Note:
The author of the article below is a leading Peace Now activist who seems to be
constantly simply aching for the Arabs to take over the State of Israel.
His organization is at least partially strongly funded by European elements AND
HE HIMSELF WAS PAID BY A SWEDISH
NEWSPAPARER for the article
below.
The article claims that the
Ghanem family mistakenly thought
that organs had been taken from their son.
Even this however is UNTRUE as show by the article (b) following this one.
Despite the reprehensibility of his views and the lie about the
Ghanem
family that it repeats the article is still worth reading.
Netanyahu`s
Swedish theatre and the reality of the occupation
by Adam Keller
www.gush-shalom.org, Aug. 26, 2009
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/archive/1251283699/
For days the Israeli political
establishment and mainstream media engaged in an unrestrained campaign of
demonization
of Sweden. Only after having already castigated Swedes as `antisemites`
did mass circulation newspaper
Yediot
Aharonot
take the elementary journalistic step of sending a reporter to check the facts.
Ronny Shaked`s
Aug. 24 article revealed no organ harvesting horror - but showed quite clearly
how such a story could emerge from the grim occupation reality.
It is an old story, going back seventeen
years, the story of a young man named
Bilal
Ahmad Ghanem
from the small West Bank village of
Amatin.
Ghanem
was one of those which official Israel castigates as terrorists and their own
people praise as freedom fighters. In the early 1990`s he figured on the Israeli
`wanted` list.
In May 1992 Israel was in the midst of a
crucial elections campaign. Opposition leader Yitzchak Rabin was asking for the
voters` mandate on a pledge to make peace with the Palestinians - a pledge he
would eventually seriously try to implement and for which he would pay with his
own life three and a half years later. All of that was part of a future, which
Bilal
Ahmad Ghanem
would not live to see. On the night of May 13, 1992, Israeli hunters ambushed
him outside his parents` home, and killed him on the spot with a bullet directly
to the heart. This in itself excludes the possibility that
Ghanem`s
organs were used for transplantation. It is an elementary medical fact that
organs are taken from brain-dead patients whose heart is still beating.
There was not, and could not have been,
a `harvesting of organs`. But it is true that
Ghanem`s
body was taken away, restored to the family only after a week, in which it
evidently was subjected to an autopsy, to which the family did not consent nor
was asked for consent. (In Israel itself, an autopsy is only performed with the
consent of the family or by court order, but such rules do not apply in
military-ruled territory). When at last the body was given back, the family was
shocked to see a scar running from his neck down to his abdomen. They were not
given much time to speculate, and nobody was there to answer questions. Soldiers
on the spot urged them to get on with the funeral and disperse to their homes. A
Swedish journalist made some photos of
Ghanem`s
scarred body - arousing the ire of the soldiers, who promptly confiscated his
camera. But he had managed to extract the film and throw it among the bushes. On
the following day he returned, recovered the photos and recorded the angry and
pained reactions of Ghanem`s
mother, who could not be expected to know or care about medical facts and the
conditions where organ transplanting is or is not possible.
The photos and report were published in
1992 Sweden, without getting much attention. They were included as one of many
items in an 2001 book on the situation in the Occupied Territories, to whose
publication the Government of Sweden apparently contributed though it was
unlikely to have closely and minutely supervised its contents. Again, not many
people noticed or paid attention. And now it has surfaced again and became -
seventeen years after the fact - the center of a raging storm.
Why resurrect this affair at exactly
this time? Possibly because the mass killing of civilians in the recent Gaza
war, which is an undoubted fact, has made also implausible Israeli atrocities
seem plausible. But even so, a newspaper should have carefully checked its
facts, and any doctor could have told them that this particular accusation could
not be true. There had been a month ago an ugly case of illicit trade in organs
for transplantation, in which the American citizens implicated happened to be
Jewish. But linking this affair with the misconduct of the armed forces of
Israel was an ugly and unacceptable analogy which the editors of `Aftonbladet`
should have avoided. Still, there was no need for the Netanyahu Government to
blow it up to a head-on confrontation between the two countries. Indeed, the
leaders of the Jewish community in Sweden were far from pleased with the Israeli
overreaction. But the Israeli government did not act out of concern for them. It
had its own specific agenda for making the maximum noise.
Almost from the first day he assumed
power, Netanyahu is under constant pressure from President
Barack
Obama
to cease all settlement activity in the occupied territories. The fanatic
hardliners in his cabinet call for Israel to defy all pressures, continue and
extend the building of Jewish settlements and tell the Americans to go to hell.
Deep in his heart Netanyahu might sympathize - but he knows well enough that
such a course would be suicidal, and that it would be Israel which would get to
hell in short order. Sweden is a convenient alternative target, which could be
attacked with relative impunity. Moreover, Sweden - having the Presidency of
European Union - has itself quite recently lodged a strong protest about the
settlements and the expulsion of Palestinian families from their homes is the
Sheikh Jarah
Neighbourhood
in East Jerusalem. It makes perfect sense for Netanyahu to try and put the
Swedish government on the defensive.
The row also helps to divert the
criticism on Netanyahu from inside his government coalition.
Israel`s
historically-loaden
ambivalent relation to Europe is a Pandora box easily opened.
On the one hand, Israelis like to think of themselves as belonging to Europe; on
the other hand when encountering criticism, wild accusations of
antisemitism
immediately fly around and the history of the Second World War and the Holocaust
is very selectively referenced.
Israelis are delighted that their country was admitted to the European Song
Festival and that their football and basketball teams can participate in
European championships. But the same people would not opt for Israel becoming
subject to the authority of the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, and
to have that court give the actions of the Israeli armed forces the kind of
scrutiny it gave to the British army in North Ireland.
In
today`s
Europe it is taken for granted that a democratic state is, by definition, `The
State of All Its Citizens`. The Israeli mainstream would like Israel to be
accepted as a European State while rejecting any such definition and insisting
that `A State of All Its Citizens` is a subversive and extremist idea where
Israel is concerned.
The present confrontation with Sweden is the latest - and probably not the last
- of such cases.
Written at the invitation of the Swedish weekly `Efter
Arbetet`
for its Aug. 28 edition
(b)
Ghanem
Family: We Never Said Son's Organs Were Stolen
Tuesday, August 25 2009
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2009/08/ghanem-family-we-never-said-sons-organs-were-stolen.html
Exrtacts:
This Swedish blood libel was further undermined when the family of Bilal Ahmed
Ghanem said they never told any reporter that their son was missing organs.
Jerusalem Post reporter Khaled Abu Toameh tracked down the family:
The mother denied that she had told any foreign journalist that her son's organs
had been stolen.
However, she said that now she does not rule out the possibility that Israel was
harvesting organs of Palestinians . . . .
Jalal said that he and other villagers recall that a Swedish photographer was in
the village during the funeral and that he managed to take a number of pictures
of the body before the funeral. "That was the only time we saw this
photographer," he recounted.
Ibrahim Ghanem, a relative of Bilal, said that the family never told the Swedish
photographer that Israel had stolen organs from the dead man's body.
"Maybe the journalist reached that conclusion on the basis of the stitches he
saw on the body," he said. "But as far as the family is concerned, we don't know
if organs were removed from the body because we never performed our own autopsy.
All we know is that Bilal's teeth were missing."
So much for Bostrom's previous excuse, which lame in its own right:
"I am just referring to what other people are telling me.
Aftonbladet editor Jan Helin also defended the article:
"The article poses a question,why has this body been autopsied when the cause
of death is obvious? There I think Israeli authorities owe us an answer."
Since Aftonbladet was raising the accusations, the burden of proof is on the
newspaper. Israel's not obligated to prove that something didn't happen, whether
the accusations deal with body snatching, blowing up the World Trade Center,
killing Arafat, poisoning the wells, tsunamis, etc. Stay tuned for an
Aftonbladet exclusive on the Zionist tooth fairy taking Bilal Ghanem's teeth.
Brit-Am
Note:
In Israeli autopsies were once regularly performed on corpses (Jewish or not)
even without the permission of the family.
This was part of a Left-Wing Secular attitude and was only changed when Menachem
Begin came to power in 1977.
Autopsies are disapproved by Jewish and Moslem tradition but they are approved
by Secular Outlook.
In Sweden 30% of the corpses are subjected to an autopsy and this figure is a
decrease over the figure for past years.
In some hospital departments ALL the corpses undergo an autopsy presumably
whether the family agrees or not.
http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/319
3. Did England Apologize for Expelling
the Jews?
re Ten Tribes Tribal Report no.27
#3. The Jews and Britain: Judah and Ephraim at Odds?
(b) Screed,
http://www.britam.org/TR/TR27.html#The
Aaron Shuster said:
##We must not forget that Jews were
deported from England by the order of a king long before the Inquisition in
Spain. We still have not heard an apology for this hateful act!##
Brit-Am Note:
The Jews were expelled from England in 1290.
3000 Jews were sent out.
The Expulsion was preceded by persecutions and malice.
Oliver Cromwell proposed formally re-admitting the Jews to England though
unofficially some Jews had already settled there.
There was a public debate with pamphleteers writing tracts for and against the
Jews.
There was also an intensive legal discussion.
The upshot was that the expulsion of 1290 was in effect discovered to have no
legal standing.
In ca. 1656 Cromwell decided that instead of a formal declaration of
re-admittance the Jews
could in effect come as they wished since no valid legal impediment against them
really existed.
There was no apology but the Expulsion of 1290 was found to be invalid.
There had been a vicious massacre of Jews in York in 1190.
Some type of apology, request for forgiveness, and request for removal of any
curse that may still
be in force against descendants of the People of York was made in recent times
by a Church of England dignitary.
I could not however find any reference to this on the web.
1. Judah: Article on Different Types of
Skull-Cap and their Significance
Yarmulke Exhibit Moves to
Jerusalem
by Hillel
Fendel
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132767
Extracts:
(IsraelNN.com) Dozens of knitted kippot (plural of kippah, Hebrew for the more
familiar "skullcap" or "yarmulke") of all sizes and colors comprise a new
exhibit attempting yet another way to define the religious-Zionist community.
The exhibit was first situated on the 49th floor of the Azrieli Towers in Tel
Aviv, and has now made its way to Lander College in Jerusalem. It includes some
60 kippot, together with a short explanation by each wearer as to what his
kippah signifies.
Among those who (or whose family) donated a kippah to the exhibit are the late
Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Neriah, considered the father of the knitted kippah generation,
the late Brig.-Gen. Dror Weinberg, Jonathan Pollard, singer Dudu Fischer,
father-and-son journalist team Haggai and Amit Segal, Effie Eitam, MK Zevulun
Orlev, Moshe Feiglin, Tzfat's Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, cartoonist Shai Cherke,
and Nobel Prize laureate Prof. Yisrael Aumann.
Jonathan Pollard, imprisoned in the U.S. for nearly 24 years for having shared
critical, classified information with Israel, wrote, "The kippah is a sign of
accepting the yoke of Heaven; the Holy One, blessed be He, is our aide and
protector forever."
Effie Eitam, a former MK and Brig.-Gen. in the IDF, wrote, "I wasn't born with a
kippah; I chose it, and I continue to choose it every day."
Prof. Oz Almog of Haifa University explains that there are several parameters
that define the various knitted kippot and, by extension, those who wear them:
"Size, color, texture and design. The size often indicates the level of
religiosity; the bigger, the more religious." The "hilltop youth" and others
often wear large kippot of thick wool, whereas the fine-thread kippot are much
more common almost everywhere else.
Two people donated a black kippah, with different explanations. MK Uri Orbach
originally wanted to wear it abroad in places where he felt it would be better
not to "stick out" too much, but he then changed his mind and decided that he
need not worry about his kippah attracting attention. Baruch Marzel of Hevron,
on the other hand, wears it in order to come closer to the hareidi-religious
public, which wears only black cloth yarmulkes: "A Jew's purpose is to collect
the truth from everyone."
MK Yaakov Katz (Ketzaleh) donated a relatively large kippah, consistent with his
yeshiva days in the Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva. He wrote, "When I completed the
officers' course in the IDF 38 years ago, we were three kippah-wearers among 150
cadets. Now we are privileged to see about half of those who become IDF officers
wearing knitted yarmulkes."
2. Britain: Norman and Saxon by Rudyard
Kipling
"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am
dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:--
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow--with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.
"You can horsewhip your Gascony
archers, or torture your Picardy
spears;
But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your
ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the
field,
They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.
"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their own
wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they are saying; let them feel that you know
what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em
out if it takes you all day.
They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park).
Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can
find.
"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and
feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.'
Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em
a lie!"
3. The Jews and Britain: Judah and
Ephraim at Odds?
(a) Backgrounds, (b) Screed, (c) Brit-Am
Reply
(a) Backgrounds
Background (1) Steven
Shamrak
Steven Shamrak puts out a newsletter summarizing in a concise manner news items
along with his own commentary.
It is quite good and often picks up important items that might otherwise be
overlooked.
Shamrak is based in Australia and advocates transferring the Pesltinians to
Sinai.
To our minds this proposal is impractical and all the Palestinians should
instead be flown to North Africa or South America.
Background (2) The British Malaise
Recently a British official in the Arab Gulf States publicly boasted as
to how British officials are openly active
in Israel and Jerusalem with interference against Jewish settlement.
The British are also often very pro-Arab. British news media is anti-Israel and
frequently guilty of telling outright lies
and wicked misrepresentation of Israeli actions. Anti-Semitism in Britain is on
the rise.
In ca. 2050 if present trends continue 20 to 30% of the population of Britain
(and the Netherlands) could be Muslim.
Background (3) Britain and the Jews
Many Jews dislike the British because:
Britain during the last years of the Mandate limited Jewish immigration to the
Land of Israel
just when the Holocaust was taking place in Europe and Jews had nowhere to go.
There was a muted but violent conflict between the British and Jews just before
the Jews received Indepdendence.
The Irgun and Lechi who lead the struggle against the British in some respects
became the ideological forerunners
of Israeli national thinkers and writers.
Britain comes across sometimes as anti-Semitic.
Some Jewish Patriotic right-wing nationalistic polemicists are in fact closet
Conspiracy Freaks:
Several Versions of Conspiracy Freak Idoiotic meanderings cast the British
establishment as part of the arch-villains
who want to control everyone by destroying all that is good and beautiful.
Despite legitimate grievances the Jews may have against Britiain however there
is another side to the story.
This is given at length in our work "The Tribes"
http://britam.org/the-Tribes.html
and in very shortened form in our Briti-Am Reply after the Screed below:
(b) Screed
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:33:56 -0400
From: Steven Shamrak <stevenshamrak.e@gmail.com>
'Great' Tradition of British Hate. Compiled by Aaron Shuster
Of course the British won't ban a vehement Jew hater. The British excel in Jew
hatred. Any man who hates Jews is a great friend of Britain. Why do you think
the British let the Moslems swarm Britain. They have a common enemy - the
Jews. It is precisely Jew hatred that bonds the British to their Islamic
brethren.
Remember, not one train line running to Auschwitz was ever bombed by the
British. Why would they want to stop the extermination of the Jewish people? Not
a priority. At the same time, they banned Jews from returning to their homeland
- Israel. Effectively, they locked the Jews in a burning building and threw away
the key.
Geert
Wilders, an international champion of free speech, is barred from Britain , but
a Jew-hating Islamic supremacist is just fine with UK authorities: Despite his
sectarian, racist incitements that Jews are "scum...rats...pigs and monkeys,"
the chief cleric of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abdul
Rahman
al Sudais,
has been welcomed and invited to preach at the East London mosque in
Whitechapel
tonight, Tuesday evening, 4 August 2009.
Al-Sudais,
who has close ties to the Saudi elite, has also insulted Christians and Hindus,
referring disparagingly to Christians as "cross-worshippers" and Hindus as "idol
worshippers". He has been banned from Canada for his anti-Semitism.
The chairman of the East London mosque is Muhammad Abdul
Bari.
He is also the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).
Although the MCB
has condemned anti-Semitism, it has previously declined to
criticise
the anti-Semitism of al-Sudais
and has continued to support him despite his anti-Jewish tirade.
"Al-Sudais
has stoked religious sectarianism and anti-Jewish racism. He has never expressed
any regret," said human rights campaigner, Peter
Tatchell.
"I don't understand why the Home Secretary is allowing al-Sudais
into Britain , given that similar hate preachers have been banned. Is it because
of the close business links between the British and Saudi establishments?"
Mr
Tatchell
queried. (Or it is done just for the sake of loving to hate Jews. We must not
forget that Jews were deported from England by the order of a king long before
the Inquisition in Spain. We still have not heard an apology for this hateful
act!)
(c) Brit-Am Reply
The British let Muslims into Britain because they have a strong liberal
tolerant tradition.
Most of the Muslims in the UK come from Pakistan which was once part of India
when the British ruled it or they come from other parts of the former British Empire.
The British traditionally feel some kind of obligation to subjects of
their former Empire.
At all events it is a British problem and has little to do with the Jews.
During WW2 Bombing the train line to Auschwitz would probably not have helped
anyone.
The Jews would have been killed anyway.
I am amazed very time anew at the innocence (simplicity?) of Jewish writers who
fail to comprehend the depths of hatred towards them by most sections of Eastern
Europe, not just Germany.
The Nazis merely enabled the giving of expression to animalistic cravings that
existed all over Europe especially Central and eastern Europe.
The Jews seem to not understand how much certain Gentile entities hate them and
that NO rationale for this hatred is considered necessary!
In the Ukraine old women were employed to help bury Jewish victims of mass shootings.
Any Jew (man woman or child) that still showed signs of life would be given the coup de grace by a shovel
in the hands of these elderly females as if we one were dealing with chickens!
Wake Up Judah!
Only the God of Israel and your own exertions can save you!
Certain western gentile nations (whose inhabitants are in part decended from the Lost Ten Tribes)
might help the Jews. They should not however be relied upon though pro-Israeli PR should be focused in those areas
since in such regions some chance of a sympathetic reception does exist!
Historically,
The British White Paper that limited Jewish immigration to Palestine was a
crime.
Many British officials were actively anti-Jewish.
NEVERTHELESS,
The White Paper was issued before the outbreak of World War 2 and some cognizance should be taken of what the British were up against
at the time.
Turkey, a Muslim country, was on the verge of joining the Nazis.
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, all made attempts to join the Nazis and their
governments had to be deposed after forceful persuasion by the British.
Indian Hindus (under Gandhi) and Muslims were pro-Nazis and on the verge of
revolt.
The Palestinian Arabs in Palestine were hostile and still in pro-Nazi revolt.
Austria, Italy, Vichy France, The Croatian Ustasha, Rumania, Bulgaria, and
Hungary were all actively allied with Germany.
Britain was alone and several times seemed on the verge of defeat.
If the Germans had succeed in reinforcing Rommel in North Africa the whole of the Middle East may have fallen into German hands as at the time it seemed liable to do so.
Objectively speaking manpower was stetched and possibilities were limited.
These remarks do not necessarily justify anything but they need to be taken into consideration just like
other factors are also considered.
All Jewish refugees who reached Palestine were either allowed to remain or sent
to Cyprus were they stayed until the end of the War.
The British were responsible for fighting and defeating the Nazis and one of
their motivating factors was to save the Jews.
The British did take in a large number of Jewish refugees and facilitated the transfer of many more to safe havens
overseas. They were almost unique in these efforts.
The British Government and British factors have worked in the past on behalf of
the State of Israel
and even now upon occasion still do.
The Jews should be aware that they have more enemies than they can (by normal
standards) deal with.
It is not necessary to manufacture antagonism in places where it may not exist.
For example,
The British were blamed for the sinking of the ship, Struma, containing Jewish refugees.
At the time, Jewish propagandists emphasized alleged british complicity in the disaster
and in some cases still do.
It is now known that the British had (after at first refusing) finally agreed to allow all the children on board the
ship to stay in Palestine
and some type of accomodation may have been extended to the adults. The ship however was sunk in the Black Sea by a RUSSIAN SUBMARINE
and the one (or two survivors) who reached Turkish shores were murdered by the Turks.
The British are still blamed by Jewish activists for this disaster while the Russian and Turkish atrocities seem to be considered not worthy of mention.
Why is that?
We believe that the British or at least many in the British Isles are potentially disposed to be much more pro-Israel than they now are
and efforts should be made to reach out to them along with other descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes.
Previous Issues
Pleased with what you read?
Did you benefit from it?
We do this because we have a duty to do so and we believe in it.
Our understandings is that,
They who Help Brit-Am will be blessed.
Brit-Am depends on contributions alongside purchases of our publications
Click Here to make an offering.
Click Here to view our publications.
|
'It is impossible to rightly govern the
world
without God or the Bible'
George Washington
Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE
FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.
