Posts Tagged ‘Zionist ideology’
“Would you make love with an Arab/Palestinian?” and vice versa: Interviews with Israeli Jews and Palestinians
Posted by: adonis49 on: September 13, 2012
ISRAËL: Feriez-vous l’amour avec un Arabe ?
L’affiche du film. Sur les écrans français à partir du 12 septembre.
C’est une histoire très simple, celle d’une cinéaste française qui prend sa caméra et part interroger les Palestiniens et les Israéliens sur un sujet, et un seul : le sexe.
Elle entre immédiatement dans le vif du sujet en posant une question crue, une question qui n’a pas l’air essentielle pour résoudre le conflit historique entre l’oppresseur et l’opprimé mais qui n’en dévoile pas moins des secrets enfermés dans des cœurs débordant de haine et de reproches.
Puis cela devient un film documentaire, qui sera présenté en 2011 à la Mostra de Venise sous le titre Would You Have Sex with an Arab? [Feriez-vous l’amour avec un Arabe ?].
En appliquant une thérapie de choc pour briser le silence consciemment ou inconsciemment entretenu, elle accède au refoulé d’un des plus longs conflits du Proche-Orient.
Son compagnon dans la vie, Sélim Nassib, journaliste libanais et auteur du roman Oum [consacré à la diva égyptienne Oum Kalsoum, éd. Balland], a participé à l’écriture du film.
Vous parlez du conflit israélo-arabe à travers le sexe. C’est une idée…
Yolande Zauberman En fait, tout a commencé avec le roman de Sélim Un amant en Palestine [éd. Robert Laffont], qui aborde l’histoire d’une passion [à la fin des années 1920, dans une Palestine sous mandat britannique] entre la jeune Golda Meir [qui va devenir Premier ministre d’Israël] et Albert Pharaon, un Libano-Palestinien.
C’est une histoire qui n’aurait jamais pu se produire dans un endroit comme Israël. Quand nous avons commencé à vouloir adapter ce livre au cinéma, un sujet a suscité ma curiosité, à savoir le désir non partagé.
J’ai également eu le sentiment que je devais comprendre beaucoup de choses avant de me lancer dans l’adaptation du roman.
Donc Would You Have Sex with an Arab? a démarré en tant qu’étude préparatoire.
Or il se trouve que le film s’est imposé en tant que tel. Il m’a permis de fouiller dans les profondeurs de la société arabo-israélienne, une société très particulière.
J’avais découvert cela en travaillant avec [le cinéaste israélien] Amos Gitaï, en tant que coordinatrice entre les équipes française, israélienne et palestinienne.
Soudainement, je m’étais retrouvée face à une société à la double identité, arabe et israélienne. L’expérience de la découverte de l’autre, fût-ce sous un jour déformé, m’a donné envie d’aller plus loin.
La question qui est posée dans le titre du film peut paraître anodine au premier abord, alors que nous ne connaissons pas encore le but que vous poursuivez en la posant. Mais elle prend vite une tournure plus grave.
Y. Z. Pour nous, ce film était une expérience stimulante. Nous avions hâte de voir ce que la réalité allait nous apporter.
D’un côté nous posions la question : “Coucheriez-vous avec un Arabe ?” De l’autre : “Coucheriez-vous avec un Juif israélien ?”
Pourquoi avoir retenu “avec un Arabe” et non “avec un Juif israélien” pour le titre ? Parce que c’est plus aguicheur ?
Y. Z. Non. Parce que ça a une signification plus forte.
Sélim Nassib Yolande a parlé de désir non partagé. C’est normal entre deux groupes qui s’entre-tuent et où chacun “résiste” pour ne pas se rendre à l’autre.
Or, ce que nous avons découvert en travaillant sur ce projet, c’est que pour les Juifs israéliens il y avait un tabou supplémentaire, à savoir qu’ils sont venus sur cette terre afin de fonder un Etat juif, le judaïsme en étant la religion officielle.
C’est pour cela que l’idée d’avoir un amant palestinien est inacceptable. Ces tabous persistent jusqu’à nos jours.
En même temps, parler de sexe chez les Arabes est plus problématique que d’en parler avec les autres peuples.
Y. Z. La question est moins compliquée avec les Arabes israéliens. A la fin du film, quand le DJ Sami, en plein milieu d’une fête de gays palestiniens, dit que lui et ses camarades font la révolution sexuelle à leur manière, j’ai trouvé cela très fort. Dans ce film, nous ne visions pas l’affirmation d’une théorie ; tout ce que nous voulions, c’était savoir jusqu’où pouvait nous conduire une telle expérience.
S. N. De plus, nous n’avions aucune idée de la réponse que nous allions obtenir. Etant plus politisé que Yolande, je me disais que nous n’allions rien changer à la réalité, parce que ce n’est pas dans le lit qu’on résout les problèmes.
Au début, je ne pensais pas qu’on irait très loin. Mais petit à petit je me suis rendu compte que notre projet touchait à quelque chose justement parce que nous ne demandions pas aux gens ce qu’ils pensaient du conflit israélo-arabe.
C’est un sujet où chaque côté a son avis sur l’autre, et en même temps chacun connaît l’avis de l’autre sur lui-même.
C’est de l’ordre de l’indiscuté. En revanche, quand on leur demande s’ils feraient l’amour avec l’autre, on touche à autre chose.
Ce qui m’a également frappé, c’est l’inversion qui se produit dans les positions de certains, à savoir qu’ils passent du refus total à l’acceptation…
S. N. C’est pour cela que nous voulions qu’ils réfléchissent à la question du désir. D’où vient notre désir ? Et pourquoi ? Une simple question a ébranlé leurs certitudes.
Nous les voyions découvrir des choses qu’ils ignoraient avoir en eux.
Y. Z. Il y a même dans ce film une relecture du Livre saint. Abraham n’a-t-il pas été le premier Juif à épouser une Arabe [Agar, sa deuxième épouse] ?
Mais pourquoi donc lier le sexe au monde de la nuit, aux bars… ?
Y. Z. Je n’ai pas souhaité poser ma question à des gens susceptibles de se sentir agressés, comme les personnes mariées ou les religieux.
Je voulais m’adresser à des gens qui sont à l’aise avec l’idée du désir, des gens qui sortent le soir, disponibles à l’autre.
J’ai visé ces zones de marginalité afin de voir si les gens qui les fréquentent étaient prêts à accepter l’autre.
S. N. Le film a suscité des discussions virulentes entre adeptes et pourfendeurs de l’idée.
Chez certains, les réponses ont évolué positivement entre le premier et le deuxième rendez-vous, y compris chez des personnes aux positions politiques très arrêtées.
Soudainement, elles admettent quelque chose qu’elles enfermaient en elles. C’est vrai que c’étaient des cas rares, les deux communautés étant totalement séparées.
Quelle est l’image qui vous a le plus marqués ?
Y. Z. J’aime beaucoup quand Ibrahim dit : “On ne m’accepte ni d’un côté ni de l’autre, mais de toute façon, moi-même, je n’accepte aucun des deux.”
S. N. Il y a chez Ibrahim ce qu’on peut appeler un complexe vis-à-vis de lui-même, puisqu’il est en même temps arabe et israélien alors que c’est impossible d’être les deux à la fois.
C’est un exil, mais pas comme celui des autres Palestiniens.
Y. Z. A la fin du film, quand on voit tout le monde danser avec tout le monde, on découvre un sourire sincère qui irradie les visages. C’est le bonheur.
Il y a quelques années, quand je tournais en Afrique [du Sud] Classified People (1988), une histoire d’amour entre un Blanc et une Noire, je me disais que, si cet amour ne faisait pas tomber le régime de l’apartheid, rien ne pourrait y parvenir. Et c’est toujours ma conviction.
C’est ce qu’il y a de bien dans le “printemps arabe” : il donne une leçon au monde sur la manière de redevenir un individu au lieu d’être un élément d’une communauté.
Cette leçon vient d’une région dans laquelle il est très difficile d’être un individu.
S. N. Et les Arabes israéliens ont toujours été considérés comme une communauté. On les voyait sous l’angle d’une communauté ayant subi la Nakbah [la Catastrophe, création de l’Etat d’Israël].
Dans le film, on ne les voit pas en tant que communauté, mais en tant qu’individus.
Y. Z. Ce film n’émet pas de jugement. Ce qui m’a motivée, c’était de pousser un cri : “Mais qu’est-ce qui nous est arrivé à nous, les êtres humains ?”
Les théories sont toujours, à un moment ou à un autre, dissociées de la réalité. Notre film réduit le niveau de colère, même s’il ne soigne pas la douleur.
S. N. Le film ne propose pas de solution. Il fait juste le portrait de gens qui appartiennent à un même espace. Les deux côtés se ressemblent sur beaucoup de points.
La différence tient à la place que l’un occupe par rapport à l’autre.
May 15, 2011: Palestinians secured Statehood and Right of Return
Posted by: adonis49 on: May 16, 2011
May 15, 2011: Palestinians secured Statehood and Right of Return
Every year Israel celebrate its establishment as a recognized State by the UN in 1948 by one vote, the Palestinian mourn and march for the loss of their forced occupied lands: This day is celebrated by the Palestinians as the Day of Al Nakbat.
This Sunday witnessed the most critical phase in the existence of the Zionist ideology after 63 years of Israel State. Palestinians marched from all fronts bordering Israel (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza, and Egypt) and demonstrated against the persistence of Israel denying them a statehood, and demanding from the UN to recall the declaration #194 that assured Palestinians their right to return to Palestine in 1948.
By evening of Sunday, three dozens unarmed Palestinians were killed by Israeli snipers on the borders and over 300 Palestinians grievously injured. The Israeli soldiers shot to kill in the head and in the chest.
In Lebanon, the Palestinians converged in mass, for the first time, to the village of Maroun Raas, overlooking Israel. So far, the Israeli killed 12 and injured 120 Palestinians who were merely throwing stones from across the border wire. Maroun Raas is famous for resisting Israel invasion in July 2006 for an entire week. Israel would announce that the village has fallen and then change its affirmation by night fall: The Israeli soldiers would vacate occupied area by night after suffering heavy casualties. The Lebanese army felt helpless containing the demonstrators and the UN contingents didn’t intervene to warn Israel of crimes against humanity perpetrated by heavily armed Israeli soldiers against non-armed marchers.
In Syria, the Palestinians marched to the village of Majdel Sham in the Golan Heights: Four Palestinians were killed and dozens seriously injured. Many demonstrators persisted in staying in the other side of the occupied land, and Israel army forced them to return inside the demarcation line. This is the first time that the Syrian regime of the Assad was helpless preventing a march to the occupied land of Syria. The Syrian regime is witnessing big internal turmoils demanding dignity and legitimate political institutions and thus, didn’t want to break the false image that it is not cohabitating with Israel since 1970 by keeping the occupied borders the most quiet in the region.
In the West Bank, the Palestinians amassed on the Kalendia separation line between Jerusalem and Ramallah and also within Ramallah’s Israeli check points, and many other Palestinian towns and villages. Palestinians who remained in their villages in 1948 and acquired Israeli “citizenship” demonstrated heavily in this day of “Al Nakba”, remembering the loss of their lands. Israel had issued laws prohibiting the Palestinians/Israelis to demonstrating during that famous Day. Israel also behavied savagely on the border with Gaza, and hundred were seriously injured. The Egyptian government did its best to preventing Palestinians from converging to Gaza; so did the Jordanian monarchy.
Israel declared the border zones with Lebanon and Syria military areas. Israel will be facing, for weeks to come, with many UN discussions and demands of reports to its brutal reactions to non-armed Palestinians.
The Arab Spring upheavals are just starting and Israel is urged to change its strategy very quickly since the Palestinian factions of Fateh and Hamas have agreed to form a transition government: Israel lost its supports from Iran of the Shah, Turkey, Egypt, and now Syria. The UN is to vote for a Palestinian Statehood in September 2011. Most of the UN recognized States have declared being in favor of a Palestinian, independent State.
Did you Day Dream a Utopian Project?
Posted by: adonis49 on: May 20, 2009
Did you Day Dream a Utopian Project? (May 19, 2009)
Have you day dreamt of a utopian project? I have so many times day dreamt of projects that were to be ideal in profitability, organization, equitability, fairness, encouraging and promoting individual creativities, and leaving plenty of free time for individual accomplishment and continuing education. There are moments in any one of these projects where the more utopian you strive for the more variables you have to contend with. Every detail generates its down set of variability and quickly the interactions are too many for the mind to coordinate and analyze. Suddenly, you end it as abruptly as in happy movies. Yes, it is complicated but everybody should be living happily ever after.
Then you are carried by curiosity: you want to take the dreamt up project further to its ultimate glory. The more you resolve complicated interactions among people the more your solutions revert to totalitarian solutions and the more your answers smack of a one party regime reactions to diversities. Then I realize that, fundamentally, I am not better than any dictator who managed to amass enough power to exercise coercions at will. Utopias are dangerous exercises of the mind and they sting potently the trust in our potentials to fairness and equitability. The only utility to dreaming up utopia is to vent up the bottled up anger of helplessness to act and change. Utopias are far more dangerous when a restricted and select caste of elites assemble to apply and enforce their sick view of an ideal society. Utopias are not the solution and never will improve human conditions. Read any samples of Utopias from Plato, to Tomas Moore, and to the Zionist ideology and you will realize that the end product is a subdivision of society by caste systems where people rule and the lower strata produce and serve; the end product is a huge set of rules and regulations that can put to shame the gigantic daily constraints of the Jewish Pharisee sect.
Study the Utopias of those who managed to horde power from Napoleon, to Bismarck, to Hitler, to Mussolini, to Lenin, to Stalin, to Mao Tse Tong, and finally to Bush/Cheney and the end product was destruction, utter humiliation of the people, hate crimes, and genocides.
There are other kinds of utopias. You have those forecasting the future, fifty years from now, in all sorts of topics such as political systems, emergence of new superpowers, technological breakthrough, social conditions, trends of how fast people will die of famine, and the increase in social divides among the wealthy and the dregs. Sure, those forecasters inevitably claim that they are analyzing current trends if all conditions remain controlled, though they have no idea what are those conditions and how they are controlled. Forecasting the future is another way of thinking aloud individual utopia because no one is forecasting without strong biases as to his present mind set.
So far, the only valid forecasting time line is of six months; it is adopted by the analysts of market and fashion trends of the adapters in the age category of 20 to 30 years. There is no doubt in my mind that promotional tactics biase people in believing that they are setting the trend by surfing the internet and disseminating their interests; but that how democracy should be at work. Democratic systems should expose programs and disseminate them and then evaluate what people selected after a period of six months of diffusion among the active population.
Jews against Zionists
Posted by: adonis49 on: April 8, 2009
Jews against Zionists (April 7, 2009)
Note: I re-edited this post; it is strengthened with additional information.
Hinie Srour, a renowned documentary film maker and living in London for over 40 years, is a Lebanese Jew. In the early sixties, she was one of the founders of a university students’ organization in Lebanon called “Student Forces Front”; the other founder was the Jewish Elie Baida. This organization demanded supporting our public universities and had leftist reformist orientations; it enjoyed wide appeal among the Christian universities and was very active for four years; the power to be got very nervous. The Phalange Party (Kataeb) decided to confront this organization by violence but it failed. In 1967, the Sunni Mufty of Palestine, Haj Amine Husseiny, published an anonymous article in the daily “Al Hadaf” claiming that the Jewish Lebanese founders of the organization were meeting once a year in Vienna with Israeli leaders. It was totally unfounded. The organization understood that it was being targeted for repression and dissolved.
In 1967, Gamal Abdel Nasser resigned after his war defeat against Israel. The Jews in Lebanon marched with the thousands of demonstrators reclaiming Nasser. The Jews in the Middle East were part of the fabric of society and they mostly joined reformist political parties that demanded equal treatment of citizens in the laws and in practice; they were anti-Zionists. Unfortunately, the State of Israel political practices and pre-emptive wars against the Arab States and its apartheid ideology against the Palestinians have forced most of the Jews to immigrate for fear of eventual reprisals generated by anger and frustration.
Most people have neither the knowledge, nor the interest, and nor the political acumen to differentiate among Zionist, Jewish, Ashkenazi, Sephardim, Israeli, or Hebrew. For the western countries there are no differences or no advantage for this kind of categorization for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. For example, the software has to correct semitic by replacing the regular s with a capital S; and this is true for anything related to Jewish names, including replacing j with J.
For us in the Levant and the Middle East in general, we have been subjugated for much more than anti-Semitism labeling; we have been struggling for over 60 years with existential conditions of “Be or not to be” since the creation of this racist, anti-Semitic, apartheid Zionist State. These kinds of discriminations are practically abstract concepts in real life; but we have to deal with those happy in splitting hairs while the enemy is busting our doors and committing genocides while the UN is playing deaf and dumb.
There are many who like to differentiate between Zionist and Jewish and my question is “why stop here?” Is it because of ignorance or political accommodation or because the western medias have forced this dichotomy on us? Many want to differentiate between Zionism and Jewish for vested interest and to grab the western media attentions and recognitions, or to claim their allegiance to International Socialism or International Social-Democrat, or in order not to be blacklisted and denied visas or whatever. Someone has to set the record straight.
First, Zionism is an ideological group that started with the Ashkenazi in Europe and worked diligently to create a recognized State anywhere in the world, even in Uganda. The Ashkenazis are not Jews by origin. They were people from the Caucasus who adopted the Mosaic laws and established a kingdom that was destroyed by the Cossacks around 950 AC. They were not semitic by any criterion and didn’t know the customs and traditions of the people inhabiting the Levant; for example the Jews who lived in Palestine.
The turn of events encouraged the European countries to get rid of their “Jews” and relocating them in Palestine to safeguard the flow of oil, for example an advanced military post of mercenaries willing to die for no pays because they are safeguarding their “Promised Land”; promised by whom, Balfour of Britain? That was before 1948. Right now, any one who supports the existence of the State of Israel by financial aid to building more colonies on occupied lands is a Zionist. Anyone bringing up religious concepts of “Promised Land” to criminals against humanity is a Zionist. Anyone offering excuses to apartheid policies and genocides against the Palestinians is a Zionist, regardless of religious affiliations, race, sex, or origins.
We are in a war of survival for our existence and who supports the apartheid Zionist State without the institution of a Palestinian homeland is a Zionist that the UN has described as “a form of racist”; period.
Second, the Sephardim are Jews who lived in the Near East and fled to Iran, Iraq, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, and the Arab Peninsula. These Jews lived the customs and traditions of the Land. It is these Jews that the State of Israel relish to discriminate against: you will never find a Sephardic Prime Minister, President, or head of security in the 60 years of the State Israel. They are considered Middle Eastern and not appropriate to rule or govern. There are currently Ethiopian “Jews” who have been shipped into Israel more than three decades ago; they are still working in “sanitary” jobs with no prospect in sight for advancement.
However, you see a Jewish Russian Mafioso landing in Israel and within a couple of months he is heading a political party and becoming Foreign Minister. In Israel, an Ashkenazi can be a recognized terrorist by the whole world (Begin), he can be censured by Israel’s parliament for committing the massacre of the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatila in Beirut (Ariel Sharon), he can order the bombardment of UN compounds (Shimon Peres) but all is absolved; he can still be appointed Prime Minister as they all did. President Peres shamelessly accepted the Nobel Peace prize.
Third, there are Jews who are expecting the second coming of a divine Messiah and not for establishing any earthly kingdom for world domination. The State of Israel is anathema to these Jews in nature and in practices.
Fourth, there are Israeli citizens, not necessarily Jewish, but considered less than third class citizens; for example, the Palestinians who stayed in their lands even as genocides were being perpetrated around their towns.
Fifth, Hebrews are those tribes that joined the leadership of Moses and conquered land by the sword and genocide starting with the crazy Joshua Bin Noun. They were nomad strangers to the land of the Levant. They worshipped a God called Yahweh (Yahood, thus Jew); they worshiped Yahweh on and off, and the scribes of the Old Bible had to create so many prophets lambasting those Hebrews who would not stick to Yahweh; their Yahweh would rather carry his wrath at the detriment of the indigene Canaanites who suffered more killing and desolations.
There was no such religion as Jewish before Moses. Solomon managed a semblance of a Kingdom that didn’t last more than half a century. Those Hebrew had to wait for the nomadic tribes of the Hashmonides, living on loots and ransacking urban communities in the confines of south Palestine, to establish the bloody Kingdom of the Macabe. Those tribes, strong with renewed zeal because the Seleucid Kingdom forced upon them to desist in performing circumcision, over ran Galilee and forced the non Jews to be circumcised and to applying Moses’ Laws. It is no wonder that Israel forced Hebrew as a National language that no common Jew could speak and much less write.
Let us point out the murderers by their names; this is people tribunal.
Note 1: The Ashkenazi Jews in the western nations were relegated to ghettos and they learned not to purchase Real Estates but to focus on readily movable treasures. The Jews in the western nations were never welcomed in their midst, primarily because Christianism could not digest another forms of religious belief. The Sephardic Jews in the Arab and Moslem countries had to vacate after the establishment of the State of Israel for fear of reprisals because of the racist and theocratic State that the Zionist ideology instituted.
Note 2: The Jews in the western States were very active in secular political movements, particularly Communists and Socialists. Nowadays, their activism has waned relative to change and their focus is how to support the apartheid and racist Jewish State of Israel. Very few renowned Jews are still active for justice and change that are not related to the survival of the State of Israel such as Naom Chomsky.
Nation for Zionists? What is Apartheid and Crimes against humanity?
Posted by: adonis49 on: December 24, 2008
Zionist ideology: Of apartheid, terror, and crimes against humanity (December 24, 2008)
Israel is the last apartheid State in existence and still going strong, boasting its rights to be a pure Jewish State and that the “Palestinians do not exist” as Golda Meir PM stated in 1967. Before I start my essay, let me offer a very restricted sample of terror activities of this Apartheid State since its inception as an implant State in the 20th century.
Deir Yasin (April, 1948): 254 civilians shot dead by the Menahem Begin’s terrorist Irgun militia that had demolished King David Hotel during the British mandate. Deir Yasin was a village that didn’t even permit combatants to pass through and had a pact of non-aggression with the neighboring Jewish settlements.
Begin wrote: “After Deir Yassin the Irgun entered Haifa as if slicing into butter” The arch terrorist Begin was later rewarded for all his terrorist activities to become a Prime Minister of the State of Israel.
Balad al-Cheikh (December, 1947): 60 Palestinian civilians shot in their homes by the official Palmach army.
Sasa (February, 1948): 60 Palestinian civilians killed and 20 houses demolished by the Palmach army.
Haifa (April, 1948): 100 Palestinian civilians fleeing the City were killed and 200 severely wounded.
Qibiya (October, 1953): 42 Palestinian civilians killed and 41 houses blown out by Ariel Sharon and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. The village of Qibiya was in Jordan but Israel wanted revenge 4 years later because it had resisted Israel terrorists’ infiltration.
Kafr Kassem (October, 1956): 47 Palestinian peasants returning from their fields to the village were shot dead. Colonel Melinsky told the commander Shadmi: “No sentimentality. Let God have mercy on their souls”. Kafr Kassem was not even within the State of Israel when Israel decided to invade Sinai.
Khan Younis (November, 1956): a Palestinian camp of refugees under the UNRWA was occupied by the Israeli army; 275 civilians massacred.
Rafah (November, 1956): a refugee camp directed by UNRWA was invaded by Israel “Defense Forces”; 111 civilians massacred.
Sabra and Chatila (refugee camps in Lebanon; September, 1982): over 2,300 civilians massacred during two nights and three days of bestial behavior never seen in modern history.
Qana (south Lebanon): 200 civilians dead and 200 severely injured in a compound run by the UN Peace keeping forces; Shimon Peres (the supposedly “peace-loving” person) was Prime Minister; the bombing was pre-meditated.
Qana again (July 2006): 40 civilians, mostly children huddled in the basement, died buried under a bombed building.
Jenine (2005; a Palestinian camp in the West Bank): 500 civilians crushed under the Merkava tanks during three days of demonic genocide. Israel did not allow any UN investigation of the slaughter.
In 1948, the United Nations divided Palestine in two States: Israel and Palestine. Israel didn’t care: it invaded the Palestinian lands and claimed it as its own. The villages and cities of Qazaza, Jaffa, Tanoura, Tireh, Kfar Huseinia, Haifa, Abou Shusha, Saris, Biddu, Lod, Bayt Surik, and on and on all destroyed, the civilians killed and massacred, and the names of the villages changed to Hebrew names. The irony is that all the famous Zionist terrorists were rewarded with the highest government posts; Ben Gorion PM, Golda Meir PM; Begin PM, Shamir PM, Sharon PM, Ehud Barak PM, and not counting the successive Defense Ministers such as Moshe Dayan and the sorts.
Israel has invaded tiny Lebanon more than six times and destroyed completely its infra-structure more than eight times, for no reasons whatsoever, and displaced more than one million Lebanese citizens four times from south Lebanon. Why?
What threat a defenseless Lebanon was to Israel if not for its resilience and complex social composition that make this State immune to accepting a virtual peace treaty?
Tiny Israel has more fighters plane of the latest versions (more than 500) than France; can tiny Israel, with no substantial economy to rely on, be able to afford such a fleet if it was not the mercenary military outpost State to the US Empire in the Middle East?
Tiny Israel, smaller than New Jersey, has more nuclear war heads than France (the same nation that provided Israel with its first central atomic capability in 1956). Can tiny Israel with less than 5 million Jews be able to acquire such an arsenal if it was not the watchdog of the US Empire in the Middle East?
Tiny Israel, with no economy that matter, allocated more than two billion dollars to build a stupid barrier more than 800 km to separate itself from the Palestinians in order to convince its citizens that apartheid is an excellent policy. Israel withheld needed budget to raising the standard of living of the poorer immigrants who have been struggling with their lethal mistake of coming to this forsaken land of crimes and terrors.