Ierusalimul este capitala eternă a Palestinei

Ierusalimul este capitala Palestinei. Israelul este un stat apartheid bazat pe ocuparea ilegală a Palestinei de către armata israeliană. Sionismul este ideologia rasistă și colonială care justifică purificarea etnică a poporului nativ din Palestina. Dacă doriți să înțelegeți psihopatologia ce se află la rădăcina psihozei sioniste, trebuie să mergeți în inima deziluziei lor, așa cum un psihanalist întinde un om cu probleme psihice pe canapea și astăzi nu există un loc mai bun pentru a vedea în acțiune această fixație colonialistă psihotică, decât în articolul intitulat „Sigur că Ierusalimul este capitala Israelului”, publicat (unde altundeva?) în The New York Times cu doar câteva ore înainte ca Donald Trump să anunțe că, în augusta sa opinie imbecilă, „Ierusalimul este capitala Israelului”.


Bombasticitatea himerică a sioniștilor fanatici începe cu ipoteza că „a existat un templu în acel loc vreme de aproape 1000 de ani înaintea distrugerii romane. Asta ar însemna că vreme de aproape 3000 de ani, Ierusalimul a fost centrul poporului evreu.” Acesta este cel mai vechi și stupid truc sionist: se ia un truism, un simplu fragment al întregului adevăr și se răsucește spre avantajul propriu. Nu chiar așa iute, mâncav-aș!





Diletantismul deliberat al sioniștilor în ceea ce privește istoria Orientului Mijlociu este banal de absurd. Și creștinii și musulmanii își reperează istoria arheologică în urmă cu mii de ani în aceeași Palestină. Asta nu îi îndreptățește să declare o republică islamică sau creștină în Palestina. Ideea unui „stat evreiesc” în Palestina este la fel de frauduloasă ca propunerea unui imperiu creștin sau islamic în Palestina. Palestina a fost guvernată și de imperiul persan și de către cel roman, dar asta nu le dă dreptul Italiei sau Iranului să vină și să susțină că Palestina e a lor. După logica asta, am putea la fel de bine să îi trimitem pe Berlusconi și Ahmadinejad în ring să se lupte pentru a decide cui aparține Palestina, iar învingătorul va boxa cu Netanyahu. Problema cu acești sioniști este cât de complet de indiferenți par să fie față de propria stupiditate.


Pornind de la această premisă falsă, acești șarlatani sar apoi la o concluzie și mai falsă: „Apoi evreii s-au întors”, spun ei în această fantezie violentă, și „în secolul al XIX-lea, evreii au început să-și construiască așezări și cartiere în afara zidurilor Orașului Vechi al Ierusalimului.”







Evreii care au mers în Palestina sau chiar au trăit în Palestina din convingeri religioase sau pur și simplu pentru că acolo se afla căminul lor împărțit cu creștinii și musulmanii de-a lungul secolelor nu au absolut nimic de-a face cu aventurosul proiect sionist european de colonizare a Palestinei. Acestea sunt două realități diferite pe care „prădătorii înarmați” sioniști le suprapun în mod intenționat pentru a-și lega de istoria evreiască infamul furt al Palestinei, ca modus operandi al legitimității lor inexistente.


Impostura israeliană definitorie, ce constă în a-i amesteca pe evrei și sioniști, punând semnul egalului între ei, rămâne principalul lor truc, pueril de altfel. Dar realitatea îi contrazice: nu toți evreii sunt sioniști. Nu toți sioniștii sunt evrei. Creștinii sioniști sunt de fapt cei mai fanatici dintre toți sioniștii. Sioniștii musulmani sunt conduși acum de prințul coroanei saudite în miezul lumii islamice și de ambasadorul Emiratelor la Washington, DC. Asta ar trebui să pună capăt și absurdelor acuzații de antisemitism aduse celor ce critică în mod legitim statul colonist israelian. Din nou: nu toți evreii sunt sioniști, nu toți sioniștii sunt evrei și singurii oameni speriați de eticheta de „antisemit” sunt antisemiții.


Anticipând extensia Declarației Balfour adusă de președintele american Donald Trump, ofițerii propagandei israeliene declară: „Nicio declarație din partea vreunui președinte american nu va schimba devotamentul israelienilor față de Ierusalim. Aceasta este și va fi mereu capitala noastră. I-a fost luată poporului evreu cu forța. A fost recapturată cu forța. Și dacă este necesar, va fi păstrată sub jurisdicție israeliană tot cu forța.”


Când ofițerul hasbara spune „aceasta este capitala noastră”, vorbește un hoț sionist. Când spune că „a fost luată de la poporul evreu”, este șarlatanul istoric scoțând o carte din mânecile-i murdare.


Nimeni nu a luat Ierusalimul sau Palestina de la evrei pentru ca sioniștii să le ia înapoi. Evreii, creștinii și musulmanii au fost supuși, în mod colectiv, succesivelor cuceriri imperiale, toate culminând cu imperialismul european încheiat de cucerirea sionistă a Palestinei. Acest simplu fapt istoric intră în mintea ideologic bolnavă a sioniștilor și iese de-acolo scuipat în forma unor bolboroseli fără sens.







Înrădăcinat într-o ideologie rasistă, Israel este o colonie europeană de tip settler creată de un dezgustător ofițer britanic și susținută acum de un imperialism american și mai agresiv. De la babilonieni la perși și până la romani, la cruciați, otomani și britanici: Palestina a fost guvernată de imperii succesive, niciunul dintre ele având vreo pretenție legitimă asupra locuitorilor ei evrei, creștini sau musulmani.


Coloniștii sioniști sunt doar ultimii militariști inveterați cucerind violent Palestina fără un dram de legitimitate istorică de partea lor. Evreii, creștinii și musulmanii vor continua să trăiască în Palestina generații după ce sionismul își va fi trăit traiul și va fi sfârșit acolo unde au sfârșit și celelalte cuceriri imperialiste și colonialiste ale Palestinei: în coșul de gunoi al istoriei.


Sioniștii sunt propagandiști slab educați. Tot ce au e un vocabular limitat, un proiect fantezist pe post de istorie și o dispoziție fanatică, pe care le-au vândut publicului european și american pe post de convingeri. Cei mai buni dintre ei sunt îndrăgostiți de această himeră periculoasă. Cei mai răi dintre ei conduc Israelul și păcălesc Statele Unite să le susțină furtul Palestinei. Cu cât protestează mai zgomotos, cu atât mai lipsită de conținut este revendicarea lor.


Palestina aparține palestinienilor. Ierusalimul a fost și va rămâne mereu capitala palestiniană. Ierusalimul nu a fost niciodată și nu va fi capitala unui stat-garnizoană european rasist, colonialist, apartheidic ce își spune „Israel.” Niciodată.

Boycott Wonder Woman

Wonder Woman began life in 1940, when William Marston (the inventor of the polygraph) was employed by Max Gaines as an educational consultant for All American Publications, the pre-cursor for DC Comics. With strong guidance from Marston’s wife, Gaines and Marston created Wonder Woman as an aspirational character that young boys and girls could look up to, that would espouse peace and love, but have the strength of superman and the feminine wiles of a woman. Marston’s personal interest in bondage and submission also crept into the formula, as well as her iconic costume, but none withstanding the character’s developed a following, and has been in continual print since 1942.

In 2017, DCEU published a version of the story as a film. This featured Gal Gadot, an Israeli actress in the titular role. Almost immediately, following the release of the film calls for the film’s boycott began because of the visible association between the lead actress and the Zionist faction in Israeli politics. When Gadot was 18 she won the Miss Israel component of Miss World. When she was twenty she has not only enlisted in the Israeli Defence Force as a combat instructor, but she is also unabashedly proud of her service. In fact, she considers military service integral to her and any Israeli identified individual, meaning she is unwavering in her support of state-sanctioned violence. 

During the suppression of Gaza that took place in the summer of 2014, where 2100 Palestinians were killed, 495 children and 253 women, Gadot posted the following on Facebook.

This contrasts strongly with Marston and Gaines’ original vision of the character.

It is unacceptable in the modern world to separate the real life of a performer from the role they play. It is unacceptable to make excuses that the film is feminist because it stars and has been directed by a woman, when the selection of the lead was bound to court controversy. The Facebook post was deleted after the film’s release, illustration that the Hollywood machine that made this Blockbuster, was aware of the sensitivities inherent in their casting, but didn’t regard the fate of the Palestinian people as a high enough concern to warrant the deletion of the Facebook post by the multi millionaire actress. This audience member is concerned about the political attitudes of the senior cast member which cannot be disengaged from the performance or its millitaristic or symbolic context. 

The bombing of Gaza in 2014 was condemned by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and a plethora of other human rights organizations.

It is estimated that rebuilding Gaza will take 100 years at the rate that supplies are coming in. Gaza has been described as an "open-air prison" where 95% of the population is forced to drink contaminated water and 54% of the population is food-insecure due to the Israeli army's land, sea, and air blockade, which prevents even basic goods necessary for survival from getting in.

In regard to the massive deficiency of food and water in Gaza stemming from the blockade, Dov Weisglas, a former advisor to Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu said,"The idea is to put Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger."
70% of children in Gaza suffer from nightmare and 75% from bedwetting as a result of the psychological effects of this life of blockade and constant bombing.

Gadot's position as some sort of icon of feminism and woman's liberation is also laughable given the horrific effect that the Israeli occupation has on women. Israeli policies assure an increase in the number of miscarriages by Palestinian women by forcing them to go into labor at military checkpoints, or through the blockage of basic resources like water and medical supplies.

Members of Netanyahu's cabinet have also explicitly called for genocide of Palestinians such as Israeli Minister of Justice, Ayalet Shaked, who suggested that every Palestinian woman must be killed because they give birth to "little snakes."

Thinking about South Africa, I am reminded of the importance of cultural boycotts. Boycott, divestment, and sanctions are not just about the financial sector. They are about rejecting entertainers and artists who are also complicit in apartheid. It is for that reason that it is imperative, for the sake of millions of Palestinian women living under occupation for over half a century, that we all not take part in the glorification of someone who supports the Israeli government's horrific atrocities. We should morally boycott the Wonder Woman movie, lead actor Gal Gadot, whose character is anti-war. The evidence on social media shows that she is an ardent Zionist, totally imbued with anti Palestinian hatred, and a fan of the army.

Why do we need a fictional Superhero as a female or male role model. We sure do have real life heroes who kick ass every day. Look at Palestinian women, every female is a superhero of her own; crossing a checkpoint, protecting her children from army rides, making a living and raising families in a strip that had been sieged for 11 years, and hand in hand they make the best of the little they have. Heroism is about celebrating one's perfections and imperfections. Superpowers are humanity, compassion, kindness, and standing up for justice. We don't need a movie to celebrate a role model, we just need a realisation that we are all heroes and there are some real life examples out there who took the extra mile and became a real life superhero.

As I sadly witnessed a good chunk of my self-identified “radical” peers flock movie theaters to watch Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman, I feel compelled to remind them of Bell Hooks’s legendary words: Patriarchy has no gender. Warfare is patriarchy in action. There are ABC’s to everything, and when it comes to feminism one of those is that the true ethos of feminist liberation cannot coexist with violence and domination. Liberal “feminism" is not only flawed, it’s patriarchal. Its maximalist conceptualization of power in terms of accumulation of capital uncannily resembles patriarchy. We cannot conveniently essentialize patriarchy as innate or inherent to men in an effort to excuse the oppressive behavior of women. Patriarchy is learnt behavior, it is a way of knowing and existing in the world. Gal Gadot, much like Hilary Clinton, identifies with the institution of the military and armed forces, an institution that is male-dominated, male-centered, and male-identified, the three pillars of patriarchy.

If you must label Gadot as "feminist," do not forget the “patriarchal” identifier, her feminism is a cloak masking her otherwise unapologetic patriarchal values. The institution Gadot shamelessly identifies with has terrorized, murdered, raped, displaced, expelled, harassed, blackmailed, and oppressed countless of Palestinian women, their partners and children. So maybe before you rush back to your laptops after passively consuming the whitewashing of an Apartheid apologist to give Wonder Woman a 99.99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes for featuring a strong female-lead, think of those neatly disenfranchised from what is rightfully theirs and how you are part of the problem.

It is time to let actors know we will hold them accountable for normalising anti-Palestinian violence, regardless of their nationality! Explaining the reasons for such choices is critically important. As such, one can explain that one does not wish to view Wonder Woman because the central character, a hero out to save the world, is played by a woman who cheers on genocide.

Confirmation bias by Laura A. Munteanu

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs or hypothesis. This is being deliberately used in the current election campaign to delude the voters on behalf of the very wealthy. 

For example, let's look at the popular notion that the Conservatives are the party of low taxation and Labour are the party of high taxation. Using this basic axiom, the Conservative party beat the fear drums, so that the voters of average or above average income fear that by voting Labour they will lose the little extra they have. In addition, this message is reinforced by inadequate police forces, councils, schools and hospitals -- all starved of essential resources by politically-led civil servants. 

Just like in the 80s, when the Council stocks were plundered and the National Utilities of gas, electricity, water, rail and telecoms were given away to private investors, once the public investment of taxation had established the infrastructure to be robbed. No one who has commuted to London by train, or waited for a bus at night, rented a private flat, used a pre-paid meter, or who has wondered why their broadband is so slow would suggest that private ownership makes everything better or more efficient. What private ownership has facilitated is rather to raid the assets of a public monopoly established to serve everyone, and to drain its future investment income for the private enrichment of its new owners, who have not had to invest a penny in its establishment or development. This is clearly the Conservative Party’s vision for Channel 4, the BBC, the NHS, the education service, the military forces -- all five of which are targets for the Conservative Press’ continual sniping. 

Yes, the new Grammar school corridors will be free of graffiti and litter, because you and your like won’t be allowed in them. Yes, the new private hospitals will be clean, full of english speaking personnel, with Jamie Oliver approved cuisine in all its food outlets, because when you’ll need your chemotherapy treatment they won’t start until you’ve re-mortgaged your house to pay the £160,000 hospital bill. Yes, you won’t need to pay the TV licence anymore because you will have access to 9000 channels of Simon Cowell repeats, and for £35.99 a week access to the premium channel’s best porn, sport and films. The rich will live in beautiful islands of gated communities, quietly and efficiently laundering the money of the international criminal syndicates. Our future? We will be bicycle pizza delivery men or women, watching re-runs of Only Fools and Horses --until we have to decide which family member has to sell their kidney when someone gets ill, to pay for their treatment.

Theresa May secretly posed for photoshoot for American Vogue in her £995 leather trousers 

Theresa May describes herself as “a bloody difficult woman.” Since her elevation to Prime Minister, she has demonstrated an inability to make decisions, lead, set out a consistent agenda, meet targets set by herself or others, be consistent or even articulate a plan other than stopping immigration or pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights. Her principal opposition, Jeremy Corbyn is daily derided for his consultative principles, his caution in the face of international conflict, his desire to restore funding to the police, the social housing sector, the education service, the NHS, his desire to re-nationalise the rail service, create more jobs, raise the minimum wage, set up a public investment bank and to re-introduce the policy of progressive taxation to pay for it. The biggest difference is that Jeremy Corbyn presents himself as the spokesman for a series of policies. Theresa May presents herself as a person, who will think of some policies when she has to.

Jeremy Corbyn visits cafe in Glasgow Scotland and buys meals for the homeless

When Phillip Green’s business manipulations defrauded the BHS workers of their pensions, where was Theresa May? She continues to hide from the public, ordinary people who didn’t vote for her. In emulating the style of the last “bloody difficult woman” to occupy her job, she appears to have forgotten the fate of her predecessor -- and we, voters have developed an appetite for something much better than went before. Something made by us all, for the benefit of us all, not just the self-serving agendas of the “bloody difficult”. They can just fuck off!

So, in the spirit of resisting the venomous drip of Conservative party’s confirmation bias, just look what ruin the last “strong and stable” Conservative Government wrought. Considering the history of what they did last time to the trains, to the electric, to the gas, to the water, to the Council tax, to the private landlords, to the Council housing stocks, to the telephone and internet companies, to the steel industry, to the car industry, to the chocolate industry, to the pensions and insurance industry, to the coal industry, to the mine industry, to the university sector, to the farmers and the fishermen -- I ask you one simple question. Have we been well served by the strong and stable government of the Conservative Party? You choose on the 8th June!