US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this feature | View comments | Email this feature | Printer-friendly version
News :: International
Copley Sqare: Hundreds Demonstrate to "Defend the Palestinians!"
19 Jul 2014
Click on image for a larger version

Rally Youtube Gaza.png
Hundreds of members of the “#Boston4Gaza” movement turned out in front of the library on Copley Square calling for an end to the Israeli assault. Signs and buttons expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people.

"Stop the Israeli War Machine!"

From a bullhorn one speaker addressed the crowd. “This is what’s come to the Jewish culture in Israel — we’ve lost our ground. We’ve lost our morals. We’ve lost our values and our humanity,” said Malkah Feldman of Cambridge. “I will do everything in my power to restore that humanity to the Jewish community.”

A ten miles away in Newton, Israeli supporters from across Greater Boston poured into the Congregation Mishkan Tefila in Chestnut Hill to show their support. Some carried “Stand with Israel” signs and Israeli flags. The ceremony opened with the sound of a siren and Jewish Community Relations Council director Jeremy Burton reminding the audience that when that sound goes off in Israel, residents have seconds to take cover.

“Ladies and gentlemen, each of the 13,000 rockets and missiles fired at Israeli civilians by Hamas over the last nine years has been intended to kill innocent Israelis or injure innocent Israelis or terrorize innocent Israelis,” said Jeff Robbins of the Anti Defamation League New England. Others told of family members in Israel under siege and asked congregants for prayer.

“But sometimes praying isn’t enough,” said Suffolk Construction CEO John Fish. “These brutal attacks on innocent people are blatant acts of terror, and like any nation that inhabits this earth, Israel has every right to defend herself and her people from terrorism.”


For its many supporters in the west, Israel is being unfairly singled out for criticism. As the country’s former foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami angrily said to me in an interview for al-Jazeera English in 2013: “You are trying to turn Israel into a special case.”

According to the likes of Ben-Ami, there are much more vile regimes, and more violent groups, elsewhere in the world. Why pick on plucky Israel? What about the Chinas, Russias, Syrias, Saudi Arabias, Irans, Sudans and Burmas? Where are the protests against Isis, Boko Haram or the Pakistani Taliban?

There are various possible responses to such attempts at deflection. First, does Israel really want to be held to the standards of the world’s worst countries? Doesn’t Israel claim to be a liberal democracy, the “only” one in the Middle East?

Second, isn’t this “whataboutery” of the worst sort? David Cameron told those of us who opposed the Nato intervention in Libya in 2011: “The fact that you cannot do the right thing everywhere does not mean that you should not do the right thing somewhere.” Well, quite. And the same surely applies to criticism of Israel – that we cannot, or do not, denounce every other human-rights-abusing regime on earth doesn’t automatically mean we are therefore prohibited from speaking out against Israel’s abuses in Gaza and the West Bank. (Nor, for that matter, does the presence of a small minority among the Jewish state’s critics who are undoubtedly card-carrying anti-Semites.)

Trying to hide Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians behind, say, Syria’s barrel bombs, China’s forced labour camps or Russia’s persecution of gays won’t wash. After all, on what grounds did we “single out” apartheid South Africa in the 1980s for condemnation and boycott? Weren’t there other, more dictatorial regimes in Africa at the time, those run by black Africans such as Mengistu in Ethiopia or Mobutu in Zaire? Did we dare excuse the crimes of white Afrikaners on this basis?

Taking a moral stand inevitably requires us to be selective, specific and, yes, even inconsistent. “Some forms of injustice bother [people] more than others,” wrote Peter Beinart, the author of The Crisis of Zionism, in December 2013. “The roots of this inconsistency may be irrational, even disturbing, but it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t act against the abuses they care about most.”

Third, Israel is “singled out” today, but by its friends and not just by its enemies. It has been singled out for unparalleled support – financial, military, diplomatic – by the western powers. It is indeed, to quote Ben-Ami, a “special case”.

Which other country is in receipt of $3bn a year in US aid, despite maintaining a 47-year military occupation in violation of international law? Which other country has been allowed to develop and stockpile nuclear weapons in secret?

Which other country’s prime minister could “humiliate” – to quote the newspaper Ma’ariv – a sitting US vice-president on his visit to Israel in March 2010, yet still receive 29 standing ovations from Congress on his own visit to the US a year later? And which other country is the beneficiary of comically one-sided resolutions on Capitol Hill, in which members of Congress fall over each other to declare their undying love and support for Israel – by 410 to eight, or 352 to 21, or 390 to five?

Indeed, which other country has been protected from UN Security Council censure by the US deployment of an astonishing 42 vetoes? For the record, the number of US vetoes exercised at the UN on behalf of Israel is greater than the number of vetoes exercised by all other UN member states on all other issues put together. Singling out, anyone?

Fourth, the inconvenient truth is that we in the west can happily decry the likes of, say, Assad or Ayatollah Khamenei yet we can do little to influence their actual behaviour. Have sanctions stopped Assad’s killing machine? Or Iran’s nuclear programme? In contrast, we have plenty of leverage over Israel – from trade deals to arms sales to votes at the UN. Israel is our special friend, our close ally.

Yet when Israel started bombing Gaza this month, claiming it was acting in response to incoming rocket fire and was trying to kill Hamas operatives, Cameron merely “reiterated the UK’s staunch support for Israel” and “underlined Israel’s right to defend itself”. And the hundreds of Palestinian dead? Didn’t they have a right to self- defence? There was not a word from our PM. This, ultimately, is the fundamental difference when it comes to comparing Israel’s abuses with those of other “rogue” nations. We single out Israel because, shamefully, we are complicit in its crimes.

Boston Herald video on Youtube: -

See Also:

This work is in the public domain.
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

18 Jul 2014
Click on image for a larger version

Silence, in the face of extreme moral provocation, is not golden; it is cowardice, in this case, for a Jewish person deeply respectful of Judaism for its ethical principles and writings, its “home” to much of modern radicalism and social protest across religious, racial, ethnic lines in struggles on behalf of all humankind, the seat of devotion for his parents, to be silent NOW, is to be complicit in the degradation of one’s faith as Israel taking the name of the Jewish State and claiming to represent world Jewry commits wanton war crimes and atrocities—and has for some time—on a helpless, desperate, defenseless people who have been under the Iron Heel of occupation for decades. Palestinians face subjugation on a daily basis; I, and my fellow Jews, face the long-term desecration of our faith and, ultimately, separation from God. For what purpose? To what end?

We all know the drill. Dare to criticize Israel on any ground, much less the militarization of its political culture and mindset, and consequent actions and displays of power, employing superior force for the purposes of intimidation (here, Palestinians, but also, dissident Israelis themselves), and one is labeled immediately a “self-hating” Jew, as though a full-scale propaganda apparatus following closely Jewish opinion and currents of thought were ready to pounce. An addiction to conspiracy theory on my part? No, whether highly organized or intuitively expressed by a large proportion of the Jewish community, especially in America, the charge comes quickly and doesn’t miss a trick: ostracism, isolation, for those presumably misguided/dishonored/ungrateful individuals who dare speak up but also invoked even on a whole range of issues, unrelated to Israel, but again organized and/or intuitively felt as questioning what has become an integrated world-view. If one questions American foreign policy, or recognizes Putin has a leg to stand on in his analysis of and response to the Ukraine crisis, one is therefore a self-hating Jew.

The rigidness of mind is revealed through its inner consistency where human rights are concerned (not Neo-Con “human rights,” liberal humanitarianism achieved through war, intervention, regime change, at the point of a gun), but as authentically realized by peoples often through social struggle, that which must necessarily be suppressed as a principle of national policy and statecraft lest world politics become democratized and freed from local, regional, and global pressures of domination. In its own right and as cheering section for Global Reaction, Israel has proven its mettle, not least in furthering US international objectives. But here I veer too much to the theoretical; meanwhile, the people of Gaza are writhing in pain—and the world does not care.

World Jewry, led by the US, in its ironclad embrace of Israel, is in process of constructing psychological walls of self-denial, a massive collective defense mechanism, prepared to tolerate anything in the name of what is perhaps an historically twisted version of Zionism (emphasizing those passages of Torah which glorify the chosen-people doctrine and legitimate the conquest of others, while ignoring the beauty and majesty of the universality embodied in the Decalogue), clearly fearful of the cosmopolitan, humane, yes, radical in many cases, and for even the poorest unskilled worker or farmer, a respect for learning and inclination toward the intellectual as part of daily life and Jewish identity—all being swept away presently by the vulgarization of extolling Repression and methodically practicing—perhaps to confirm one’s superiority—the suppression and humiliation of Palestinians. Do the cries of Gazan mothers holding their dead children not move Israelis? Apparently not, for otherwise this carpet-bombing-in-microcosm would never be considered.

We speak of “self-hating” Jews. It’s time to throw the ball back into the court of the Jewish militaristic, Super-Mensch of Israel and their complicit, frightened, subservient admirers in America. It’s time to cast off the epithet used to silence dissent among Jews themselves, and move from “self-hating” to what had always been “self-affirming” and “life-affirming” Jews, which also translates as, a time for self-respecting Jews in Israel to leave Israel, our contemporary Sodom, in every respect a denigration of Judaism itself. As I write, the juggernaut of Israeli might is on the move. From Jodi Rudoren and Fares Akram’s New York Times article, “Netanyahu Warns of Wider Israel Operation in Gaza,” (July 18), we see illustration of the ruthless push, even the photo of a family walking, father, mother, children, grandmother, down the road, meager possessions—a small bag in the father’s right hand is all, his other, clutching that of one of his children, a desolate scene, massive Israeli tanks reported to be hovering out of sight.

Thus: “Al Aksa radio station, which is run by Hamas [as if perhaps to discount the veracity, or a knee-jerk NYT instruction to its reporters to slur for its own sake], reported that three children of Ismail Abu Musalem—Walaa, 12, Mohammed, 13, and Ahmed, 14—had been killed when a shell hit their bedroom in Al Nada housing bloc, close to the Erez crossing from Israel.” So much for surgical strikes, so much for avoiding civilian casualties (“housing bloc”). Thus, too (here I apologize to the reporters; they are doing a conscientious job): “Dozens of families fled intense Israeli bombings in northern Gaza on foot and on donkey carts packed with up to 10 people, including children and older adults.” They continue: “Explosions from airstrikes could be seen, as well as outgoing rockets or mortars. Little else moved in Gaza City, where streets were mostly deserted and shops were closed.” This is not an incursion—a mere raid—but a full-scale assault: “An exception [to the quiet] was Shifa Hospital, where casualties continued to arrive, including one body blown to pieces and a boy whose face was pockmarked by shrapnel. Many staff members at the hospital have worked nearly nonstop for 11 days. A funeral was held nearby for two others killed overnight.”

In northern Gaza, “it was relatively calm at midday [Friday] after a night of shelling and machine-gun fire.” The palpable sense of terror: Residents “thought Israel [using tanks] might be clearing the way for further incursions [that word!] later.” And “in the town of Khan Younis in southern Gaza, at least nine people were killed overnight, including four members of the Radwan family,” as meanwhile, residents in the eastern part of the town said “bulldozers were leveling fields planted with crops near the border fence in eastern Gaza in what is known as the ‘buffer zone’–a strip where Israel prevented planting for years but lifted restrictions under a cease-fire agreement that ended the last Gaza battle in 2012” (this last an example, restrictions on planting, of the day-to-day humiliation intended by the occupation).

Too, air strikes by F-16s and Apache helicopters targeting “an apartment in Al Jawhara tower,” as, a mile inside Israeli territory, “dozens of tanks of tanks topped with Israeli flags were parked in fields, with soldiers on standby…. The Israeli military has begun calling up 18,000 more reservists, adding to the 50,000 already mobilized for the campaign. This all, in less than the first twenty-four hours, to which our estimable Secretary of State, John Kerry, urged precision and, according to the department, “the need to avoid further escalation.” For the record, the UN “estimates that three-quarters of the Palestinians killed in the operation were not militants and that the victims include MORE THAN 50 CHILDREN’ (my caps). In addition to the four children killed on the beachfront in Gaza City, four more “were killed in an airstrike as they played on a Gaza City rooftop at around 6 p.m. on Thursday,” i.e., the start of the operation.

Let’s give the final word to Netanyahu, that he might metaphorically hang himself. This today (the 18th): Israel’s is “a moral army like no other… [and] does not aspire to hurt even one innocent person, not even one.” When I speak of the psychological dynamics of totalitarianism, I mean that wall of denial, which in turn masks a profoundly deep guilt for the inhumanity not allowed self-recognition (or in this case, the nation’s), but for that reason there and taking aggressive outlet. Israelis are everything the Palestinians are not, and must shatter the mirror which holds them up to themselves so as not to see what they have become: incapable of feeling, unable to respond to the tears of the mothers and fathers (they, too, not ashamed to cry) over the death or maiming of their child; seeing that living simply is a refutation of the Israeli hedonistic-sybaritic lifestyle, and its gated-communities a stark contrast to the overcrowded norm of conditions and ascetic manner of a people going about their daily life. Youths have been killed waiting to attend morning prayers, and in Jerusalem itself the Israel Home Front Command has barred men under 50 from Al Aksa Mosque compound for Friday prayers, even though this is the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Psychological totalitarianism: nothing must be permitted to penetrate the tightly-locked worldview of dominance, license to conquer, arrogance, certitude, for any glimmer of doubt might shatter the whole mental-cultural-ideological edifice and the corrupted institutional framework on which it rests. And then, just perhaps, Judaism can rediscover its roots in the struggle for human betterment of all peoples in the world. Shalom.
NBC News Pulls Veteran Reporter from Gaza After Witnessing Israeli Attack on Children
18 Jul 2014
Click on image for a larger version

Gaza reporter.png
Ayman Mohyeldin, the NBC News correspondent who personally witnessed yesterday’s killing by Israel of four Palestinian boys on a Gazan beach and who has received widespread praise for his brave and innovative coverage of the conflict, has been told by NBC executives to leave Gaza immediately. According to an NBC source upset at his treatment, the executives claimed the decision was motivated by “security concerns” as Israel prepares a ground invasion, a claim repeated to me by an NBC executive. But late yesterday, NBC sent another correspondent, Richard Engel, along with an American producer who has never been to Gaza and speaks no Arabic, into Gaza to cover the ongoing Israeli assault (both Mohyeldin and Engel speak Arabic).

Mohyeldin is an Egyptian-American with extensive experience reporting on that region. He has covered dozens of major Middle East events in the last decade for CNN, NBC and Al Jazeera English, where his reporting on the 2008 Israeli assault on Gaza made him a star of the network. NBC aggressively pursued him to leave Al Jazeera, paying him far more than the standard salary for its on-air correspondents.

Yesterday, Mohyeldin witnessed and then reported on the brutal killing by Israeli gunboats of four young boys as they played soccer on a beach in Gaza City. He was instrumental, both in social media and on the air, in conveying to the world the visceral horror of the attack.

Mohyeldin recounted how, moments before their death, he was kicking a soccer ball with the four boys, who were between the ages of 9 and 11 and all from the same family. He posted numerous chilling details on his Twitter and Instagram accounts, including the victims’ names and ages, photographs he took of their anguished parents, and video of one of their mothers as she learned about the death of her young son. He interviewed one of the wounded boys at the hospital shortly before being operated on. He then appeared on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes, where he dramatically recounted what he saw.

Despite this powerful first-hand reporting – or perhaps because of it – Mohyeldin was nowhere to be seen on last night’s NBC Nightly News broadcast with Brian Williams. Instead, as Media Bistro’s Jordan Chariton noted, NBC curiously had Richard Engel – who was in Tel Aviv, and had just arrived there an hour or so earlier – “report” on the attack. Charlton wrote that “the decision to have Engel report the story for ‘Nightly’ instead of Mohyeldin angered some NBC News staffers.”

Indeed, numerous NBC employees, including some of the network’s highest-profile stars, were at first confused and then indignant over the use of Engel rather than Mohyeldin to report the story. But what they did not know, and what has not been reported until now, is that Mohyeldin was removed completely from reporting on Gaza by a top NBC executive, David Verdi, who ordered Mohyeldin to leave Gaza immediately.

Over the last two weeks, Mohyeldin’s reporting has been far more balanced and even-handed than the standard pro-Israel coverage that dominates establishment American press coverage; his reports have provided context to the conflict that is missing from most American reports and he avoids adopting Israeli government talking points as truth. As a result, neocon and “pro-Israel” websites have repeatedly attacked him as a “Hamas spokesman” and spouting “pro-Hamas rants.”

Last week, as he passed over the border from Israel, he said while reporting that “you can understand why some human rights organizations call Gaza ‘the world’s largest outdoor prison,’”; he added: “One of the major complaints and frustrations among many people is that this is a form of collective punishment. You have 1.7 million people in this territory, now being bombarded, with really no way out.”

Gazans may have no way out of Gaza, but at this point, Mohyeldin seems to have no way back in. After several requests, NBC executives have not yet provided any on-the-record statements; they will be added if provided.
Thousands Demonstrate in Vienna, Austria - Stop the Israeli War Machine!
20 Jul 2014
Click on image for a larger version

Vienna Gaza proste.jpg
Click on image for a larger version

vienna gaza protest 3e33.jpg
Click on image for a larger version

Vienna gaza protest.jpg
Click on image for a larger version

vienna mgas.jpg
Almost 11,000 demonstrators have attended a pro-Palestinian protest in the Austrian capital Sunday between the Hofburg Palace and the Rathaus town hall, in anger at Israel’s military campaign which has killed more than 400 people already.

'Free, free, free Palestine' and 'Let Gaza Live', the protesters changed while wielding a variety of posters and flags.

"We are not against the Jewish people. the Jewish people should feel free and live free like everybody. We are against the Zionists, actually, who are supported from this big, big mafia and lobby around the world," Abderrahmen Laarouchi told Ruplty

The protesters made their way to the historic Hofburg Palace, which is now the official residence of the country’s president. The demonstrators were playing drums and some were carrying bloody sheets wrapped like a dead body or dolls, signs saying "Made in Israel".

"We should stand here - Austrian, English, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, all together - to stand for and stand up against the Zionist system all over the world. Free Palestine," Laarouchi said.

The Vienna protest comes on day after as nearly 15,000 people hit the streets of London and marched from the Israeli Embassy to Downing Street. Same protests took place in Paris Saturday, but resulted in several injuries and at least 38 arrests. Dozens of protesters used stones and bottles to attack police lines for several hours in northern districts of the capital.
Re: Copley Sqare: Hundreds Demonstrate to "Defend the Palestinians!"
21 Jul 2014
Modified: 05:52:12 PM
back in the 70ies robert faurisson

discovered inconsistencies in anne frank´s diary that didn´t meld with a hiding framework:
for instance, on day 1 of moving into the famous backhouse at prinsengracht 263 in amsterdam, on july 6,1942, anne and her father otto, says a diary entry, hammer away all day long.this is obvoiusly not quite what u´d expect of hiders from the gestapo, who are supposed to keep as still as possible in order not to attract unwanted attention.

the diary attests to many more instances of loud noisemaking that do not mesh at all with a hiding framework, but only with living somewhere openly,legally and without any fear: for instance there are shouting matches at the table; or cohider peter van pels, who joins the backhouse on july 13,1942 with his parents,brings with him his woodworking gear and his cat mouschi, as we learn from alleged helper miep gies´s autobiography. the carrying out of woodwork in the backhouse is also attested to by the diary itself, as is the presence of the cat. but woodworking is fucking noisy; and cats are known to be prone to sudden outbursts of ear-piercing meowing day and night: how does all this mesh with a hiding situation?

and then there´s the burning of waste in the oven, producing visible smoke thru the chimney; and the turning on of lights at night, electric lights, which is obviously something that sticks out in terms of visibility. because of all this and more, fench revisionist godfather robert faurisson in his late-70ies book Is anne frank´s diary authentic?, jumped to the conclusion that the diary had been fabricated out of whole cloth by anne´s father otto frank after the war, as he allegedly was the only survivor of the 8 hiding jews - the other 7 including his family having perished in the camps. but faurisson was right in his analysis and wrong in his conclusion...

it is hard and uncommon to invent anything at all from scratch - it is much easier and more common to manipulate something that exists into saying the opposite of what was originally intended. the franks most likely did move out of their previous amsterdam address at merwedeplein 37 and into prinsengracht 263 on that july 6, monday, 1942: but they were not running from anyone, they did not go into hiding, they had no deportation to fear or anything at all. otto frank,anne´s father, was a german-jewish WW1 vet with the highest german millitary decoration: the iron cross. hitler had a soft spot for such jews, having himself fought in WW1, and so he exempted them from deportation and other antijewish measures almost throughout the entire nazi period, 1933-1944, almost until the end of the war. no iron crosses were deported or persecuted in 1942, and thus otto felt absolutely safe because the exemption covered close family members as well: his wife edith and daughters anne and margot were also exempt from deportation.

otto frank knew all too well that he was privileged because of his iron cross, as in 1938, in the course of the antijewish pogrom called crystal night in germany, his 2 brothers-in-law walter and julius holländer, brothers of his wife edith and themselves german-jewish war vets with iron cross, were first rounded up in the mass arrests and taken to a concentration camp, but soon released when it turned out they were iron crosses.
the diary would have you believe that instead the franks had to rush into hiding on that july 6,1942 because on the day before otto´s daughter margot had received via post a nazi summons to forced labor in germany: this is a lie, that document has never surfaced in any nazi archive, and margot again as the daughter of an iron cross was exempt from antijewish measures!
anne frank´s diary was massively tampered with after the war in order to turn a privileged situation into a false framework of poor persecuted jews hiding from the nazis. anne probably had indeed written some stupid girlieish diary notes - his father doctored all that with a little help from his zionazi friends and other helpers.

no somos nazis: somos antifascistas- y entonces antisionistas!

miep gies, otto frank´s secretary at his firm opekta, and one of the alleged helpers of the hiding jews, stated in her autobio with astonishing ingenuity that during the war opekta collaborated with the nazi occupiers by selling its products to the wehrmacht! feeding the nazi army! and thus extending the war and the holocaust!

sure enough the wehrmacht could use opekta´s foodstuffs: synthetic products that sped up the preparation of jellies, plus synthetic spices for that staple of the german diet: the sausage, or wurst...

and there was an even more importatnt collateral effect of working with opekta amsterdam: that since it was the dutch outlet of german firm opekta cologne, and also had close ties with another german supplier firm, pomosin frankfurt, the jews employed in it like in all private german firms were exempted from deportation: until march 1943 in germany proper, and at least until july 1943 in the netherlands.
therefore otto and his family and cohiders or alleged such, also enjoyed a second layer of protection from deportation: their status as opekta employees!

therefore when otto frank allegedly went into hiding july 6, 1942, he had absolutely no reason whatsoever to do so, because both his iron cross and his status as opekta employee exempted both himself and his close family members, that is wife edith and daughters margot and anne, from deportation as well as other antijewish measures.

allegedly, otto frank´s amsterdam firm opekta had been aryanized in december 1941, but the paperwork for such an event has never turned up...indeed there was no need whatsoever to aryanize opekta because its mother see opekta cologne, the headquarters, had enjoyed certificated aryan status since the late 30ies!
otto remained therefore opekta´s legal director and franchisee in amsterdam throughout the war.
and his daughters he had employed there officially too, starting july 1942: because, as the diary attests too in its january 13,1943 entry, they were " cheaper than outside workers" - implying that they were getting payed while working there in an official position!

if you read anne frank´s diary today in its latest pocket edition in germany, edited by fischer publishing house, translated by a fellow mjriam pressler from the dutch, the first page of text you´ll be fed is anne´s alleged key to the cover names used. that is, allegedly anne had originally intended to use false names, such as calling herself anne aulis robin, the van pelses van daans etc., which would make some sense in case the diary would fall in gestapo hands. but: what´s the sense of prefaceing the diary with a key to the real names, where anne aulis robin is revealed to be anne frank etc., blowing the whole cover? such a device doesn´t make any sense whatsoever in a hiding situation.

having a teenage daughter, 13 years old, going into hiding with her, risking arrest every day, and...allowing her to keep a diary providing gestapo in case of arrest with the easiest way imaginable to find evidence of what for the nazis was the crime of hiding, and of hiding jews on the part of christians such as miep gies, otto´s secretary, kleiman, his right-hand man, etc., all of them duly described and cited in the diary! if this had been a hiding situation for real, the last thing in the world otto would have allowed anne - and his other daughter margot who was also keeping a diary we are informed by anne - would have been the keeping of a self-incriminating diary, which could have resulted in arrest and death for all the alleged helpers!
nothing couold prove more glaringly that this was never a hiding situation, except in the retrospective creative enhancement by fraudster otto frank!
anne was NOT hiding, that´s why in the original version of her diary she felt so free of prefacing it with a key to all the false names used in it.
and that´s why margot too, anne´s sister, was also fearlessly keeping her own diary...

Por on all - Saturday, Jul. 05, 2014 at 8:14 PM

so again: anne frank most likely did exist. she most likely did write some stupid fuckin´teen diary notes of the spoiled little bitch she was. but whatever she wrote, was heavily doctored and altered by her father otto frank between 1944 and 1947 - actually continuing with his heirs to the present day - in order to transmogrify a situation of privilege of VIP jews who were exempt from deportation and other antijewish measures due to otto´s WW1 iron cross and to their status as employees of a private sector, "war-relevant" german business, into a false reference frame of poor persecuted jews fleeing arrest deportation gas chambers and what-have-u.

Por what arrest - Sunday, Jul. 06, 2014 at 7:39 PM

well so: what about the alleged arrest of the franks by the gestapo on august 4,1944? did it really happen? on the face of it, such an event may be plausible in the given historical context, because at the end of the deportation era - summer 1944 - iron crosses were deported too, with their families - but to VIP city-camp terezin, not to auschwitz as the official story would have u believe.
but the franks as we saw were also "war-relevant" jews, working for a war-relevant german firm, which covered them with a second layer of exemption from deportation throughout the war. therefore it is to be assumed that the story of the arrest deportation and death in the camps of 7 out of 8 hiding jews is yet another lie.

one may wonder
Por wand - Monday, Jul. 07, 2014 at 7:38 PM

if the franks did not go into hiding, why then did they leave their former address at merwedeplein 37 for prinsengracht 263? if the story of the nazi summons to margot for compulsive labor in germany is a lie, then what prompted the franks´move?
1. all jewish schools in the third reich and occupied territories were closed for good at the end of the 1941/42 schoolyear. therefore anne and margot could not attend school any longer, and daddy otto as we saw above decided to exploit them by making them work for low pay at his firm opekta amsterdam; hence it would be more comfortable and productive to live in the backhouse of the firm...
2.merwedeplein 37 lay in the midst of a new neighborhood heavily inhabited by german-jewish expats, and thus likely to be subjected to raids and roundups by the nazis; now as we saw above, otto frank and his family were exempt from deportation because of his iron cross and because of his status as franchisee of a german private business which in february 1943 would be certified as war-relevant. but still, the prospect of risking to find oneself in the midst of gestapo raids and shutting off of the entire neighborhood for mass arrests and the like wasn´t appealing for VIP jew otto.
3. the only real danger to the lives of the franks at the time of the alleged hiding july 6,1942, was from possible allied bombings, which otto correctly must have esteemed more likely in new and ugly neighborhoods than in pretty historical downtown amsterdam where opekta was located.
4. otto wanted to get away from his jewish neighbors at merwedeplein, many of whom he knew well, in order to avoid embarassing questions as to why they were being deported but not him and his family, or why he didn´t find them deportation-exempting employement at opekta...

Por war-relevant - Thursday, Jul. 10, 2014 at 7:53 PM

here´s a key german word for u all to learn if u wanna grasp the truth beneath the anne frank myth: kriegswichtig, war-relevant, important-for-war. this was an official nazi rubric during WW2, a certification given to private sector german businesses deemed by the nazi government indispensable to the war effort. the jews employed in such firms were EXEMPT from deportation.
for instance the famous oskar schindler of hollywood fame was able to save all his jewish workers because his factory, which produced components of ammo for the wehrmacht, had been certified kriegswichtig.
and opekta cologne too, whose dutch branch was directed by anne´s father otto frank throughout the war, was certified kriegswichtig on february 13, 1943. therefore from that moment on the franks, who were already exempted from deportation anyhow because of otto´s WW1 iron cross decoration, became covered by a second, very powerful layer of protection from deportation, which covered jewish employees of kriegswichtig businesses throughout WW2.
thus we are to assume that the tale of the franks´arrest on august 4, 1944, and subsequent deportation to auschwitz and bergen belsen where anne is alleged to have died of typhus, is yet another lie.

Por learner - Friday, Jul. 11, 2014 at 7:55 PM

the german word kriegswichtig means war-relevant, important for war. thus did the nazis designate certain private factories during WW2 considered indispensable to the war effort. now, jewish employees of german factories certified as kriegswichtig were not repeat not deported throughout WW2. that´s how for instance oskar schindler managed to save his 1200 jewish workers: because his factory, which produced ammunition components, had been certified kriegswichtig by the nazis.
now opekta too, whose dutch branch anne frank´s father otto managed throughout the war, was certified kriegswichtig on february 13, 1943. this added a second layer of immunity from deportation for otto and his family, because the kriegswichtig exemption covered close family members as well, just like the iron cross.
therefore we may reasonably assume that the story of the franks´arrest on august 4,1944, and their subsequent deportation and death in the camps is another zionazi lie.

otto frank, nazi pig
Por collab - Saturday, Jul. 12, 2014 at 8:00 PM

otto frank was a pig, a war profiteer who throughout WW2 collaborated with the wehrmacht by selling them opekta´s foodstuffs.
this is attested to also by alleged helper miep gies in her autobiography. otto frank ought to have been shot over collaborationism after the war! and even aside from trading with the wehrmacht in occupied holland, the very fact that frank managed a german firm in those days, a firm that is such as opekta cologne, that had been certified as war relevant by the nazis and received awards by same for its outstanding support to the war effort, this very fact makes him a nazi jew, the filthiest moral leper u could possibly come up with! it´s unbelievable that people still consider this rotten asshole a saint of sorts and a victim of persecution!

Por historicus - Wednesday, Jul. 16, 2014 at 7:54 PM

during the nazi era there were privileged jews exempt from deportation and other antisemitic measures. one of the legal grounds for a jew not to be deported was work in a so-called kriegswichtig business, that is a factory certified by the nazis as essential to the war effort. such jews wen exempt from deportation throughout WW2, a foremost example being schindler´s jewish workers. well, otto frank´s firm opekta amsterdam was a branch of german firm opekta cologne, which was certified as kriegswichtig on february 13, 1943. therefore why on earth, on what legal grounds could the franks have been arrested and deported? otto had 2 layers of exemption from deportation: his own iron cross and his status as kriegswichtig. both rubrics covered close family members too. therefore the mainstream myth of the franks´arrest on august 4, 1944, and subsequent deportation and death of most of them in the camps is exposed as yet another zionazi prop lie.
J-Street pulls sponsorship from pro-Israel rally in Boston
22 Jul 2014
The left-wing organization complained there was 'no voice for our concerns about the loss of human life on both sides, or the acknowledgement of the conflict’s complexity.'

By Allison Kaplan Sommer | 09:03 21.07.14 | 7

BOSTON - It was an unusual instruction to be given at the entrance to a political rally of any kind, especially a solidarity rally for Israel at such an emotional and fateful moment.

“No signs,” was the written order given at the entrance to the suburban Boston synagogue as hundreds from across the Jewish community were gathering for a rally to support Israel’s Operation Protective Edge on Thursday, just hours after the IDF began its ground incursion into Gaza.

The direction felt truly odd – after all, aren’t rallies supposed to be all about waving signs inscribed with a variety of impassioned slogans?

It turned out that while nobody was allowed to bring in signs – but they were handed out the moment one entered – identical rectangles on basic blue on white posterboard with the hashtag slogan #StandwithIsrael.

And so the rally was a strong display of unity – but a uniform and homogeneous version of unity.

The cookie-cutter signs were passed out together with little American and Israeli flags, handed out by workers and volunteers from the Jewish Federation, all of them held up on cue at a staged photo op moment at the end of a speeches by rabbis, the Israeli consul-general, Jewish and non-Jewish business leaders and politicians, Jews and non-Jews, and federation leaders who had just returned from Israel and experienced the sirens and rocket attacks first hand.

Giving the situation a local spin, Barry Shrage, president of the CJP said the Hamas rockets on Israel “are like a Boston Marathon terror siege every single day.” Shrage, like some of the other speakers, had just returned from a solidarity trip to Israel, returning with tales of sirens and bomb shelters. Audience members were urged to be vocal in their support for Israel and defend its right to act in every possible forum - in person and online. Jeff Robbins, local ADL leader said “When there are those who say Israel has no right to respond – we have to speak out. There is a political battle against Israel and its right to exist.”

The audience that filled the pews at the Chestnut Hill synagogue included the full range of Boston Jews – from Orthodox to Reform with a healthy smattering of Israelis living in the Boston area – the same group gathered the next day for a similar rally held on Boston Commons by the new kid on the block when it comes to pro-Israel rallies around the US - the Israeli American Council, famously backed by Sheldon Adelson.

But one group – that had originally been billed as a co-sponsor of the event – was conspicuously absent: J Street.

On the day of the rally, the name of the left-wing organization had vanished from the list of co-sponsoring organizations. Spokespeople for the Boston Federation had no comment to inquiries on the fact that J Street’s name had been removed and referred the issue to J Street.

A letter obtained by Haaretz, sent by J Street’s Northeast Regional Director, Shaina Wasserman to the Jewish Federation on Wednesday, the day before the rally, obtained by Haaretz, tells the story of the group’s decision not to co-sponsor the rally.

In the letter, Wasserman thanked Jeremy Burton, Executive Director of the Boston Jewish Community Relations Council Wasserman for the invitation to co-sponsor the community rally, and invitation which it had initially accepted.

But with “great disappointment and regret” and the fact that the message of the rally “resonated deeply” for J Street which was “invested in being a part of a broad and inclusive community in Boston and beyond that can come together to advocate for Israel, especially during the most difficult times,” Wasserman informed him that the group had decided to pull its sponsorship from the rally.

Wasserman wrote: “I initially accepted your invitation fully aware that as you said, this would not be ‘a J Street rally.’ I agreed to participate on the basis of your assurances that our movement’s voice would be represented alongside those of others in our community. At the outset, you asked me to suggest potential speakers and invited my input in shaping tone and content that would be inclusive of J Street. Even as I was disappointed that the roster of speakers did not include a pro-Israel, pro-peace perspective, and that the feedback you solicited from me was barely reflected in the rally’s messaging points, I appreciated the difficulty of the task you had taken on….What was missing for us in this rally, and what ultimately precluded our co-sponsorship, was that despite our efforts, there was no space made to raise the issues that follow from our commitment to Israel’s Jewish and democratic future. There was no voice for our concerns about the loss of human life on both sides, or the acknowledgement of the conflict’s complexity and that the only way to truly end it is through a political solution.”

After discovering what had happened in Boston, I asked Jessica Rosenblum, J Street’s director of media and communications, if the events were reflective of what had happened when it came to Jewish community rallies supporting Israel’s Gaza operation across the country.

The picture, it seems, is mixed. J Street has co-sponsored two rallies in Philadelphia and San Diego related to the current crisis, she said. In seven additional cities, J Street informed members of community rallies supporting Israeli actions, though they were in no way officially involved in the events.”

Rosenblum said that these debates – whether and under what circumstances J Street should join with members of the Jewish communities at solidarity rallies right now – were particularly charged and difficult. J Streeters, she said, “feel the same pain, fear and sorrow as the rest of the Jewish community when Israel is threatened,” and want to express their support for Israel’s right to defend itself.

The problem, she said, was that in “efforts to express communal solidarity, the need for nuance is too often not just lost, but intentionally silenced.”

Jewish community leaders, she said, argue that times of conflict call for consistent messaging and not for diverse voices and opinions.

“But for our people, these crises underscore the need to talk about the causes and costs of persistent conflict and to ask what we can be do to prevent these crises in the future. That part of the conversation is, for us, a fundamental piece of what it means to be pro-Israel, even and especially in times of crisis. So the question of whether to participate in these rallies too often forces the choice of whether we want to be a part of the community in expressing the solidarity we deeply feel with Israel and with the community itself, or whether we want to stand apart from the community in speaking to what we believe being pro-Israel requires of us. Given this unfortunate reality, that’s the calculus were forced to weigh in many cases, on a community-by-community, rally-by-rally basis, in deciding whether to participate. Having to make this choice is difficult and painful for us and unhealthy for the community as a whole; it underscores some of the important work we still have to do as a movement.”

The tent seems much bigger on the pro-Palestinian side. On the same evening as the Chestnut Hill event, a very different rally in Boston this one “against Israel’s bombing of Gaza and collective punishment of Palestinians.”

Like the Jewish community’s rally, the protest was just one of many being held across the United States – it was co-sponsored by a list of organizations, from Boston College and Boston University Students for Justice in Palestine, to Boston BDS, to socialist and feminist groups, to Jewish Voice for Peace.

The group of 200 gathered in front of the stately Boston Public Library in downtown Boston across from Copley Square, marched in a circle and and chanted angry slogans like “No more nickels, no more dimes, no more blood in Palestine!”; “You kill! You lie! But Palestine will never die!”; “Hey Israel, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide!”; “Israel, Israel what do you say? How many kids have you killed today?”

The demonstration concluded with a candlelight vigil reading the names of victims of Operation Protective Edge in Gaza.

Those in attendance ranged from Arabs in keffiyehs and hijab, to university students, to older “hard-left” activists, to some who publicly identified themselves as Jews protesting against Israeli actions. One such couple, holding signs saying “Another Jew Against Bombing Gaza” smiled and shook their heads when I asked their names. They weren’t interested in having members of their Jewish community find out they were participating in the demonstration, they said. Another Jewish participant, Laila Bernstein, had no problem going public. She said that she had become active in the Palestinian cause in 2008 after Operation Cast Lead, and came to this rally because “I’m heartbroken, I’m horrified and I want it to stop. I listen to the names of those who have died in Gaza and I think, it just doesn’t need to be happening.”

Like the participants, the messages were diverse as well – with signs – some of them printed, but most handmade, said everything from “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free,” and “I’m not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, I’m pro-peace.”

On the side, a few defiant pro-Israel counter demonstrators from rightist organizations like CAMERA and TruthRevolt held up a sign supporting Israel’s action – their sign featured a cartoon of an Israeli soldier holding a gun protecting a baby behind him – and an Arab facing him using a baby as a human shield.

The activists faced heckling and booing and angry shouts of "Lies! Lies! Shame, shame, shame!" and attempts to cover it up with a Palestinian flag, but they stepped to the side and continued to hold it up proudly, alongside it a sign with the faces of Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Frankel, and ultimately, the Gaza protesters, conscious of the significant police presence at the downtown location, left them alone.

Neither sign, ironically, would have been permitted in the Jewish community rally.
Re: Copley Sqare: Hundreds Demonstrate to "Defend the Palestinians!"
08 Aug 2014
Modified: 10:46:58 AM
So it's settled. We're all going to send Hamas a candygram asking them to stop firing rockets.