US supports Jewish “right of return”

And technically so do I. Here is my rebuttal to the idiots (you know who you are).

H. Res. 185

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

April 1, 2008.

Whereas armed conflicts in the Middle East have created refugee populations numbering in the millions and comprised of peoples from many ethnic, religious, and national backgrounds;

Whereas Jews have lived mostly as a minority in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf region for more than 2,500 years;

Whereas the United States has long voiced its concern about the mistreatment of minorities and the violation of human rights in the Middle East and elsewhere;

Whereas the United States continues to play a pivotal role in seeking an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East and to promoting a peace that will benefit all the peoples of the region;

Whereas United States administrations historically have called for a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem;

Whereas the Palestinian refugee issue has received considerable attention from countries of the world while the issue of Jewish refugees from the Arab and Muslim worlds has received very little attention;

Whereas a comprehensive peace in the region will require the resolution of all outstanding issues through bilateral and multilateral negotiations involving all concerned parties;

Whereas approximately 850,000 Jews have been displaced from Arab countries since the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948;

Whereas the United States has demonstrated interest and concern about the mistreatment, violation of rights, forced expulsion, and expropriation of assets of minority populations in general, and in particular, former Jewish refugees displaced from Arab countries as evidenced, inter alia, by–

(1) the Memorandum of Understanding signed by President Jimmy Carter and Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan on October 4, 1977, which states that `[a] solution of the problem of Arab refugees and Jewish refugees will be discussed in accordance with rules which should be agreed’;

(2) after negotiating the Camp David Accords, the Framework for Peace in the Middle East, the statement by President Jimmy Carter in a press conference on October 27, 1977, that `Palestinians have rights . . . obviously there are Jewish refugees . . . they have the same rights as others do’; and

(3) in an interview after Camp David II in July 2000, at which the issue of Jewish refugees displaced from Arab lands was discussed, the statement by President Clinton that `There will have to be some sort of international fund set up for the refugees. There is, I think, some interest, interestingly enough, on both sides, in also having a fund which compensates the Israelis who were made refugees by the war, which occurred after the birth of the State of Israel. Israel is full of people, Jewish people, who lived in predominantly Arab countries who came to Israel because they were made refugees in their own land.’;

Whereas the international definition of a refugee clearly applies to Jews who fled the persecution of Arab regimes, where a refugee is a person who `owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country’ (the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees);

Whereas on January 29, 1957, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), determined that Jews fleeing from Arab countries were refugees that fell within the mandate of the UNHCR;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, calls for a `just settlement of the refugee problem’ without distinction between Palestinian and Jewish refugees, and this is evidenced by–

(1) the Soviet Union’s United Nations delegation attempt to restrict the `just settlement’ mentioned in Resolution 242 solely to Palestinian refugees (S/8236, discussed by the Security Council at its 1382nd meeting of November 22, 1967, notably at paragraph 117, in the words of Ambassador Kouznetsov of the Soviet Union), but this attempt failed, signifying the international community’s intention of having the resolution address the rights of all Middle East refugees; and

(2) a statement by Justice Arthur Goldberg, the United States’ Chief Delegate to the United Nations at that time, who was instrumental in drafting the unanimously adopted Resolution 242, where he has pointed out that `The resolution addresses the objective of `achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem’. This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees, for about an equal number of each abandoned their homes as a result of the several wars.’;

Whereas in his opening remarks before the January 28, 1992, organizational meeting for multilateral negotiations on the Middle East in Moscow, United States Secretary of State James Baker made no distinction between Palestinian refugees and Jewish refugees in articulating the mission of the Refugee Working Group, stating that `[t]he refugee group will consider practical ways of improving the lot of people throughout the region who have been displaced from their homes’;

Whereas the Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, which refers in Phase III to an `agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue,’ uses language that is equally applicable to all persons displaced as a result of the conflict in the Middle East;

Whereas Israel’s agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians have affirmed that a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict will require a just solution to the plight of all `refugees’;

Whereas the initiative to secure rights and redress for Jews who were forced to flee Arab countries does not conflict with the right of Palestinian refugees to claim redress;

Whereas all countries should be aware of the plight of Jews and other minority groups displaced from countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf;

Whereas an international campaign is proceeding in some 40 countries to record the history and legacy of Jewish refugees from Arab countries;

Whereas a just, comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace cannot be reached without addressing the uprooting of centuries-old Jewish communities in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf; and

Whereas it would be inappropriate and unjust for the United States to recognize rights for Palestinian refugees without recognizing equal rights for Jewish refugees from Arab countries: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That–

(1) for any comprehensive Middle East peace agreement to be credible and enduring, the agreement must address and resolve all outstanding issues relating to the legitimate rights of all refugees, including Jews, Christians, and other populations, displaced from countries in the Middle East; and

(2) the President should instruct the United States Representative to the United Nations and all United States representatives in bilateral and multilateral fora to–

(A) use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to ensure that any resolutions relating to the issue of Middle East refugees, and which include a reference to the required resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue, must also include a similarly explicit reference to the resolution of the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries; and

(B) make clear that the United States Government supports the position that, as an integral part of any comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, the issue of refugees from the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf must be resolved in a manner that includes recognition of the legitimate rights of and losses incurred by all refugees displaced from Arab countries, including Jews, Christians, and other groups.

OK, so 850,000 people of Jewish faith left their homes from either political pressure or violence while other had been voluntarily leaving to move to Palestine/Israel. The resolution fails to mention that some 600,000 resettled in Israel ^[1]. By 1951, about 30 percent of the population in Israel was accounted for by Jews from Arab countries and about 850,000 Jews emigrated from Arab countries between 1948 and 1952. During this time 586,269 Jews came to Israel from Arab countries, and 3,136,436 people live in Israel today including their offspring, which account for about 41 per cent of the total population.

So here is my suggestion. Those 3,136,436 descendants of refugees can move back to the Arab and Muslim countries from whence they came when the 3.7 million Palestinian refugees are allowed to move back into their homes in Israel. I am fine with this, it is a fair trade. While we are at it the Ashkenazim from Europe should use their “right of return” and go back to Poland, Germany and Russia. I mean we don’t want to discriminate now do we? How about the followers of Baruch Goldstein and his ilk? Can we offer to let them return to Long Island NY? Again, I say we should do it.

There I said it, Jews should be given the right of return! You are right George Bush! You are right Dick Cheney! I say we send troops into all the countries right now so we can escort these poor refugees from their camps and slums so they can exercise their rights!! Shame on us for neglecting these people, we should have acted sooner, you know like in 1948.

No, I have an even better idea. Lets have a trade of homes. The Jewish refugees can move into the refugee camps littered around the Middle East and the Palestinian refugees can move into the condos, settlements, kibbutz and old houses (to which they still have the deeds and keys to).

God Bless America.

Rabbi Lior Says It’s OK to Kill Civilians …and other rabbis are silent

Rabbi Lior Says It’s OK to Kill Civilians …and other rabbis are silent «

The day before the Israeli army shot tank shells to disperse a crowd of demonstrators in Rafah, Rabbi Dov Lior issued a ruling that killing civilians during warfare is permitted if it will save [Jewish] lives. It wasn’t just a remark. Lior’s made it an official Halachic (Jewish law) ruling. He said “The law of our Torah is to have mercy on our soldiers and to save them. This is the real moral behind Israel’s Torah and we must not feel guilty due to foreign morals.” Lior called civilians “so-called civilians”.

This was reported by Uri Glickman in Maariv International on May 19, 2004. Glickman wrote, “Sources close to the Rabbi explained that Lior made the remarks Tuesday night and they had nothing to do with Wednesday’s events in Gaza.” Of course the violent contempt for Arabs held by rabbis of Lior’s stripe has everything to do with the massacres of Palestinians.Lior is the chairman of the Yesha rabbinical council, the settler’s chief religious body.The Ma’ariv article pointedly mentioned that other non-settler rabbis would not condemn his statement. A Google search turns up no statement of criticism by any rabbi anywhere.Rabbi Lior has been a consistent defender of the most violent acts against Palestinians. He was the chief speaker at the memorial service honoring Baruch Goldstein in 1996 on the one year anniversary of his death. <p<Goldstein was killed after shooting dead 29 Palestinians in the Tomb of Abraham in Hebron.Unfortunately in the orthodox stream of Judaism there are many examples of terrifying statements against non-Jews that men like Lior cite as justification for violence against non-Jews. Israel Shahak quotes an Israeli rabbi writing to a soldier and quoting approvingly of another rabbi who said, “The best of Gentiles- kill him. The best of snakes - dash out its brains”.*In 1973 a booklet published by the Central Region Command (which includes the West Bank) included a piece by the Command’s Chief Chaplin that state, “When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certaintly that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces according to Halkah they may and even should be killed.

”I should also note that Lior’s resoning is very similar to the logic that Madeleine Albright used when asked to respond to the charge [in 1995] that a half million Iraqi children has been killed by U.S. sanctions. It was “worth it” because it was her responsibility to make sure US soldiers would not have to“refight the Gulf War”

Ref: the Struggle, By Stanley Heller* Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Israel Shahak. 1994. p78.

More links

jewish-mullah-issues-racist-fatwa

Ynet

Jpost

Rabbi Lior went further and declared that Jewish Law mandates that Jews not rent homes to Arabs or employ Arabs. There has been no opposition to these statements within Israel as of yet.

Seminary students not so innocent

That’s right. Mercaz HaRav Rabbi approved revenge terror attack against the Palestinian Mufti. He called Yeshiva Students to practice what they learned and it almost happened:

Image by Carlos Latuff

Seminary students planned revenge attack: TV

JERUSALEM (AP) - Students from a Jewish religious school where a Palestinian militant killed eight last week planned a revenge attack against a senior Arab official affiliated with a Jerusalem mosque, Channel One TV reported Tuesday.

The attack has not been carried out but no arrests have been made, the TV said, quoting security sources.

The three students met at the seminary with two rabbis to discuss whether Jewish law would permit such an attack, the TV said. One of the rabbis gave his blessing for the attack, according to the report. An additional rabbi from a Tel Aviv suburb also gave his approval for the attack, the TV said.

“Torah law is that you should respond,” the TV quoted one of the rabbi’s as saying.

The plan was to harm a senior Arab official affiliated with a mosque at the disputed Jerusalem holy site known as the Temple Mount to Jews, Channel One said. To Muslims the hill is known as Haram a Sharif… read on!

The Israeli version (Ynet) of the story:

Channel 1: Rabbi endorses Jewish revenge attack
Several Jews reportedly granted rabbinical approval to avenge Jerusalem yeshiva attack
Ynet - Published: 03.11.08, 23:21 / Israel News

Jewish revenge in the works? A group of Jewish men have apparently been granted religious approval to carry out an act of retribution in retaliation for the attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem last week, Channel 1 reported Tuesday.

According to the report, several 25-35-year old men met with two prominent rabbinical figures – the first a rabbi at Mercaz Harav yeshiva and the second a rabbi known in far Right circles – two days after the attack, to discus possible retribution.

After reaching the conclusion that the IDF is unlikely to retaliate for the attack, the rabbis apparently sanctioned an independent act of revenge, giving three of the men – all believed to be yeshiva graduates who served in the IDF and are licensed to carry arms – several books on the redemption of the Land of Israel.

Three of the men then met with a Bnei Brak rabbi, the head of a Sephardic yeshiva, and introduced him to the notion of retribution in the form of harming an Arab figure associated with Temple Mount.

The rabbi, said Channel 1, gave them his blessing.

However, the Mercaz Harav yeshiva vehemently denied reports that any student or rabbi associated with the seminary planned to carry out an attack on Arabs.

“This report is baseless, and as proof of that, no arrests have been made,” the yeshiva said in its response.

Defense establishment monitors developments

Meanwhile, the defense establishment has been following similar reports suggesting the possibility of Jewish radicals carrying out an act of revenge

A Security source told Ynet that there is great difficulty tracking Jewish elements looking to harm Arabs, citing the 2005 Eden Natan Zada case, in which an IDF deserter opened fire on a bus in the Arab town of Shfaram, killing four.

That was a lone, unforeseeable attack, said the source, and while the defense establishment is looking into several reports indicating some Jewish elements might seek revenge, no concrete leads are available.

Should am imminent threat be detected, concluded the source, the defense establishment will not hesitate to stop it.

But that’s not the end of it… they signed their names. It looks like they are preparing to celebrate the 14th anniversary of their terrorist, Baruch Goldstein, who conducted Hebron’s massacre.

Here’s the proclamation and a partial list of the terrorist Rabbis calling for Jewish terrorism:

…In notices posted along Jerusalem’s Kiryat Moshe neighborhood, near the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the rabbis wrote: “Each and everyone is required to imagine what the enemy is plotting to do to us, and to match it measure for measure.

The rabbis’ announcement calls on Jews “to work to create a proper Jewish leadership,” and envisions the day when “Jews will congregate in thei cities… and strike those who wish upon them ill,” - in reference to a verse from the Book of Esther, which will be read next week on the Purim holiday.

The long list of rabbis who signed the notice includes Daniel Staveski, Itzhak Shapira, David Drukman, Yaakov Yossef - son of Shas spiritual leader Ovadia Yosef - and Uzi Sharbaf, who killed several Arab college students in Hebron 20 years ago and was recently pardoned from a life sentence.

The list of rabbis also includes figures who are linked to the ultra-right Kach movement which was banned in 1994.

This proclamation can’t be perceived innocent by anyone. These rabbis did not state that no violent action should be taken, contrary, they are pushing for it. In fact some of these rabbis are known for supporting criminal and terrorist actions.

Rabbis Druckman and Yosef are Chabad members. Shapira is the student of Chabad rabbi Yitzchak Ginzburg, who has been arrested for violence and related crimes several times. These three rabbis along with the others mentioned above are all well known members of the hard right. Many are supporters of the dead terrorist, Baruch Goldstein.

What they are calling for?

The statement also says that the massacre at the yeshiva was “the direct result of the lack of a proper government, which should have acted according to the ‘Shulkhan Arukh’ (a 16th century rabbinical codex) which states that one must not forgive goyim who harm Jews or their property.”

“The governing leaders have decided to appease the Arab enemy. Only the real Jewish leadership can send the country to war knowing that it is a righteous battle against the enemies of Israel and God.”

“In going to war,” the rabbis write, “the Cohen fills the people with motivation by giving him the knowledge that he is going to fight his enemies and he must not show compassion or mercy.”

The message is clear: Murder Arabs. Commit Jewish terror.

I think the call for Jewish terrorism is clear in their announcement. They say “Each and everyone is required to envision what the enemy is plotting to do to us, and to match it measure for measure.” They also believe that their government “should have acted according to the Shulkhan Arukh [Code of Jewish Law] which states that one must not forgive goyim who harm Jews or their property.” The rabbis also called for “blessed local actions” (guess what action) and the day will soon come when “Jews will congregate in their cities… and strike those who wish upon them ill.”

The sentence quoted by the rabbis in full reads this way:

“The Jews assembled in their cities, in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, to lay hand on those who sought to harm them, and no one stood up before them, for their fear had fallen upon all the peoples.” Esther 9:2.

In other words, the rabbis are saying: “The Jews will assemble in their cities [on Purim] to lay hand on those who try to harm them, and no one will stand up to stop them, because fear of these ‘holy’ Jews acting in ‘God’s name’ wills frighten the nations into submission.”

Can they do it? “Yes they can, and no one will stop them.” Will they do it? “They are doing worse than this every day.” That’s what the killed student of Mercaz HaRav were doing… learning to kill Arab

Happy Birthday Ariel Sharon

How can anyone say happy birthday to this war criminal? Oh wait, they celebrate Baruch Goldstein, so why not Sharon right??

Here is an abridged list of reasons to wish any but health and happiness to this comatose pig.

As the head of Unit 101 he undertook a series of military raids against Palestinians and neighboring Arab states. The unit was known for targeting civilians as well as Arab soldiers, notably in the widely condemned Qibya operation in the fall of 1953, in which 69 Palestinian civilians, some of them children, were killed by Sharon’s troops in a reprisal attack on their West Bank village.

Shortly afterwards, just a few months after its founding, Unit 101 was merged into the 202nd Paratroopers Brigade (Sharon eventually became the latter’s commander), which continued to attack military and civilian targets, culminating with the attack on the Qalqilyah police station in the autumn of 1956.

In the 1956 Suez War , Sharon commanded the 202nd Brigade, and was responsible for taking ground east of the Sinai’s Mitla Pass and eventually taking the pass itself. Having successfully carried out the first part of his mission (joining a battalion parachuted near Mitla with the rest of the brigade moving on ground), Sharon’s unit was deployed near the pass. Neither reconnaissance aircraft nor scouts reported enemy forces inside the Mitla Pass. Sharon, whose forces were initially heading east, away from the pass, reported to his superiors that he was increasingly concerned with the possibility of an enemy thrust through the pass, which could attack his brigade from the flank or the rear.

Sharon asked for permission to attack the pass several times, but his requests were denied. Sharon sent a small scout force, which was met with heavy fire and became bogged down due to vehicle malfunction in the middle of the pass. Sharon ordered the rest of his troops to attack in order to aid their comrades. In the ensuing successful battle to capture the pass, 38 Israeli soldiers were killed.

Sharon was not only criticized by his superiors, he was damaged by revelations several years later by several former subordinates, who claimed that Sharon tried to provoke the Egyptians and sent out the scouts in bad faith, ensuring that a battle would ensue. Deliberate or not, the attack was considered strategically reckless because the Egyptian forces were expected to withdraw from the pass within a day or two.

During the 1982 Lebanon War, while Sharon was Defense minister, the Sabra and Shatila massacre took place, in which between 800 and 3,500 Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps were killed by the Phalanges—Lebanese Maronite Christian militias. The Phalange had been sent into the camps to clear out PLO fighters, and Israeli forces had been sent to the camps at Sharon’s command to provide them with logistical support and to guard camp exits. The incident led some of Sharon’s critics to refer to him as “the Butcher of Beirut”.

An Associated Press report on September 15, 1982 stated:

Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, in a statement, tied the killing [of the Phalangist leader Gemayel] to the PLO, saying: “It symbolises the terrorist murderousness of the PLO terrorist organisations and their supporters.” Habib Chartouni, a Lebanese Christian from the Syrian Socialist National Party confessed to the murder of Gemayel, and no Palestinians were involved. Sharon had used this to instigate the entrance of the Lebanese militias into the camps.

The Kahan Commission found the Israeli Defence Forces indirectly responsible for the massacre and charged Sharon with “personal responsibility.” It recommended in early 1983 the removal of Sharon from his post as Defense minister. In their recommendations and closing remarks, the commission stated:

We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense [Ariel Sharon] bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office - and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which “the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office.”

Sharon initially refused to resign as Defense Minister, and Prime Minister Menachem Begin initially refused to fire him. After a grenade was tossed (by a Sharon supporter) into a dispersing crowd of an Israeli  Peace Now march, killing Emil Grunzweig and injuring 10 others, a compromise was reached: Sharon agreed to forfeit the post of defense minister but stayed in the cabinet as minister without portfolio. Ariel Sharon’s removal as Defense Minister is listed as one of the important events of the Tenth Knesset.

On September 28, 2000, Sharon and an escort of over 1,000 Israeli police officers visited the Temple Mount complex, site of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque. This is the third holiest site in Islam. Sharon declared that the complex would remain under perpetual Israeli control. Palestinian commentators accused Sharon of purposely inflaming emotions with the event to provoke a violent response and obstruct success of delicate ongoing peace talks. On the following day, a large number of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators and a large Israeli police contingent confronted each other at the site. The protesters were shot and the Police were charged with excessive use of force.

And his withdrawing from Gaza was not for peace as he is quoted:

“Palestinian terrorism must end before a political process leading to a Palestinian state begins. Otherwise, the result would be a Palestinian state with terrorism. … The Gaza withdrawal would allow Israel to delay negotiations, and a Palestinian state, until such time that their leadership abandons violence. The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”

 Have a great birthday lard-ass

Today in History - Hebron Massacre 1994

Many thanks to Haitham at Sabbah Blog for this post  

14 Years of Lessons after Al-Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre - A Memorial History for the 30 Palestinian Martyrs

The story:

The dawn of Friday 15 Ramadan 1414 a.h. / 25 February 1994 marked the first of three massacres perpetrated by Israeli settlers accompanied by the Israeli Army. There were more than 30 martyrs and 270 injured. The main massacre toke place while the victims were performing al- Fajr (Dawn) Prayer at Al Ibrahimi mosque.

(Al-Ibrahimi Mosque - Al-Khalil, Occupied Palestine)At 05:00 on February 25, around eight hundred Palestinian Muslims passed through the east gate of Al-Ibrahimi mosque to participate in al-Fajr prayer, the first of the five daily Islamic prayers. At that time of the holy month of Ramadan, there were many people who flocked the Ibrahimi Mosque to perform their prayers. The mosque was under Israeli Army guard.

That same day, a Jewish American Zionist physician decided to materialize the dream of the typical Zionist movement of annihilating the Arab existence in Palestine. Dr. Baruch Goldstein prepared for the move. It was during Ramadan when Dr. Goldstein decided to execute his old plan of vengeance.

Goldstein passed two army checkpoints at the dawn of February 25, 1994 from the northeastern gate of the mosque near privy. That privy could be the reason why Goldstein decided on that gate because he, probably, received his contemplation about Arabs from the Rabbis of Kach in Kiryat Arab where the Arabs were described as the demons of the privy. The privy of the mosque is important not only because it has two Israeli army checkpoints on its nearby mosque’s gate, but also because it is surrounded by Israeli army posts from the east and army patrols in the west. So Goldstein was acting from the deepest parts of the Zionistic ideology in liquidating the demons.

Goldstein walked at least 100 yards in the mosque before he decided to choose the exact location to liquidate his demons. He positioned himself at the last row of the main hall, just opposite to the Imam’s place (Manbar.) In this case and as a typical Zionist, shooting from the back was the style. The position was not arbitrary not only because it enabled him to shoot directly at the largest number of the backs of the worshipers but also because it was supposed to have enabled him to get a fast escape or protection from the Israeli soldiers who were scattered right behind him in the northern hall -the plate- of the mosque.

Goldstein was carrying his IMI Galil assault rifle, four magazines of ammunition, which held 35 bullets each and hand grenades. He thought about the best moment to execute the plan, maximize the number of casualties and secure the escape or rescue. The best moment, of course, was when the Muslim worshipers knelt on the floor with their backs towards Goldstein.

It was first a hand grenade that he threw among the worshipers causing casualties, confusion, and possibly an invitation to the Israeli soldiers in the halls and outside of the mosque to intervene for rescue. And in no time, the automatic massacre took place with the same kind of mercy that other Zionists like Goldstein shows all the time toward Arabs.

Standing in front of the only exit from the mosque and positioned to the rear of the Muslim worshipers, he opened fire with the weapon, killing 29 people and injuring more than 125. He was eventually overwhelmed by survivors, who beat him to death.

An eyewitness said that when Goldstein was executing the massacre and people attacked him, there was a soldier who attempted to come closer to the scene. But instead of “rescuing” Dr. Goldstein, the Israeli soldier shot his bullets in the air and then escaped from the inside eastern door of the northern hall to the previously known “women praying area.” In the opinion of the eyewitness, the soldier could have rescued Goldstein by killing 5 or 10 more Palestinians, but it appeared that his personal safety was above any blood value.

Al Ibrahimi massacre (a.k.a Hebron massacre) is not the last one. Muslims and Jews are and will remain candidates for victimization. But the cause will always be the same: “The Nazi style laws of the Zionists occupation in Palestine.”

Reports after the massacre were inevitably highly confused. In particular, there was uncertainty about whether Goldstein had acted alone; it was reported that eyewitnesses had seen “another man, dressed as a soldier, handing him ammunition.” The Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said that the attack was the work of up to 12 men, including Israeli troops. However, Israeli Army denied that and confirmed that Goldstein had acted alone without the assistance or connivance of the Israeli guards posted at the mosque.

News of the massacre immediately led to riots in Hebron (Al-Khalil in Arabic) and the rest of the occupied territories. Additional Palestinian Muslims were crushed to death in the panic to flee the mosque and in rioting that followed.

Now that was history, a bloody history that marked Feb 25 of every year with memorials of the Palestinian Martyrs massacred that day for nothing but being Palestinians. So, what are the lessons learned from this?

First we will look at the ideology behind this massacre (and all the Zionist massacres), then how it is treated among Zionists. And last but not least, how does the media look at Zionist (terrorists) and how do they handle such massacres compared to other terrorist acts and massacres.

Prof. Israel Shahak wrote - The Ideology Behind Hebron Massacre:

The sympathy which Baruch Goldstein enjoys among the Gush Emunim, whose influence is more pervasive than that of the Kahanists, can only be explained by a shared ideology. However, Gush Emunim leaders enjoy Rabin’s friendship and strong influence in wide circles of the Israeli and diaspora Jewish communities. Therefore it is their version of this ideology which is more important. Gush Emunim’s thinking assumes the imminence of the coming of the Messiah, when the Jews, aided by God, will triumph over the Gentiles. Consequently, all current political developments call be interpreted by those in the know as destined either to bring this end nearer or postpone it. Jewish sins, the worst of them being lack of faith in Gush Emunim ideology, can postpone but not alter the predestined course of Redemption. The two world wars, the Holocaust and other calamitous events of modern history serve as stock examples of such a curative punishment for Jewish sins. Such explanations can go into a lot of specific detail. The rabbi of Kiryat Arba, Dov Lior (who attended Goldstein’s funeral and praised him), blamed Israel’s relative failure in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon on the lack of faith manifested through signing a peace treaty with Egypt and “returning the inheritance of our ancestors [i.e Sinai] to strangers”.[…]

The fundamental tenet of Gush Emunim’s thinking is the assumption that the Jewish people are “peculiar”. Lustick discusses this tenet in terms of their denial of the classical Zionist claim that only by undergoing “a process of normalisation”, by emigrating to Palestine and forming a Jewish state there, can the Jews become like any other nation. But for them this “is the original delusion of the secular Zionists”, because they measured that “normality” by applying non-Jewish standards. According to Gush Emunim, “Jews are not and cannot be a normal people”, because “their eternal uniqueness” is “the result of the covenant God made with them at Mount Sinai”. Therefore, according to Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, one of their leaders, “while God requires other normal nations to abide by abstract codes of ‘justice and righteousness’, such laws do not apply to Jews”.

Harkabi quotes Rabbi Israel Ariel, who says that “a Jew who kills a non-Jew is exempt from human judgement, and has not violated the prohibition of murder”. The Gush Emunim rabbis have indeed reiterated that Jews who kill Arabs should be free from all punishment. Harkabi also quotes Rabbi Aviner, Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook and Rabbi Ariel, all three of whom say Arabs living in Palestine are thieves because since the land was once Jewish, all property to be found on that land “really” belongs to the Jews. In the original Hebrew version of his book Harkabi expresses his shock at finding this out. “I never imagined that Israelis would so interpret the concept of the historical right.”

Gush Emunim’s plans for governing non-Jews in Israel are also based on “theological” principles. According to Rabbi Aviner; “Is there a difference between punishing an Arab child and an Arab adult for disturbance of our peace? Punishments can be inflicted on Jewish boys below the age of 13 and Jewish girls below the age of 12…But this rule applies to Jews alone, not to Gentiles. Thus any Gentile, no matter how little, should be punished for any crime he commits.” From this dictum, it is only a short step to slaughtering Arab children.

Even Israel’s Supreme Court compared Kahane to the German Nazis. The prominent Orthodox dissident, Professor Yeshayahu Leibovitz, said that the mass murder in Hebron was a consequence of “Judeo-Nazism”. But Gush Emunim’s ideology is no less like that of the Nazis than Kahane’s.

Celebrating the Hebron massacre:

Why do we hate them?

When you see the Israelis and Zionists from different parties and sections of the Israeli society, including their army, as well from around the world, gathering annually at the grave of Baruch Goldstein to celebrate the anniversary of his massacre of Muslim worshipers in Al-Khalil (Hebron), how can you but “LOVE” them?

Here is a sample of the news stories from BBC - Graveside party celebrates Hebron massacre (21 March, 2000):

Militant Jews have gathered at the grave of Baruch Goldstein to celebrate the sixth anniversary of his massacre of Muslim worshippers in Hebron.

The celebrants dressed up as the gunman, wearing army uniforms, doctor’s coats and fake beards.

Goldstein, an immigrant from New York City, had been a physician in the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba.

Waving semi-automatic weapons in the air, the celebrants danced, sang and read prayers around his grave.

“We decided to make a big party on the day he was murdered by Arabs,” said Baruch Marzel, one of about 40 celebrants.

The tribute was a macabre twist on the Jewish festival of Purim, when it is a custom to dress in costume and celebrate.

Massacre in mosque

In 1994 on Purim, Goldstein stormed a mosque and fired on praying Muslims in the West Bank city’s Tomb of the Patriarchs - a shrine sacred to both Muslims and Jews.

Twenty-nine people died in the attack, and the angry crowd lynched Goldstein in retaliation.

Israeli extremists continue to pay homage at his grave in the nearby Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba, where a marble plaque reads: “To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel.”

About 10,000 people had visited the grave since the massacre, Mr Marzel said.

Note: the above news story is eight years old.

Not only that. The Israeli government allocated a special site for the grave, in the Tourist Park in Kiryat Arba settlement. Over the years, the grave has become a site of pilgrimage. Tens of thousand people from all over the world go to pray and honor this terrorist memory. The local religious council of Kiryat Arba settlement declared the grave site a cemetery. During the Feast of Purim, Goldstein friends celebrate the feast near his grave to honor him, in appreciation of what he did!

Last but not least, on the biased media side, Leon T. Hadar wrote:

Following the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York and the arrest of several Muslims who were charged with the crime, the American media were flooded with news stories, analyses and commentaries that warned of the coming “Islamic threat.” “Investigative reporters” and “terrorism experts” alleged on television talk shows and op-ed pages that the accused perpetrators of the bombing were part of an “Islamic terrorism network” coordinated by Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, or other Middle Eastern bogeymen.
[…]
Contrast those reactions with the media’s response to the massacre in Hebron. No analyst suggested that the event reflected the emergence of a global “Jewish threat. ” No terrorism expert was invited to discuss on “Nightline” or the “MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour” the rise of a “global Zionist terrorism” organization manipulated, say, by the Israeli Mossad. No scholar alleged that the massacre by a Jewish settler suggested that Western and Jewish values were somehow incompatible.

If one really had wanted to apply the journalistic methods that were used in the case of the World Trade Center bombing, it would not have been so difficult, after reviewing the biography of Rabbi Meir Kahane by Robert I. Friedman, to point to the strong ties between Baruch Goldstein and the other “fanatics” in the Jewish settlements and members of the Israeli political establishment, especially in the Likud party. One could even have reminded American readers that Kiryat Arba, where Goldstein resided, was actually the brainchild of a pre-1977 Labor government.

Any analysis of public statements and writings by some of the major political and spiritual leaders of the Jewish settlers, including the rabbis who head the movement, would reveal a fanatical hatred and racist attitudes toward non-Jews in general, and Arabs and Palestinians in particular.

Instead, most journalists and analysts adopted the official Israeli line and described the massacre as an “isolated” case of Jewish “extremism,” an act of a “lone gunman,” a “lunatic,” a “madman” who does not represent Israeli society or, for that matter, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories. Journalists, like the Israeli government, stressed that killing of innocent civilians violates the moral tenets of Judaism.