Search This Blog

Friday, September 23, 2011

John Hagee is an ENEMY of all loyal Jews

Any person, such as John Hagee is a mortal enemy of the seed of Yaqob, who hopes and/or plans for and/or actively tries to help facilitate the rounding up of jews to a place where we can be more easily slaughtered in what Hagee himself described as a new halocaust so great that its casualties would vastly outnumber those victims of the World War 2 halocaust!



I can not grasp how they hear the part that says "Let us help you jews repatriate to Israel" yet they fail to hear the diabolicale motive behind the effort, although Hagee makes no secret of the fact that it is his belief he can "usher in" (hasten the coming of) " the Kingdom" by rounding up all the jews he can in one place, Israel, to make us ready for slaughter when the Anti-Christ of Revelation comes to exterminate us in what Hagee describes as the halocaust that will rival all other halocausts, in order to thus hastening the return of the Moshiakh! That is Hagee and the other "christian zionists" diabolical plan!

Why is nobody openly denouncing Hagee for this except for us and certain good apologetics teachers such as Professor Craig Hawkins or Hank Hanegraaff and the like and why are the vast majority of Trinity Broadcasting Networks broadcasters and executives supporting the proposed "Hagee-sponsored Halocaust" (as I will call it)? This anti-semite cult-like thing they call "Christian Zionism" is an abomination to all Hebrew people with any good sense at all!

And Israel is not even Zion! It never was! Originally, ZION IS THE NAME OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT and NOT OF A PEOPLE OR OF AN EARTHLY CITY! And since the Ark is now in Aksum, then THAT is the current "Land OF" Zion, not Iyeruselam! Not the land called Israel! How can one call themself a "zionist" when they act like they are totally clueless about what the term "Zion" actually even means?

THAT is our official view of John Hagee and "Christian Zionism".

Teru Minilik
Current head prophet for Bete Israel Masihawi Abeshawi
Abbot of the Abyssinian Nazarite Order

The one-sided US veto: an astounding display of hypocrisy

By  Neve Gordon and  Yinon Cohen
21 September 2011

Neve Gordon and Yinon Cohen argue that the US plan to veto the Palestinians’ bid for UN recognition, under the pretext that unilateralism is misguided, is an astounding display of hypocrisy and double standards.

US President Barack Obama's decision to use the USA's veto prerogative if the United Nations votes to recognize a Palestinian state will constitute a blow to those seeking peace in the Middle East.

The Obama administration's claim that peace can be achieved only through dialogue and consent rather than through unilateral moves ignores the complex power relations that constitute peace-making between Israelis and Palestinians. History teaches that peace is achieved only when the conflicting sides believe that they have too much to lose by sustaining the conflict. And, at this point in history, the price Israel is paying for continuing the occupation is extremely small.

But if, for the sake of argument, one were to accept the view expressed by President Obama – that unilateralism is a flawed political approach – then one should survey the history of unilateral moves within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and examine the US response towards them.

A logical place to begin is 1991, when Israelis and Palestinians met for the first time in Madrid to negotiate a peace agreement. United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for Israel's withdrawal from the land it occupied during the 1967 war in exchange for peace, served as the basis for the Madrid Conference.

Ever since that conference, Israel has carried out numerous unilateral moves that have undermined efforts to reach a peace agreement based on land for peace. These include the confiscation of Palestinian land, the construction of settlements and the transfer of Jewish citizenry to occupied territories, actions that every US administration regarded as an obstruction to the peace process.

Settlement expansion

“If the idea behind a two-state solution is dividing land among the two peoples, how can Israel unilaterally continue to settle the contested land while carrying out negotiations?"
Consider, for example, the Jewish settler population. At the end of 1991, there were 132,000 Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem and 89,800 settlers in the West Bank. Two decades later, the numbers of settlers in East Jerusalem has increased by about 40 per cent, while the settlers in the West Bank, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, have increased by over 300 per cent. Currently, there are about half a million Jewish settlers.
If Israel had arrested its unilateral transfer of Jewish citizens to Palestinian land in 1991 once it had embarked upon a peace process based on the return of occupied territory, the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank would have been less than 50 per cent of what it is today.

Indeed, estimations based on the natural growth rate of the West Bank settler population suggest that this population would have been less than 150,000 people in 2011, while today it is actually over 300,000.

An analysis of settler movement to the West Bank also reveals that settler population growth has not been substantially different when left-of-centre parties have been in power. During periods in which the Labour Party formed the governing coalition, the numbers have been just as high, if not higher, than periods during which Likud or Kadima have been in power. This, in turn, underlines the fact that all Israeli governments have unilaterally populated the contested West Bank with more Jewish settlers while simultaneously carrying out negotiations based on land for peace.

Seeing that the settlers are undermining any future two-state solution, the Palestinians have decided not to wait any longer and are asking the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. This, they intimate, is their last attempt to salvage the two-state route before abandoning it to the dustbin of history.

Their argument is straightforward: if the idea behind a two-state solution is dividing land among the two peoples, how can Israel unilaterally continue to settle the contested land while carrying out negotiations? Israeli unilateralism, in other words, has driven the Palestinians to choose the unilateral path. The only difference is that the latter's unilateralism is aimed at advancing a peace agreement, while the former's is aimed at destroying it.

One-sided US veto

“...the US has frequently used its veto to prevent the condemnation of Israeli policies that breach international law.”
The US has never considered using its veto power to stop Israel from carrying out unilateral moves aimed at undermining peace.
Instead, the US has frequently used its veto to prevent the condemnation of Israeli policies that breach international law. Now the Obama administration wants to use the veto again, with the moral justification that unilateralism is misguided. But the real question is: why is unilateralism bad when it attempts to advance a solution, yet warrants no response when unilateralism threatens to undermine a solution?

President Obama should keep in mind that the Palestinian appeal to the international community might very well be the last chance for salvaging the two-state solution.

If the Palestinian demand for recognition falls through due to a US veto, then the necessary conditions for a paradigm shift will be in place: the two-state solution will be even less feasible, and the one-state formula will emerge as the only alternative.

IOF and settlers terrorize Jenin villages

[ 22/09/2011 - 09:05 PM ]

JENIN, (PIC)-- IOF troops stormed, at dawn Thursday, several Palestinian localities in the flashpoint area west of Jenin city in the occupied West Bank without report of arrests.

Locals reported that the IOF troops raided the villages of Araqa, Barqin, Kafr Dan and Yamoun to the West of Jenin and setup a number of checkpoints.

IOF troops entered the city of Jenin and were stationed around Al-Quds University until morning hours.

Meanwhile, Jewish settlers continued to gather on Ya’bad-Araba road in the region in a bid to raid those villages and terrorise their inhabitants as part of a recent surge in settler attacks in that area.


Ynet’s Washington reporter, Yitzhak Ben - Horin, produced last night a clear and succinct reading of Obama’s recent UN General Assembly  address:
“Likudnic in the White House."
“Netanyahu could not have written it better.” 
“Obama at this point, is in line with the Likud party.”
“Obama is a pro-Israel president …Since January 2009, he provided Israel with all its needs both in diplomacy and in terms of security”
Obama is not performing too well in the polls. He clearly needs the Jewish Lobby on his side. The American president ‘provided’ yesterday and the lobby was quick to react- “Israel has no better friend in the world today," wrote the president of the National Council of Jewish Democrats, David Harris.
According to Ynet,  hours before his UN General Assembly Address Obama sought to ensure that prospective Jewish voters pay close attention to his speech.
“Three of Obama's aides held a conference call with the president's Jewish supporters and community leaders. The advisers, all Jewish themselves, asked the supporters to "spread the word" that Obama will give a pro-Israel speech which reflects his own genuine positions and implored them to pay close attention to the president's UN address.”
The three Jewish advisers  “stressed that the Republicans intentionally distort Obama's statements to portray him as an anti-Israel president, when in fact their arguments are baseless.”
If anyone was foolish enough to believe that America could ever be a broker for peace in the Middle East, the truth is now unavoidable. American political world is clearly hijacked by a foreign lobby that represents foreign interests. America cannot rescue itself. What we see in front of our eyes is basically a tragedy.
Greek tragedy depicts the downfall of a noble hero, usually through some combination of hubris, fate, and the will of the gods. The American tragedy contains the same elements. America has regarded itself as a ‘noble hero’ since its creation, ‘hubris’ is also far from being foreign to American culture. Americas’ fate has been written on the wall for more than a while. And what about the Gods, can you guess who the Gods are? I think that Obama and his party knew very well whom they were trying to appease last night. They know very well who their Gods are because they shamelessly mix with them at least once a year at AIPAC annual gathering.
However, Obama and his ‘advisers’ maybe mistaken here. Their ‘Gods’ are not stupid at all, they grasp what Obama is up to, Ben Horin wrote last night, they understand what ‘2nd term’ means in terms of Israeli politics. They remember, for instance, that during the election campaign in 2000, George Bush promised to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but once re-elected he was the man who pushed Sharon to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. They remember that the same George Bush was also the president who sided with Abu Mazen, and declared that negotiations with the Palestinians should be based on 49 armistice lines.
If Obama thinks that the ‘Gods’ are now beside him, he is deluded.
Obama made a grave personal mistake yesterday. But it is Americans, Israelis and Palestinians that will pay the price. What we see here is a classic tragedy, for America doesn’t posses the political power to save itself from itself.
The only question you may want to ask yourself at this stage is how long will it take for America to emancipate itself from its ‘Gods’.

Biggest Losers in Palestine Veto? The American People

by , September 22, 2011
If the Palestinian application for United Nations full membership actually takes place Friday and the United States uses its Security Council veto to stop the process, it will be the final step in a predictable and preventable tragedy playing out. Some are arguing that Washington might actually abstain, thereby gaining considerable favorable sentiment from much of the world and also sending a signal to Israel that there are limits to the bilateral relationship. But it is far more likely that President Barack Obama, who has stated over and over that he will protect Israel in international forums, will not flinch when he calls on Susan Rice to cast the fatal vote. Any expectation that the president might hesitate either because it is the right thing to do or because it benefits the United States is fanciful, particularly with a presidential election looming in 2012.
Washington’s attempts to “mediate” the situation have really been limited to pressuring the Palestinians to back off. Sending National Security Council officialDennis Ross, “Israel’s lawyer,” to Ramallah to talk around the Palestinian leadership should, if anything, indicate to the Palestinians that Washington is, as it always has been, firmly in the Israeli corner. So let us assume that Palestine will feel compelled to seek full U.N. membership as the world’s 194th nation and that Washington will then veto the application. The first question then has to be whether the entire process had any meaning at all or it was just kabuki, a stylized show played out to an appreciative audience with a predictable ending. The short answer is that the Palestinians will certainly be on the losing end — as they have been for more than 60 years — but the real losers will be the United States and Israel.
The mainstream media has echoed Israeli and American arguments that Palestinian statehood is meaningless without a negotiated settlement of issues on the ground. But Israel has made it clear that it has no desire to negotiate anything while it continues to occupy the West Bank, so the Palestinian choice is to accept the status quo, in which it is powerless and voiceless, or attempt to line up the international community more solidly behind it and shift the playing field.
Israel has been working hard to stop the process, or, at worst, to mitigate its impact by having a number of important nations, mostly in Europe, either abstain on the vote or vote no. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a glad-hand tour of European capitals earlier this year with that express purpose, and he received positive signals from the Italians, the Dutch, the Poles, and the Germans, though it is by no means clear how they will vote. It was for Israel a top national priority, which it has conveyed clearly to its friends in the United States.
Washington, at the urging of Israel, also joined in the effort, starting with warningslate last year to Latin American nations that recognizing Palestine as a state would be “unacceptable.” More recently, the State Department and the White House have repeatedly expressed their desire that the Palestinians shelve their plans to seek a U.N. seat, and they have been assiduously working both in front of the TV cameras in New York and Washington and behind the scenes to convince the Palestinian leadership to cease and desist. The dialogue has been given some teeth by Congress, which is determined to cut all aid to Palestine if the U.N. action goes through. One congressmen, Joe Walsh of Illinois, is preparing a motion that will provide congressional support for an Israeli annexation of much of the West Bank if the Palestinians proceed. Walsh describes Palestinian statehood as “absolutely outrageous.”
So Israel sees the Palestinian plan as a major threat and the United States appears to be on board, but many would reasonably observe that Israel often cries wolf and greatly exaggerates what it perceives as threats against it. Is that true in this case, making it just another instance where Tel Aviv is adopting an extreme position in hopes that Washington will deliver the goods? It may not be. Israel sees danger precisely because the Palestinian bid will do a couple of things that call into question some significant aspects of the status quo. First of all, since it will certainly pass with a huge majority in the General Assembly if the Palestinians opt to go that route, it will provide overwhelming international confirmation of Palestinian rights with the U.S. and Israel standing on the wrong side on the issue. It will also severely undermine Israel’s moral position, such as it is, and emphasize the illegality of the Israeli occupation of parts of the West Bank. The process is already illegal in the eyes of the rest of the world, including the United States, but it will be even less tenable if a convincing majority of the world’s countries recognize Palestine as a state with defined borders and a national identity.
Second, recognition of statehood carries with it recognition that the state exists within defined space, in this case the 1967 borders. This has enormous significance because those borders include many areas being colonized by the Israelis, as well as East Jerusalem. It means that any Israeli settlement that is on the other side of that border is considered completely illegal and that Israel is therefore a rogue state that is occupying and settling lands belonging to a neighboring state 44 years after the cessation of hostilities. Even the New York Times in an article on Sept. 10 regarding the recent unrest in Egypt, noting that Islamic groups were not involved, conceded that criticism of Israel has a basis in the widespread popular perception that “Muslims, Arabs, and indeed many around the globe believe Israel is unjustly occupying Palestinian territories, and they are furious at Israel for it.” The rejection of Palestinian statehood and the debate surrounding it will only heighten that sentiment.
If the Palestinians are in the United Nations as a full member or even with limited rights, they will have access to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where they can take legal steps against Israel and against individual Israelis. Even though Israel doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the court, when it reaches the point where no senior Israeli government official, present or retired, can travel without concern over being arrested, it will have a major impact on how Israel sees itself and how the rest of the world sees Israel. The clear depiction of Israel as an occupying power in violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which most of the world’s nations are signatories, would also fuel the Israel divestment campaign, which is another major concern of the Israeli government, and also legitimately so, as it could have a serious impact on the Israeli economy.
The Palestinians would also have recourse to other United Nations bodies. They would, for example, be able to appeal to UNESCO to stop the Israeli demolition of Muslim and Arab historical sites and the renaming of villages and other landmarks, a considerable benefit.
So Israel is right in understanding that the U.N. entry could have a profound impact, but the United States would hardly escape collateral damage from its veto and could turn out to be the biggest loser. Policymakers in Washington like Joe Walsh forget Newton’s Third Law of Motion, though that assumes that they have ever heard of Newton. Newton said that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. It is true in international relations just as it is true in physics, only in the real world it has come to be known as blowback.
What would be the possible blowback from an American veto? John Whitbeck has correctly described the veto by Washington as a “shotgun blast in both of its own feet.” The United States is already perceived negatively in every Arab nation except Kuwait. It is seen as on one hand supporting liberalization and democratization of some Arab governments while at the same time suppressing fundamental rights in places like Palestine. Worse still, if Washington cuts aid to the Palestinians because of their going to the U.N., it will be widely perceived as a de facto partner and enabler of the occupation of the West Bank.
The unfortunately well-deserved perception of blatant hypocrisy will alienate emerging “Arab spring” regimes even more from Washington and will almost certainly lead to anti-American violence, possibly extreme, in places like Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey. American goods and services will, as a consequence, undoubtedly become less welcome in many parts of the world, while the U.S. veto will inevitably provide a recruiting bonanza for groups that use terror, including al-Qaeda.
And it could make every American traveler less safe when he or she goes abroad, while American soldiers stationed in foreign lands will inevitably become targets of militants, inspired by yet another example of Washington’s hypocrisy. Vice PresidentJoe Biden and Gen. David Petraeus had it exactly right when they observed that Israeli policies were endangering Americans. That was before they came to their senses and recanted, but apparently the president of the United States was not listening anyway.
Acceptance of full Palestinian sovereignty and statehood by Israel and the United States would give Tel Aviv a genuine negotiating partner and go far toward restoring the reputation of the United States of America, while rejection of it will end the charade forever, eliminating any chance for any kind of viable peace process in the Middle East. And the damage extends beyond that. Saudi Arabia has already warnedthat the U.S. veto will do irreparable damage to its bilateral relationship with Washington and will also forever destroy America’s reputation in the Arab world. It would hasten the development of the clash of civilizations, “us and them” point of view, dividing much of the developing world from Washington. It would be the final and irrevocable step in a foreign policy that has brought nothing but disasters over the past 10 years.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a contributing editor to The American Conservative and executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

Letter from President Hugo Chávez to His Excellency Ban Ki-moon Secretary General of the United Nations

By Hugo Chávez Frías, President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
(En inglés y español)
Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Tuesday, Sep 20, 2011

Venezuela Ratifies Sovereignty of Palestinian State
Editor's Note: On September 17, 2011 Hugo Chávez Frias, President of The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela sent the following letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, to confirm the Venezuelan government's support for the establishment of the State of Palestine. The Venezuelan president sent this letter as the 66th UN General Assembly votes on Palestinian statehood today in New York. The vote needs only General Assembly approval and does not go through the Security Council.
- Les Blough in Venezuela

Miraflores, September 17, 2011
His Excellency
Ban Ki-moon
Secretary General of the United Nations

Mr. Secretary General:
Distinguished representatives of the peoples of the world:

I address these words to the United Nations General Assembly, to this great forum that represents all the people of earth, to ratify, on this day and in this setting, Venezuela’s full support of the recognition of the Palestinian State: of Palestine’s right to become a free, sovereign and independent state. This represents an act of historic justice towards a people who carry with them, from time immemorial, all the pain and suffering of the world.
In his memorable essay The Grandeur of Arafat, the great French philosopher Gilles Deleuze wrote with the full weight of the truth: The Palestinian cause is first and foremost the set of injustices that these people have suffered and continue to suffer. And I dare add that the Palestinian cause also represents a constant and unwavering will to resist, already written in the historic memory of the human condition. A will to resist that is born of the most profound love for the earth. Mahmoud Darwish, the infinite voice of the longed-for Palestine, with heartfelt conscience speaks about this love: We don’t need memories/ because we carry within us Mount Carmelo/ and in our eyelids is the herb of Galilee./ Don’t say: If only we could flow to my country like a river!/ Don’t say that!/ Because we are in the flesh of our country/ and our country is in our flesh.
Against those who falsely assert that what has happened to the Palestinian people is not genocide, Deleuze himself states with unfaltering lucidity: From beginning to end, it involved acting as if the Palestinian people not only must not exist, but had never existed. It represents the very essence of genocide: to decree that a people do not exist; to deny them the right to existence.
In this regard, the great Spanish writer Juan Goytisolo is quite right when he forcefully states: The biblical promise of the land of Judea and Samaria to the tribes of Israel is not a notarized property contract that authorizes the eviction of those who were born and live on that land. This is precisely why conflict resolution in the Middle East must, necessarily, bring justice to the Palestinian people; this is the only path to peace.
It is upsetting and painful that the same people who suffered one of the worst examples of genocide in history have become the executioners of the Palestinian people: it is upsetting and painful that the heritage of the Holocaust be the Nakba. And it is truly disturbing that Zionism continues to use the charge of anti-Semitism as blackmail against those who oppose their violations and crimes. Israel has, blatantly and despicably, used and continues to use the memory of the victims. And they do so to act with complete impunity against Palestine. It’s worth mentioning that anti-Semitism is a Western, European, scourge in which the Arabs do not participate. Furthermore, let’s not forget that it is the Semite Palestine people who suffer from the ethnic cleansing practiced by the Israeli colonialist State.
I want to make myself clear: It is one thing to denounce anti-Semitism, and an entirely different thing to passively accept that Zionistic barbarism enforces an apartheid regime against the Palestinian people. From an ethical standpoint those who denounce the first, must condemn the second.
A necessary digression: it is frankly abusive to confuse Zionism with Judaism. Throughout time we have been reminded of this by several Jewish intellectuals such as Albert Einstein and Erich Fromm. And today there are an ever increasing number of conscientious citizens, within Israel itself, who openly oppose Zionism and its criminal and terrorist practices.
We must spell it out: Zionism, as a world vision, is absolutely racist. Irrefutable proof of this can be seen in these words written with terrifying cynicism by Golda Meir: How are we to return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. It is not as people think, that there existed a people called Palestinians, who considered themselves as Palestinians, and that we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
It is important to remember that: from the end of the 19th century, Zionism called for the return of the Jewish people to Palestine and the creation of a national State of its own. This approach was beneficial for French and British colonialism, as it would later be for Yankee imperialism. The West has always encouraged and supported the Zionist occupation of Palestine by military means.
Read and reread the document historically known as the Balfour Declaration of 1917: the British Government assumed the legal authority to promise a national home in Palestine to the Jewish people, deliberately ignoring the presence and wishes of its inhabitants. It should be added that Christians and Muslims lived in peace for centuries in the Holy Land up until the time when Zionism began to claim it as its complete and exclusive property.
Let’s not forget that beginning in the second decade of the 20th century, Zionism started to develop its expansionist plans by taking advantage of the colonial British occupation of Palestine. By the end of World War II, the Palestinian people’s tragedy worsened, with their expulsion from their territory and, at the same time, from history. In 1947, the despicable and illegal UN resolution 181 recommends dividing Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State, and an area under international control (Jerusalem and Belem). Shamefully, 56 percent of the territory was granted to Zionism to establish its State. In fact, this resolution violated international law and blatantly ignored the will of the vast Arab majority: the right to self-determination of the people became a dead letter.
From 1948 to date, the Zionist State has continually applied its criminal strategy against the Palestinian people with the constant support of its unconditional ally, the United States of America. This unconditional allegiance is clearly observed by the fact that Israel directs and sets US international policy for the Middle East. That’s why the great Palestinian and universal conscience Edward Said stated that any peace agreement built on the alliance with the United States would be an alliance that confirms Zionist power, rather than one that confronts it.
Now then: contrary to what Israel and the United States are trying to make the world believe through transnational media outlets, what happened and continues to happen in Palestine —using Said’s words— is not a religious conflict, but a political conflict, with a colonial and imperialist stamp. It did not begin in the Middle East, but rather in Europe.
What was and continues to be at the heart of the conflict?: debate and discussion has prioritized Israel’s security while ignoring Palestine’s. This is corroborated by recent events; a good example is the latest act of genocide set off by Israel during its Operation Molten Lead in Gaza.
Palestine’s security cannot be reduced to the simple acknowledgement of a limited self-government and self-policing in its “enclaves” along the west bank of the Jordan and in the Gaza Strip. This ignores the creation of the Palestinian State, in the borders set prior to 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital; and the rights of its citizens and their self-determination as a people. This further disregards the compensation and subsequent return to the Homeland of 50 percent of the Palestinian people who are scattered all over the world, as established by resolution 194.
It's unbelievable that a country (Israel) that owes its existence to a general assembly resolution could be so disdainful of the resolutions that emanate from the UN, said Father Miguel D’Escoto when pleading for the end of the massacre against the people of Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.
Mr. Secretary General and distinguished representatives of the peoples of the world:
It is impossible to ignore the crisis in the United Nations. In 2005, before this very same General Assembly, we argued that the United Nations model had become exhausted. The fact that the debate on the Palestinian issue has been delayed and is being openly sabotaged reconfirms this.
For several days, Washington has been stating that, at the Security Council, it will veto what will be a majority resolution of the General Assembly: the recognition of Palestine as a full member of the UN. In the Statement of Recognition of the Palestinian State, Venezuela, together with the sister Nations that make up the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), have denounced that such a just aspiration could be blocked by this means. As we know, the empire, in this and other instances, is trying to impose its double standard on the world stage: Yankee double standards are violating international law in Libya, while allowing Israel to do whatever it pleases, thus becoming the main accomplice of the Palestinian genocide being carried out by the hands of Zionist barbarity. Edward Said touched a nerve when he wrote that: Israeli interests in the United States have made the US’ Middle East policy Israeli-centric.
I would like to conclude with the voice of Mahmoud Darwish in his memorable poem On This Earth: We have on this earth what makes life worth living: On this earth, the lady of earth, Mother of all beginnings/ Mother of all ends. She was called… Palestine./ Her name later became… Palestine./ My Lady, because you are my Lady, I deserve life.
It will continue to be called Palestine: Palestine will live and overcome! Long-live free, sovereign and independent Palestine!
Hugo Chávez Frías
President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela1099 30th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20007
(202) 342-2214

En español
Venezuela ratifica la soberanía del Estado Palestino
Nota de la Redactor: El 17 de septiembre, 2011 Hugo Chávez Frias, el Presidente de La República de Bolivarian de Venezuela envió la carta siguiente a Prohibir Ki-Luna, el Secretario-general de las Naciones Unidas, para confirmar el apoyo del gobierno venezolano para el establecimiento del Estado de Palestina. El presidente venezolano envió esta carta como los votos 66 de ONU asamblea general en la estadidad palestina hoy en Nueva York. El voto necesita sólo aprobación de asamblea general y no atraviesa el Consejo de seguridad.
- Les Blough en Venezuela
Miraflores, 17 de septiembre de 2011
Su Excelencia
Ban Ki-Moon
Secretario General
Organización de las Naciones Unidas
Señor Secretario General:
Distinguidos representantes de los pueblos del mundo:

Dirijo estas palabras a la Asamblea General de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, a este gran foro donde están representados todos los pueblos de la tierra, para ratificar, en este día y en este escenario, el total apoyo de Venezuela al reconocimiento del Estado palestino: al derecho de Palestina a convertirse en un país libre, soberano e independiente. Se trata de un acto de justicia histórico con un pueblo que lleva en sí, desde siempre, todo el dolor y el sufrimiento del mundo.
El gran filósofo francés Gilles Deleuze, en su memorable escrito La grandeza de Arafat, dice con el acento de la verdad: La causa palestina es ante todo el conjunto de injusticias que este pueblo ha padecido y sigue padeciendo. Y también es, me atrevo agregar, una permanente e indoblegable voluntad de resistencia que ya está inscrita en la memoria heroica de la condición humana. Voluntad de resistencia que nace del más profundo amor por la tierra. Mahmud Darwish, voz infinita de la Palestina posible, nos habla desde el sentimiento y la conciencia de este amor: No necesitamos el recuerdo/ porque en nosotros está el Monte Carmelo/ y en nuestros párpados está la hierba de Galilea./ No digas: ¡si corriésemos hacia mi país como el río!/ ¡No lo digas!/ Porque estamos en la carne de nuestro país/ y él está en nosotros.
Contra quienes sostienen, falazmente que lo ocurrido al pueblo palestino no es un genocidio, el mismo Deleuze sostiene con implacable lucidez: En todos los casos se trata de hacer como si el pueblo palestino no solamente no debiera existir, sino que no hubiera existido nunca. Es, cómo decirlo, el grado cero del genocidio: decretar que un pueblo no existe; negarle el derecho a la existencia.
A propósito, cuánta razón tiene el gran escritor español Juan Goytisolo cuando señala contundentemente: La promesa bíblica de la tierra de Judea y Samaria a las tribus de Israel  no es un contrato de propiedad avalado ante notario que autoriza a desahuciar de su suelo a quienes nacieron y viven en él. Por eso mismo, la resolución del conflicto del Medio Oriente pasa, necesariamente, por hacerle justicia al pueblo palestino; éste es el único camino para conquistar la paz.
Duele e indigna que quienes padecieron uno de los peores genocidios de la historia, se hayan convertido en verdugos del pueblo palestino: duele e indigna que la herencia del Holocausto sea la Nakba. E indigna, a secas, que el sionismo  siga haciendo uso del chantaje del antisemitismo contra quienes se oponen a sus atropellos y a sus crímenes. Israel ha instrumentalizado e instrumentaliza, con descaro y vileza, la memoria de las víctimas. Y lo hace para actuar, con total impunidad, contra Palestina. De paso, no es ocioso precisar que el antisemitismo es una miseria occidental, europea, de la que no participan los árabes. No olvidemos, además, que es el pueblo semita palestino el que padece la limpieza étnica practicada por el Estado colonialista israelí.
Quiero que se me entienda: una cosa es rechazar al antisemitismo, y otra muy diferente aceptar pasivamente que la barbarie sionista le imponga un régimen de apartheid al pueblo palestino. Desde un punto de vista ético, quien rechaza lo primero, tiene que condenar lo segundo.
Una digresión necesaria: es francamente abusivo confundir sionismo con judaísmo; no pocas voces intelectuales judías, como las de Albert Einstein y Erich Fromm, se han encargado de recordárnoslo a través del tiempo. Y, hoy por hoy, es cada vez más numerosa la ciudadanía consciente que, en el propio Israel, se opone abiertamente al sionismo y a sus prácticas terroristas y criminales.
Hay que decirlo con todas sus letras: el sionismo, como visión del mundo, es absolutamente racista. Estas palabras de Golda Meir, en su aterrador cinismo, son prueba fehaciente de ello: ¿Cómo vamos a devolver los territorios ocupados? No hay nadie a quien devolverlo. No hay tal cosa llamada palestinos. No era como se piensa que existía un pueblo llamado palestino, que se considera él mismo como palestino y que nosotros llegamos, los echamos y les quitamos su país. Ellos no existían.
Necesario es hacer memoria: desde finales del siglo XIX, el sionismo planteó el regreso del pueblo judío a Palestina y la creación de un Estado nacional propio. Este planteamiento era funcional al colonialismo francés y británico, como lo sería después al imperialismo yanqui. Occidente alentó y apoyó, desde siempre, la ocupación sionista de Palestina por la vía militar.
Léase y reléase ese documento que se conoce históricamente como Declaración de Balfour del año 1917: el Gobierno británico se arrogaba la potestad de prometer a los judíos un hogar nacional en Palestina, desconociendo deliberadamente la presencia y la voluntad de sus habitantes. Hay que acotar que en Tierra Santa convivieron en paz, durante siglos, cristianos y musulmanes, hasta que el sionismo comenzó a reivindicarla como de su entera y exclusiva propiedad.
Recordemos que, desde la segunda década del siglo XX, el sionismo, aprovechando la ocupación colonial británica de Palestina, comenzó a desarrollar su proyecto expansionista. Al concluir la Segunda Guerra Mundial, se exacerbaría la tragedia del pueblo palestino, consumándose la expulsión de su territorio y, al mismo tiempo, de la historia. En 1947 la ominosa e ilegal resolución 181 de Naciones Unidas recomienda la partición de Palestina en un Estado judío, un Estado árabe y una zona bajo control internacional (Jerusalén y Belén). Se concedió, vaya qué descaro, el 56% del territorio al sionismo para la constitución de su Estado. De hecho, esta resolución violaba el derecho internacional y desconocía flagrantemente la voluntad de las grandes mayorías árabes: el derecho de autodeterminación de los pueblos se convertía en letra muerta.
Desde 1948 hasta hoy, el Estado sionista ha proseguido con su criminal estrategia contra el pueblo palestino. Para ello, ha contado siempre con un aliado incondicional: los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. Y esta incondicionalidad se demuestra a través de un hecho bien concreto: es Israel quien orienta y fija la política internacional estadounidense para el Medio Oriente. Con toda razón, Edward Said, esa gran conciencia palestina y universal, sostenía que cualquier acuerdo de paz que se construya sobre la alianza con EEUU será una alianza que confirme el poder del sionismo, más que confrontarlo.
Ahora bien: contra lo que Israel y Estados Unidos pretenden hacerle creer al mundo, a través de las transnacionales de la comunicación, lo que aconteció y sigue aconteciendo en Palestina, digámoslo con Said, no es un conflicto religioso: es un conflicto político, de cuño colonial e imperialista; no es un conflicto milenario sino contemporáneo; no es un conflicto que nació en el Medio Oriente sino en Europa.
¿Cuál era y cuál sigue siendo el meollo del conflicto?: se privilegia la discusión y consideración de la seguridad de Israel, y para nada la de Palestina. Así puede corroborarse en la historia reciente: basta con recordar el nuevo episodio genocida desencadenado por Israel a través de la operación “Plomo Fundido” en Gaza.
La seguridad de Palestina no puede reducirse al simple reconocimiento de un limitado autogobierno y autocontrol policíaco en sus “enclaves” de la ribera occidental del Jordán y en la franja de Gaza, dejando por fuera no sólo la creación del Estado palestino, sobre las fronteras anteriores a 1967 y con Jerusalén oriental como su capital, los derechos de sus nacionales y su autodeterminación como pueblo, sino, también, la compensación y consiguiente vuelta a la Patria del 50% de la población palestina que se encuentra dispersa por el mundo entero, tal y como lo establece la resolución 194.
Es increíble que un país (Israel) que debe su existencia a una resolución de la Asamblea General, pueda ser tan desdeñoso de las resoluciones que emanan de las Naciones Unidas, denunciaba el padre Miguel D’Escoto cuando pedía el cese de la masacre contra el pueblo de Gaza, a finales de 2008 y principios de 2009.
Señor Secretario General y distinguidos representantes de los pueblos del mundo:
Es imposible ignorar la crisis de Naciones Unidas. Ante esta misma Asamblea General sostuvimos, en el año 2005, que el modelo de Naciones Unidas se había agotado. El hecho de que se haya postergado el debate sobre la cuestión palestina, y que se le esté saboteando abiertamente, es una nueva confirmación de ello.
Desde hace ya varios días, Washington viene manifestando que vetará en el Consejo de Seguridad lo que será resolución mayoritaria de la Asamblea General: el reconocimiento de Palestina como miembro pleno de la ONU. Junto a las Naciones hermanas que conforman la Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA), en la Declaración de reconocimiento del Estado palestino, hemos deplorado, desde ya, que tan justa aspiración pueda ser bloqueada por esta vía. Como sabemos, el imperio, en éste y en otros casos, pretende imponer un doble estándar en el escenario mundial: es la doble moral yanqui que viola el derecho internacional en Libia, pero permite que Israel haga lo que le dé la gana, convirtiéndose así en el principal cómplice del genocidio palestino a manos de la barbarie sionista. Recordemos unas palabras de Said que meten el dedo en la llaga: Debido a los intereses de Israel en Estados Unidos, la política de este país en torno a Medio Oriente es, por tanto, israelocéntrica.
Quiero finalizar con la voz de Mahmud Darwish en su memorable poema Sobre esta tierra: Sobre esta tierra hay algo que merece vivir: sobre esta tierra está la señora de/ la tierra, la madre de los comienzos, la madre de los finales. Se llamaba Palestina. Se sigue llamando/ Palestina. Señora: yo merezco, porque tú eres mi dama, yo merezco vivir.
Se seguirá llamando Palestina: ¡Palestina vivirá y vencerá! ¡Larga vida a Palestina libre, soberana e independiente!
Hugo Chávez Frías
Presidente de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela

Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela1099 30th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20007
(202) 342-2214