The word denial is used in English, nay in the entire West, as much as words such as facts, circumstances, and problems are used in our political lingo. This word came back to my recollection after I found a website (that is likely to be Jewish), and which mentioned my name with 124 thousand news items related to Israel and the Jews. I did not read more than a couple of pages from that site since life is too short to read it all. While I am not important enough to be the central focus of news stories, I noticed from browsing the published material that it was accusing me time after time of denial, such as denying terrorism, its origins, and denying the Palestinian “terrorism” - which I see as a legitimate resistance one thousand percent, and which I support against the Israeli terrorism. Apparently, the fact that I had always criticized those who deny the Holocaust did not vouch for me as far as this website was concerned, nor did the fact that I wrote time and again about the peace seeking Jews in Israel, the United States and from all around the world; for this electronic site, as long as I support Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel, then I am evading the problem by denying it. Perhaps I would not have touched upon this topic had it not been for the fact that on that same day, I read in the Israeli newspapers an article written by David Altman, which I found to descend to the most abysmal depths of denial, and in a very arrogant manner. In his article, Altman claimed that blood libel has returned, or the story about the pie that is made of the blood of Christian children. Of course, blood libel is a false accusation and dates back to centuries ago in the days of extreme anti-Semitism against the Jews. However, the article's writer moves from giving a historical account about the old and false accusation mentioned above (while shortly talking about Nazism), to presenting what are otherwise facts that carry no slander or lies, but that any court would admit and condemn Israel by them. Altman thus complained about a “university of terrorism” that was founded in Vietnam, when what had actually been founded in Vietnam was a resistance against the French and the subsequent American aggression, which the Americans themselves had condemned. He even complained about the North Vietnamese propaganda which succeeded in showing the horrendous murder of women and children, and the destruction of entire villages, which the writer seems to believe did not happen. I suggest in this regard that Altman talk to Seymour Hersh, who is Jewish like him but who is also a noble peace loving man, and ask him about My Lai and other massacres. How can someone be so arrogant to claim that the North Vietnamese media, which is at best primitive or nonexistent, had managed to defeat the media of the biggest military and economic power in the world? Only a Likudnik or a settler, or a thief who lives in a Palestinian's home then accuses this Palestinian of terrorism, can be this arrogant; the entire state of Israel is nothing but an illegal outpost in the land of Palestine, and that has been built at the expense of its people. In fact, Altman denied that aggression took place in Vietnam in order to deny the other aggression taking place in Palestine. He then carries on about a film narrating the story of Zionists stealing the eyes of their Palestinian victims. I have never heard about this film, but rather heard about the newspaper in Sweden which published a story about some Israelis trafficking the organs of Palestinian victims. Altman also mentioned Professor Nancy Scheper-Hughes from the University of California, who apparently wrote a report showing that Israel leads the world in organ trafficking. After that, the writer talks about Norway, and its recent decision to boycott the Israeli company Elbit for producing equipment that is used in the racial segregation wall. For David Altman, all of the above is another form of blood libel, or that anti-Semitic pie. A quick review of facts, however, tells a different story: Through a report written by a Jewish judge, the United Nations officially accused Israel of committing war crimes. Moreover, both Sweden and Norway criticize Israel, in addition to American university professors, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty international, and a dozen other international groups which all condemn Israel, be it in the Gaza strip or elsewhere. This is not to mention the Jewish and Israeli university professors who call for the boycotting of Israel along the lines of the similar international embargo against the former apartheid in South Africa. Meanwhile, reverend Desmond Tutu is now declaring that Israel is imposing a racial segregation that is akin to apartheid against the Palestinians, while many American churches had beaten Norway by several years in boycotting Israel, and for the same reasons. Also, there is the famous European poll which concluded that America and Israel were a bigger danger to world peace than either Iran or North Korea (America under Bush, not Obama.) In other words, the entire civilized world condemns Israel, and then someone comes and denies all these accusations with a Nazi undertone: he considers Israel alone to be right, while the entire world is wrong, just like Hitler and Goebbels saw one day that only Nazism was right. While it is true that some of us deny that terrorism came from our midst, this is nothing compared to the denial of the parallel responsibility that Israel has for this terrorism. Both of these denials are even less important than Israel's denial of its crimes while the entire world condemns them, and not just Arabs and Muslims.
