1 August 2014 Thought for the Week:
“I am not a Marxist” says Pope Francis: As you may have noticed, the Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis contains a lot of strong words about the economic structures that rule the world today. Some "conservative" circles, who have possibly never studied the social teachings of the Catholic Church, were shocked by these words of Pope Francis, going so far as to accuse him of preaching "pure Marxism"!

In an interview given to journalist Andrea Tornielli, and published in the December 15, 2013 issue of the Italian daily La Stampa, the Holy Father answered these critics:

"There is nothing in the exhortation that cannot be found in the social doctrine of the Church. I wasn't speaking from a technical point of view, what I was trying to do was to give a picture of what is going on. The only specific quote I used was the one regarding the "trickle-down theories" which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefiting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger; nothing ever comes out for the poor. This was the only reference to a specific theory. I was not, I repeat, speaking from a technical point of view but according to the Church's social doctrine. This does not mean being a Marxist."

The problem with these detractors of the Pope is that they figure out that since Communism or Marxism is evil and anti-Christian, its so-called opposite, Capitalism, is necessarily perfect, and therefore needs not be corrected at all. If one studies carefully what the Church teaches, one will see that what the Church reproaches Capitalism with, is neither private property nor free enterprise, but that not enough people have access to a minimum of material goods to become real "capitalists". - - Michael Journal January/February 2014.

THUMBS UP FOR GAZA SLAUGHTER

Editorial Position of the New York Times By Norman Solomon, Global Research, July 21, 2014

Over the weekend, the New York Times sent out a clear signal: the mass slaughter of civilians is acceptable when the Israeli military is doing the killing. Under the headline “Israel’s War in Gaza,” the most powerful newspaper in the United States editorialized that such carnage is necessary. The lead editorial in the July 19 edition flashed a bright green light - reassuring the U.S. and Israeli governments that the horrors being inflicted in Gaza were not too horrible. From its first words, the editorial methodically set out to justify what Israel was doing. “After 10 days of aerial bombardment,” the editorial began, “Israel sent tanks and ground troops into Gaza to keep Hamas from pummeling Israeli cities with rockets and carrying out terrorist attacks via underground tunnels.” The choice of when to date the start of the crisis was part of the methodical detour around inconvenient facts.

For instance, no mention of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s June 30 announcement that the “human animals” of Hamas would “pay” after three Israeli teenagers kidnapped in Israeli-controlled territory in the West Bank were found dead. No mention of the absence of evidence that Hamas leadership was involved in those murders.

Likewise, absent from the editorializing sequence was Israel’s June “crackdown” in the West Bank, with home raids, area closures, imprisonment of hundreds of Hamas party activists including legislators. Most of all, the vile core of The Times editorial was its devaluation of Palestinian lives in sharp contrast to Israeli lives. The Times editorial declared that Hamas leaders “deserve condemnation” for military actions from civilian areas in the dense Gaza enclave - but Netanyahu merited mere expressions of “concern” about “further escalation.”

Absent from the editorial was any criticism of Israel’s ongoing bombardment of homes, apartment blocks, hospitals, beaches and other civilian areas with U.S.-supplied ordinance. At the time, there had been one Israeli death from the hostilities - and at least 260 deaths among Gazans as well as injuries in the thousands. The contrast illuminates a grotesque difference in The Times’ willingness to truly value the humanity of Israelis and Palestinians. In the morally skewed universe that The Times editorial board evidently inhabits and eagerly promulgates, Hamas intends to “terrorize” Israeli citizens while Israel merely intends to accomplish military objectives by dropping thousands of tons of bombs on Palestinian people in Gaza.

A keynote of the editorial came when it proclaimed: “There was no way Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was going to tolerate the Hamas bombardments, which are indiscriminately lobbed at Israeli population centres. Nor should he.” While sprinkling in a handwringing couple of phrases about dead and wounded civilians, the editorial had nothing to say in condemnation of the Israeli force killing and maiming them in large numbers.

Between the lines was a tacit message to Israel: Kill more. It’s OK. Kill more.

And to Israel’s patrons in Washington: Stand behind Israel’s mass killing in Gaza. Under the unfortunate circumstances, it’s needed.

When the editorial came off the press, the Israeli military was just getting started. And no doubt Israeli leaders, from Netanyahu on down, were heartened by the good war-making seal of approval from the New York Times. After all, the most influential media voice in the United States - where the government is the main backer of Israel’s power - was proclaiming that the mass killing by the Israeli military was regrettable but not objectionable.

The night after The Times editorial went to press, the killing escalated. Among the calamities: the Israeli military shelled the Gaza neighborhood of Shejaiya throughout the night with nonstop tank fire that allowed no emergency services to approach. Eyewitness media reports from Shejaiya recounted scenes of “absolute devastation” with bodies strewn in the streets and the ruins.

Two days after the editorial reached The Times newsprint, over 150 more were counted dead in Gaza. No media enabler was more culpable than the editorializing voice of The Times, which had egged on the Israeli assault at the end of a week that began with the United Nations reporting 80 percent of the dead in Gaza were civilians. The Times editorial was in step with President Obama, who said – apparently without intended irony – that no country can accept rockets fired indiscriminately at citizens.”

Later, matching Israeli rationales for a ground invasion, the president amended his verbiage by saying: “No nation should accept rockets being fired into its borders or terrorists tunneling into its territory.” An important caveat can be found in the phrases “no country” and “no nation.” The stateless people who live in Gaza – 70 percent of whom are from families expelled from what’s now southern Israel – are a very different matter.

By the lights of the Oval Office and the New York Times editorial boardroom, lofty rhetoric aside, the proper role of Palestinian people is to be slaughtered into submission.

Abba A. Solomon is the author of “The Speech, and Its Context: Jacob Blaustein’s Speech ‘The Meaning of Palestine Partition to American Jews.’” Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsA ction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.”

Comment: The late South African journalist, Ivor Benson, once wrote that he followed/studied the New York Times for over thirty years to gauge what the ‘news slant’ of the MSM journalists would be – and sure enough, he saw time and time again, they had received their orders.

A FACEBOOK MESSAGE FROM ISRAELIS WHO WERE ONCE SOLDIERS

A brutal military operation now taking place in our name:
Whenever the Israeli army drafts the reserves — which are made up of ex-soldiers — there are dissenters, resisters, and AWOLers among the troops called to war. Now that Israel has sent troops to Gaza again and reserves are being summoned to service, dozens are refusing to take part. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=664968690247539&set=a.401767133234364.94632.401514489926295&type=1 .

We are more than 50 Israelis who were once soldiers and now declare our refusal to be part of the reserves. We oppose the Israeli Army and the conscription law. Partly, that’s because we revile the current military operation. But most of the signers below are women and would not have fought in combat. For us, the army is flawed for reasons far broader than “Operation Protective Edge,” or even the occupation. We rue the militarization of Israel and the army’s discriminatory policies. One example is the way women are often relegated to low-ranking secretarial positions. Another is the screening system that discriminates https://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/never-the-twain-1.315170 against Mizrachi (Jews whose families originate in Arab countries) by keeping them from being fairly represented inside the army’s most prestigious units. In Israeli society, one’s unit and position determines much of one’s professional path in the civilian afterlife.

To us, the current military operation and the way militarization affects Israeli society are inseparable. In Israel, war is not merely politics by other means — it replaces politics. Israel is no longer able to think about a solution to a political conflict except in terms of physical might; no wonder it is prone to never-ending cycles of mortal violence. And when the cannons fire, no criticism may be heard.

This petition, long in the making, has a special urgency because of the brutal military operation now taking place in our name. And although combat soldiers are generally the ones prosecuting today’s war, their work would not be possible without the many administrative roles in which most of us served. So if there is a reason to oppose combat operations in Gaza, there is also a reason to oppose the Israeli military apparatus as a whole.

That is the message of this petition:
We were soldiers in a wide variety of units and positions in the Israeli military—a fact we now regret, because, in our service, we found that troops who operate in the occupied territories aren’t the only ones enforcing the mechanisms of control over Palestinian lives. In truth, the entire military is implicated. For that reason, we now refuse to participate in our reserve duties, and we support all those who resist being called to service.

WATCH THE WORM SQUIRM – KERRY SLAMS GAZA INVASION

Fox News microphone catches Kerry criticising Israel by Jonathon Cook Source: ICH 21 July 2014.
US Secretary of State John Kerry is confronted by Fox News with a conversation with an aide that was supposed to be private but was caught by an open studio microphone. He criticises Israel’s attack on Gaza, saying sarcastically: “It’s a hell of a pinpoint operation.” That is presumably a reference to the rapidly escalating death toll over the past 24 hours from Israel’s ground invasion. Such incidents often look as though they have exposed politicians as mendacious, saying one thing in private and another in public. I think that is the wrong way to understand it. Most politicians are not cynical. They do not think of themselves as bad, deceitful or hypocritical - even if we often do. In their own minds, they believe they are doing the best possible in difficult circumstances. Here Kerry shows that he is concerned to save lives and suffering through diplomatic action, even as the decisions he takes are guaranteed to result in many more people dying unnecessarily and in horrifying circumstances. He cares about the civilians being killed in Gaza, it’s just that his political priorities – the good fight for civilisation – require destroying or containing “bad guys” like Hamas. In his mind, it is sad but unavoidable that civilians have to pay the price, as collateral damage.

In other words, the problem is not that Kerry has bad motives or intentions; it is that his ideological horizons are so limited and skewed by his education and socialisation that his judgment has been profoundly corrupted and is inherently unreliable. That, unfortunately, is the problem with most of the people who run our societies. (emphasis added…ed)
Watch: https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39167.htm Jonathan Cook is a Nazareth- based journalist and winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism https://www.jonathan-cook.net/

FLIGHT MH17 INVESTIGATION. MALAYSIA WILL COLLABORATE…

With Donesk People’s Republic.
“In recent days, we have been working behind the scenes to establish contact with those in charge of the MH17 crash site. That contact has now been made. Under difficult and fluid circumstances, we have been discussing the problems that have occupied us all: securing vital evidence from the aircraft, launching an independent investigation, and above all recovering the remains of those who lost their lives.”

Portion of PM Najib Razak’s statement - 24 July 2014. “Tonight, we have established the basis of an agreement to do just that. Earlier this evening I spoke to Alexander Borodai, who is in command of the region where the tragedy occurred. We have agreed the following: Firstly, the remains of 282 people, currently in Torez, will be moved by train to Kharkiv, where they will be handed over to representatives from the Netherlands. The train will depart this evening Ukraine time, and will be accompanied by six Malaysian members of the recovery team. The remains will then be flown to Amsterdam on board a Dutch C130 Hercules, together with the Malaysian team. Following any necessary forensic work, the remains of Malaysian citizens will then be flown home to Malaysia. Secondly, at approximately 9pm tonight Ukraine time, the two black boxes will be handed over to a Malaysian team in Donetsk, who will take custody of them. Thirdly, independent international investigators will be guaranteed safe access to the crash site to begin a full investigation of the incident…” Continue reading here...

What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine? By Robert Parry July 20, 2014 http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ Exclusive: The U.S. media’s Ukraine bias has been obvious, siding with the Kiev regime and bashing ethnic Russian rebels and Russia’s President Putin. But now – with the scramble to blame Putin for the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down – the shoddy journalism has grown truly dangerous, says Robert Parry. In the heat of the U.S. media’s latest war hysteria – rushing to pin blame for the crash of a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet on Russia’s President Vladimir Putin – there is the same absence of professional skepticism that has marked similar stampedes on Iraq, Syria and elsewhere – with key questions not being asked or answered. The dog-not-barking question on the catastrophe over Ukraine is: what did the U.S. surveillance satellite imagery show? It’s hard to believe that – with the attention that U.S. intelligence has concentrated on eastern Ukraine for the past half year that the alleged trucking of several large Buk anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia to Ukraine and then back to Russia didn’t show up somewhere.

Russian-made Buk anti-missile battery: Yes, there are limitations to what U.S. spy satellites can see. But the Buk missiles are about 16 feet long and they are usually mounted on trucks or tanks. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 also went down during the afternoon, not at night, meaning the missile battery was not concealed by darkness. So why hasn’t this question of U.S. spy-in-the-sky photos – and what they reveal – been pressed by the major U.S. news media? How can the Washington Post run front-page stories, such as the one on Sunday with the definitive title “Russia supplied missile launchers to separatists, U.S. official says” “U.S. official: Russia gave systems,” without demanding from these U.S. officials details about what the U.S. satellite images disclose?

Instead, the Post’s Michael Birnbaum and Karen DeYoung wrote from Kiev: “The United States has confirmed that Russia supplied sophisticated missile launchers to separatists in eastern Ukraine and that attempts were made to move them back across the Russian border after the Thursday shoot-down of a Malaysian jetliner, a U.S. official said Saturday.

“We do believe they were trying to move back into Russia at least three Buk [missile launch] systems,’ the official said. U.S. intelligence was ‘starting to get indications … a little more than a week ago’ that the Russian launchers had been moved into Ukraine, said the official” whose identity was withheld by the Post so the official would discuss intelligence matters. But catch the curious vagueness of the official’s wording: “we do believe”; “starting to get indications.” Are we supposed to believe – and perhaps more relevant, do the Washington Post writers actually believe – that the U.S. government with the world’s premier intelligence services can’t track three lumbering trucks each carrying large mid-range missiles?

What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms. The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.

Instead of pressing for these kinds of details, the U.S. mainstream press has simply passed on the propaganda coming from the Ukrainian government and the U.S. State Department, including hyping the fact that the Buk system is “Russian-made,” a rather meaningless fact that gets endlessly repeated. However, to use the “Russian-made” point to suggest that the Russians must have been involved in the shoot-down is misleading at best and clearly designed to influence ill-informed Americans. As the Post and other news outlets surely know, the Ukrainian military also operates Russian-made military systems, including Buk anti-aircraft batteries, so the manufacturing origin has no probative value here.

Relying on the Ukraine Regime
Much of the rest of the known case against Russia comes from claims made by the Ukrainian regime, which emerged from the unconstitutional coup d’etat against elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22. His overthrow followed months of mass protests, but the actual coup was spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias that overran government buildings and forced Yanukovych’s officials to flee.

In recognition of the key role played by the neo-Nazis, who are ideological descendants of Ukrainian militias that collaborated with the Nazi SS in World War II, the new regime gave these far-right nationalists control of several ministries, including the office of national security which is under the command of longtime neo-Nazi activist Andriy Parubiy. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Ukraine, Through the US Looking Glass.”]

It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.

Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.”

In contrast to Parubiy’s assurances, the Kiev regime actually has a terrible record of telling the truth or pursuing serious investigations of human rights crimes. Still left open are questions about the identity of snipers who on Feb. 20 fired on both police and protesters at the Maidan, touching off the violent escalation that led to Yanukovych’s ouster. Also, the Kiev regime has failed to ascertain the facts about the death-by-fire of scores of ethnic Russians in the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Burning Ukraine’s Protesters Alive.”]

The Kiev regime also duped the New York Times (and apparently the U.S. State Department) when it disseminated photos that supposedly showed Russian military personnel inside Russia and then later inside Ukraine. After the State Department endorsed the “evidence,” the Times led its newspaper with this story on April 21, but it turned out that one of the key photos supposedly shot in Russia was actually taken in Ukraine, destroying the premise of the story. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Ukraine Photo Scoop.”]

But here we are yet again with the MSM relying on unverified claims being made by the Kiev regime about something as sensitive as whether Russia provided sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles – capable of shooting down high-flying civilian aircraft – to poorly trained eastern Ukrainian rebels.

This charge is so serious that it could propel the world into a second Cold War and conceivably – if there are more such miscalculations – into a nuclear confrontation. These moments call for the utmost in journalistic professionalism, especially skepticism toward propaganda from biased parties.

Yet, what Americans have seen again is the major U.S. news outlets, led by the Washington Post and the New York Times, publishing the most inflammatory of articles based largely on unreliable Ukrainian officials and on the U.S. State Department which was a principal instigator of the Ukraine crisis.

In the recent past, this sort of sloppy American journalism has led to mass slaughters in Iraq – and has contributed to near U.S. wars on Syria and Iran – but now the stakes are much higher. As much fun as it is to heap contempt on a variety of “designated villains,” such as Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, Ali Khamenei and now Vladimir Putin, this sort of recklessness is careening the world toward a very dangerous moment, conceivably its last.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.

ISRAEL HAS ONLY TWO CHOICES

Emily L. Hauser, The Week
Israel has only two choices: Eliminate the Palestinians or make peace. Managing the conflict has not brought security. It's time to give negotiations a real chance.

Israeli lawmaker Moshe Feiglin is right Last week, Feiglin, a member of the Knesset on the extreme-right flank of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party, laid out in the ultranationalist media network Arutz Sheva his plan for "achieving quiet in Gaza," starting with: One warning from the prime minister of Israel to the enemy population, in which he announces that Israel is about to attack military targets in their area and urges those who are not involved and do not wish to be harmed to leave immediately. Sinai is not far from Gaza and they can leave. This will be the limit of Israel's humanitarian efforts. Hamas may unconditionally surrender and prevent the attack. [Arutz Sheva]

Feiglin continues from there:
"All the military and infrastructural targets will be attacked with no consideration for 'human shields'... Total siege on Gaza. Nothing will enter the area... Civilians may go to Sinai, fighters may surrender."

Bottom line: Gaza is part of [the Jewish people's] Land and we will remain there forever... Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. [Arutz Sheva]

Though he urges annihilation, Feiglin stops just short of genocide, differentiating between Palestinians who cede their rights to self-determination and self-defense from those who respond to foreign occupation with violence. Other Israeli voices have not been so measured. The last time Israel's military undertook to bomb Gaza into submission, in November 2012, the son of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wrote in The Jerusalem Post, "The residents of Gaza are not innocent, they elected Hamas. The Gazans aren't hostages; they chose this freely... We need to flatten entire neighbourhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza." More recently, Amos Regev, the editor of Israel's most widely distributed daily (the Sheldon Adelson–funded Israel Hayom) called for the destruction of Hamas' fighting capacity until all that's left "would be stones."

Parliamentarian and fellow coalition member Ayelet Shaked quoted another writer favourably: "[The Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads... This also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons." And they're right, these Israelis. If Israel's goal is to rid itself of Palestinian nationalism and resistance permanently, forever and aye, a plan like Feiglin's is the only one that might work. Clearly Palestinians still dream of statehood, and "managing" the conflict has failed. This is the fourth time in eight years that Israel has attacked Gaza to eliminate the threat of Hamas, an intent Israel has been declaring for two decades. The military occupation of the West Bank also continues to be met with resistance, both violent and non-, and however much Economy Minister Naftali Bennett may want to impose "stability" via "partial annexation" of the West Bank, annexation is what Israel did to East Jerusalem, and one could hardly describe that situation as "stable." Nope, if Israel really wants to get rid of all possible Palestinian opposition, annihilation is the only way.

If Israel's goal is somewhat more moderate, focusing instead on peace and security, Feiglin's plan could still work. Of course, the operation couldn't be limited to the Gaza Strip, and permanently cleansing the West Bank of all potential Palestinian resistors would be complicated by the presence of hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers — perhaps they could temporarily relocate to friends and family within the Green Line? We'll have to ask MK Feiglin. With enough dedication, Israel could eventually rid itself of any Palestinian threat to its control of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

One presumes, however, that if Israel takes this approach, the U.S., EU, and Arab states might stop sitting quite so idly by. I'm particularly curious as to how Egypt might respond to Gaza's 1.7 million Palestinians decamping to Sinai. I suppose it's possible that rather than achieving Israeli security from Palestinian threats, Feiglin's plan would achieve the destruction of the state. It's really hard to control massive violence once it starts.

If the ultimate goal is peace and security, though, there is of course that one other option: Negotiations. In the effort to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, these are the only choices Israel has ever really had: Annihilation or peace. All conflict management has ever done is draw out the pain. The recent kidnappings and murder of four teenagers, three Israeli and one Palestinian, were the natural outcome of conflict management and should be recognized as such.

It's hard to know what the outcome of real rapprochement might be. The mutual recognition of Palestinian needs and claims alongside Israeli claims and needs has never really been tried. Every earlier effort has been far more about managing the conflict than about allowing some measure of dignity and justice to all sides. As for a one-state solution — take a look at the people killing each other today, and think about whether they might be ready to share a national anthem tomorrow. Hamas rockets and "Operation Protective Edge" are what the road to a single state looks like.

Netanyahu has spent the last several years saying the words the U.S. insisted he say — "two-state peace" — while doing everything within his power to make such a peace impossible. On July 11, he finally pulled the veil away, saying, "There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan." In that regard, as morally repugnant as Feiglin and Shaked's positions may be, they have one important quality missing from most other statements that have emerged from their government as regards the region's future: Honesty.

HAARETZ EDITORIAL: ISRAEL MUST UNDERGO CULTURAL REVOLUTION

Gilad Atzmon, 9 July 2014.
Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: Back in November 2010, I briefly attended a One State Conference in Stuttgart. In my address, I pointed out that unless we elaborate on Jewish culture within the context of Israeli politics, any discussion on ‘reconciliation’ or ‘One State’ would be a complete waste of time. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlvaN2c-Oto] A few days after the conference, I learned that Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah was outraged by my comment. He denounced me suggesting that political actions ‘have nothing to do with culture or heritage’. Apparently, today’s Haaretz editorial is in full agreement with me. “Israel Must Undergo a Cultural Revolution,” it suggests. I genuinely want to believe that since 2010, Abunimah and his friends within the Jewish 'Left' (Mondoweiss & Co) have matured a bit and are now ready to grasp the real meaning of the conflict within the appropriate cultural context. https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/haaretz-editorial-israel-must-undergo-cultural-revolution.html

Haaretz Editorial - informationclearinghouse.info
“Without A Revolution Based on Humanist Values, the Jewish Tribe Will Not Be Worthy of its Own State”

The Israel Police was quick to label the murderers “Jewish extremists,” meaning they aren’t part of the herd, they are outliers, “wild weeds.” This is the police’s way of trying to justify a sin, to “make the vermin kosher.” But the vermin is huge, and many-legged. It has embraced the soldiers and other young Israelis who overran the social media networks with calls for revenge and with hatred for Arabs. The vermin was welcomed by Knesset members, rabbis and public figures who demanded revenge. Nor did it skip over the prime minister, who declared “Vengeance for the blood of a small child, Satan has not yet created.”

Abu Khdeir’s murderers are not “Jewish extremists.” They are the descendants and builders of a culture of hate and vengeance that is nurtured and fertilized by the guides of “the Jewish state": Those for whom every Arab is a bitter enemy, simply because they are Arab; those who were silent at the Beitar Jerusalem games when the team’s fans shouted “death to Arabs” at Arab players; those who call for cleansing the state of its Arab minority, or at least to drive them out of the homes and cities of the Jews.

No less responsible for the murder are those who did not halt, with an iron hand, violence by Israeli soldiers against Palestinian civilians, and who failed to investigate complaints “due to lack of public interest.” The term “Jewish extremists” actually seems more appropriate for the small Jewish minority that is still horrified by these acts of violence and murder. But they too recognize, unfortunately, that they belong to a vengeful, vindictive Jewish tribe whose license to perpetrate horrors is based on the horrors that were done to it.

Prosecuting the murderers is no longer sufficient. There must be a cultural revolution in Israel. Its political leaders and military officers must recognize this injustice and right it. They must begin raising the next generation, at least, on humanist values, and foster a tolerant public discourse. Without these, the Jewish tribe will not be worthy of its own state. (https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.603451)

The Wandering Who? - A Study of Jewish Identity Politics - Gilad Atzmon $15 posted A series of brilliant illuminations and critical reflections on Jewish ethnocentrism and the hypocrisy of those who speak in the name of universal values and act tribal. Relying on autobiographical and existential experiences, as well as intimate observations of everyday life, both informed by profound psychological insights, Atzmon does what many critics of Israel fail to do; he uncovers the links between Jewish identity politics in the Diaspora with their ardent support for the oppressive policies of the Israeli state. Atzmon provides deep insights into ”neo-ghetto” politics.This book is more than a "study of Jewish identity politics” insofar as we are dealing with a matrix of power that affects all who cherish self-determination and personal freedom in the face of imperial and colonial dictates.

MORE ON THE ‘FIRST PERSONS’ ISSUE

by Peter Ewer
The Aboriginal Constitutional change issue is a little quiet in the media, but rest, they do not. Likewise, we too need to keep information circulating. The challenge to the Aboriginals as a “first people” has been addressed in the past in League publications, but not in the context of a Constitutional challenge, but rather as part of the land rights issue. I will briefly mention three papers here which are well worth our organisers reprinting as a little booklet.

First, Nigel Offer, “The First Australians: An Ancient Odyssey” Heritage Vol.24 No.93, Winter 2000, pp.2-5. The article discusses the existence of Negrito people in Australia. The Negritos, although black skinned, are the most genetically distant population from Africans, which on the mainstream “African Eve”/out-of-Africa theory, implies that they must have left Africa very early. These people were once widely spread over South East Asia, as well as Australia. It is pointed out that anthropologists before the 1960s believe that the Negritos were displaced by the Australoids, or Aboriginals, who were therefore definitely not aboriginal or a “first people”. The author concludes: “The very fact of the existence of the Negrito people as the first people of the continent places the claims of present-day Aborigines to “land rights” and “compensation” in an entirely different light”. Indeed it does and it refutes such claims.

Rex Gilroy has an article in Heritage Vol.25 No. 95 Summer 2000 and Vol.25 No.96 2001, also attacking the idea that the Aborigines were the first Australians. Based on his own field work Gilroy has now become convinced that Homo Sapiens, the first modern humans evolved in Australia, that there were races here even before the Pleistocene and that the Aborigines evolved from a mixture of two other races. Homo erectus and other pre-Aboriginal races were also here, including giants.

The Kow Swamp human skeletons also show humans who were anatomically different from modern Aboriginals. The Establishment has gone quiet about this. Further, Gilroy’s evidence of giant humans and his pre-Aboriginal researches have been attacked as “racist”. However, the truth will out. All of this material needs to be revived and re-published and got to the right actionists to spread the word. Challenging the “first people” idea is an essential part of this debate.

WHY WE NEED TO GET ANGRY ABOUT IMMIGRATION

by Peter West
Look, suppose that you don’t care about issues of race, culture and nature – there are still good reasons to get angry about immigration. Australia at present has a housing affordability crisis and as one article puts it “even finding an affordable rental is growing increasingly impossible for many families. It is estimated there is shortage of more than 500,000 affordable properties for low-income renters in Australia and that some 60 percent of people on low incomes are under “housing stress”. More than 100,000 Australians are homeless and their ranks are growing.” (The Australian 2 July, 2014, p.16)

Population growth of Australia, 60 percent from overseas migration, has led to a “stack and pack them” mentality, for real estate sharks to make mega-profits at the expense of our cities becoming almost unliveable. Roads, rails and other infrastructure are at capacity and some already breaking down. By the end of the 21st century, on the current ‘business as usual’ scenario, Australia’s population will be in excess of 100 million (mostly Asian) and rising. However, ecological breakdown is likely to have occurred long before that reducing this once beautiful land to perhaps something out of the post-apocalyptic Mad Max movies. And all because the Aussies did nothing, remaining in their comfort zones…. Don’t let it end this way.

AND ON - IMMIGRATING DISEASE

by Chris Knight
For all those championing open borders and free migration – as Natural News.com notes, 29 June 2014 – allowing the mass migration of infectious disease-carrying people into the United States could produce disease pandemics. Over 30,000 illegal immigrants pour into Texas alone each month. US processing centres have faced an influx of unaccompanied minors from Central America, most of whom are exploiting Obama’s 2012 decision to give a temporary stay from deportation to children brought illegally into the United States by their parents. Between October 2013 and May 2014, over 47,000 of such minors have entered the United States. These children have not been screened for infectious diseases and health officials believe that there is a high potential for infectious disease outbreaks.

Those championing open borders will say that economic liberty requires that all who come must be admitted. The Libertarian may require screening – but that is contrary to the liberty principle. Why discriminate against those with infectious diseases? Clearly it is the cargo cult of immigrationism, which has become a new religion – that is absurd. It represents something of a disease of the mind. I hope that it soon “emigrates”.

New Social Credit Website