Shit Zionists Say [OFFICIAL VIDEO]


The latest in the Shit ___ Say meme has hit the internet: Shit Zionists say.

Parody is a frequent ingredient in satire and is often used to make social and political points. And likewise, in their latest video, instead of only focusing at poking fun; the Shit ___ Say takes the meme as an excuse to make not so thinly veiled commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

 

Shalit: Israeli Soldier With Atypical Autism


“The real tragedy actually was letting a psychologically unfit teenager like Gilad Shalit wear the military uniform in the first place.”

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat

 

Gilad Shalit

Israel freed 1,027 Palestinian and Israeli Arab prisoners to get Shalit back.

Beyond the debate over the rationale of Israel’s deal to release 1000 prisoners for one kidnapped soldier lies a simple fact: this Shalit deal is not only unbalanced but also mysterious in so many ways.

The mystery in this swap deal lies not in the acquiescence of the Israeli side- albeit unusual- to Hamas’ unbending  demands for releasing the kidnapped soldier, it lies not in the success of the Egyptians brokering the deal where Mubarak and the Germans’ diplomacy had failed before; it lies not in the timing of the deal that coincided with the highest peak of Israeli perceived intransigence toward recognizing a Palestinian estate, it lies not in the Hamas attempt to steal some of the thunder the Palestinian authority generated by forwarding its bid for UN statehood …, rather the mystery of this swap deal lies in Gilad Shalit, the Israeli kidnapped soldier himself.

As the story goes, Shalit, an Israeli army corporal, was abducted in June 2006 by militants while he was patrolling along the Israeli-Gaza border. The Hamas militants surprised his tank crew, killed two of his comrades and whisked him back into Gaza where he was held virtually incommunicado until his release.     

We all grew familiar with photos of Shalit that advocates for his release began to post on the internet since his capture by Hamas. They were snap shots of a young and smart Israeli man in military uniform. While you can’t tell much about a person from his photo, it’s not before you have at least watched him talk that you can get a little bit closer to knowing what kind of person he is.

Shalit’s kidnapping and his 2009 video 

 

On watching Shalit in his 2009 video in which he showed the whole world that he was safe and treated well in his captivity and also urged Netanyahu to concede to Hamas’ demands, something about that footage struck me as odd.

Though shalit had been in captivity for well over three years during which the Zionist controlled mainstream media turned him into a national hero, his first appearance in 2009 video revealed to me another aspect- devoid of any heroism- of Shalit’s personality that we couldn’t discern from the previous photos campaigners for his release flooded us with.

From the first moment shalit started to talk in the video as he was reading from some dummy card he somehow sounded, throughout the 2-minute and 40-second video, dummier than the card he was looking at.  

I’m aware that I’m talking about a man who has been long in captivity and maybe subjected to unimaginable hardships and that he must have been told to act according to a preplanned scenario so as to make everybody get the feeling that he was ok and taken care of.   

But with all that in mind I still couldn’t explain Shalit’s monotonous tone, his inability to change facial expression and to convey his hidden feelings through any body language or gesture – signs that stray away from the hyperarousal features of anger and irritability of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

But what primarily triggered my discomfort, or suspicions actually, was Shalit kicking off his video with a totally unexpected idiotic smile hardly befitting of a man languishing in solitude, as if he had just listened to a joke, that later turned into a recurring smirk characteristic of some pathological stereotype.

Those signs somehow began to summon up the physician inside me, and as I was trying to connect some of the dots I realized that the Israeli captive I had just watched talking in the video was not unfamiliar to me, I’ve seen this smirky face so many times before, not in Israel, but as I was examining cases with autism.

Now and before some of you with their jaws dropping start to wonder what kind of point I’m trying to prove here.

Well, and before anybody jump to any conclusions, all I’m saying is that upon watching Gilad Shalit’s 2009 video I started to have my doubts as a physician if the man Hamas captured and kept in some secret hiding place for years was suffering from some kind of pervasive development disorders(PDDs) long before he was kidnapped.

What is “pervasive development disorders?”

PDDs, refers to a group of conditions that involve delays in the development of many basic personality skills, most notably the ability to socialize with others, to communicate, and to use imagination. Children with these conditions often are confused in their thinking and generally have problems understanding the world around them.

There are five types of pervasive development disorders: Autism, Asperger’s syndrome, Childhood disintegrative disorder, Rett’s syndrome and Pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified (PDDNOS)

While most of these conditions typically are identified in children around 3 years of age — a critical period in a child’s development – they are called development disorders- one condition amongst them might linger with the child into his teens undiagnosed, namely Pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified (PDDNOS) which refers to children who have significant problems with communication and play, and some difficulty interacting with others, but are too social to be considered autistic and often to referred to as “atypical autistic”.

There are no laboratory tests to diagnose a PDD and that is why the doctor often seeks input from the child’s parents, teachers, and other adults who are familiar with the child’s symptoms.

General symptoms that may be present to some degree in a child with a PDD include:

- lack of social awareness;

- lack of interest in socializing/making friends

- inability to infer the thoughts, feelings, or emotions of others;

- either gazing too intently or avoiding eye contact;

- lack of changing facial expression, or use of exaggerated facial expressions;

- lack of use or comprehension of gestures;

- unusually sensitive to noises, touch, odors, tastes, or visual stimuli;

- Inflexibility and over-adherence to or dependence on routines; stereotypes and repetitive motor patterns.

 Egyptian interview and Shalit’s near collapse

 

Can't tell much from a man's photo.

Shalit slightly showed some of the PDD symptoms in his 2009 video like the lack of changing facial expression and use of gestures and he certainly bewildered us with his stereotyped smirk. But it was not before his release did we get a chance to scrutinize at his case more closely.

The Egyptian TV was keen on having the first interview with shalit shortly after his release. But what the Nile TV channel host did not know was that she was going to interview a psychologically disturbed man with personality disorders.

The interview was not part of Shalit’s release deal, Gilad shalit could have refused- or strongly avoided any thing that reminded him of the painful interrogating sessions during his captivity was he a PTSD case- but since he didn’t seem to object, the Egyptian TV grabbed the chance and promptly put him in front of the camera and lights. … Not knowing that for a PDD case this TV interview was the ultimate situation where his pathological vulnerability could be exposed for all to see.

On hearing of Shalit being interviewed on the Egyptian TV, that was simultaneously aired live around the globe, the Israeli government went crazy and slammed this exclusive interview as outrageous and exploitative.

There was no logical explanation for the fury of the Israelis over this interview by Egyptians- who mediated the swap deal- except maybe they have lately been aware that Gilad Shalit is suffering from autism-like condition and that they feared he could not handle the interview, probably make a fool of himself and consequently embarrass the Israeli defense forces (IDF) … and that he surely did.

Pale and dazed and shifted in his seat, Gilad Shalit struggled to breathe and seemed to mumble –signs of poor communication skills & uneven language development- as he arduously answered the questions of Shahira Amin, the Nile TV anchor.

This time there was no preplanned scenario, no rehearsals, and no dummy card. This time shalit had to face his most dreaded fears, namely communication and sociability, alone, without the help of his parents who I think lied about their son’s psychological condition for years before finally coming clean on the hidden matter.

As the Egyptian host threw her questions Shalit’s psychological condition, which the Israeli medical records only referred to as low medical profile, was violently been triggered allowing his symptoms to be exhibited more clearly especially for the professional eye. 

What we couldn’t elicit from the 2009 video was explicitly out there in front of our eyes in the Egyptian interview. Suddenly all the main symptoms of a case with PDDNOS were exhibited in this interview as shalit’s lack of interest in socializing, avoiding eye contact, lack of changing facial expression and repetitive motor patterns were clearly evident in the video.

As the interview progressed Shalit’s psychological stress was getting so unbearable he looked as if he was going to pass out. Shahira Amin was so alarmed from his near-to-collapse condition she had to stop the shooting to offer him some biscuits and a glass of water, and she could be heard in Arabic as she said “Guys, Let’s get this over with as quickly as possible, he is very sick, I can sense it

Mrs. Amin was not mistaken in her judgment, Gilad Shalit was a very sick man alright, but he was not suffering from any organic diseases- as later confirmed by his medical examination in Israel, rather his ailment was purely psychological.

Shalit back in Israel and in unifrom again, but who was responsible for putting him in uniform in the first place despite his inappropriate medical profile.

After the spectacle this interview with Shalit made, the Israeli government swiftly snatched Shalit by a helicopter back to some Israeli air base where the swift official ceremony for his release proceeded without Shalit himself whom they said was not to be interviewed soon.

Shalit’s medical check-up in Israel proved normal; In addition to a slight injury to one of his hands caused by shrapnel, Shalit was found to be suffering from a vitamin deficiency caused by lack of sunlight.

This story of Gilad Shalit that has dragged out for over five years is about much more than a released Israeli prisoner suffering from some kind of vitamin deficiency; it has more to do with the culture of a military state where its 18-years old boys must be enrolled in a mandatory draft for the ambitions of the Israeli defense forces even if some of them had “low medical profile” or what later appeared as personality disorders.

Kidnapping Shalit was definitely a sad story for his family and an embarrassment for the Israeli government but the real tragedy actually was letting a psychologically unfit teenager like Gilad Shalit wear the military uniform in the first place.

Shalit story is more about the psychology of a nation that existed, and still does according to a code of abnormalities.

Israel to Apologize over Egypt Police Deaths


Israeli soldiers are seen near the Israeli-Egyptian border

JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israel is to apologize to Cairo over the deaths of six Egyptian policeman, according to an announcement which coincided with news of an Egyptian-brokered deal for the release of Gilad Shalit.

The apology was expected to be formally extended on Wednesday.

In a statement released on Tuesday evening Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel and Egypt had concluded a joint inquiry into the deaths of six Egyptians killed by Israeli fire on August 18.

The deaths, which raised tensions between Israel and Cairo, occurred as Israeli troops chased a number of gunmen responsible for carrying out a series of shooting attacks which killed eight Israelis.

In his statement, Barak said Israel was willing to issue an apology over the deaths.

“Based on the findings of the investigation, Barak decided to apologize to the Egyptians over the death of every Egyptian policeman in the line of duty as the result of Israeli fire,” it said.

The defense ministry announcement came at exactly the same time as news broke over the landmark deal to secure Shalit’s release in exchange for freeing 1,027 Palestinian prisoners.

Both Israel and Hamas praised Egypt for its efforts to mediate the deal, which came more than five years after Shalit was captured in a cross-border raid by Gaza-based militants.

The Egyptian state news agency MENA said Egyptian intelligence chief Murad Muwafi was a key player in helping seal the deal between Israel and Hamas.

“General Murad Muwafi succeeded in concluding the deal,” the agency said. “His discussions with the Israeli side were done over the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Egypt’s cabinet also praised the deal in a posting on its Facebook page.

“Egypt succeeded in realizing a historic deal on the exchange of prisoners between Hamas and Israel,” the post said.

Ties between Egypt and Israel, which have been bound by a peace treaty since 1979, have entered a period of turbulence since the ouster of former President Hosni Mubarak by a popular uprising in February.

Relations worsened after Egyptian protesters stormed Israel’s embassy in Cairo in September, prompting an evacuation of staff.

Recognition of Israel Necessitates Recognizing Palestine First


Mahmoud Abbas submitting the application of the state of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations

Author’s note: Recognizing Israel has been an Israeli precondition for sitting around one table with the Palestinians to start the so-called peace talks.

In almost all the screwed up bilateral negotiations over the past two decades, the Israeli side would always issue statements that justify and stick the failure of negotiations on the other side’s unwillingness to recognize the state of Israel.

While most people were duped by this oversimplification, there are few who saw the catch in that statement.

Recognizing a state requires the existence of an equal state, politically and legally on the same level, to make the recognition. In other words, if Israelis insist that Palestinians recognize the state of Israel, then Palestine should be acknowledged first as a fully fledged state.

You simply can’t ask an entity, which what Palestine is regarded now at the United Nations, to recognize the state of Israel. This is legally and logically unacceptable.

This Israeli request for recognition by the Palestinians, which is one of Israel’s favorite excuses for not proceeding with the peace process, is but a phony argument that nevertheless gives the current Palestinian bid for UN statehood more authenticity and urgency for the sake of carrying on once again with the bilateral negotiations that both Israel and its American ally are raving about these days as the only way to reach an agreement or rather the only way out of this UN vote crisis.

The following article is one of the classic and most profound pieces on the Israeli alleged and misconceived right of existence.  

 

What ‘Israel’s Right to Exist’ Means to Palestinians 

“Recognition would imply acceptance that they deserve to be treated as subhumans.”

John V. Whitbeck

Since the Palestinian elections in 2006, Israel and much of the West have asserted that the principal obstacle to any progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace is the refusal of Hamas to “recognize Israel,” or to “recognize Israel’s existence,” or to “recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

These three verbal formulations have been used by Israel, the United States, and the European Union as a rationale for collective punishment of the Palestinian people. The phrases are also used by the media, politicians, and even diplomats interchangeably, as though they mean the same thing. They do not.

Recognizing Israel” or any other state is a formal legal and diplomatic act by one state with respect to another state. It is inappropriate – indeed, nonsensical – to talk about a political party or movement extending diplomatic recognition to a state. To talk of Hamas “recognizing Israel” is simply to use sloppy, confusing, and deceptive shorthand for the real demand being made of the Palestinians.

Recognizing Israel’s existence” appears on first impression to involve a relatively straightforward acknowledgment of a fact of life. Yet there are serious practical problems with this language. What Israel, within what borders, is involved? Is it the 55 percent of historical Palestine recommended for a Jewish state by the UN General Assembly in 1947? The 78 percent of historical Palestine occupied by the Zionist movement in 1948 and now viewed by most of the world as “Israel” or “Israel proper”? The 100 percent of historical Palestine occupied by Israel since June 1967 and shown as “Israel” (without any “Green Line”) on maps in Israeli schoolbooks?

Israel has never defined its own borders, since doing so would necessarily place limits on them. Still, if this were all that was being demanded of Hamas, it might be possible for the ruling political party to acknowledge, as a fact of life, that a state of Israel exists today within some specified borders. Indeed, Hamas leadership has effectively done so in recent weeks.

Recognizing Israel’s right to exist,” the actual demand being made of Hamas and Palestinians, is in an entirely different league. This formulation does not address diplomatic formalities or a simple acceptance of present realities. It calls for a moral judgment.

There is an enormous difference between “recognizing Israel’s existence” and “recognizing Israel’s right to exist.” From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to concede that the Holocaust was morally justified.

For Palestinians to acknowledge the occurrence of the Nakba – the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homeland between 1947 and 1949 – is one thing. For them to publicly concede that it was “right” for the Nakba to have happened would be something else entirely. For the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, the Holocaust and the Nakba, respectively, represent catastrophes and injustices on an unimaginable scale that can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.

Palestinian labourers line up, for hours with no shelter, to cross an Israeli checkpoint as they return to their homes after a day's work in the Jewish state on January 3, 2010 near the village of Ni'ilin in the West Bank

To demand that Palestinians recognize “Israel’s right to exist” is to demand that a people who have been treated as subhumans unworthy of basic human rights publicly proclaim that they are subhumans. It would imply Palestinians’ acceptance that they deserve what has been done and continues to be done to them. Even 19th-century US governments did not require the surviving native Americans to publicly proclaim the “rightness” of their ethnic cleansing by European colonists as a condition precedent to even discussing what sort of land reservation they might receive. Nor did native Americans have to live under economic blockade and threat of starvation until they shed whatever pride they had left and conceded the point.

Some believe that Yasser Arafat did concede the point in order to buy his ticket out of the wilderness of demonization and earn the right to be lectured directly by the Americans. But in fact, in his famous 1988 statement in Stockholm, he accepted “Israel’s right to exist in peace and security.” This language, significantly, addresses the conditions of existence of a state which, as a matter of fact, exists. It does not address the existential question of the “rightness” of the dispossession and dispersal of the Palestinian people from their homeland to make way for another people coming from abroad.

The original conception of the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” and of its use as an excuse for not talking with any Palestinian leaders who still stood up for the rights of their people are attributed to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It is highly likely that those countries that still employ this phrase do so in full awareness of what it entails, morally and psychologically, for the Palestinian people.

However, many people of goodwill and decent values may well be taken in by the surface simplicity of the words, “Israel’s right to exist,” and believe that they constitute a reasonable demand. And if the “right to exist” is reasonable, then refusing to accept it must represent perversity, rather than Palestinians’ deeply felt need to cling to their self-respect and dignity as full-fledged human beings. That this need is deeply felt is evidenced by polls showing that the percentage of the Palestinian population that approves of Hamas’s refusal to bow to this demand substantially exceeds the percentage that voted for Hamas in January 2006.

Those who recognize the critical importance of Israeli-Palestinian peace and truly seek a decent future for both peoples must recognize that the demand that Hamas recognize “Israel’s right to exist” is unreasonable, immoral, and impossible to meet. Then, they must insist that this roadblock to peace be removed, the economic siege of the Palestinian territories be lifted, and the pursuit of peace with some measure of justice be resumed with the urgency it deserves.

John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer, is the author of, “The World According to Whitbeck.” He has advised Palestinian officials in negotiations with Israel.