Support Our Sponsors

RSS Feed Now Available!
WAWA Daily Blog
Our Mission
WAWA/WeAreWideAwake is my Public Service to America as a muckracker who has journeyed seven times to Israel Palestine since June 2005. WAWA is dedicated to confronting media and governments that shield the whole truth.

We who Are Wide Awake are compelled by the "fierce urgency of Now" [Rev MLK, Jr.] to raise awareness and promote the human dialogue about many of the crucial issues of our day: the state of our Union and in protection of democracy, what life is like under military occupation in Palestine, the Christian EXODUS from the Holy Land, and spirituality-from a Theologically Liberated Christian Anarchist POV.

Contact Eileen Fleming:

Click here to contact
Eileen Fleming:

Eileen Fleming on YouTube

CUFI Conference

John Hagee Zionists
John Hagee CUFI
conference in Miami
Photo courtesy of a.e.

The Walls of Berlin and Bil'in
Abir Aramin Dead at 10
WAWA Photo Gallery
Eileen Fleming - We Are Wide Awake
Click here to view the
WAWA photo gallery

Photos of Israel Palestine
courtesy of Meir Vanunu,
Copyright 2007-08.

Photos of the Siege
courtesy of Guss,
Copyright 2008.


Garth Hewitt - From The Brokern Heart Of Gaza
Garth Hewitt:
From the Broken Heart
Of Gaza

FACTS ABOUT THE WALL from friends in Bethlehem

Read the truth about the Wall and what is happening today in the Holy City of Bethlehem.


Eileen Fleming's Biography

"We're on a mission from God."
The Blues Brothers

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave...a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils."
George Washington's Farewell Address - 1796

"My aim is to agitate & disturb people. I'm not selling bread, I'm selling yeast."

"Imagine All the People Sharing All the World."
John Lennon

"If enough Christians followed the gospel, they could bring any state to its knees." 
Father Philip Francis Berrigan 

"You can stand me up at the gates of hell, but I won't back down."
Tom Petty

"If I can't dance, it's not my revolution."
Emma Goldman

"We have yet to begin to IMAGINE the power and potential of the Internet."
Charlie Rose, 2005

Only in Solidarity do "We have it in our power to begin the world again"
Tom Paine

"Never doubt that a few, thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." 
Margaret Mead

"You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free."
John 8:32


Photo of George shown here
and in web site banner
courtesy of Debbie Hill, 2000.

Click Here
Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that, among these, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. -July 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence


Home arrow Blog arrow June 2008 arrow June 9, 2008

June 9, 2008
WAWA Blog June 9, 2008: An American raises questions, an Israeli nails Obama and All Roads Lead to Jerusalem UPDATE June 13, 2008


Jerusalem: Evolving Politics Around a Holy City

This email is also available online at:

June 13, 2008
By Warren Clark and Julie Schumacher Cohen

It is common for the issue of Jerusalem to become a political football on the presidential campaign trail. The latest iteration was Sen. Barack Obama's remarks on June 4th to an American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference when he said, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." This episode evoked controversy, clarifications and responses that show the evolving nature of how Jerusalem is viewed and debated by the American public and in the political arena.

Churches for Middle East Peace has long supported the U.S. policy that Jerusalem is a "final status issue" to be negotiated and calls for the city to be shared by Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Christians and Muslims. As the church leaders in the Holy Land said in a September 2006 statement, "In God's own design, two peoples and three religions have been living together in this city. Our vision is that they should continue to live together in harmony, respect, mutual acceptance and cooperation."

Obama and McCain on Jerusalem: In Their Own Words

In an interview with CNN on June 5th Sen. Obama clarified his comments on Jerusalem, saying, "it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations...As a practical matter, it [division] would be very difficult to execute. And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city." Speaking to The Jerusalem Post an anonymous Obama campaign advisor reiterated that "Jerusalem is a final status issue", clarifying that the "undivided" term meant that the city is "not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."

Senator McCain has also weighed in on the status of Jerusalem. In March of this year, McCain said, "I support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." He went further last week. Responding to Obama's comments, McCain said on June 6th, "Jerusalem is undivided. Jerusalem is the capitol. And we should move our embassy to Jerusalem before anything else happens. The subject of Jerusalem itself will be addressed in negotiations by the Israeli government and people."

Words Do Matter

As with any Israeli-Palestinian issue, words are understood differently in different places and there are many ways to parse even a few syllables. Middle East advocates and policymakers are particularly aware of key concepts, and what words and phrases are, and are not, used to express them.

First, statements articulating support for "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" do not, in and of themselves, rule out the possibility of Jerusalem also serving as the future Palestinian capital. Jerusalem of course is and will be Israel's capital. In this case, what's not said is as important as what is. Obama's and McCain's evolving comments both helpfully include mention of negotiations. This reflects some recognition that expressing support for Israel's capital alone can be unhelpful and that negotiation, not unilateral solutions, are the final determinant.

Second, what is meant by the term "undivided"? Some argue, and indeed the Obama campaign has indicated, that in committing to an "undivided" Jerusalem, Sen. Obama rejects any physical re-division of the city. This position is commendable in its own right - clearly the Jerusalem configuration of pre-1967 when Jews did not have access to their holy sites must not be repeated. However, in Israel, where Jerusalem is now debated vigorously the word "divide" generally implies support for some kind of shared sovereignty and the term "undivided" can often signify exclusive Israeli control. As an example, in the fall of 2007 a majority of Knesset members signed a petition "calling for Jerusalem to remain undivided in a move that could tie the hands of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in his negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas" [emphasis added]. And most current policy formulations have ruled out the notion of putting up a wall in the middle of the Old City.

Illustrating the deep and conflicting sentiments around Jerusalem, Sen. Obama's initial comments were welcomed by those that support exclusive Israeli control of the city and met with skepticism, or rejected outright, by those who see the status of Jerusalem as yet to be negotiated and expect it to also serve as the capital of a Palestinian state. Senator Obama's subsequent clarification demonstrates the political minefield of Israeli- Palestinian peacemaking.

All of Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain's comments included above can be interpreted by people of goodwill in a way that leaves open the hope and possibility for a "shared" Jerusalem - capital to Israel and a future Palestinian state. "Undivided" can mean geographically "open" and Israel's capital can also be Palestine's. Even McCain's latest comment on moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, taken in context, can be understood to mean that while he might consider moving the embassy, which would be inflammatory and deeply problematic, he would not close the door on a joint capital. However, words do matter and this latest episode doesn't make any easier the job of Annapolis negotiators tasked with actually working out a solution that is palatable to both sides.

The Same Political Game?

Observations of this year's campaign are better understood by looking back on what has come before. George W. Bush, speaking to an AIPAC audience in 2000 said, "As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital." In March 1992, Bill Clinton said, "I recognize Jerusalem as an undivided city, the eternal capital of Israel, and I believe in the principle of moving our embassy to Jerusalem."

Interestingly, both the Bush and Clinton campaign sound bites came along with some other more constructive ones. As Clinton made those comments, he also cautioned that "we should [not] do anything to interfere with the peace process." In July 1999, several months before the AIPAC speech, Bush responded to a question about moving the embassy to Jerusalem by saying, "I'm afraid that might screw up the peace process. I don't want to screw up the peace process."

There's nothing new about politicians trying to have it both ways. Promises on Jerusalem, like many made along the road to the White House, are often forgotten. As president, Bill Clinton maintained the long-standing U.S. policy that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be negotiated by the two-parties and so has President Bush. Clinton offered his "parameters" on how to resolve the conflict, including Jerusalem. President Bush has not put forward any proposals on Jerusalem, but has recognized that a solution is necessary and that "both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns." Both Clinton and Bush have waived the "Jerusalem Embassy Act", a law passed by Congress in 1995 demanding that the U.S. embassy currently in Tel Aviv be immediately moved to Jerusalem. While Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain were exchanging campaign barbs, on June 4th President Bush quietly issued a "Memorandum for the Secretary of State", waiving the Jerusalem Embassy Act yet again "in order to protect the national security interests of the United States."

Or a Broadening Debate?

The political game is evolving and the discussion that has been activated on the future of Jerusalem has broadened an important and necessary debate. That Sen. Obama felt it necessary to clarify his original remarks on Jerusalem is a positive sign. That both Sen. Obama and McCain are now mentioning negotiations when talking about Jerusalem is an improvement.

Under the headlines and rhetoric, this exchange also provides what an educator would call a "teachable moment". Why does Jerusalem engender such passion? Are there any solutions to this seemingly intractable issue?

Despite the competing claims to and the emotional nature of Jerusalem, there are in fact many practical solutions that chart a way forward. Key negotiations and peace proposals to date, including the Clinton Parameters, Taba negotiations, Geneva Accords and People's Voice Initiative, have proposed that Jerusalem be the "capital for two states". All of these peace plans invoke the general principle that Arab areas would come under Palestinian sovereignty and Jewish areas under Israeli sovereignty, with the Geneva Accord detailing the two capitals and providing contiguity for both.

Even the difficult question of security has been examined. A team of experts taking part in the "Jerusalem Old City Initiative" housed at the University of Windsor, Canada concluded in November, 2007 that "an effective, fair-minded and sustainable security system for the Old City is achievable." This same group will come out with reports later this year examining critical questions of governance and access to holy sites in the Old City.

The work of Israeli and Palestinian negotiators can benefit from an unprecedented amount of scholarship and ingenuity on the question of Jerusalem. The critical issue for the current diplomatic process and the future is one of political will. Will Jerusalem be left for the end or will it end up as part of one comprehensive package together with other contentious issues?

Looking Ahead: A Shared Future

As the campaign season heats up, advocates should hold their candidates accountable on issues that matter to them. CMEP will be communicating with both presidential candidates over the summer and into the fall and providing advocacy guidance, building on our August 2007 Board and Leadership Council letter to presidential campaigns. As we know, once the lights dim from the inaugural balls in January 2009, the problem of Middle East peace will sit squarely on the President's desk.

On the ground in the Holy Land, Israelis and Palestinians long for a resolution of their decades- long conflict. Any solution must include a shared future in Jerusalem. The next U.S. President and Congress, with the support of American Jews, Christians and Muslims, have a responsibility to help them get there.

"Insofar as she is the homeland of the hearts of all the spiritual descendants of Abraham, who hold her very dear, and the place where, according to faith, the created things of earth encounter the infinite transcendence of God, Jerusalem stands out as a symbol of coming together, of union, and of peace for the human family."-Pope John Paul II (April, 1984)

*For more information on Jerusalem, go to CMEP's Shared Jerusalem Resource Center

Formed in 1984, Churches for Middle East Peace is a Washington-based program of the Alliance of Baptists, American Friends Service Committee, Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Armenian Orthodox Church, Catholic Conference of Major Superiors of Men's Institutes, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Church of the Brethren, Church World Service, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Franciscan Friars OFM (English Speaking Conference, JPIC Council), Friends Committee on National Legislation, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Maryknoll Missioners, Mennonite Central Committee, Moravian Church in America, National Council of Churches, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reformed Church in America, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church (GBCS & GBGM).

Churches for Middle East Peace
Phone: 202-543-1222

A Million Questions With One Answer
By: Peter Chamberlin

According to our State Dept. there are approximately a dozen separate anti-Semitic beliefs, the worst of which is the claim that wealthy Jewish-Americans economically control the government, the media, international business or finance.  The other most serious intolerable anti-Semitic claim is that the brutal Israeli repression of the Palestinians is comparable to the fascist tactics that were employed by the Nazis against another Semitic people in Europe.  If anti-Semitism is the spreading of lies about Semitic peoples, and both of these “canards” are proven to be true, then it is the government that is spreading the lies about its ally Israel.

If there is no truth to the charge that Israel is driving America to war against Iran (just as it drove our power-mad leaders to destroy Iraq), then why is it that the craziest American ideas for committing acts of war against Iran (embargoes, blockades and denying Iran the use of its own airspace) all originate in Israel?  If most Americans are overwhelmingly against expanding the current limited wars into a regional conflagration, then what explains the bi-partisanship in Congress for these small-scale military steps which are clearly intended to cause a major escalation with Iran?

The American majority knows that opening a new war front in Iran would be a major defeat for American forces, having three intolerable consequences – forcing a return of the draft, the destruction of the American economy and the use of nuclear weapons against civilian populations.  The Israeli majority knows this as well, and they are perfectly willing to force their American ally into paying this price for them.  Some ally!

If American politicians are not subservient to Israeli interests through the lobby group AIPAC and the financial largesse which they dispense, then how do you explain Congressional pursuit of a global war that is desired only by the small vocal Jewish-American minority and their Christian-Zionist supporters (which cannot benefit any nation other than Israel), even though world war is the direct opposite of the clearly expressed will of the majority?

Why have these same politicians supported every Israeli effort to deny the most basic human rights to Palestinians and many other Arabs?  Why has Congress supported the suppression of testimony about these victims of Israeli aggression and the violation of countless international laws against the ethnic cleansing committed by Israeli troops while colonizing Palestinian land?  Why is there bi-partisan support for empowering Israel’s attempts to act as vigilante enforcer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, even though Israel continues to spurn international inspections of its Dimona facility, where Mordechai Vanunu took his infamous secret photos which proved that Israel has illegally violated every international atomic treaty in secretly building hundreds of nuclear weapons?

[Photo Laboratory model of nuclear weapons core. – Vanunu 1985

No other nation in the world can flaunt international law and receive undiminished US support for its continued law-breaking and the brutal, merciless, fascist-like repression of a victim population the way Israel does.  Why does the purported international champion of human rights and the alleged defender of the weak support the criminal abuse of a helpless minority in Palestine and in no other nation?

What is the root of this sentiment, that America must insulate Israel from the consequences of its own actions, even if it is fatal to our Republic?   Why does this bi-partisan commitment to bring war upon the United States permeate both chambers of Congress, where it is echoed by Democrats and Republicans alike?   Conspiring with agents of a foreign power to bring war upon the United States matches two of the three definitions of treason given by

2.      a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.      the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Are we witnessing a perverse Congress that has succumbed to blackmail, or have they merely sold America out for the sake of power and wealth?  It does not matter whether Bush and co. are puppets or parrots for the powerful Jewish-American interests who are driving the war on terror, the fact remains that in this war Israeli government officials are pulling the strings.  Ehud Olmert may as well be calling-in the American air strikes himself, as we target the countries which they have named for elimination in the “Clean Break” document, which is nothing more than an updated Zionist version of “Mein Kampf.”

American military forces are carrying-out the Zionist “blitzkrieg” against Israel’s Arab neighbors, decimating any military forces which could resist the planned Israeli aggression, turning entire nations into refugee populations, conducting a genocidal war of ethnic cleansing on behalf of “God’s Chosen People.”  If modern Israelis were indeed “the Chosen,” then there would be no conflict there now, as well as no “Diaspora,” since all real Jews would be drawn irresistibly back to the Holy Land.  But the Zionist imposters who are waging war against the world are watching their stolen dream collapse around them, as worries about Israeli militancy, water shortages and the comforts of assimilation bring about a negative growth rate, where more people leave Israel than “return” there.

The criminal regime in Tel Aviv is doing everything it can to expand America’s terror war, which is seen as Israel’s sole existential hope.  Mossad agents are working overtime to avoid the inevitable collapse of the racist Zionist vision, as they try every conceivable deception to activate some version of its “Samson option,” bringing the world down around it, sacrificing the US to empower itself.

Bush, Cheney and nearly the entire Congress are committed to ending the Iranian regime, whatever the costs, before the new president takes office.  On June 4 Bush issued a memo to the secretary of state:

"I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of six months...the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem."

Moving our embassy would be placing our seal of approval upon an Israel annexation of Islam’s second most holy city, after Mecca. 

This means that Bush is delaying the implementation of one of the most controversial decision that any US president has ever made, until after the November 4 United States presidential election, to protect the “national security interests of the United States” (knowing what the effects upon the entire Muslim world will be).  Some have interpreted this as Bush’s way of bolstering McCain, who also wants to move our embassy, by avoiding the compounding Israeli complications for him.  This may be part of his motivation for the delay, but knowing the warped reasoning of the current administration, I take this to mean that the drastic actions which Bush plans to take on Israel’s behalf at that time will dwarf present concerns about angry Muslim reactions to an embassy move.

Bush’s embassy move memo was released while Olmert was meeting with him, trying to persuade him to substitute Israel’s own intelligence estimate on Iran’s nuclear program for the official US National Intelligence Estimate, which is a product of sixteen American agencies.    

Olmert was in town to attend the AIPAC conference, where he told the audience point blank, why America must wipe Iran from the face of the earth, in order to satisfy Israeli designs for dominating the Middle East:

“Iran's fingerprints are evident in almost every terrorist organization across the Middle East, from Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip to Hizballah in Lebanon...[equating the three Islamic resistance groups that oppose Israeli hegemony as “almost every terrorist”].”

“The Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means. International economic and political sanctions on Iran, as crucial as they may be, are only an initial step, and must be dramatically increased...urgent need for more drastic and robust measures.”

“Sanctions can be imposed on the export of gasoline to Iran...[following his previous calls for a naval blockade and declaring Iranian and Syrian air space as “no fly zones”]...Israel will not tolerate the possibility of a nuclear Iran.”

Christian Americans must ask themselves, “if America does not neutralize Iran at Israel’s command, then is America failing God, or is it merely refusing to commit another criminal act for the criminal regime?”

Does America even have a choice in the matter, anymore?

Contact author: < >

Uri Avnery


No, I Can't!


AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.

And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.

That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.

IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.

The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.

The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.

The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.

WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?

The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.

Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich.  Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.

True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.

But in a presidential race?

THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.

Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.

And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!

The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.

And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.

OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)

But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.

NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.

On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.

Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity".

Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.

In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.

Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.

But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.  

SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)

What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?

The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.

The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people.

Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.

True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.

HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.

Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself."

I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.

Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.

If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"

 Wherever you are, you can take part in protests by writing protest letters

GUSH SHALOM p.o.b. 3322 Tel Aviv 61033
< >

Recommended occupation related reading & data :


Visitors since 07.22.05
Visitors: 35166452

"HOPE has two children.The first is ANGER at the way things are. The second is COURAGE to DO SOMETHING about it."-St. Augustine

 "He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust." - Aquinas

BEYOND NUCLEAR: Mordechai Vanunu's Freedom of Speech Trial

Published 10/30/10

Order Books at

Vanunu's Message to

Hillary Clinton re:
The Apartheid Wall

Order My Books
"Memoirs of a Nice
Girl's Life in
Occupied Territory"

"Keep Hope Alive"
To order either book
click here.
Login Form
Become a registered member of this site to view archived articles and become a guest correspondent.



Remember me
Forgotten your password?
News Archive
Click here to view past articles of interest

View 30 Minutes with Vanunu and his Video Message to USA Christians
Articles Can Be Read Under VANUNU ARCHIVES  


Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


The Paradoxical Commandments
by Dr. Kent M. Keith

People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Do good anyway.

If you are successful, you win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.

Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.
Think big anyway.

People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs.
Fight for a few underdogs anyway.

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
Help people anyway.

Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you have anyway.

© 1968, 2001 Kent M. Keith

" In the final analysis, it is between you and God.  It was never between you and them anyway."-Mother Teresa

“You cannot talk like sane men around a peace table while the atomic bomb itself is ticking beneath it. Do not treat the atomic bomb as a weapon of offense; do not treat it as an instrument of the police. Treat the bomb for what it is: the visible insanity of a civilization that has obey the laws of life.”- Lewis Mumford, 1946

The age of warrior kings and of warrior presidents has passed. The nuclear age calls for a different kind of leadership....a leadership of intellect, judgment, tolerance and rationality, a leadership committed to human values, to world peace, and to the improvement of the human condition. The attributes upon which we must draw are the human attributes of compassion and common sense, of intellect and creative imagination, and of empathy and understanding between cultures."  - William Fulbright

“Any nation that year after year continues to raise the Defense budget while cutting social programs to the neediest is a nation approaching spiritual death.” - Rev. MLK
Establishment of Israel
"On the day of the termination of the British mandate and on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly declare The State of Israel will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel: it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion it will guarantee freedom of religion [and] conscience and will be faithful to the Charter of the United Nations." - May 14, 1948. The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel
Digg The WAWA Site?
Help spread the news by letting know you digg our site!

posted 3/25/2009

Download New eBook
So, That was 54...
An e-book

Read Why

Copyright © 2004-2022 On Track Marketing | Site Design and Hosting by On Track Marketing.
Proud team member of: Global Market Consulting.

submit to reddit Share/Save/Bookmark