Why aren’t Americans ashamed of living in the united states of Israel?

Miko Peled: How the Lobby enables Israeli policy: Views of an Israeli in America.

Gideon Levy: Does unconditional support for Israel endanger Israeli voices?

Let’s call it from now on the United States of Israel. Because many times when someone looks at the relations between Israel and the United States, one might ask, who is really the superpower between the two?
And those questions become much more valid in the recent days when you see what is going on in Iran.
And really I am not in a position to tell Americans what to feel… But would I be an American, I would really be embarrassed.
When you see a title in Haaretz, in my newspaper, which says two days ago…”Israel to pressure Congress to thwart Iranian nuclear deal.”
And an Israeli official says [to] Haaretz, that Israel will lobby the US Congress to pass legislation that would make it difficult or even impossible to approve a comprehensive deal with Iran– Can you imagine yourself if it was the opposite, if someone had written that the Americans are trying to act in the Israeli parliament to change its decisions?
We are dealing now really with almost questions of sovereignty. We are dealing, needless to say –that no state in the world would have dared to do it, and no statesman in the world. And I will tell you frankly, It’s not Israel’s fault. Israel is doing whatever it can– it’s the one who enables it.

Levy spoke at an all-day conference on the Israel lobby organized by the Institute for Research/Middle East Policy and the Washington Report for Middle East Affairs. He said he had come to plead with the American public to take control of Israel/Palestine policy before all is lost.

The large crowd was silent as he spoke in desperation of a society that had lost all connection with the world:

We have to face reality, and reality is that there is no chance for a change from within the Israeli society. No way…  The only hope is for an international intervention, and the only hope is from this place, from Washington, from the United States, from the EU. Only from there.

Because Israeli society is today by far too brainwashed. Life in Israel is by far too good. Israel is, let’s face, it a society which lives in denial, totally disconnected from reality.

Would it be a private person, I would recommend either medication or hospitalization. Because people who lose connection to reality might be very dangerous either to themselves or to society.

And the Israeli society lost connection with reality, it lost connection with the reality in its backyard, it totally lost connection with the international environment.

Really to believe that 5 million Jews know better than 6 billion people of the world? Really believe that 5 million Jews will be able to continue to live on their sword forever? Is the one example in history in which any country lived on its sword forever?

Empires! Really believing that in the 21st century it is acceptable to ignore the international law in such a way, to ignore the international institutions and to rely only on the United States — and Micronesia.

Israel Lobby and the Anti-Semitism Hoax

“How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.
How can anyone believe “Israel” will actually negotiate? It’s an illusion not hard to see through for those who look.

Israel is losing the PR battle. The Holocaust™   fades with time and so they have to rely on the anti-semitism hoax. The over-use will kill it. Then they will just point the Big Gun with no opology:

“We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not…You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world.” (Chaim Weizmann, Published in “Judische Rundschau,” No. 4, 1920).

The Electronic Intifada
Undercover video shot by Al Jazeera reveals the lengths to which some leaders of the UK’s influential pro-Israel networks will go to discredit their critics.

Part three of The Lobby, broadcast on Friday night, shows the chairperson of Labour Friends of Israel falsely claiming a Palestine Solidarity Campaign supporter had abused her with anti-Semitism.

Speaking to an undercover reporter who she thought was a pro-Israel activist, lawmaker Joan Ryan claimed the PSC activist had said Labour Friends of Israel was a route to getting a job at a bank in the City, London’s financial district.

“You heard her say … ‘join you lot and you get into Oxford’ or ‘you get into working in the bank,’” Ryan says.

But the film shows that PSC supporter Jean had said no such thing.

“A friend of mine’s son’s got a really good job at Oxford University on the basis of having worked for Labour Friends of Israel,” the undercover footage proves Jean saying at the LFI stall at the Labour Party conference in September.

At no point does the PSC supporter mention banks or the City of London.

Ryan accuses Jean of falling for “rumors” and claims that “it’s a trope. It’s about conspiracy theorists and cabals.” She later claims Jean had invoked “classic anti-Semitic tropes.”

Soon after, Ryan went to the press with her claims.

And she told a Jewish Labour Movement event that evening that the incident “tells you something about why we need to be having this Against Anti-Semitism Rally.”

Ryan reported Jean to the Labour Party for formal investigation. The experience had a profoundly disturbing effect on Jean’s life, leaving her under a cloud of suspicion.

In episode two of The Lobby, Israeli embassy agent Shai Masot is seen telling the undercover reporter that complaints of anti-Semitism should be pursued against long-time anti-racism activist and Labour Party member Jackie Walker. “Do not let it go,” Masot says. He encourages similar tactics against others: “Not just her, all of the party.”

“I reported that incident with that woman,” Ryan later tells LFI supporter and chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Chuka Umunna, who was checking up on the stall.

“I am very shocked about the way she described my words to other people. I feel very anxious and that she should be misinterpreting me totally to other people. I find that very, very worrying,” Jean says in the film.

Reported for “anti-Semitism”

Jean clarifies that “at no point did I ever say that Labour Friends of Israel will get people jobs in banking in the City. I did say, which is absolutely true, that I know the son of a friend of mine who, he believed himself that having some connection with Labour Friends of Israel didn’t harm his career at all.”

Jean had approached the LFI stall asking about the two-state solution which LFI claims to support, and how exactly they would help bring it about.

“I thought Labour Friends of Israel were talking about Palestine because they were promoting a two-state solution,” Jean says. “Now I find they don’t want to talk about Palestine, and if you do talk about Palestine it would appear you’re kind of sucked into having, an accusation of anti-Semitism brought against you.”

Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle on Friday in response to Al Jazeera’s revelations, Joan Ryan stood by her actions, claiming that “my complaint to the Labour Party about this incident made no references to the City and/or banking.”

Jean was formally investigated by the party and cleared of accusations of anti-Semitism.

Labour Friends of Israel is not an affiliated society of the Labour Party. But it has for years acted as a key part of the UK’s Israel lobby. Although it was once seen as an essential organization for any new MP to join, its influence has been waning in recent years.


Disgraced Israeli embassy agent Shai Masot is shown in the film telling undercover reporter “Robin” that “for years, every MP that joined the parliament, the first thing that he used to do is go to join the LFI. They’re not doing it anymore in the Labour Party. In the CFI [Conservative Friends of Israel] they are doing it automatically.”

Earlier episodes of The Lobby show undercover footage of LFI officer Michael Rubin talking about the group’s close ties to the embassy, all while publicly maintaining a distance so as “not to be seen as Young Israeli Embassy.”

“We do work really really closely together,” he says. “It’s just publicly we just try to keep the LFI as a separate identity to the embassy.”

The groundbreaking film has already led to the resignations of Israeli embassy agent Shai Masot and UK civil servant Maria Strizzolo.

As the political fallout continues, questions are being asked about the role of senior Israeli officials in the highly damaging debacle, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Zionists snuff out free speech at UK universities

Who had the impudence to change our values regarding free speech?

Desperation tactics to shut down discussion of the Israeli regime’s mega-crimes reach new heights of absurdity

By Stuart Littlewood 9th March 2017  

A fake anti-Semitism campaign masterminded by the usual Zionist suspects, their Israel lobby colleagues and their stooges in the corridors of power, continues to sweep across UK universities – and our political parties, especially shambolic and rudderless Labour.

Muffling universities

Central Lancashire

Last month the University of Central Lancashire cancelled an event entitled “Debunking Misconceptions on Palestine and the Importance of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) organized by the University’s Friends of Palestine Society.

The university said it would contravene the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) new definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism and would therefore be unlawful. The event went ahead, off campus, at the premises of a local voluntary organization.


Exeter University banned students from staging a re-enactment called Mock Checkpoint, in which some dressed up as Israeli occupation soldiers while others acted the part of Palestinians trying to go about their daily lives.

The event was approved by the students’ guild but banned for “safety and security reasons” less than 48 hours before it was due to take place. An appeal was rejected.

The common understanding that the values of a liberal democracy are the foundation of society appears to have evaporated. (Craig Murray, former UK ambassador)


At Leeds University former British ambassador Craig Murray was asked by the trustees of the University Union to provide details of what he was going to say in his talk “Palestine/Israel: A Unitary Secular State or a Bantustan Solution” just 24 hours before he was due to speak.

Craig reluctantly gave them an outline to allow the lecture to go ahead. He writes in his blog:

I have just been told by Leeds University Union I will not be allowed to speak unless I submit what I am going to say for pre-vetting.

I am truly appalled that such a gross restriction on freedom of speech should be imposed anywhere, let alone in a university where intellectual debate is meant to be an essential part of the learning experience.

I really do not recognize today’s United Kingdom as the same society I grew up in. The common understanding that the values of a liberal democracy are the foundation of society appears to have evaporated.

Also at Leeds the student Palestine Solidarity Group was refused permission to mount a visual demonstration outside the Leeds Student Union Building or to have a stall inside.


At Liverpool Professor Michael Lavalette was contacted the day before he was due to speak with a demand that he sign the university’s “risk assessment” for the event. This included reading the controversial IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and agreeing with it. He emailed his response in which he carefully avoided mention of the dodgy definition and the meeting went ahead.


The University of Manchester allowed a series of talks marking Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) to go ahead, but only after several meetings and imposing strict conditions which the organisers called “unheard of…. other societies and groups do not face the same problems”.

University authorities, however, vetoed the students’ choice of academic to chair an IAW event on BDS over concerns about her “neutrality”, and other speakers had to acknowledge the British government-endorsed definition of anti-Semitism.

Meanwhile, some reports say that a conference with the title “International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism”, to be held at University College Cork at the end of this month, has been cancelled thanks to pressure from Zionist groups.

“The Irish, it seems, are not as easily pushed around as the English”

StandWithUs Israel, in cahoots with Irish4Israel, claim the university has been persuaded to impose added security stipulations and other limitations that “amount to a de-facto cancelling of this hateful event”.

But these are desperation tactics. Checking with the organisers, I’m told the event is “100 per cent going ahead”. The Irish, it seems, are not as easily pushed around as the English.

The conference, if you remember, was chased away from Southampton university two years ago by a similar campaign against free speech. The “official” reason, as usual, was security concerns.

Now comes the scandal of the 26-year-old Exeter student, noted for her work on anti-racism, being smeared by the Zionist inquisition for her pro-Palestinian activism.

She is accused of having tweeted two years ago: “If terrorism means protecting and defending my land, I am so proud to be called terrorist”.

So what? As everyone and his dog knows, or ought to know, the Palestinians are perfectly entitled, under international law, to take up arms and resist a brutal illegal occupier. As Malaka Mohammed herself says:

It may appear as a radical statement that could raise serious concerns at both the University of Exeter and its Students’ Guild. However, it is my honest belief, and as I will attempt to explain, these kind of statements by Palestinians in general, and me in this instance, are most commonly in response to efforts by Israel advocacy groups and the Israeli government to demonise and dehumanise Palestinians.

This is done by using the emotive dog whistle by Israeli descriptors of “terrorist” and “terrorism” whenever referring to the “Arab” population.

Palestinians who throw stones in response to Israeli soldiers invading their villages are labelled violent thugs, rioters and terrorists. Palestinians who non-violently protest the illegal occupation are portrayed as violent individuals who terrorise Israeli Jews.

Practically any Palestinian who resists the Israeli occupation and its plethora of human rights violations, war crimes and serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law is stigmatised in this way.

After reading that, I dropped the vice-chancellor a line:

Sir Steve Smith, Vice-Chancellor University of Exeter

Dear Sir Steve,

I’m writing as a graduate of Exeter University with fond memories of the place, and because I’m shocked to see its good name besmirched by ludicrous accusations linking Palestinian PhD student Malaka Mohammed (aka Shwaikh) to anti-Semitism and supporting terrorism.

As an acknowledged international relations specialist you will know the score regarding Israel’s decades-long illegal occupation of the Palestinians’ homeland and its brutal subjugation and merciless dispossession of the Palestinian people. You will also, I imagine, understand who the true terrorists and anti-Semites are.

Lest we forget, the US defines terrorism as an activity that

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended
– to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
– to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
– to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

And the US has used this definition to terrorise and degrade individuals, groups and countries it doesn’t happen to like.

Ironically it’s a definition that fits the US administration itself – and the thuggish Israeli regime – like a glove.

I sincerely hope that amidst the flurry of investigations going on you will take steps to ensure that plucky Ms Mohammed/Schwaikh ceases to be victimised by tiresome Zionist inquisitors and is allowed to get on with her studies, and from now on free speech prevails across the beautiful Exeter campus.

Sir Steve is said to earn £400,000 a year according to this report. Perhaps he and many other university bosses need rousing from their plumptious comfort zone.

I’m with Craig Murray on this. I too don’t recognise our society today as the same one I grew up in. Who had the impudence to change our values regarding free speech?