Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Occupy London

 Refuting the “there was no Palestine”: Pictures Don’t Lie

One of the common assertions one finds in Zionist propaganda is that there “was never any Palestine.”

This odd allegation is simply not true. Palestine has been refer to the geographical area south of Tyr (Sour) and north of the Sinai for thousand of years.

There are medieval Muslim coins from a mint in that area with “Filastin” (Palestine) written on them. In the nineteenth century, diaries survive of locals who visited Damascus and wrote about how they missed “Filastin”.

At the Versailles Peace Conference, the Class A Mandate of Palestine was created, and in 1939 it was scheduled for independence within 10 years.

British colonial administrators believed there was a Palestine and that it would soon become an independent country (as happened to similar Class A Mandates in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq).

There is currently an ironic Twitter meme by Palestinians,‪#‎there_was_no_Palestine‬, to which people are contributing visual evidence of Palestine.

In 1920, when the League of Nations created the Palestinian state, it had a population of 700,000, of which about 76,000 were Jews.

Almost all of the Jews had immigrated in the previous 70 years.

In 1850, only 4% of the population had been Jewish.

In 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte found only 3,000 Jews. There had been hardly any Jews in Palestine since about 1100 AD.

So not only was there a Palestine, full of hundreds of thousands of people, over millennia, but there was a very long period of near-absence on the part of Jews. This absence was not because of a forcible expulsion.

Rather, Jews in Palestine had converted to Christianity, and then many of those converted to Islam.
If what is being alleged is that there was no nation-state called Palestine, at least before the League of Nations created one, that is banal. There were no nation-states until the 19th century.

There was no “Italy” before 1860. Venice was Austrian, Genoa French. There was no “Germany” before 1870.

Lots of small principalities, some of them under other rule or influence. It is common for Romantic Nationalists of the early 19th century variety to imagine that the Greece that came into being in the 1820s (after having been an Ottoman province for some 300 years) was somehow a revival of the ancient land known as Greece. But it isn’t.

That is a naive “Sleeping Beauty” theory of nationalism. There was no nation-state of Israel before 1948. That some ancient tribes might have been called that is irrelevant. Ancient tribes were also called Philistines, a form of the modern Palestinian.

Checkpoint between Lebanon and Palestine in the 30s so‪#‎there_was_no_Palestine‬ ?

Instantly connect to what’s most important to you. Follow your friends, experts, favorite celebrities, and breaking news.

In essence, the assertion by Zionists that there “was never any Palestine” has to be seen as a cruel boast, since it was their ethnic cleansing campaign of 1947-48 that forestalled British and League of Nations plans to see an independent country of Palestine created, and which made most Palestinians refugees and stateless.

Yazeed Aldigs added 2 new photos.
Old Palestinian newspaper<br /><br />
So how do u say :<br /><br />
#there_was_no_Palestine ?!!
Can someone read the name of the<br /><br />
Country and the date out loud for the<br /><br />
Ones who say #there_was_no_Palestine !

Here’s a sample of the Twitter campaign, embedding the tweets and accompanying photos:

Retweeted Haitham Sabbah (@sabbah):

‪#‎there_was_no_Palestine‬ collection a wedding at‪#‎Ramallah‬‪#‎Palestine‬ 1900

Court told: US anti-terrorism law curbs free speech and activist work

A group of political activists and journalists has launched a legal challenge to stop an American law they say allows the US military to arrest civilians anywhere in the world and detain them without trial as accused supporters of terrorism.

The UK daily The Guardian reported on March 29:

The seven figures, who include ex-New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, professor Noam Chomsky and Icelandic politician and WikiLeaks campaigner Birgitta Jonsdottir, testified to a Manhattan judge that the law – dubbed the NDAA or Homeland Battlefield Bill – would cripple free speech around the world.

Birgitta Jonsdottir, Icelandic MP

Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir said she fears she could be arrested for her association with WikiLeaks. Photograph: Halldor Kolbeins/AFP/Getty Images

The law, written into the National Defense Authorization Bill, which was signed by President Barack Obama at the end of 2011, effectively broadened the definition of “supporter of terrorism” to include peaceful activists, authors, academics and even journalists interviewing members of radical groups.

The controversy focus on the loose definition of key words in the bill, in particular, who might be “associated forces” of the law’s named terrorist groups al-Qaeda and the Taliban and what “substantial support” to those groups might get defined as.

Whereas White House officials have denied the wording extends any sort of blanket coverage to civilians, rather than active enemy combatants, or actions involved in free speech, some civil rights experts have said the lack of precise definition leaves it open to massive potential abuse.

Hedges, who is a Pulitzer Prize-winner and longtime writer on the Middle East, told New York judge Katherine Forrest on Thursday that he feared he might be subject to arrest under the terms of NDAA if interviewing or meeting Islamic radicals could constitute giving them “substantial support” under the terms of the law.

Hedges said: “I could be detained by the US military, held in a military facility – including offshore – denied due process and incarcerated until ‘the end of hostilities’ whenever that is. Any kind of language in my presence that countenances violence against the US … given the passage of the NDAA, really terrifies me.”  He added that the law was already impacting his ability to work as he feared speaking to or meeting with sources who the US government could see as terrorists or advocates of violence.

Testifying alongside Hedges was Kai Wargalla, a German organiser behind Occupy London, and a supporter of WikiLeaks, which has extensively published secret US government documents.

Wargalla contends that since British police had included Occupy London alongside al-Qaeda on a terrorism warning notice, she was afraid of the implications of NDAA. She said that after NDAA was signed she was no longer willing to invite an Islamic group like Hamas to speak on discussion panels for fear of being implicated a supporter of terrorism.  Wargalla said :”We are on a terrorism list just under al-Qaeda and this is what the section of the NDAA is talking about under ‘associated forces”.

Author and campaigner Naomi Wolf read testimony in court from Jonsdottir, who has been a prominent supporter of WikiLeaks and a proponent of free speech laws. Jonsdottir’s testimony said she was now afraid of arrest and detention because so many US political figures had labelled WikiLeaks as a terrorist group.

Despite receiving verbal assurance from US officials that she was not under threat, Jonsdottir testified she would not travel to the US despite being invited to give lectures in the country. “The NDAA Bill provisions create a greater sense of fear because the federal government will have a tool with which to incarcerate me outside of the normal requirements of the criminal law. Because of this change in the legal situation, I am now no longer able to travel to the US for fear of being taken into custody as having ‘substantially supported’ groups that are considered as either terrorist groups or their associates,” said Jonsdottir in the statement read by Wolf, who is also a Guardian commentator.

In an opening argument, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that they would try to show the definitions used in the NDAA provisions were so unclear that it would have a “chilling” effect on the work of journalists, activists and academics even if no one was actually detained.

Lawyers for Obama, and other named defendants in the case like the defence secretary, Leon Panetta, offered no opening statement nor did they currently plan to call any witnesses. However, in cross-examination of Hedges, Wargalla and another witness they repeatedly pointed out that at no stage had the US government ever been shown to have threatened any of them with detention under the terms of the new law.

Judge Forrest will now seek to rule on whether any of the plaintiffs have shown enough convincing evidence that they have “standing” to move the case forwards. If that happens, she will  have to rule on a possible temporary injunction against the NDAA, which would undoubtedly trigger a high-profile legal battle.




March 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,518,930 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: