basis of the stitches he saw on the body," he said. "But as far as the family is concerned, we don't know if organs were removed from the body because we never performed our own autopsy. All we know is that Bilal's teeth were missing."
So much for Bostrom's previous excuse, which lame in its own right:
"I am just referring to what other people are telling me.
Aftonbladet editor Jan Helin also defended the article:
"The article poses a question,why has this body been autopsied when the cause of death is obvious? There I think Israeli authorities owe us an answer."
Since Aftonbladet was raising the accusations, the burden of proof is on the newspaper. Israel's not obligated to prove that something didn't happen, whether the accusations deal with body snatching, blowing up the World Trade Center, killing Arafat, poisoning the wells, tsunamis, etc. Stay tuned for an Aftonbladet exclusive on the Zionist tooth fairy taking Bilal Ghanem's teeth.
In Israeli autopsies were once regularly performed on corpses (Jewish or not) even without the permission of the family.
This was part of a Left-Wing Secular attitude and was only changed when Menachem Begin came to power in 1977.
Autopsies are disapproved by Jewish and Moslem tradition but they are approved by Secular Outlook.
In Sweden 30% of the corpses are subjected to an autopsy and this figure is a decrease over the figure for past years.
In some hospital departments ALL the corpses undergo an autopsy presumably whether the family agrees or not.
3. Did England Apologize for Expelling the Jews?
re Ten Tribes Tribal Report no.27
#3. The Jews and Britain: Judah and Ephraim at Odds?
Aaron Shuster said:
##We must not forget that Jews were deported from England by the order of a king long before the Inquisition in Spain. We still have not heard an apology for this hateful act!##
The Jews were expelled from England in 1290.
3000 Jews were sent out.
The Expulsion was preceded by persecutions and malice.
Oliver Cromwell proposed formally re-admitting the Jews to England though unofficially some Jews had already settled there.
There was a public debate with pamphleteers writing tracts for and against the Jews.
There was also an intensive legal discussion.
The upshot was that the expulsion of 1290 was in effect discovered to have no legal standing.
In ca. 1656 Cromwell decided that instead of a formal declaration of re-admittance the Jews
could in effect come as they wished since no valid legal impediment against them really existed.
There was no apology but the Expulsion of 1290 was found to be invalid.
There had been a vicious massacre of Jews in York in 1190.
Some type of apology, request for forgiveness, and request for removal of any curse that may still
be in force against descendants of the People of York was made in recent times by a Church of England dignitary.
I could not however find any reference to this on the web.
1. Judah: Article on Different Types of Skull-Cap and their Significance
Yarmulke Exhibit Moves to Jerusalem
by Hillel Fendel
(IsraelNN.com) Dozens of knitted kippot (plural of kippah, Hebrew for the more familiar "skullcap" or "yarmulke") of all sizes and colors comprise a new exhibit attempting yet another way to define the religious-Zionist community.
The exhibit was first situated on the 49th floor of the Azrieli Towers in Tel Aviv, and has now made its way to Lander College in Jerusalem. It includes some 60 kippot, together with a short explanation by each wearer as to what his kippah signifies.
Among those who (or whose family) donated a kippah to the exhibit are the late Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Neriah, considered the father of the knitted kippah generation, the late Brig.-Gen. Dror Weinberg, Jonathan Pollard, singer Dudu Fischer, father-and-son journalist team Haggai and Amit Segal, Effie Eitam, MK Zevulun Orlev, Moshe Feiglin, Tzfat's Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, cartoonist Shai Cherke, and Nobel Prize laureate Prof. Yisrael Aumann.
Jonathan Pollard, imprisoned in the U.S. for nearly 24 years for having shared critical, classified information with Israel, wrote, "The kippah is a sign of accepting the yoke of Heaven; the Holy One, blessed be He, is our aide and protector forever."
Effie Eitam, a former MK and Brig.-Gen. in the IDF, wrote, "I wasn't born with a kippah; I chose it, and I continue to choose it every day."
Prof. Oz Almog of Haifa University explains that there are several parameters that define the various knitted kippot and, by extension, those who wear them: "Size, color, texture and design. The size often indicates the level of religiosity; the bigger, the more religious." The "hilltop youth" and others often wear large kippot of thick wool, whereas the fine-thread kippot are much more common almost everywhere else.
Two people donated a black kippah, with different explanations. MK Uri Orbach originally wanted to wear it abroad in places where he felt it would be better not to "stick out" too much, but he then changed his mind and decided that he need not worry about his kippah attracting attention. Baruch Marzel of Hevron, on the other hand, wears it in order to come closer to the hareidi-religious public, which wears only black cloth yarmulkes: "A Jew's purpose is to collect the truth from everyone."
MK Yaakov Katz (Ketzaleh) donated a relatively large kippah, consistent with his yeshiva days in the Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva. He wrote, "When I completed the officers' course in the IDF 38 years ago, we were three kippah-wearers among 150 cadets. Now we are privileged to see about half of those who become IDF officers wearing knitted yarmulkes."
2. Britain: Norman and Saxon by Rudyard Kipling
"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:--
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow--with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.
"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.
"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their own wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they are saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.
They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park).
Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can find.
"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.'
Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"
3. The Jews and Britain: Judah and Ephraim at Odds?
(a) Backgrounds, (b) Screed, (c) Brit-Am Reply
Background (1) Steven Shamrak
Steven Shamrak puts out a newsletter summarizing in a concise manner news items along with his own commentary.
It is quite good and often picks up important items that might otherwise be overlooked.
Shamrak is based in Australia and advocates transferring the Pesltinians to Sinai.
To our minds this proposal is impractical and all the Palestinians should instead be flown to North Africa or South America.
Background (2) The British Malaise
Recently a British official in the Arab Gulf States publicly boasted as to how British officials are openly active in Israel and Jerusalem with interference against Jewish settlement.
The British are also often very pro-Arab. British news media is anti-Israel and frequently guilty of telling outright lies and wicked misrepresentation of Israeli actions. Anti-Semitism in Britain is on the rise.
In ca. 2050 if present trends continue 20 to 30% of the population of Britain (and the Netherlands) could be Muslim.
Background (3) Britain and the Jews
Many Jews dislike the British because:
Britain during the last years of the Mandate limited Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel just when the Holocaust was taking place in Europe and Jews had nowhere to go.
There was a muted but violent conflict between the British and Jews just before the Jews received Indepdendence.
The Irgun and Lechi who lead the struggle against the British in some respects became the ideological forerunners of Israeli national thinkers and writers.
Britain comes across sometimes as anti-Semitic.
Some Jewish Patriotic right-wing nationalistic polemicists are in fact closet Conspiracy Freaks: Several Versions of Conspiracy Freak Idoiotic meanderings cast the British establishment as part of the arch-villains who want to control everyone by destroying all that is good and beautiful.
Despite legitimate grievances the Jews may have against Britiain however there is another side to the story.
This is given at length in our work "The Tribes"
and in very shortened form in our Briti-Am Reply after the Screed below:
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:33:56 -0400
From: Steven Shamrak <email@example.com>
'Great' Tradition of British Hate. Compiled by Aaron Shuster
Of course the British won't ban a vehement Jew hater. The British excel in Jew hatred. Any man who hates Jews is a great friend of Britain. Why do you think the British let the Moslems swarm Britain. They have a common enemy - the Jews. It is precisely Jew hatred that bonds the British to their Islamic brethren.
Remember, not one train line running to Auschwitz was ever bombed by the British. Why would they want to stop the extermination of the Jewish people? Not a priority. At the same time, they banned Jews from returning to their homeland - Israel. Effectively, they locked the Jews in a burning building and threw away the key.
Geert Wilders, an international champion of free speech, is barred from Britain , but a Jew-hating Islamic supremacist is just fine with UK authorities: Despite his sectarian, racist incitements that Jews are "scum...rats...pigs and monkeys," the chief cleric of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abdul Rahman al Sudais, has been welcomed and invited to preach at the East London mosque in Whitechapel tonight, Tuesday evening, 4 August 2009.
Al-Sudais, who has close ties to the Saudi elite, has also insulted Christians and Hindus, referring disparagingly to Christians as "cross-worshippers" and Hindus as "idol worshippers". He has been banned from Canada for his anti-Semitism.
The chairman of the East London mosque is Muhammad Abdul Bari. He is also the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Although the MCB has condemned anti-Semitism, it has previously declined to criticise the anti-Semitism of al-Sudais and has continued to support him despite his anti-Jewish tirade.
"Al-Sudais has stoked religious sectarianism and anti-Jewish racism. He has never expressed any regret," said human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell. "I don't understand why the Home Secretary is allowing al-Sudais into Britain , given that similar hate preachers have been banned. Is it because of the close business links between the British and Saudi establishments?" Mr Tatchell queried. (Or it is done just for the sake of loving to hate Jews. We must not forget that Jews were deported from England by the order of a king long before the Inquisition in Spain. We still have not heard an apology for this hateful act!)
Pleased with what you read?
We do this because we have a duty to do so and we believe in it.