http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/SussexJewsForJustice Simona,
“ … identify those criminals …” . Yes, yes, exactly that’s what I said and meant. To verify the authenticity of my statement please click the link (This supposed to be Bloody Palestine
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/wbgs_campdavid.html) and let me know who is the “Enemy Of Peace”. To make it more clear please read this link below (Faruque vs Lucy Re: Israel Palestine Conflict) and you will get much clearer picture. If you can prove me wrong, I am ready to change my point of view. Dan,
I do not hate anyone. I’ve got friends from all over the places. The corporate government and media make me sick. That’s why I like interaction between ordinary peoples like us. So that, we can cut the crap out and compel them for peace rather than hate and bigotry. Remember, should we wish, we can hate each other for generations and we all will be losers. Yet, at the same token, we are the one who can ensure peace with justice; so that we all can live together with respect and harmony.
Faruque vs Lucy Re: Israel Palestine Conflict
Israel is a racist and fascist state worst than Hitler's. It's constitution, bureaucracy, judiciary and the whole soci-religio-political systems are totally inconsistent with any civilised and democratic society; even a dictatorial state. For more details Please
examine: Israeli Holocaust In Palestine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freeamericanow/message/13 Israeli Holocaust:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freeamericanow/message/29 Racist and Fascist State:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/655/re9.htm Israel depends on war and hate. Peace is no good for Israel. Zio-Nazi media, ignorant and opportunist Israelites inside and outside Israel, are the real enemies of peace and stability. Sydney Lord Mayor Lucy Turnbul has proven that she is one of the opportunist Israelites of our time.
Oslo: A little European country brokered the Oslo Peace Accords. Both people inside and outside Israel and Palestine were happy and relieved as both Israel and Palestine recognised each other and it appeared that they were seriously looking for peace. Then came the bad news. A Jewish militant massacred 39 kneeling worshipers inside
Al-Aqsa Mosque while Israeli soldiers watched it smiling. Yithzak Rabin was murdered by a Jewish extremist- followed by Arial Sharon's calculated visit to provoke Palestinians- while escorted by a few thousands police and army personal.
Camp David: The talk went on at Camp David hosted by the US President Bill Clinton. During those talks Ehud Barak offered nothing to Yasser Arafat- as he was lacking of gumption enough to offer anything substantial, because he was afraid that any substantial compromise could lead his murder by extremists like the Rabin execution. So, Yaser Arafath had nothing to accept or reject and talks collapsed.
Professor I J Bickerton of University of NSW and many other experts have used Israeli documents to prove that Israel offered nothing in that talk. A series of seminars concerning Israel Palestine conflict were hosted by the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies of the Sydney University. Surprisingly, the Zio-Nazi media of Australia did not report about it.
http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/centres/cpacs/research.htm Well known and respected Australian broadcaster Philip Adams has invited plethora of Israeli and Palestinian experts and discussed the issue and they too, reconfirmed the fact that Israel offered nothing to Palestinians. Now, the reality is Israelis have taken away 78% of the Palestinian land since 1967 gradually sliced up the Occupied Palestine into 70 pieces connecting to ring roads excluding Palestinians from their homes, farms, work, etc. These 20 000 settlers unlawfully grabbed the Palestinian land, turned Palestine into the longest running concentration camp of this universe with a stamp of infinity.
Penultimately, what is the solution? Remove those illegal settlers and hand over the tiny 22% land to the Palestinian or collect them all, transport them to Auschwitchz and restart Hitler's Gas chambers to finish them all instead of murdering them every day. Remember - Yaser Arafat, Marwan Bargouti, Hannan Ashrawi or any other
Palestinian kids are not the enemy of peace but successive Israeli governments are! Because, peace is not good for them!! Further reading might assist to understand the conflict and vicious politics behind the scene.
From: Dan
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:42 am
Subject: mamubhi
Yep, i agree. A new email group has been created so that mamubhi can talk as much as he likes on
sussexjewsforjustice@yahoogroups.co.uk, its just he'll be the only one getting them. I think it's long overdue anyway. Mamubhi, what you dont understand is that Sussex jews for Justice is a group fighting for human rights, which we see the Palestinians as not having. That one should not be discriminated against because of their race or religion is something the Palestinians have and do face every day, therefor i find it amazing that you should come out here claiming to speak on behalf of their cause, yet you discriminate and shell out abuse on this board because of my religion, my groups, or jews in Israel in general. Dont you see that that makes you just as bad as any black hating hick, jew hating nazi, tootsi hating hutu, palestinian hating israeli?
Do you understand the concept that it is because of sentiments like yours that jews rally around Israel's actions and strength, because its sentiments like yours which make jews fearfull of another jewish purge, which just makes israel stronger and stronger and the palestinians more and more oppressed? Do you understand any of that? If you do, it's too late, your'e not coming on the new board; and if you don't then you are as much to do with the problem as any islamaphobic zionist you claim to hate.
Daniel
Simona Ben Hur wrote:
totally agree with joe-its AMAZING what people can get away with under the defense of free speech!whats more, it ruins the validity of true debate between people who come to this subject with the open mindedness to present their opinion and listen to others that differ from it....it can and has bin done!!!!
what i found most amusing about mamubhis posts was the plea to "identify those criminal politicians who love to keep conflicts alive"......what politicians????you mean people who make rash and sweeping statements to stir conflict and create a name for themselves....pot kettle and black are words that come to mind.amazing.
simi x
From: "mamubhi"
Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 9:50 am
Subject: All "Jews" are not bad Ershad
I don't mind to have a cuppa with you and explore the possibilities of kicking a few politicians’ buts, so that we can have a fair and just society beyond prejudice and bigotry.
From: "write2joewilliams"
Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 4:13 pm
Subject: racism and everything after
Hello everybody,
I seem to have had trouble reading and opening the messages posted by "Mamubhi". However, I agree that any subscriber to this list whom sympathetically posts messages with racist content should be banned.
"Freedom of speech" is such an easy mantra to hide behind. Time and time again during my time as a political activist and quasi-student-intellectual "freedom of speech" is used as an excuse to allow the propagation of quite blatantly discriminatory, bigoted and hateful views. The BNP and their like frequently claim foul-play when progressive people attempt to block the distribution of their materials, so filled with incitement to racial hatred, claiming that this is a breach of their human right to freedom of expression. But what's more important to us: protecting the rights of a racist organisation to poison the minds of others, or doing everything we can to combat the virulent hatred of racism and the potential violence and harm that such organisations represent?
Freedom of speech is an abstract, meaningless phrase. Yes, we can all agree that in general we should allow the free-flow of ideas, enable widely inclusive dialogue to attempt to increase our shared understanding of issues. But different historical situations impose differing limits to this dialogue, whether imposed by government, email-list moderators or public rioting. The abstraction "freedom of speech" is not the only noble principle that guides our actions. Combating discrimination is another. Preventing intimidation another. Working towards a common understanding, free from prejudice, resentment or lack of honesty another. These principles will seem
contradictory at times, particularly in situations of fierce class and racial disharmony, where capitalism or feudalism has turned people against each other in its own selfish, self-perpetuating interests. At such times, I think it should be the priority of all progressive people, and I'm sure I can include members of SJfJfP amongst them, to ensure that we are working towards a solution that best suits the cause of all people united against oppression, not cling to abstract, and dare I say it, bourgeois, meaningless principles.
In this situation I feel it absolutely correct to ban subscribers whose messages not only "cause offense" to others but quite obviously seek to incite racial hatred. It sounds from the paragraph you quoted, Dan, that Mamubhi's message did just that. Fuck racism, one hundred per cent.
This debate is of particular concern to me, as I'm sure some of you have heard me bang on about before, as myself and some of my close comrades have at various times been labeled "anti-Semitic", but more accurately "anti-Jewish", for opposing the state of Israel. I have for years painstakingly argued that opposing Israel and hating Jews are too totally, and in my opinion contradictory, things. I've attached an article below I wrote for the Pulse on the subject rather than rehashing all the arguments again. But anyway, it breaks my heart when people are willing to play into the hands of those who so cleverly and easily label pro-Palestinians as anti-Jewish by equating the state of Israel and Zionism with some facet of the Jewish religion or some characteristic of a "Jewish race". Fuck that. I could never hate all white South Africans, however bitter my hatred of the system of Apartheid, which oppressed blacks in their name. And I will always be proud of being English and love the People from which I was born whatever the actions of "our" government in bombing Iraq, screwing the miners, supporting Israel, Apartheid or Nazi collaboration.
I don't know how many of you were on the "Sucawdiscuss" list at the time, but about this time last year someone posted an article which quite obviously contained racist content. It caused an uproar, quite rightly. The article was, however, very interesting from an intellectual perspective, in attempting to understand racism in the context of the article. But the poster didn't make it clear that his intention was to raise debate about the issues that the article promoted, not condone it's content. It was sorted, after a good apology and explanation. But there's probably a lesson to be learned there. I don't think we should 'ban' the posting or any article which contains racist or discriminatory content. Damn, I hate capitalism but I'd be a mess if I never read any capitalist press (have you seen the sports section in the Morning Star? Rubbish!). But it needs to be made clear why the article is being posted, not out of sympathy, but
out of interest. Does that make sense?
One last thing I want to raise (thanks for reading this far if you have!) and that's the issue of "anti-Jewishness" at the moment. Clearly, anti-Semitism (Semitism in the true sense of the word: including Arabs and Jews - but here I mean specifically anti-Jewishness)is on the rise throughout the world; a terrifying phenomenon. There are sections of the Palestinian resistance which DO (and you'd be a wanker to deny it) espouse anti-Jewish views (although not as large sections as our media likes makes out). It seems to me that although we should condemn this racism, if we're ever going to defeat it, we need to understand its origins.
As a Marxist (of a very personal persuasion), I believe that if you oppress someone of the basis of their racial or national identity, or more accurately, if you morally defend oppression on racial or nationalist terms, then resistance to this oppression will inevitably find unity through racial or nationalist identity (although never exclusively). Although this does not lead to the entire population becoming racist nationalists (check Martin Luther King, and very interestingly, Malcolm X's speeches towards the end of his life), sections of this resistance will be more extreme in their interpretations of racial and nationalist identity to the point of bigotry. Some Zionists are keen to point out that there was no "Palestinian nation" before Israel was founded. This is actually partly true, but the point is the true "Palestinian nation", not just a British-partitioned section of Arabia, but a nation of people with a common identity, really came into existence when they were exploited in the basis of their common identity.
Way before the Palestinian situation, I firmly believe that Nazism in Germany was in part a reaction to the horrific conditions put upon Germans by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Although the Treaty's aims were undoubtedly to produce massive material gain for Germany's victorious Imperialist rivals (USA, France, UK etc), this was at the expense not just of the Kaiser or Germany's Imperial state but all Germans. The NSDAP, beginning as the weirdest of nationalist sects and founded I believe on the basis of the military's and petty-bourgeois humiliation at the end of the First World War, could harness this national resentment into massive racist and imperialist prejudice. The rest, as they say, is history, but so full of lessons from which to help understand the current world.
I really believe that the actions of Israel on its native, Arab population, especially under Sharon, play a massive part in the rise of anti-Semitism, whether in Palestine or around the world. Arabs and Muslims in Europe and the USA, themselves victimised on the basis or their racial or religious identify to new levels since the 11th September 2001, see Israel's horrific and murderous actions, justified by an ideology of absolute racism, explained in terms of fighting the "Jewish" cause, and a tiny minority react in a totally despicable but entirely predictable way. Without doubt, genuine and openly racist European and US organisations then exploit the situation to reek further havoc on Jewish communities.
Israel depends on the confusion between Zionist and Jewish interests. I believe one of the knock-on consequences of this anti-Jewish sentiment and violence elsewhere in the world.
Anyway, I ought to do some work. Thanks for reading, though, any comments gratefully received.
One last thing: one of my friend's and I have a long-standing, running joke that if we're losing an argument against the other we say "Oh yeah, but what about Hitler?". The intention is to mimic the casual way in which the name of that most abhorrent of men is bandiedabout during many conversations to prove any number of points. He is,
in the eyes of virtually all people, the symbol of the worst excesses of human evil, a cheap and easy way to gain the sympathy of others through certain shared hatred. I suspect quite often evoking his name, or calling someone else by it, is normally the sign of an argument lost. Hitler played his role in humanity's lowest period during the Jewish Holocaust in the twentieth century, and the effects of actions can still be felt by Jews, and Palestinians, in the twenty first. As Said said, the Jews were the Holocaust's first victims, Palestinians the second (although I would personally add that there were many more before and after our Palestinian brothers and sisters; Gypsies, Communists, and ordinary Germans thrown into certain death at Stalingrad, for example). But to label anyone you disagree with, whether they're racists or not, as a "Hitler" I think displays pretty superficial understanding, insulting to all humans, and therefore of very questionable conviction. Cut it out, mate.
Cheers,
Joe
Who's the racist?
As an occasional left-wing stereotype, I really like badges. You know what were like: we can't enjoy a pleasant conversation without embarking on some abrasive and opinionated rant. We can't just sit and watch Big Brother without reminding everyone of the hegemonic function of the mass media, which continually ensures bourgeois control of society (and, of course, that Big Brother's s**te). We can't reminisce about the carefree days of school without complaining bitterly about the fascistic decision of Thatcher to steal our free milk, thus inhibiting our physical and mental development and regenerating the vicious social hierarchy of capitalist oppression. And if people won't listen, we like to publicise the plight of the oppressed by an alternative means: the humble badge.
The badge has a multitude of functions: primarily, if promotes the increasing popularity of a particular cause. It acts as a signal to others that your `one of the good guys'. But more than anything it winds up snooty types who hate any reminder that their affluence is built on the horrific injustices occurring around the world. Badges also enable those who are only into a particular cause because they think its trendy to make a positive contribution without having to open their mouths, which, I think everyone can agree, is dead useful.
It turns out, though, that the badge is not the harmless (harmless unless your a bit handy with a safety pin) and democratic means of expressing your opinion that I thought. The other day I was at Gatwick airport and was wearing one that expressed my support for the struggle of the Palestinians against the occupation of their land by
Israel. After a quick sneer, the bloke in front of me in the queue for passport control immediately accused me of being anti-Semitic. This lenient treatment was presumably because I was white; friends of mine with darker skin have ended up in a cell for wearing a similar emblem. After all, they're all probably `Islamic fundamentalists'. But anyway, I've never been so insulted in my whole life. I was immediately on the defensive: "I'm no racist - this is nothing to do with Judaism" ve always been anti-fascist? And of course as a result played totally into his hands, losing sight of the real issue at stake: the oppression of Palestinians.
Our media and government, which are overwhelmingly biased towards Israel, help proliferate the idea that anti-Zionism is racist against Jews. But that's a bit like saying being anti-Apartheid was like being anti-Christian or anti-Whites, although this analogy is limited: Nelson Mandela himself has said that conditions are much worse for today's Palestinians than for blacks under the racist South African government. People who supported the ANC in their struggle for black liberation in South Africa were, in today's Bush/Blair speak, "supporters of terrorism". Or course the reality is that the racists are not those who supported the political aims of the black population of South Africa or those of the Palestinians today, but those who defend Apartheid or Israel: both racist, colonial, repressive states.
Although I would consider myself vehemently anti-racist, I have to admit I haven't always been. In younger years, watching news reports on the conflict, the problems seemed to be that a civilised, predominantly European nation, who entered the UEFA Cup and Eurovision song contest, just like us in fact, was struggling to survive despite the actions of an uncultured ethnic minority whose nutty religion had given them a grudge against whites. This poor country was surrounded by hostile Arab nations, with nasty rulers who acted a bit like Scar out of `The Lion King'. If only the Arabs would stop the suicide bombs and embrace democracy and peace, then the Israeli army would stop `accidentally' shooting their children and bombing their hospitals with Apache helicopters. This is the way the situation is portrayed in our media, and it is a struggle to overcome this racist conditioning. The news, just like Israeli propaganda, labels the Palestinians as `fundamentalists', `terrorists', `ungrateful' and `anti-Semitic'. If that isn't racist, I don't know what is.
Of course there are reasons why are media are so behind the media's support of Israel. Apartheid was not simply a matter of a few despotic, white racists running the country as a hangover from Europe's old-fashioned tactics of direct colonialism. Their government played a very useful role in the world economic system, or at least for the people at the top of this system: the control of raw materials and new markets. Israel's existence, and its oppression of the Palestinians, is similarly not just the result of anti-Arab racism. Without British support the state would never been set up; and continuous British financial and military aid helped maintain its survival. The USA now provides Israel with $4 billion per year, largely spent on maintaining the fourth biggest army in the world.
Now why would the US and UK want a help out a loyal colonial state in the Middle East so much? You've guessed it: the huge quantities of oil in the area, on which the affluence of our governments and middle classes is reliant. Israel does an excellent job of policing the area against those who wish to oppose British and US domination: the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan … here is a much propagated myth that American supports Israel because of the importance of the `Jewish vote' at home, but in reality this is the wrong way of looking at it. America supports Israel so vehemently because it is crucial to its own economic and military interests, not as a charitable exercise or election winning ruse..
There is also myth that being Jewish automatically makes you pro-Israel, but nothing could be further from the truth. And not just secular Jews oppose Zionism: Orthodox groups, such as Neturei Karta and Jews Not Zionists are anti-Israel, not only because of its barbaric treatment of Palestinians but also doctrinal reasons. Although anti-Semitism in Europe is used to defend the need for an Israeli state, many see Zionism as complying with anti-Semites: it advocates, like the racists, "going back to where they you from". In fact, anti-Semitism refers not just to Jews, but to all people of the `Middle East'. Zionism is not a religion or a race: it is a political ideology, held by Jews and non-Jews alike, and involving by definition racism, colonisation, violence and imperialism. Its basic principle is the existence of a state that functions for the benefit of one race of people, on the land of, and at the expense of, another people.
Labelling those who oppose Israel's brutal regime as anti-Jewish is not just born out of lack of understanding. Such claims remove the need for Zionists to defend their own racist agenda by attempting to discredit their accusers, and this is especially true in the murky world of student union politics, here at Sussex and nationally. But just like Apartheid, the only way to really understand Zionism is to study ifs history and ideology. Of course, that's impossible in a single magazine article. But I'm still livid after being called a racist, so see what follows as an attempt to turn the accusations of racism on Zionist themselves. Just in case anyone isn't convinced and thinks I'm a Nazi, I'll let the pro-Zionists themselves do most of the talking: in their own words the speak much more clearly than I can on their agenda. The truth is, when you recognise the inherent prejudice in the ideas that define them, their accusations of racism just highlight their own bigotry and desperation.
"For Europe we shall create there in Palestine an outpost against Asia, we shall be the vanguard of the civilised world against barbarism ?England with her possessions in Asia should be most interested in Zionism ?The shortest route to India is by way of Palestine. And so I believe in England that the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should easily be understood."
Theodore Herzl, a founding ideologist of Zionism, 1896.
"The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in an age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. Whatever defence should be paid to the views of those living there, the powers in their selection of mandatory do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them."
(Arthur Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, 1917.
"When we [followers of the prophetic Judaism] returned to Palestine...the majority of Jewish people preferred to learn from Hitler rather than from us."
Martin Buber, to a New York audience, Jewish Newsletter June 2, 1958.
Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters"
Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960.
The Arabs in Israel by Sabri Jiryas.
"If the General Assembly were to vote by 121 votes to 1 in favor of "Israel" returning to the armistice lines-- (pre June 1967 borders) "Israel" would refuse to comply with the decision."
Aba Eban (the Israeli Foreign Minister) . New York Times June 19, 1967.
"We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget."
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, Zohar's Ben-Gurion: The Armed Prophet by Michael Bar
"There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed."
Golda Maier, Israeli Prime Minister, June 15, 1969
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
Israel Koenig, `The Koenig Memorandum', 1976
" [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs."
Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.
"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours."
Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.
"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle."
Raphael Eitan, New York Times, 14 April 1983.
"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves."
Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.
"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs by Shabtai Teveth 1985.
"The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them."
Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
"Jewish blood and a goy's [gentile's] blood are not the same."
Israeli Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, Inferring that killing isn't murder if the victim is Gentile. Jerusalem Post, June 19,1989.
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, tells students at Bar Ilan University, From the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.
"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"....
Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000.Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000
"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.
The tragedy at Sinai Peninsula
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freeamericanow/message/13963 This supposed to be bloody Palestine! Please visit the link and deliver your own verdict!
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/wbgs_campdavid.html For more details you are welcome to “Email To Ershad”
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ershadmanji/message/1 Please click the link and find out Ehud Barak’s generous offer to Palestinians!
http://friendshipvillage2.homestead.com/Baraks.html Robert Fisk on the Presidential Debate, Iraq, Palestine and the International Criminal Court:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anti_us_terror/message/2697 or
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/01/1421206&mode=thread&tid=25#transcript 
Email::