S.T. Salah, 19/12/25
Handala (hands clasped behind his back, back to the reader):
You stand in a uniform and call it order. Tell me — what name do you give the empty cup you hand a man who asks only for water?
Israeli Guard (tight, practiced smile):
Procedure. Discipline. Measures for security.
Handala:
Procedure is a word people use to hide what they will not admit to their conscience. Do you feel secure when you deny another human the basics of life?
Israeli Guard:
We do what is necessary. The orders come from above, mainly from Ben-Gvir and Netanyahu.
Handala:
“Above” is a place for commands, not for conscience. When the ones above praise humiliation and racism as policy, whose face do you have to wash before you sleep?
Israeli Guard (bristles):
You speak as if you know the world of decisions. We protect Jewish citizens.
Handala:
Protection of one ethnic group that strips dignity from another becomes the very thing it pretends to guard against. If protection means turning a person into a lesson, who taught you that lesson?
Israeli Guard:
Leaders set the rules. We carry them out. Loyalty matters.
Handala:
Loyalty to apartheid and racist laws! Loyalty to cruelty! There is a line between following an order and becoming the instrument of someone’s cruelty. Do you draw that line or blur it?
Israeli Guard (low):
We’re told the stakes are existential for our nation. The rhetoric is hot; the streets demand toughness and iron hand against our enemies.
Handala:
Rhetoric is a fire that warms Israelis and burns Palestinians. When your nazi leaders stoke flames with words that dehumanise, do you not notice that smoke in your own lungs?
Israeli Guard:
Politics is complicated. People in power say hard things.
Handala:
“Complicated” is a comfortable coat to wear when you’re standing barefoot over someone else’s life. When a policy promises nothing but humiliation and discrimination and racism, is that protection — or punishment dressed as policy?
Israeli Guard (shifts):
We follow the legal chain. If there are problems, they are for the courts to resolve.
Handala:
Which courts? Israeli courts are part of this illegal apartheid. They have never punish Israeli war criminals but punished the victims and stripped them from their rights. Who speaks for the silent, for the ones who can no longer speak because the rules were too racist? If you were the one cuffed, who would bet that the same chain would loosen?
Israeli Guard:
There are checks. There are reports.
Handala:
Reports written by the perpetrators are lies — and lies written on paper burn easily.
Who strikes the match when accountability is turned into politics?
When leaders cheer the breaking of human spirits, is that justice — or just theatre?
Israeli Guard (voice cracks):
You accuse my nation, you are anti-Semite.
Handala:
I accuse these acts — criminal, inhumane, and racist — for what they are.
And don’t hide behind your tired propaganda; remember, I am Semitic too.
Nations are built by many hands: some create, some destroy.
You chose which hand to be — the one that breaks, not the one that builds.
Israeli Guard:
I am only one. What can one man do against a whole machine?
Handala:
One man can refuse to be the cog that grinds. One man can tell the truth in the corridor where the loud mouths boast. One man can hand a cup back, or stop a chained joke. Courage is small at first; its echo is large. What do you whisper to your kids in the evening about these tortures?
Israeli Guard (quiet):
And if I speak? If I refuse?
Handala:
Then you will be alone for a while and the right thing will be right forever. You will not be free of consequence — but you will be free of complicity.
Israeli Guard:
They will call me traitor.
Handala:
They will call many names, but many will call you hero for standing against the illegal and inhumane practices.
History calls them witnesses. Which name would you rather hear when the children come looking for answers — “he obeyed” or “he stopped”?
Israeli Guard (after a silence):
The orders… come from powerful men who promise safety, and they reward those who obey and punish those who refuse.
Handala:
Power that buys obedience with promises of false safety is cheap and corrupted power. True safety is built when mercy and equal law walk together — not when the occupier stomps people under occupation.
Israeli Guard:
And those above? They speak loudly. They have followers.
Handala:
Loud mouths are not the same as right hands. Followers that cheer humiliation and racism will one day need forgiveness. Will you be the hand that offers it, or the hand that tightens the lash?
Israeli Guard (looking away):
I have a uniform, a family, fear.
Handala:
So did the first man who refused an unjust order. Courage asks less than the conscience demands; it only asks you to remember you are a human when you no longer see one across from you.
Israeli Guard:
You speak as if you know forgiveness.
Handala:
I speak as if I know memory. Memory is the bank where we deposit our deeds. What you put in there you will one day withdraw.
Israeli Guard (a breath):
If I told the truth, what would change?
Handala:
Truth is a small seed that grows stubborn. It forces inquiries, protects witnesses, makes courts listen and may save victims. It does not erase what was done, but it stops the next hand from repeating the same act.
Israeli Guard:
They’ll silence me. They’ll punish me for exposing orders.
Handala:
Then let it not be said you were silent because it was easy. Let it be said you were silent because you feared. Fear is human. Regret is heavier. Choose which burden you will carry.
Israeli Guard (quietly, almost to himself):
If I refuse to obey an order to humiliate, will that make me a criminal to my people?
Handala:
Not to the people who build a future worth living in. You might be a criminal to a moment’s politics. But history forgives the man who saves another’s dignity more readily than it forgives the man who kept his badge and lost his humanity.
Israeli Guard (hands unclench):
And if the orders are from the very ministers who celebrate violence and torture?
Handala:
Ministers wore garments of authority — others wore bones of consequence. When ministers reward torture, they expose not strength but fragility. Strength does not need to humiliate.
Israeli Guard:
You will not turn. You will always stand with your back to the reader, unbowed.
Handala (still turned away):
My back faces the world that turned its back on justice. My posture is not surrender but a promise: that I will not look away until the hand that breaks is held to account.
Israeli Guard (softly):
And if I walk with you?
Handala:
Then the burden will be shared. Then the story will change — from a catalogue of brokenness to one of repair. Walk, but first empty your pockets of excuses.
Israeli Guard:
I will carry nothing but truth.
Handala:
Then begin by naming what you know. Names have weight. Once named, things can be fixed.
Israeli Guard (nods, a small, uncertain resolve):
I will… speak.
Handala (no fanfare, just the fixed posture of a child who will not be pulled in):
Speak and make your silence a bargain for life, not a receipt for shame.
Namibia rejects Germany’s Support of the Genocidal Intent of the Racist Israeli State against Innocent Civilians in Gaza
On Namibian soil, #Germany committed the first genocide of the 20th century in 1904-1908, in which tens of thousands of innocent Namibians died in the most inhumane and brutal conditions. The German Government is yet to fully atone for the genocide it committed on Namibian soil. Therefore, in light of Germany’s inability to draw lessons from its horrific history, President @hagegeingob expresses deep concern with the shocking decision communicated by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany yesterday, 12 January 2024, in which it rejected the morally upright indictment brought forward by South Africa before the #InternationalCourtofJustice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in #Gaza.
Worryingly, ignoring the violent deaths of over 23 000 Palestinians in Gaza and various United Nations reports disturbingly highlighting the internal displacement of 85% of civilians in Gaza amid acute shortages of food and essential services, the German Government has chosen to defend in the International Court of Justice the genocidal and gruesome acts of the Israeli Government against innocent civilians in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Germany cannot morally express commitment to the United Nations Convention against genocide, including atonement for the genocide in Namibia, whilst supporting the equivalent of a holocaust and genocide in Gaza. Various international organizations, such as Human Rights Watch have chillingly concluded that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza.
President Geingob reiterates his call made on 31 December 2023, “No peace-loving human being can ignore the carnage waged against Palestinians in Gaza”. In that vein, President Geingob appeals to the German Government to reconsider its untimely decision to intervene as a third-party in defence and support of the genocidal acts of Israel before the International Court of Justice.
Read more:
By Admin, 11/11/2024
Propaganda has historically been used by state actors to shape narratives, justify policies, and consolidate power. The Nazi regime under Joseph Goebbels provides one of the most extreme examples, using propaganda to dehumanize Jewish people and lay the groundwork for the Holocaust. In modern times, the Israeli occupation of Palestine
led by its leaders starting from David Ben-Gurion and ending with Benjamin Netanyahu has involved propaganda efforts that serve to influence public perception and justify Israeli oppressive and genocidal actions. This paper examines these cases to understand how propaganda can be wielded as a tool of oppression and what lessons can be drawn to promote peace and human rights.
Mechanisms of Propaganda: Parallels and Contrasts
1. The Use of Media and Messaging
Nazi Germany leveraged all forms of media—radio, film, newspapers, and rallies—to propagate messages of racial purity and demonize Jewish people. Simplistic slogans, repeated endlessly, imprinted anti-Semitic beliefs in the public consciousness.
In the Israeli apartheid context, media outlets and political rhetoric have been systematically used to shape perceptions of Palestinians. Mainstream Israeli narratives in addition to western medial like BBC , sky news and CNN and many others often falsely frame Palestinians as aggressors or security threats, which can overshadow their experiences of genocide , ethnic cleaning and daily settlers’ terrorism. The repetition of such messages helps reinforce certain stereotypes and justify stringent security measures.
2. Dehumanization and Scapegoating
A critical aspect of Nazi propaganda was the dehumanization of Jewish people, portraying them as subhuman and responsible for Germany’s economic and social problems. This dehumanization made the broader public more complicit in or indifferent to discriminatory policies and mass violence.
Similarly, in many Israeli political and media narratives, Palestinians are depicted as animals, inherently violent or linked to terrorism meanwhile ignoring the illegal Israeli occupation and systematic theft of their land. Such depictions can desensitize populations to the suffering of Palestinians and justify genocide, ethnic cleansing, illegal settlements, and racist policies.
3. Suppression and Control of Alternative Narratives
The Nazis maintained strict control over media and censored dissenting voices to prevent challenges to their ideology. Independent press was eliminated, and any information countering Nazi beliefs was banned.
In the modern Israeli apartheid entity, significant pressure and intimidation and threats and restrictions can still be applied. For instance, Palestinian journalists and media outlets have reported countless of cases of censorship, restrictions, and challenges in bringing their perspectives to international attention. During the Gaza genocide Israeli occupation army targeted and killed more than 188 journalists and banned Al Jazeera from reporting from occupied Palestine. This Zionist control shapes the narrative that reaches both domestic and international audiences.
Lessons and the Path Forward
The lessons from Nazi propaganda underscore the dangers of dehumanization, unchecked narratives, and scapegoating. These elements contribute to environments where oppression and violence are normalized. The Zionist apartheid , though distinct in context, shows how similar tools can foster division, justify oppressive actions, and hinder peace.
Promoting Truth and Reconciliation:
• Media Literacy: Encouraging critical examination of media sources and understanding biases can help mitigate the impact of propaganda.
• Amplifying Diverse Voices: Supporting independent journalism and ensuring diverse perspectives are represented can create a more balanced understanding of complex issues.
• Policy Accountability: Holding leaders accountable for rhetoric that dehumanizes or scapegoats groups is essential to preventing escalation and fostering coexistence.
Conclusion
While the context of Nazi Germany and the Zionist Israeli apartheid differs in some aspects, the use of propaganda to dehumanize, scapegoat, and suppress dissent bears notable parallels. Recognizing and addressing these mechanisms is vital for promoting peace, understanding, and human rights. Learning from history, societies must remain vigilant against the narratives that perpetuate division and strive for a more just and empathetic world.
NOV 09, 2024
When violence erupted around a soccer match in Amsterdam this week between fans of Israeli club Maccabi Tel Aviv and Dutch club Ajax, Western media outlets rushed to frame it mostly as an antisemitic attack on Israeli fans. But a closer examination of the coverage reveals troubling patterns in how racial violence is reported; not only is anti-Arab violence and racism marginalized and minimized, but violence against Israelis is amplified and reduced to antisemitism.
Consider this paradox: The New York Timesran the headline, “Israeli soccer fans injured in attacks linked to antisemitism in Amsterdam,” but the body article contained only verified evidence of anti-Arab racism. Its lede emphasized antisemitic motivation, while the body of the article cited footage by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans chanting anti-Arab and racist slogans – footage that the New York Times had actually verified. The only basis at the time for claiming antisemitism came from a single tweet by the Dutch prime minister, while the linked Amsterdam police’s own statement made no such attribution (subsequent police statements did condemn “antisemitic behavior”).
The New York Times was not alone in minimizing Israeli fan violence and anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism. Other mainstream outlets like NBC, CBS, CNN, and the BBC, all ran almost identical headlines that read like Israeli press releases, emphasizing that Israelis had been “attacked.”
The language was incendiary, suggesting that there had been some one-sided planned ethnic cleansing of Amsterdam. President Isaac Herzog used the word “pogrom” to describe what happened, a loaded term that was then picked up by other commentators. Reuters used the phrase “antisemitic attack squads,” while the Telegraph quoted the Dutch king in its headline, leading with “We failed Jews during football attacks as we did under Nazis.” The invocation of Nazism did not stop there, the US-based Anti-Defamation League emphasized that the attacks happened on the night before the anniversary of Kristallnacht in 1938. One commentator posted a photo of Anne Frank. Subscribe
Despite no Israelis being killed, a media system loathe to use the term genocide to describe the deaths of over 43,000 Palestinians seemed happy to use terminology redolent of the Holocaust. Suddenly, incidents of soccer hooliganism and anti-Israeli violence seemingly provoked by anti-Arab racism were being reduced to antisemitic pogroms.
Buried or omitted in most accounts was verified evidence of anti-Arab racism that had occurred prior to these events, including footage of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans tearing down Palestinian flags, attacking taxi drivers, and chanting explicitly racist slogans like “Death to the Arabs” and “Let the IDF fuck the Arabs.”
So marginalized were stories attempting to explain violence from Maccabi Tel Aviv fans that one Amsterdam resident took to social media to call out the media bias. She described hiding in fear as Israeli supporters attacked her home for displaying a Palestinian flag, stating in Dutch, “I hardly see anything in the media about my experience – that letting loose agitated football hooligans with war traumas, from a country that commits genocide and engages in extreme dehumanization, in the city *regardless of whether there are counter-protests* is not a good idea.”
This demotion of non-Israeli experiences and suffering in the media was evident in other outlets such as the Washington Post and Channel 4 News. On Instagram, their headlines emphasized the attacks on Israeli fans. Only in the accompanying text did they clarify the context, with Channel 4 news writing “that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were involved in two days of violence in the city, including footage of them singing anti-Arab and racist chants.”
Minimizing anti-Arab racism and the provocations by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans was not subtle. The BBC’s extensive live blog of the unfolding events quoted 13 Israeli and Jewish sources while allowing just one or two alternative perspectives. Injuries to Israeli fans received detailed documentation and personal accounts, while the impact of racist abuse on local Arab and Muslim residents went largely unexplored.
My snap quantitative analysis of the BBC’s live coverage reveals the stark imbalance.
Marc Owen Jones, Associate Professor at Northwestern University in Qatar, is an award-winning expert on disinformation, media analytics and Middle East politics. His latest book is titled ‘Digital Authoritarianism in the Middle East’.
In October 2023, I proudly wore my Star of David necklace to an emergency rally for Gaza, but a year later I could no longer wear it. Israel has made it impossible to divorce this symbol from the unfathomable devastation carried out under its banner.
BY ANNA LIPPMAN NOVEMBER 9, 2024 10
A SHUTTERED PALESTINIAN SHOP IN HEBRON CLOSED DOWN BY THE ISRAELI MILITARY THAT WAS VANDALIZED WITH A STAR OF DAVID, AN ANCIENT JEWISH SYMBOL ADOPTED BY THE ISRAELI STATE AS A NATIONAL SYMBOL. (PHOTO: LAUREN SURFACE/MONDOWEISS)
A few weeks ago in downtown Toronto, I watched a group of Zionist Jews come across a car decorated for Diwali. The car was covered in flower and candle decorations, as well as some Hindu symbology. Aghast at noticing a swastika amidst the decorations, this group became irate and began yelling about blatant antisemitism. I wondered if they knew the relationship between this symbol and the Hindu religion, but I doubted they would care if they did. Despite its origins (and different orientation) in Buddhist and Hindu culture, for many today the swastika is synonymous with Nazism. For myself, knowing the history of this symbol does not mitigate the visceral response I feel to seeing a swastika.
On October 29, a man in Oakland, California was kicked out of the Jerusalem Coffee House by the owner for wearing a blue baseball cap with a white star of David on it. Police are now investigating the incident as an antisemitic hate crime. Was it antisemitic to ask this man to leave? Maybe. Yet no one is asking a bigger question about this incident- why did this man feel it appropriate to walk into a Palestinian coffee shop wearing a hat so closely mirroring the flag of Israel? Did he not expect to elicit a visceral response from the very people being slaughtered in the name of this flag? Do Palestinians who have watched the death and destruction of their homeland carried out under this symbol not have the right to be offended by it?
In Canada, the Zionist lobby has spent the past year decrying any appearance of the Star of David within the pro-Palestine movement. From social media posts to protest signs, they have claimed that depicting this star in anything critical of Israel is antisemitic and equates the entire Jewish people with the State of Israel. Yet, this lobby and the state of Israel have themselves worked tirelessly to conflate Judaism and Israel. Beyond putting the star in the middle of the Israeli flag, the Centre for Israeli and Jewish Affairs has also put the star in its logo. B’nai Brith Canada uses the Jewish symbol of the menorah in its logo. When Zionists themselves begin appropriating Jewish symbolism, the distinction between Judaism and Israel becomes blurred.
Perhaps more than anyone, it is Israel itself that is appropriating Jewish symbols for fascist purposes. As a genocide continues in Gaza, the Israeli army celebrates this devastation by carving or spray painting the Star of David into demolished buildingsand neighborhoods. When spray paint falls short, soldiers and police brand and carve this symbol on Palestinians themselves. The co-optation of this symbol for terror is most evident in the West Bank. Palestinian cities and neighborhoods are often vandalized by settler youth who spray paint the star and accompanying fascist slogans over Palestinian murals and on flags. When settlers are finally able to displace these Palestinians from their villages, a star or menorah is frequently placed on top of this ethnically cleansed land.
On October 9, 2023, I proudly wore my Star of David necklace at the emergency rally for Gaza. I wanted people to know unmistakably that I was Jewish and still pro-Palestine. At the rally on October 5, 2024 marking one year of genocide in Gaza, my necklace instead featured the ‘chai’ symbol. I am no longer seeking to redeem and reclaim the Star of David.
Like the swastika, there is nothing wrong with the star in and of itself; this symbol existed before Israel and will exist after Israel’s demise. Yet, this symbol which was once an integral part of how I show my identity, is now synonymous with the cruelty and evil of the Zionist regime. When Palestinians look at this symbol, which has been used to represent Jewish supremacy and Palestinian destruction, they do not feel a distinction between this symbol when it is blue and in between two stripes or if it is gold and around my neck. Both represent the destruction of the Palestinian people.
While discussing the incident in Oakland on social media, Mohammed El Kurd makes the same argument that the Star of David is now a hate symbol, whether Jews like it or not. Peter Beinart responded by saying the symbol is a Jewish symbol that exists outside of Israel’s appropriation of it and thus criticizing the Star of David is in fact a condemnation of Judaism. I agree it is not the fault of Jews that Israel has decided to use our symbol as the logo for their fascist regime. However, we are not absolved of the current weight of these symbols and we should not fault Palestinians for their visceral emotions when they see these symbols.
During my most recent trip to the West Bank, some local children were scouring my belongings for potential gifts. Finding the Magen David necklace I wore through customs, a girl turned to me and said: “oh so you love Israel?” No! I vehemently responded. They giggled and asked why I have their symbol on my necklace? At first I tried to explain that this is a symbol of Jewish people, not the State of Israel. But I quickly trailed off. For Palestinians who know nothing of Judaism aside from its role in oppression and ethnic cleansing, this star symbolizes harm, destruction, and hate. I had specifically removed it when entering Palestine because I knew it was triggering to see.
In North America, the Jewish community is given special consideration during Diwali because of the use of the swastika and its associations with Nazi Germany and white supremacist movements. Palestinians must be afforded the same consideration when Jewish people choose to display the Star of David which has now become associated with the Gaza genocide and Israeli apartheid. Israel has made it impossible to divorce this symbol from the unfathomable devastation carried out under its banner. Israel has turned the Star of David into a symbol of supremacy and fascism. I refuse to associate myself and my Judaism with Israel and all it represents. That is why I am no longer wearing a Jewish star.
Astromystic, 15/12/25
The dispossession of Palestinian land is not merely an economic or political act—it is a profound erasure of identity, memory, and belonging. The occupation is not just about military control; it is about the systematic dismantling of Palestinian history, culture, and geography. Land, in this context, is not just soil—it is memory, lineage, and the soul of a people.
For centuries, Palestinian families lived on ancestral lands, tending olive groves, building homes, and passing down stories from generation to generation. Yet, under Israeli military occupation, this connection has been severed. Land has been expropriated, settlements have been built on stolen soil, and historical sites have been bulldozed or erased.
The dispossession is brutal in its physicality. Villages have been emptied, homes destroyed, and farms confiscated under the guise of “security” or “development.” In many cases, Palestinians are forced to leave their homes with no compensation—sometimes with a single bag, sometimes with nothing at all.
But perhaps the most insidious form of dispossession is the erasure of memory. When land is taken, the stories tied to it vanish. When villages are razed, the names of streets, the songs sung at weddings, the names of ancestors, and the rituals of harvest are lost. Palestinian children grow up without knowing the names of the fields their grandparents once farmed, or the stories of the wells their great-grandmothers once drew water from. The land is not just lost—it is forgotten.
This erasure is not accidental. It is deliberate. Occupation is not just about preventing resistance—it is about rewriting history. By removing Palestinians from their land, Israel removes them from their narrative. By constructing settlements and imposing checkpoints, it replaces Palestinian memory with Israeli presence. Yet, despite this erasure, Palestinians continue to remember. They hold onto the names of villages, the songs of their elders, the stories of their grandparents. They plant olive trees in memory of those lost, and they gather in homes and mosques to pass down traditions. Memory is not just a remnant—it is resistance.
The dispossession of land is not just a loss of property—it is a loss of self. For Palestinians, memory is not a luxury—it is survival. And as long as land is stolen, memory will fight back. The struggle to reclaim land is not just for the future—it is for the past, for the present, and for the soul of a people who refuse to be erased.
By Admin, 14/11/2024
Western governments, particularly the United Kingdom, often present themselves as defenders of democracy and human rights. However, their policies, especially regarding the Israeli occupation, reveal a striking inconsistency between rhetoric and action. This double standard has profound implications for their credibility and the well-being of those affected by the conflict.
The Inconsistent Approach to Human Rights
The British government, like many of its Western counterparts, vocally supports human rights in international forums. Yet, this commitment is inconsistently applied when addressing issues in occupied Palestine. While acts of resistance by Palestinians are swiftly condemned, Israeli atrocities of killing innocent civilians and violating international law, are often met with muted responses or are justified under the banner of self-defense. This disparity illustrates a prioritization of political alliances over the consistent application of human rights principles.
Selective Condemnation and Political Interests
The UK’s reluctance to criticize the racist Israeli policies, including illegal settlement, separation wall, starvation and genocide in Gaza, contrasts sharply with its approach to similar actions by other nations. This selective condemnation often aligns with strategic interests, reinforcing a double standard that undermines the UK’s credibility as an impartial advocate for human rights.
Media and Public Perception
The British media’s portrayal of the Israeli apartheid frequently reflects these double standards, shaping public perception. Coverage tends to emphasize Israeli security concerns while downplaying or contextualizing the suffering of Palestinians. This biased narrative further entrenches the unequal treatment and limits public scrutiny of government policies.
The UK’s approach to the Israeli occupation exemplifies the double standards that mar Western foreign policy. To rebuild trust and credibility, the British government must apply its stated principles of human rights consistently, ensuring that its actions align with its values. Only then can it hope to foster a fair and lasting resolution for the indigenous Palestinian people.
