1/2012 Is Hamas really a mean-minded Christmas Scrooge*?

Is Hamas really a mean-minded Christmas Scrooge*?

Phoebe Greenwood, writing from Gaza City in The Guardian on 23 December http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/23/gaza-christians-hamas-cancelled-christmas, reported:

“There hasn’t been a Christmas tree in Gaza City’s main square since Hamas pushed the Palestinian Authority out of Gaza in 2007 and Christmas is no longer a public holiday.”

The headline said Hamas had “cancelled Christmas”. Could this possibly be true?

by Stuart Littlewood
When I visited Gaza in late 2007 Fr Manuel Mussallam, the feisty old priest in charge of the Catholic community, took me and others to meet Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and some of his colleagues. Relations between Christian and Muslim – or at least between the Catholic community and the Hamas government – seemed strong enough and friendly enough for Christmas celebrations to be left undisturbed.

The very idea of a ban actually makes me smile because Scotland, a Christian country of course, saw Christmas as a papist festival and for centuries discouraged it. When I lived there it wasn’t even a public holiday.

But back to the Strip… Is Hamas being beastly to Gaza’s Christians? Has Phoebe Greenwood got her story straight? I wrote to her at The Guardian, pointing out that revelations of this kind in the popular British press undo the hard work activists put in to help the Palestinian cause. Could she please throw more light onto it? I’ve had no reply.

I’m in England and unable to contact Hamas. Phoebe Greenwood is on the spot. Shouldn’t someone from Mr Haniyeh’s office be given a chance to comment?

As for Fr Manuel, he has finally retired and left Gaza. The school he ran there, part-funded by the Vatican, had 1200 pupils. About 1000 were Muslim and some of these the children of Hamas leaders.

Fr Manuel Mussallam (L) meets with Hamas leader Haniyeh (R)
The relationship between Muslim and Christian in the Holy Land, and the potential for friction, is frequently poked and prodded simply to make mischief.

Those with a rightful cause versus those who took it away

Archbishop Theodosius Hanna (Greek Orthodox Church), on a visit to Ireland a year ago, told politicians: “The problem in Palestine has nothing to do with religion – it is not a religious issue. It is not a conflict of Christians, Muslims and Jewish people. It is a conflict between those who are the holders of a rightful cause and those who took away that right by military might.

“Palestinian people as a whole, including Christians and Muslims, have said repeatedly that what they want is peace. We want two states that live together in peace. However, the reality on the ground is that we are extremely far away from that goal because Israel does not want peace.”

Fr Manuel, who accompanied the Archbishop, told his listeners what happened when the Christian school in Gaza was targeted.

“Five Hamas ministers visited the school after it was attacked and promised they would repair the damage… A Hamas minister, a Muslim, picked up the Holy Bible thrown on the ground, kissed it and put it back on the altar. He said Muslims were forbidden to do such things to the Bible. Hamas paid more than $122,000 to repair all the damage caused.

“Afterwards I met the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh. When he embraced me he said this, and we believed it. He said: “Go to your family, but be assured that Hamas will employ weapons against Muslims to protect Christians in Gaza.” This is the reality. Christians in Palestine are not suffering persecution, because we are not considered to be a religious community, but rather the people of Palestine. We have the same rights and the same obligations.”

It is hardly surprising that Israeli oppression aided and endorsed by western Christendom, and the grinding poverty this evil alliance creates in the occupied territories, drives some Muslims into the arms of Islamic extremism. Hamas insists that extremist acts are incidents not policy.

Outside the Irish Parliament. Left to Right: Alan Lonergan (SADAKA), Constantine Dabbagh, Fr Manuel Musallam, John Ging, Archbishop Theodosius Hanna

Fr Manuel went on to tell the Irish what things were really like under military occupation. “We have spoken to Israel for more than18 years and the result has been zero. We have signed agreements here and there at various times and then when there is a change in the government of Israel we have to start again from the beginning. We ask for our life and to be given back our Jerusalem, to be given our state and for enough water to drink. We want to be given more opportunity to reach Jerusalem. I have not seen Jerusalem since 1990.”

He described the nightmarish system of entry and exit permits, which Israel invariably refused. “We want to see an end to this occupation, and please do not ask us to protect those who are occupying our territory.”

A week ago, on Christmas Day, the Voice of Palestine website ran this news item:

DAMASCUS – Hamas Movement have offered its best wishes to all Palestinian Christians in occupied Palestine, and other countries on the occasion of Prophet Jesus’ birth and wished them a happy holiday.

“On the occasion of rejoicing the birth of Prophet Jesus peace of God be upon him, the Islamic Movement of Hamas extends its sincere wishes to all our fellow Christians in their homeland Palestine, the cradle of prophecies and the land of divine messages, as well as to the Palestinian Christians in the Arab and Islamic countries and the whole world,” Hamas said in a press release on Saturday.

Hamas wished this occasion to be an opportunity for uniting the Palestinian people and pooling the efforts of the world’s free people to support the Palestinian cause and protect the Islamic and Christian holy sites.

In the past Hamas has shown great respect for the Christian tradition of Christmas and, I hear, Hamas officials in Bethlehem used to dress up as Santa Claus to distribute gifts to Christian children. So the question remains: has Hamas really become such a Scrooge* as to torpedo Christmas with a tree ban?

If so, it’s a sure-fire way to lose friends and alienate people.

* for more about the mean-mindedness of that notorious character Ebenezer Scrooge, and his hatred of Christmas, see ‘A Christmas Carol’ by Charles Dickens. Scrooge eventually sees the light and redeems himself.

Stuart Littlewood’s book Radio Free Palestine can now be read on the internet by visiting http://www.radiofreepalestine.org.uk



adamqqqzz on 3 Dec 2011

This is the BANNED Israel ad telling Israelis living in America their children will not be Jewish. Disturbing! Withdrawn from Israel web site but in full here!


3 responses to “1/2012 Is Hamas really a mean-minded Christmas Scrooge*?

  1. Phoebe Greenwood, writing from Gaza City in The Guardian on 23 December http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/23/gaza-christians-hamas-cancelled-christmas, reported:



    gracezchen35 on 3 Dec 2011

    Jews Brainwash American Children: All Mention Of Christmas Forbidden, Replaced With Hanukkah Songs

    This is homework from a Los Angeles public school, which forbids all mention of Christmas, Christmas Trees, Santa Claus and especially Jesus Christ. There is not one jewish child in this school, but the children, mostly Mexican and Vietnamese, are forced to learn Hanukkah songs. Already, this child has been exposed to the “Holocaust.” If Hitler was so efficient at killing jews, how are there so many jews to force school policy in America and force American tax dollars for Israel to suppress Palestine?

    Asian people stand with white Americans, tired of being tax-paying bitches for Israel.

    If this child would never be accepted as a jew, why is she forced to sing about how great Hanukkah is?

    People & Blogs

    Replaced With Hanukkah Songs

    Jews Brainwash American Children: Any Mention Of Christmas Forbidden, Replaced With Hanukkah


  2. Christmas Trees Banned in Nazareth

    Do Jews Control America? From: abilzeria | 27 Nov 2011 | 5,741 views Loading…Author Adam Bilzerian provides names, titles, and facts about the ownership of the media, control of the banks/Federal Reserve, political representation, and the judicial system in America to answer the question: Do Jews Control America? What you find will be shocking.

    Unlike the zionist controlled media, I don’t censor comments. Even those that disagree with my position, so feel free to post what you like…*

    America: Land of the Free? on Amazon:


    Why Does the Media Hate Ron Paul? From: abilzeria | 4 Dec 2011 | 1,481 views Loading…Author Adam Bilzerian outlines the reasons why the media does not give Ron Paul his due. Paul is at the top of the polls, yet he is largely ignored and marginalized in the mainstream media. This short video will give you the shocking reasons why Ron Paul is ignored in the mainstream media.






  3. The Climacteric

    This book, first written between 1949 and 1952, was rewritten in the years 1953-1956, and its concluding chapter in October and November of 1956.This was a timely moment to sum up the impact of Talmudic Zionism on human affairs, for just fifty years, or one-half of “the Jewish century,” then had passed from the day when it first broke the political surface, after submergence for some 1800 years.[34] (The British Uganda offer, in 1903, was the first public revelation that Western politicians were privily negotiating with “the Jewish power” as an entity. Mr. Balfour’s hotel-room reception of Dr. Weizmann in 1906, after the Zionist rejection of Uganda, now may be seen as the second step, and the first step on the fateful road of full involvement in Palestinian Zionism.)

    In 1956, too, the revolution (which I hold to have been demonstrably Talmudic in our time) was also about fifty years old (from the revolutionary outbreaks following Japan’s defeat of Russia in 1905) as a permanent factor in our daily lives (its roots, of course, go back through 1848 to the revolution in France and to Weishaupt, and to the one in England and Cromwell).

    Finally, 1956 was the year of one more presidential election in America, and this, more openly than any previous one, was held under the paralyzing pressure of Zionism.

    Therefore if I could so have planned when I began the book in 1949 (I was in no position to make any such timetable) I could not have chosen a better moment than the autumn of 1956 to review the process depicted, its consequences up to this date, and the apparent denouement now near at hand: the climax to which it was all bound to lead.

    During the writing of the book I have had small expectation, for the reasons I have given, that it would be published when it was ready; at this stage of “the Jewish century” that seems unlikely. If it does not appear now, I believe it will still be valid in five, ten or more years, and I expect it to be published one day or another because I anticipate the collapse, sooner or later, of the virtual law of heresy which has prevented open discussion of “the Jewish question” during the past three decades. Some day the subject will be freely debated again and something of what this book records will then be relevant.

    Whatever the sequel in that respect, I end the book in October and November of 1956 and when I look around see that all is turning out just as was to be foreseen from the sequence of events related in it. The year has been full of rumours of war, louder and more insistent than any since the end of the Second War in 1945, and they come from the two places whence they were bound to come, given the arrangements made in 1945 by the “top-line politicians” of the


    West. They come from Palestine, where the Zionists from Russia were installed by the West, and from Eastern Europe, where the Talmudic revolution was installed by the West. These two movements (I recall again) are the ones which Dr. Weizmann showed taking shape, within the same Jewish households of Russia in the late 19th Century: revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary-Zionism.

    At two moments during recent years the war-noises made by the politicians of the West were louder than at any others. On each occasion the immediate cause of the outburst was soon lost to sight in the outcry about the particular case of “the Jews,” so that, even before general war began (in both instances it receded) it was presented to the public masses as war which, if it came, would be fought primarily for, on behalf of or in defence of “the Jews” (or “Israel”).

    I earlier opined that any third general war would be of that nature, because the events of 1917-1945 led inevitably to that conclusion, which has been greatly strengthened by the events of 1953 and 1956. The wars which in 1953 and 1956 seemed to threaten would evidently have been waged by the West in that understanding, this time much more explicitly avowed in advance than on the two previous occasions. By any time when this book may appear the short-memoried “public,” if it has not again been afflicted by general war, may have forgotten the war-crises, or near-war-crises, of 1953 and 1956, so that I will briefly put them on record.

    In 1953 some Jews appeared among the prisoners in one of the innumerable mock-trials announced (this one was never held) in Moscow. This caused violent uproar among the Western politicians, who again and with one voice cried that “the Jews” were being “exterminated” and “singled out” for “persecution.” The outcry had reached the pitch of warlike menace when Stalin died, the trial was cancelled and the clamour abruptly ceased. To my mind the episode plainly indicated that if the war “against Communism” came about (which Western politicians and newspapers in these years spoke of as an accepted probability) it would be fought, and this time even avowedly, for “the Jews.” The general multitude of enslaved humanity would be left unsuccoured, as in 1945.

    In July 1956 threats of war again were uttered when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. For the first few days of this war-crisis the British Prime Minister justified the menaces to the British people, by the argument that Egypt’s action imperilled “the vital British lifeline.” Very soon he switched to the argument (presumably held to be more effective) that “Egypt’s next act, if this is allowed to succeed, will be to attack Israel.” The Zionist state then began to figure in the news as the worst sufferer from Egyptian control of the Suez Canal. Ergo, war in the Middle East too, if it came, was to be a war “for the Jews.”

    Thirdly, 1956 saw a presidential election held, for the seventh time under the direct, and for the third time under the open pressure of the Zionists in New York. The election campaign became a public contest for “the Jewish vote,” with the


    rival parties outbidding each other in the promise of arms, money and guarantees to the Zionist state. Both parties, on the brink of war in that part of the world, publicly pledged themselves to the support of “Israel” in any circumstances whatever.

    These results of the process which I have described from its start were to be expected. The conclusion to be drawn for the future seems inescapable: the millions of the West, through their politicians and their own indifference, are chained to a powder-keg with a sputtering, shortening fuse. The West approaches the climax of its relationship with Zion, publicly begun fifty years ago, and the climax is precisely what was to be foreseen when that servience started.

    In our century each of the two great wars was followed by numerous books of revelation, in which the origins of the war were scrutinized and found to be different from what the mass, or mob, had been told, and the responsibility elsewhere located. These books have found general acceptance among those who read them, for a mood of enquiry always follows the credulity of wartime. However, they produce no lasting effect and the general mass may be expected to prove no less responsive to high-pressure incitement at the start of another war, for mass-resistance to mass-propaganda is negligible, and the power of propaganda is intoxicating as well as toxic.


    The world would have raised a pandemonium of protest if a Kaiser or a Hitler had said such things. The ambition expressed by such words as “the full and undiminished programme of Zionism” is in fact boundless, for it is the political programme contained, in the guise of a compact with Jehovah, in the Torah; world dominion over “the heathen,” wielded from an empire stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. The support of Western governments gave reality to what otherwise would be the most absurd pretension in all history.

    That the politicians of the West comprehended this full meaning of what they did seemed impossible until 1953, when a statement was made that implied full understanding. In May, 1953, Mr. Winston Churchill, then British Prime Minister, was in dispute with the Egyptian premier about the Suez Canal and threatened him, not with British but with Jewish retribution. He spoke, in Parliament, of the Israeli army as “the best in the Levant” and said that “nothing we shall do in the supply of aircraft to this part of the world will be allowed to place Israel at a disadvantage.” Then he added, in words closely akin to those of


    Mr. Ben-Gurion and Rabbi Hillel Silver, that he “looked forward to the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations.”

    Here, in an aside, is probably the largest commitment ever undertaken by a head of government on behalf of an unsuspecting nation. The Israeli parliament at once recorded its gratification at “Mr. Churchill’s friendly attitude towards the Israeli government now and towards the Zionist movement throughout its existence.” The public masses in England read the loaded words uncomprehendingly, if at all. They startled many Jews, among them even Mr. A. Abrahams, who as a veteran Revisionist might logically have been pleased (the Revisionists openly pursue the late Mr. Jabotinsky’s ambition for “a big Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan to take in all the Jews and to become the largest military power in the Near East”; Mr. William Zukerman).

    Mr. Abrahams asked wonderingly, with an undernote even of alarm, if Mr. Churchill’s words could be genuinely intended, saying, “The Prime Minister is an old student of the Bible; he knows very well that the Zionist aspirations remain unfulfilled until Israel is fully restored within the historic boundaries, the land of the Ten Tribes.”

    This “aspiration,” of course, cannot be “fulfilled” without universal war, and that is evidently why Mr. Abrahams was taken aback, and made almost aghast. Mr. Churchill’s words, if they were considered and deliberately intended, signified support for the grandiose ambition in all its literalness, and the final price of that could only be the extinction of “the West” as it has always been known.[45]


    Douglas Reeds “The Controversy of Zion” now on the internet!
    Commensing in 1951, as Britains foremost World War II correspondent, he spent more than three years writing “The Controversy of Zion” – all 300.000 words of it. He completed the epilogue in 1956. Although there is correspondence to show that the book was once discussed with his publisher, the manuscript was never submitted, but remained for 22 years gathering dust in his home in Durban, South Africa.
    Would he have loved the internet! Now, half a century later, it exists, and must assist in the dissemination of his powerful truth. Several chapters show how much he would have loved this possibility. Just as much as the zionist censors of the internet hate this breach in their worldwide brainwashing and control of the media.
    In Europe during the years immediately before and after World War II, the name of Douglas Reed was on everyone’s lips. His books were being sold by the tens of thousands. He was known with intimate familiarity throughout the English-speaking world by a vast army of fans. And then he was banished. Was it this book? Take a look at these chapters and judge for yourself…..



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s