German Chancellor Merkel’s Party Labels BDS Anti-Semitic

December 10, 2016 ZionistReport 0Comment

A sick agenda this woman is allowing to play out in Germany and Europe: She condones massive open door migration to Europe, lies to her electorate about curtailing the veil in order to get re-elected, clamps down of free speech, and now labels BDS anti-Semitic.

Any thinking person can see through her Cultural Marxist agenda — and it won’t be stopping anytime soon as more than 50% Germany seems to support her.

Merkel Jew
We know where Merkel’s loyalty lies

“German Chancellor Merkel’s Party Labels BDS Anti-Semitic,” Source:

Germany’s Christian Democratic Union party on Wednesday passed a resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement because the anti-Israel action is antisemitic.

“Who today under the flag of the BDS movement calls to boycott Israeli goods and services speaks the same language in which people were called to not buy from Jews. That is nothing other than coarse antisemitism,” the CDU said.

The CDU likened BDS to the National Socialists who boycotted Jews in the 1930s. BDS dresses up antisemitism in the “new clothes of the 21st century” as anti-Zionism, the party said.

“The German CDU declares with this motion its disapproval and rejection of every form of BDS activity and condemns these activities as antisemitic. The CDU will decisively oppose every hostile action that Israel faces. The CDU professes its deep friendship toward Israel and continues to work toward a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” the resolution read.

Uwe Becker, the chairman of the CDU branch in Frankfurt, which formulated the resolution and submitted it at the CDU conference, said he was pleased with the result.

Chancellor Angela Merkel was nominated at the convention to run as the party’s candidate in next year’s federal election. The CDU’s resolution appears to be the first German party motion to reject BDS and classify the anti-Israel movement as antisemitic.

Last week, Israel’s ambassador to Germany criticized BDS activities in the state of Lower Saxony.

Writing in the Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung daily, Yakov Hadas-Handelsman said: “In Oldenburg a teacher agitates against Israel in an official way; in a magazine of the GEW labor union [the Education and Science Workers Union]. This teacher publicly spreads the proposal to relocate Israel to Baden-Württemberg” in southeastern Germany, wrote Hadas-Handelsman.

The ambassador cited additional outbreaks of contemporary antisemitism in Lower Saxony and asked: “What is wrong in Lower Saxony?”

The administration of the Social Democratic Gov. Stephan Weil in Lower Saxony has been embroiled in state-wide antisemitism scandals since July. Critics say Weil and his government fail to understand new forms of Jew-hatred.

Weil refused to meet with the Berlin office of the American Jewish Committee to find ways to blunt the activities of modern antisemitism in his state.

European Jewish leaders honour German Chancellor Angela Merkel with Jakobits Prize

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been given the Lord Jakobits Prize for European Jewry, and during an acceptance speech she said her government was a strong supporter of Israel and a two-state solution to the Mideast peace process.

Germany: Anti-Defamation League awards Merkel human rights prize

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was awarded the 2014 Joseph Prize for Human Rights by the US-based anti-semitic NGO, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), in Berlin on Wednesday. Recipients of the Joseph Prize include former US President George Bush, former South African President F.W. de Klerk and former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman stated that the prize honours Merkel’s “commitment” to human rights, signified, he said, by her public criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Merkel agreed that “the mission to assert human rights does not end at our countries’ borders.”

Among the ADL delegation, were also Israeli Ambassador to Germany, Yakov Hadas-Handelsman, and Head of the Jewish Association of Berlin, Dr. Gideon Joffe. The prize-giving ceremony took place at the Federal Chancellery.

Do Jewish Republicans regret calling Obama a ‘Jew-hater’ yet?


They’re feeling the full force of anti-Semitic hatred from the Trump camp now. But Jewish Republicans abused and devalued the anti-Semitism charge in their constant attacks against the Obama White House.

ed note–As we have said here often, don’t fall into the trap of using superficial and circumstantial evidence such as Trump’s having spoken at AIPAC and a few other noises he’s made as ‘proof’ that he is owned by the Jews. Obviously, as they make clear on a daily basis in various OpEds including this one, there is very deep division/mistrust within Mundus Judaicus as to just what Trump will do vis a vis the entire Jewish state program.

Benjy Cannon, Haaretz

How are American Jews responding to Donald Trump’s campaign dog-whistling to his nakedly racist and anti-Semitic supporters? Largely Democrats, most embrace progressive values and have already rejected him out of hand. But the interesting reactions aren’t coming out of the Jewish left, they’re coming out of the Jewish right. And their divided response to Trump offers an important lesson to Jews in America about fighting anti-Semitism.

As with the rest of the GOP, Republican Jews are not united against Trump. Much of the Republican Jewish “intelligentsia” — Bill Kristol, Bret Stephens and Yuval Levin, for example — adamantly oppose Trump.

But more hardline Jewish Republicans, like Pam Geller, David Horowitz, and most prominently, Sheldon Adelson (who has reportedly pledged upwards of $100 million to support Trump) have lined up behind him. The Republican Jewish Coalition (which is primarily backed by Adelson) issued a fairly evasive statement congratulating Trump on becoming the Republican nominee.

These differing opinions were guaranteed to lead to infighting, and sure enough, writing in Breitbart, David Horowitz sent a shot across the bows. It did not disappoint. In a piece titled “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” Horowitz accused Kristol — who is leading the campaign to push a third-party conservative candidate to challenge Trump — of betraying Jewish values. His argument boiled down this: Only the Republican party is good for the Jews, and a third party candidate will make a Republican candidate less likely, so opposing Trump is the same as betraying American Jewry.

Horowitz’s piece was roundly condemned by the many of the same Republican Jews who oppose Trump. The most instructive and troubling of these responses came from another far-right pundit: Ben Shapiro, the former Editor-at-large at Breitbart.

Shapiro had been something of a protégé of Horowitz. For a while, he ran the right-wing site TruthRevolt, which is a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Shapiro, a self-identified Orthodox Jew, has never been a Trump fan, and in his takedown of Horowitz’s piece he called it “garbage.” He argues that Horowitz — as a secular Jew — has abandoned Jewish teachings and so is not “in a position of strength” to call anyone a “renegade Jew.” Shapiro didn’t think Horowitz was being anti-Semitic. Rather, he argued that Horowitz’s Jewish practice precluded him from accurately speaking in terms of “Jewish interests.”

Since then, Shapiro has come under vicious attack from the pro-Trump right, and has himself been the target of virulent and disgusting anti-Semitism. It has been so bad that Shapiro wrote another piece grappling with the anti-Semitism emanating from the right — his political home. Shapiro previously believed anti-Semitism in the U.S. was “almost entirely a product of the political left”, but since the pro-Trump attacks on him including greeting “the birth of my second child by calling for me, my wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber” he recognizes that, “There is a significant core of Trump support that not only traffics in anti-Semitism but celebrates it — and god-worships Trump as the leader of an anti-Jewish movement.”

So how is it that the leading lights of the Jewish right are actually having a fierce debate over whether it is in the interests of American Jews to support a campaign that peddles in anti-Semitism? Shapiro himself might actually have the answer.

There is a trend on the Jewish right, especially the far-right, to cast ideological opponents as “Jew-haters” or “anti-Semites.” Softer critics merely charge them with being “anti-Israel.” Ben Shapiro has repeatedly referred to the “Jew-hating Obama Administration” in his articles about U.S. foreign policy. He starred in a video about “why Jews vote leftist,” in which he argued that American Jews who “back leftism are betraying Torah Judaism.” In many ways, these arguments are similar to Horowitz’s — Judaism means x, and you’re doing y, so if you don’t do x you are betraying Judaism.

The problem is that, Shapiro, and much of the Jewish far-right, habitually conflate criticism of Israel, abandonment of “traditional values” and diplomacy-driven foreign policy (not least on Iran) with “Jew-hatred.” In this worldview, where people stand on a host of issues (Israel in particular), is largely a function of the degree of their anti-Semitism.

It’s clear how these habits of thinking lead to wrong-headed assessments of shared interests. The habit of some on the right to make constant, unfounded allusions to “Jew-hatred” has produced a group of people who think criticizing settlements is anti-Semitic but who ignore their candidate’s indifference to white nationalists. These pro-Trump Republican Jews who equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism have now found themselves in bed with real anti-Semites. And as the Trump fiasco demonstrates, that makes presenting a unified front against anti-Semitism — and the broader racism in the Trump campaign — far harder.

To be clear, these writers and activists are outside of the mainstream of even politically conservative Jewry. But they have enormous reach. Breitbart is the highest ranked “mainstream” right-wing publication on Alexa. In 2012, Adelson was the single largest political donor. And while the more centrist Republican #NeverTrumpers might not call Obama a “Jew-hater,” they are no strangers to loose accusations of anti-Semitism. Moreover, if they have an issue with how Adelson and Horowitz operate, I haven’t seen any pushback.

The current spat over Trump — with some Republican Jews recognizing his anti-Semitism, and others supporting his campaign in the name of Judaism, is a predictable consequence of constantly charging your enemies with anti-Semitism. This group of people have so denigrated the political discourse in their circles that they’ve been left floundering in the face of a genuinely anti-Semitic movement in the United States.

That scares me.

The vocal Jewish left and center will oppose Trump for all kinds of reasons. But the Jewish right is far more divided. After years of equating ideological disagreement with animus towards Israel and the Jews that is almost inevitable. Constant charges of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism have so cheapened the terms that Jewish pro-Trumpers cannot see it staring them in the face.

I hope there’s no “next time” American Jews have to wrestle with this quandary. But if there is — and for the rest of this election cycle — we should stop throwing around charges of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism so blithely. Doing so has left the Jewish right divided to the forces driving Trump’s campaign. With all that’s at stake this November, that’s not something we can afford.

Jewish Illusions of Kosher Nationalism

Renegade Editor’s Note: this article originally appeared as a comment by Whenever The Whether on “Lobbying and the Arms Trade“. It has been edited for readability.

2 Jewish illusions that I’d like to address

The fake kosher nationalists (TRS/DailyStormer and all the associated once jew-wise outlets online) have all decided to play along with ZOG’s fake news deception, reacting to every Mossad false flag or jewish MSM narrative, playing along with the neo-con agenda.

Apparently fighting the wrong war, against the enemies of jewry rather than the jews themselves, is a step in the right direction. Presumably the idea is once the European people have finished fighting an unwinnable ‘war against islam’ the even further depleted numbers of whites can turn then their attentions to opposing ZOG. This is a rather odd development in the awakening-to-jewish-tyranny movement.

The false claim #1 – Trump has banned muslims

This is a step in the (((right))) direction they claim.

Trump has done no such thing; he has merely extended a pre-existing bill that Obama first initiated in 2015 under zionist command. The nations mentioned in the bill are all actively fighting against the ZOG construct ISIS. They are all the ME nations resisting jewish tyranny, so they are technically on our side. The ‘islamic’ nations not included in the ban are all the countries known to be assisting the isreali Mossad mercenary proxy jewhadists (ISIS/Al Qaeda/DAESH etc).

The left call Trump Hitler. The alt-right kosher clowns pretending to be goys go along with this, so the followers in the infiltrated movements actually believe Trump is Hitler too.

There is no muslim ban, but even so, a war against isreal’s enemies isn’t a step in the right direction. It’s a continuation of zionist control of the Western mind, body and soul, leading to our extinction.

The false claim #2 – Trump has banned foreign lobbyists

This one is simple to explain.

How does banning foreign lobbyists square up with the fact Trump has installed the following into his personal team? David Friedman, Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt, Steven Mnuchin, Stephen Miller, Carl Icahn, Gary Cohn, Boris Epshteyn, David Shulkin, Reed Cordish, Avrahm Berkowitz, Kissenger. etc. The list goes on far further than the few I mention here.

Lobbyists aren’t needed if your entire personnel is comprised of dual nationality jewish isreali citizens, who are all geared for misdirecting America’s international and domestic policies to serve isreali interests. Then of course there are the big pharma and Military Industrial Complex demons Trump has employed.

So in the brainwashed mind of the self-proclaimed red-pilled new-wave generation of ‘resistance’ to international jewry the alt-right has aligned with every one of isreal’s interests. This means they think trying to kick off WWIII in the jewish instigated clash of civilisations is a step in their direction, however this is diametrically opposed to national socialist/mankind’s interests.

I’m starting to wonder whether we have already reached our peak of who can be woken up back in 2012, after 9/11 and the internet allowed the awakening to kick off, with earnest investigation into the litany of jewish crimes. Since 2012 the movement hasn’t just gone backwards, but been derailed completely into serving ZOG’s primary key interests.

If you call yourself red-pilled and claim allying with neo-cons is a step in the right direction, you are my enemy. I see you the same as Kissinger, Netanyahu and Soros.




Organized Jewry is frothing at the mouth at Donald Trump’s faux pas on “Holocaust memorial day.”

The political “misstep”? Equating the suffering of all innocent people in World War II with the sufferink of Jews, which we all are supposed to know is different because Jews are a superior race.

This is the first time in history the President of the United States has made no mention of Jews, anti-Semitism, or the science fiction Zionist folklore about ovens and gas chambers so prominent in (((Hollywood))) narratives.

The Six Million meme Jews require their agents to constantly repeat through amplifiers in order to make the lie stick was also avoided. Without constant repetition, the myth and meme begins to decompose.

USA Today:

In a departure from predecessors on both sides of the political aisle, President Trump’s statement Friday marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day did not mention the deaths of six million Jews — a lapse the head of the Anti-Defamation League called “puzzling and troubling.”

In the three-paragraph statement Friday, Trump said: “It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.”

“Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest.‎ As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent,” he continued, again referring only to “the innocent.”

“In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good,” he concluded. “Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.”

Greenblatt noted that both Republican and Democratic presidents — including all of Obama’s statements on the occasion — always clearly highlighted the centrality of the genocide of the Jewish people on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

International Holocaust Remembrance Day was established by the United Nations in 2005 to commemorate the deaths of the six million Jews as well as an estimated two million Roma and thousands of disabled and gay people at the hands of the Nazis.

A separate Holocaust Remembrance Day was established by Israel in the 1950s to mark the Jewish losses in particular, which are also traditionally marked by a presidential proclamation.

Trump’s statement is obviously not pro-Nazi, but he is still exceeding expectations in pushing back against Jewish supremacy. The vast majority of people in America, who are generally ignorant regarding the truth of World War II, will see nothing wrong with Trump’s statement, but the kneejerk Jewish reaction exposes them once again.

Mr Greenblatt, unlike his more Machiavellian and clever predecessor Abe Foxman, is not long for his chairmanship at the ADL if he continues to make drastic high-profile strategic errors and bringing attention to transparent Jewish moral corruption.

The pin holes Trump is piercing in the Jewish helium balloon is causing them to behave recklessly, with Trump setting off all their extraordinarily neurotic triggers. Brace for the ride, because there’s probably a lot more to come.

Read it and weep, Tay-Sachoberg.





President Donald Trump has called out the cucked losers John McCain and Lindsey Graham for always looking at ways to start World War III. This after they released a retarded statement criticizing his immigration bans.

He’s 100 percent correct to call them out for this. Russia is a natural ally to help clean up the Middle East yet they continue to act like Vladimir Putin is the most evil man alive. There’s absolutely no reason for the United States to be meddling in Eastern Europe. Especially in countries that used to be part of the Soviet bloc. Our country has enough problems as is.

It is also ridiculous for them to say that we shouldn’t secure our borders and limit immigration. If McCain and Graham were really serious about national security this is the first place they’d focus in on. Preventing bad people from entering the country at the border should be the primary focus of any national security strategy. What is happening on the other side of the world is secondary.


The joint statement of former presidential candidates John McCain & Lindsey Graham is wrong – they are sadly weak on immigration. The two…

…Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III.




It was thought that after having been called a racist for his plan to ban Moslems from entering the United States, Donald Trump would have apologized, visited the Holocaust Museum and then resigned from the Presidency.

However, he didn’t do that.

Instead on Twitter this morning, he doubled down.

Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world – a horrible mess!

Also – and perhaps even more importantly – on Twitter this morning, he called the New York Times “fake news.”

Somebody with aptitude and conviction should buy the FAKE NEWS and failing @nytimes and either run it correctly or let it fold with dignity!

One would think he would also need to resign for that tweet, as it is both an attack on freedoms and pure anti-Semitism.

By the way, if you were wondering what’s going on with the @POTUS Twitter account – not too much. It’s just official statements and retweets from Trump’s personal account.

But that doesn’t really matter, because @POTUS only has 14.5 million followers, while @realDonaldTrump has 22.7 million followers.

Still though.

It wasn’t until I saw him on the @POTUS twitter account that it sunk in that he is actually President of the United States of America.





Jews who were born in one of seven countries now blacklisted by Trump could face problems if trying to travel to U.S., says New York immigration lawyer Michael Wildes, who is advising some of his clients to stay put.

ed note–in other words, Jews posing as Arabs and working for Mossad in orchestrating false flag terrorism against the US would be banned?

Is some of this beginning to make more sense now?




Donald Trump was the first presidential candidate I ever supported who actually won, and his election was the happiest day of my professional life. He warned us that we will have to get used to winning, and now…


Ambassador Victoria Nuland assumed her position as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs on September 18, 2013. As Assistant Secretary she is …

Did you click on the link above? It says:


That is the happiest I have ever been to see a broken link. She has been fired by Donald Trump. Listeners to the David Duke show know that for more than three years I never missed an opportunity to point out that Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland was the driving force in the Obama Administration for an aggressive policy towards Russia that aimed at regime change in Moscow and was more than willing to risk World War III to do so. In furtherance of that aim, she engineered the coup d’etat in Ukraine that replaced the constitutionally elected President with what amounts to a Jewish junta.

(Click here for a list of articles we posted about her)

And now she’s gone. While she ought to be in prison for all the lives she snuffed out in the civil war in Ukraine that she provoked, she will no doubt land a very prestigious job in a Jewish-run think or even at a university, despite her lack of academic credentials. The tribe still calls the shots at the universities. She will be a mainstay on network television as a foreign policy expert critiquing President Trump’s follies. But at least she won’t be secretary of state, which was likely what she would have been if Hillary had won the election.

Nuland was kicked out along with the rest of the State Department leadership. I cannot verify the accuracy of this chart, but it has been circulating on the internet.

This looks like “draining the swamp.” Still, I suppose I shouldn’t get too used to winning. The bulk of the replacements are bound to come from the same swamp of the foreign policy establishment, namely think tanks, universities, and the bureaucracy itself. This is all Zionist occupied territory. If we lived in a self-governing country, someone like myself with credentials and experience and a track record of being right and supporting the new president and his policy priorities would stand a good chance of being brought into the administration. However, anyone who has pointed out the massive damage caused to our society by Jewish power is persona non grata in polite company.



Sagging Liar Theresa May Says British Dual Nationals will Not be Affected by Moslem Ban

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
January 31, 2017

The White House and DHS have made it explicitly clear that anyone holding an Islamic passport from one of the 7 first-round banned countries is being totally cockblocked.

It doesn’t matter if they have a Cuck Island passport or not. If they can be identified as being nationals of one of the 7 banned countries, they are out.

Stop lying Theresa, you sagging old childless slut.


Theresa May’s government issued a statement on Monday afternoon insisting British citizens with dual nationality will not be affected by Donald Trump’s US travel ban.

According to the Guardian, the PM’s deputy spokeswoman said the government was confident in the clarification secured by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson on Sunday.

This is a despite a statement issued on Monday by the US embassy in London claiming the opposite.

In an ‘urgent notice’ published on the embassy’s website on Monday morning, the US government said no visas would be issued to any dual nationals of countries listed under the so-called ‘Muslim ban.’

The Foreign Office had issued a statement late on Sunday night in which it claimed UK nationals traveling from the UK would not be affected by the “extreme vetting” security checks in place, even if they were born in one of the seven barred nations or hold dual nationality.

The statement followed talks between Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Home Secretary Amber Rudd and US officials.

On Monday morning, the US embassy warned persons with dual nationality of the barred nations and any other nation not to apply for visas.

“Per US Presidential Executive Order signed on January 27, 2017, visa issuance to aliens from the countries of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen has been suspended effective immediately until further notification.

“If you are a national, or dual national, of one of these countries, please do not schedule a visa appointment or pay any visa fees at this time.

“If you already have an appointment scheduled, please DO NOT ATTEND your appointment as we will not be able to proceed with your visa interview. Please note that certain travel for official governmental purposes, related to official business at or on behalf of designated international organizations, on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or by certain officials is not subject to this suspension.”

The British government is under pressure to condemn Trump’s 90-day travel ban, which prevents people from the Muslim-majority nations of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US.

A petition on the UK Parliament’s website calling for Trump to be banned from the UK ahead a planned state visit in the spring has reached over one million signatures.

The Foreign Office issued a statement late Sunday night which sought to clarify how the new travel regulations would affect UK citizens. It followed talks between Johnson, Home Secretary Amber Rudd, and US officials.

According to the statement, UK nationals traveling from the UK will not be affected by the “extreme vetting” security checks in place, even if they were born in one of the seven barred nations or hold dual nationality.

Johnson, who condemned Trump’s travel ban on Twitter on Sunday, will now face questions from MPs in the House of Commons.

“Whatever happens, we will be demanding to know why the Canadian government was able to provide assurance to its nationals on Saturday evening that they would be unaffected by the ban, at the same time that No 10 was only just getting round to looking into [its] implications,” a Labour Party source told the Guardian.

If you faggots hate our country so much, how about this – you keep the hell out of it.

Moslems would only come to America for two reasons:

Terrorism, and the much more popular economic exploitation.

There is no other reason.

They don’t belong here and we don’t want them here and they have to go back.

Boris Johnson should keep his fat mouth shut.

Theresa should resign immediately and turn over control of Britain to Nigel Farage.

George Galloway on Why He Still Backs Brexit

Opinion > Interviews

By: Joe Emersberger

  • George Galloway is a British politician and activist who has long campaigned against British and western imperialism. | Photo: Reuters

Published 27 January 2017

Rejecting the EU is the “spirit of our” age, says the British politician and decades-long activist.

Last June, voters in the United Kingdom were asked, in a referendum, if they wanted to remain part of the European Union or leave the bloc, now commonly referred to as “Brexit.”

What 5 Leading Leftists Think About the UK Leaving the EU

The Brexit side prevailed by a small margin and the U.K. parliament is expected to soon vote to formally start the process of negotiating Brexit with the EU. George Galloway, a former Labour party MP and long-time progressive activist, answered some questions of mine about Brexit.

Joe Emersberger: UK progressives were generally horrified by the win for the Brexit side because there were certainly racist and xenophobic forces emboldened by it. You, however, made a left-wing case for Brexit.  Could you outline what that was?

George Galloway: I reject your premise. Britain’s communists, Trotskyists and left-wing trades unionists campaigned for a Leave vote as did the left’s only daily newspaper the Morning Star.

I think you mean liberal rather than progressive.

It is true that some who might have preferred to do otherwise were by circumstances obliged to argue for a Remain vote. People like Jeremy Corbyn with whom I opposed the EU in the British parliament for nearly 30 years, and some of the major union leaders.

Most importantly the British working class voted leave. The vast majority of constituencies with Labour MPs voted Leave. The majority of the low paid voted leave.

There is nothing progressive about the EU as we said in 1975 in our “No” vote campaign under the leadership of Tony Benn, the greatest progressive leader we’ve ever had in Britain.

The EU has nothing to do with internationalism nor with anti-racism as those suffering the lash of racism and islamophobia in mainland Europe know. And those sinking in the Mediterranean trying and failing to enter Fortress Europe know.

It is nothing to do with peace either, as the people of Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Iraq, Libya Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Mali and others know. The EU is the political wing of NATO.

It has nothing to do with workers’ rights and economic justice, either, as the people of Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland know. The EU is an anti-democratic bankers ramp whose neo-liberal austerity agenda has beggared Europe whilst imposing as economic orthodoxy the “principles” of globalization and the strangling of the idea of democratic control by people and peoples of their own lives.

It is being rejected everywhere in Europe and will soon be gone. People will not accept being ruled by those they did not elect and cannot remove. This is the spirit of our age.

Emersberger: Wasn’t racism partly what drove a backlash against “freedom of movement” for workers with the EU?

Galloway: Racism existed before the EU and within and without it. It must be fought by all right thinking people whatever their views on the EU.

The first and greatest victims of the so-called “freedom of movement” EU rules were Britain’s Black and Asian workers, who have been disproportionately represented in the ranks of the poorly paid, poorly housed, unemployed and under-employed.

The increase in the labour supply by employers bringing in very low paid workers from east and Central Europe, mainly white by the way, put them out of work or depressed their wages and conditions first of all.

The pressure on pitifully poor public services and on rents in the private sector after decades of under-investment by successive British governments was all too obviously increased by so called freedom of movement. At least to the poor and other working class British people.

Emersberger: Will leaving the EU, by itself, solve those problems?

Galloway: EU rules and indeed constitutions make impossible, even illegal, the kind of changes Britain needs. Public ownership of vital services and industries, state intervention in the economy, protection of strategic activity like steel production, are all forbidden by the neo-liberal articles of the EU.

As a socialist, I believe in a planned economy, not the laissez-faire of capitalism.

Trump and May Support for Brexit, NATO

It was, therefore, an article of faith for me to oppose the EU.

The leaving of the EU is a necessary but not sufficient condition for advance for Britain and it’s working class. In other words, leaving does not guarantee that advance. Staying precluded that advance.

If the EU was a progressive cause then it would not have been supported by Big Capital in the City of London, by almost all of British capitalism, by the BBC and Whitehall, by Britain’s mainstream political class, by most of the media. Or by Tony Blair.

I am European and I believe in Europe and its peoples. But I oppose the EU for the reasons above.

For the avoidance of doubt; I am a child of Irish immigrants, I am the father of two Arab and two Indonesian children, my wife is Dutch-Indonesian. I have represented more Black and minority ethnic people, more immigrants in parliament than any other MP in the history of Britain, having been for nearly 30 years the MP for Glasgow, London’s East End and the huge immigrant population of Bradford. Nobody could be more internationalist, less nationalist, more anti-racist than me.


Europe United Kingdom Politics United States Refugee & immigrant rights

‘Britain to blame for Israeli-Palestinian conflict’ – George Galloway

Pro-Palestinian activists held banners and denounced Israeli aggression, following violent clashes and attacks by Israel Defense Forces on Palestinian civilians. According to former MP and current Respect Party leader George Galloway, “Britain is the cause of all this disaste

Tulsi Gabbard e00b4

According to the source, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard who had last week said that she met with Syrian President Bashar Assad during a recent trip to the war-torn country, stressed during the meeting that “affairs are going on in a way that an unprecedented opening is seen in the relations between the two sides in different fields”.

Referring to three existing scenarios on Syria, she said that the first option is continued war which doesn’t benefit any sides and the US administration will likely oppose it; the second option is the victory of dissidents which is opposed by Trump and he even dismisses interactions with them; the third option is Assad’s continued ruling over Syria as the best person to manage the country provided that certain considerations will receive attention in the formation of the government, the Syrian source said.

According to the source, Gabbard has indirectly spoken about a US plan to pave the ground for Trump’s showoff by annihilation of the ISIS in Raqqa like what was done by former US President Barack Obama.

“Raqqa city is a political card important for the world since it is considered as the ISIS’s first base; meantime, ending the war is Raqqa militarily is easy since there are no tunnels and tall buildings in there which facilitates any military measure to annihilate terrorism,” the Syrian diplomatic source said.

Backing from a weeklong trip to Syria defended her meeting with the war-torn country’s president, saying there’s no possibility of a viable peace agreement unless Bashar Assad is part of the conversation.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii said she originally had no intention of sitting down with Assad, according to a statement issued by her office detailing her travels. But she changed her mind when the opportunity arose.

“I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering,” Gabbard said.

Gabbard said that the U.S. has “waged wars of regime change” in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Yet each has resulted “in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda” and the Islamic State group, she said.

“My visit to Syria has made it abundantly clear,” Gabbard said. “Our counterproductive regime change war does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.”

*(Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard visiting a school in Jibreen, Syria. Image Courtesy of Facebook).

Ecuador’s Correa Calls for Latin American Unity Against Trump

  • Rafael Correa speaks to Spanish radio station Cadena Ser in Madrid, Spain, Jan. 30, 2017.

    Rafael Correa speaks to Spanish radio station Cadena Ser in Madrid, Spain, Jan. 30, 2017. | Photo: Presidencia Ecuador

Published 30 January 2017
President Rafael Correa said the region needs to stand together to fight discrimination and human rights violations.

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa said Monday that Latin America needs to respond with a strong front and united speech against the anti-immigration measures of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Ecuador Creates Plan to Protect Its Migrants Living in US

Correa said there needs to be “a regional stand to defend the main type of mobility, which is human mobility, the defense of human rights, reminding the United States that they have been a country of migrants,” said Correa in an interview with Spain’s Cadena Ser.

The president said that the region is “still missing a consolidated and head-on speech to respond to policies” created by Trump.

Correa is in the midst of his last international tour before ending his presidential term in May. Ecuadoreans will choose a new president on Feb. 19, as well as members of the National Assembly.

Correa’s former vice president, Lenin Moreno, is leading the presidential race with more than 40 percent of the votes, according to recent polls.

Ecuador Household Workers Fight for Rights, Against Tax Havens

“It is impressive what is happening, there will be hard times ahead,” said Correa, referring to Trump’s policies since his arrival in the White House, including the ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries and the construction of a border wall with Mexico.

Correa said that “there are also opportunities” in the recent protests against Trump’s decrees in the U.S. that “haven’t been seen since the Vietnam War or the civil rights struggle.”

Correa signed Saturday a Human Mobility Law that guarantees the rights of migrants and ensures that nobody will be dubbed or treated as “illegal” based solely on their immigration status.

According to the government, there are currently about 200,000 Ecuadoreans who are in an irregular situation in the United States.


Hundreds of Refugees Enter US Despite Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’

  • Dozens of pro-immigration demonstrators cheer and hold signs as international passengers arrive at Dulles International Airport.

    Dozens of pro-immigration demonstrators cheer and hold signs as international passengers arrive at Dulles International Airport. | Photo: Reuters

Published 31 January 2017 (4 hours 44 minutes ago)
Though Trump and team have been blasted in the media for the apparently arbitrary list, the banned nations had been on the radar of the Obama administration.

Amid massive protests denouncing U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order banning all refugees and people hailing from seven Muslim-majority countries, the government has granted waivers to 872 refugees that it will let into the U.S.

The passengers are considered “in transit,” a source from the Department of Homeland Security speaking under the condition of anonymity told Reuters, meaning they had already been cleared for resettlement before Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order went into effect.

Lawyers Across the US Volunteer to Fight Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’

The document did not specify what countries the refugees came from.

Nevertheless, since Trump’s decision, hundreds of non-refugee visitors from the banned countries – which include Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen – have either been detained, deported or, in some cases, blocked from boarding flights entering the U.S.

This included 394 legal permanent U.S. residents who, despite having valid green cards, were pulled aside for extra questioning when entering the country.

This, the DHS said on Sunday, was part of the additional scrutiny that even green card holders traveling would be subjected to under the Trump administration. People from the banned nations would also be allowed into the country based on a case-by-case basis, the DHS official told Reuters.

The 872 refugees to be admitted, however, would be screened using former President Barack Obama’s procedures, which was usually a two-year process including several interviews and background checks.

It is not yet clear whether the DHS will grant more waivers, according to the official speaking to Reuters.

5 Things You Need to Know About Trump’s Travel Ban

Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” suspended the admission of all refugees into the U.S. for 120 days and barred travelers from the seven aforementioned majority Muslim countries, while allowing Christian refugees applying from the same countries to enter unquestioned.

Though Trump and team have been blasted in the media for supposedly coming up with this arbitrary list, the listed countries had been on the radar of the Obama administration.

The ban does not apply to the nationalities of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt.


Russian FM says Donald Trump’s ‘safe zones’ in Syria are possible

So long as done in compliance with international law, setting up so-called ‘safe zones’ for the internally displaced in Syria is not an issue.

The idea of setting up special areas, effective ‘quarantine zones’ for the displaced, needn’t imply a no-fly zone nor the bifurcation of Syrian territory. If it did – the proposals would not only be an impossibility, but would be very dangerous if someone tried to implement them. But as it were, Trump seems not to be clutching at those dangerous straws.

Today, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that such zones could be set up in Syria so long as done with the permission of the Syrian government and so long as they can be adequately monitored and policed by the UN. In other words, they would need to conform to the requirements of international law and that includes respecting Syrian sovereignty.

Lavrov seems to understand what many in America and Russia do not. For Trump, the Syria crisis is all about how to limit the outflow of individuals from Syria into other countries whether it be Turkey, European states or the US. Russia has set up many areas in Syria to provide temporary shelter, food and medical care to internally displaced Syrians. Trump’s proposals ought to be understood as an extension of this concept.

Lavrov went on to say:

If this is about the people who were forced to leave their homes by the conflict…getting their basic needs covered…then I think that the idea to create areas within Syria for those internally displaced could be discussed with the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees and other organisations.”

When understood in this context, it would mean the US would simply be doing what Russia has done almost since the inception of Russian assistance in the conflict. Lavrov was, however, careful to warn that such zones must be purely humanitarian zones rather than places used to set up an ‘alternative’/illegal Syrian government. Addressing this matter, he said:

“There have been ideas of creating some areas where an alternative Syrian government could sit, and use those areas for regime change”.

Lavrov, who has always expressed a healthy skepticism about the rapidity with which the US might begin cooperating with Russia over Syria, has struck an optimistic tone after the lengthy phone call between Presidents Putin and Trump. It is still very early to say that anything concrete has been achieved by the phone call, but in the sense that things have not got worse, it is fair to say the possibility for things to get better remains open.


Netanyahu defends ‘wall’s a great idea’ tweet amid diplomatic row with Mexico

Netanyahu defends ‘wall’s a great idea’ tweet amid diplomatic row with Mexico
Benjamin Netanyahu has defended his ‘wall’ remarks, accusing the media of spinning it as support for Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall along the Mexican border. Unimpressed, Mexico’s FM called it an act of “aggression,” and has demanded an apology.

Benjamin Netanyahu inadvertently initiated a diplomatic row on Saturday after he tweeted what Mexico interpreted as open support of the US president’s plans to erect a wall to separate the two neighboring North American countries.

The story began unfolding during Donald Trump’s interview with Fox News on Thursday, when the new American leader hailed the Israeli wall with Egypt as an example of an effective security measure.

“The wall is necessary,” Trump said. “That’s not just politics, and yet it is good for the heart of the nation in a certain way, because people want protection and a wall protects. All you’ve got to do is ask Israel. They were having a total disaster coming across and they had a wall. It’s 99.9 percent stoppage.”

In reaction to Trump’s praise, Netanyahu tweeted on Saturday: “President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea.”

President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea 🇮🇱🇺🇸

Following the PM’s tweet, the Israeli Foreign Ministry immediately took to social media to ‘clarify’ that Netanyahu was simply referring to the 150-mile (240-kilometer) barrier along its border with Egypt which Israel say has been effective at stopping illegal migrants and traffickers crossing into the Jewish state.

“We do not express a position on US-Mexico relations,” Emmanuel Nahshon tweeted Saturday.

.@IsraeliPM referred to our specific security experience which we are willing to share.We do not express a position on US- Mexico relations

That explanation, however, did not stop the Mexican Foreign Minister from demanding an explanation and apology from Tel Aviv.

“The Foreign Ministry expressed to the government of Israel, via its ambassador in Mexico, its profound astonishment, rejection, and disappointment over Prime Minister Netanyahu’s message on Twitter about the construction of a border wall,” Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement following the tweet. “Mexico is a friend of Israel and should be treated as such by its Prime Minister.”

On Monday, Netanyahu clarified that his tweet was written in response to Trump’s praise of Israel’s border with Egypt, blaming the media for reporting “fake news” and unleashing a “Bolshevik hunt” against him at a time when Israeli prosecutors are conducting two criminal probes into his possible abuse of office.

“President Trump praised the fence built according to my guidance along the border with Egypt. He said it almost completely halted illegal infiltration to Israel, and I said he was right. As a result, he retweeted what I wrote. And from this molehill the commentators have made a mountain in the press,” the PM told the Likud faction meeting on Monday, Ynet news quoted.

“Who even mentioned Mexico?” Netanyahu asked. “The left-wing media has been on a Bolshevik hunting spree, a brainwashing campaign … They create a barrage of false reporting on us, what’s been referred to as ‘fake news’. They put endless pressure on the attorney general and law enforcement officials to issue an indictment against me by any means necessary.”

READ MORE: Netanyahu accused of illegally using public bonus miles for private travel

It appears that Mexico is not buying into the clarification so easily, with the Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray calling on the Israeli government to clarify and “correct” its position.

“I would ask prime minister Netanyahu how many walls has President Trump said he wants to build? It’s obvious he was referring to the relationship with Mexico, and we should be serious and assume responsibility for what we say,” Videgaray said Monday, Reuters reported.

“I think an apology … would be appropriate in this case,” the minister added. “It’s absolutely incomprehensible that its prime minister should express himself in this way, which frankly we consider an aggression.”

Meanwhile Israel’s ambassador to Mexico, Jonathan Peled, met with deputy foreign minister Carlos de Icaza on Monday.

“In the conversation, it was agreed to continue being in contact in order to settle the disputes and continue the good relations between the states,” the Israeli foreign ministry said in a statement.

While the diplomatic spat rumbles on, the Israeli President Reuven Rivlin is scheduled to speak with his Mexican counterpart, Enrique Pena Nieto, on Tuesday.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


US embassy relocation to Jerusalem ‘a war crime’

If Trump approves the move, it would overturn decades of international consensus on Jerusalem.

Will Trump take a different tack, or will he too relent on his embassy pledge now he is in office? [EPA]


Jerusalem – From the windows of the grey, cube-shaped building that houses the US embassy in Tel Aviv, staff enjoy an undisturbed view out over the Mediterranean and a beach adorned in the summer with sunbeds and parasols.

Most days the only evidence of activity is outside on the pavement:  A queue of Israelis snake out of a side door, clutching their documents and watched over by Israeli soldiers as they wait expectantly for a US travel visa.

The drab exterior offers no clues of the incendiary battle raging behind the scenes over whether the embassy’s days are numbered. Israel, and its allies in Donald Trump’s new administration, want to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem, 70km away.

The distance may be short but the move risks a political and diplomatic earthquake, according to most analysts.

READ MORE: Trump’s embassy move to Jerusalem ‘self-destructive’

If the Trump’s White House approves the relocation, it would overturn decades of international consensus on Jerusalem.

The message to the Palestinians and Arab world would be clear and provocative, said Nabil Shaath, a senior Palestinian official and former Palestinian foreign minister.

“Moving the embassy is the same as recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s united capital. It’s a war crime,” he told Al Jazeera.

“There’s no way we or the Arab world could accept it. It would mean the end of the US as the broker of the peace process. We would fight back and mobilise the rest of the world against the move.”

The Israeli army has been advising the government of Benjamin Netanyahu on the possible fallout too, according to a report last week in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth. A change of address would be seen as a US green light for Israel to extend its sovereignty over the city and its holy places, including the al-Aqsa mosque, in the view of Israeli military intelligence.

Reactions could include mass protests from the Islamic movements inside Israel; riots in the occupied Palestinian territories and neighbouring states such as Jordan, which is the official guardian of al-Aqsa; and the collapse of Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.

The Israeli army believes the move also risks inflaming the wider Muslim world and increasing the threat of terror attacks against Israeli and Jewish sites around the world.

Moving the embassy is the same as recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s united capital. It’s a war crime.

Nabil Shaath, a senior Palestinian official and former Palestinian foreign minister

Tensions over Jerusalem have been high since the United Nations announced a partition plan in late 1947. It treated the city as an internationally protected zone, separate from the Jewish and Arab states it proposed in the rest of historic Palestine.

But months later, in a war that created Israel on the Palestinian homeland, Jerusalem was divided in two, under separate Israeli and Jordanian control.

In that period, Israel worked strenuously to pressure countries to set up embassies in West Jerusalem over stiff opposition from the US, said Nimrod Goren, the author of a book in Hebrew on the battles over the US embassy’s location.

“Initially, Washington stuck by the international consensus so strictly that its diplomats refused even to travel to Jerusalem for political meetings and ceremonies,” Goren, who heads Mitvim, a think-tank on Israeli foreign policy, told Al Jazeera.

But US resolve weakened through the 1950s as Israel’s main institutions, from the parliament to the president’s office, relocated to West Jerusalem.


A further turning point came in the early 1960s. “The US started to cultivate much closer ties with Israel, especially in defence matters,” he said. Washington turned a blind eye as Israel offered aid to poor, newly independent states in Africa and others in Latin America in return for establishing their embassies in Jerusalem.

By the time Israel invaded and occupied East Jerusalem in 1967, Goren observed, more than a third of the 54 diplomatic missions in Israel were located in the city.

When Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, in violation of international law, declaring the entire city its “eternal, united capital”, the US again pressured states to move out of West Jerusalem. Only El Salvador and Costa Rica remained, until they too pulled out in 2006.

Another significant shift in Washington’s attitude followed the signing of the Oslo accords in 1994. Israel’s lobbyists worked hard to erode the significance of the accords, which, it was widely assumed, would entail the creation of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem.

In 1995, the US Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which recognised Jerusalem as the “capital” of Israel and required a change in the embassy’s location by May 1999 at the latest.

Like Trump, Bill Clinton and George W Bush promised during their presidential campaigns to implement the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Yet, once in office, they baulked at the daunting ramifications.

The US president, as the chief broker in the Oslo process, could not afford to be seen pre-judging the outcome of negotiations on Jerusalem, the most contentious of the final-status issues.

The continuing sensitivity was evident during Barack Obama’s presidency.

He turned to the US Supreme Court in 2015 to strike down another Congressional measure designed to confer implicit US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The legislation would have entitled American parents of children born in Jerusalem to list “Israel” as the birthplace on their passports.

Last October, the White House also made a point of publicly correcting the dateline on a press release concerning an eulogy delivered by Obama at Shimon Peres’ funeral in Jerusalem. The press release was re-issued with the word “Israel” struck through.

Hamas: Palestinians ‘will not abandon Jerusalem’ – UpFront

Will Trump take a different tack, or will he too relent on his embassy pledge now he is in office?

In an interview late on Thursday, Trump indicated that he was not in a hurry to approve the move. “I don’t want to talk about it yet. It’s too early,” he told Fox News.

The confusing signals from his officials since his inauguration more than a week ago have hinted at a clash behind the scenes, said Nathan Thrall, a Jerusalem-based analyst with the International Crisis Group, a conflict resolution think-tank.

“The truth is no one really knows what Trump will do, even veteran US diplomats,” he told Al Jazeera.

On the one hand, Trump and his closest advisers on the Middle East have gone out of their way to raise expectations. Trump has invested more political capital on the move taking place than his predecessors.

The difference in approach was underscored by his choice of ambassador to Israel. David Friedman, a former bankruptcy lawyer, is more an ideological partisan –  an ally of the settlers – than a diplomat, noted Yossi Alpher, who served as an adviser to former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.

At the same time, however, Trump is certain to face strong institutional resistance from the US state department, said Thrall. Its officials have long opposed moving the embassy, fearing the consequences for US relations with the Arab world.

INTERACTIVE: 2016 – A record year of home demolitions in occupied East Jerusalem

Last month, citing national security considerations, Obama signed a presidential waiver included in the Jerusalem Embassy Act to postpone for another six months the law’s implementation – as has happened without fail since it passed 22 years ago.

Trump could use Obama’s waiver to save face by delaying a decision until at least June, observed Goren.

It is possible too that, despite Israeli celebrations over Trump’s promise on the embassy, Netanyahu may prefer in the end to let the matter lie for a while.

“There seems to be an ambivalence among Netanyahu’s circle,” said Thrall. “On the one hand, he has a lot of problems on his plate at the moment [with a series of corruption investigations] and doesn’t need the possibility of triggering a conflagration in the region. And on the other, there’s no great gain for him. If the US moves the embassy, European states will not follow.”

That is how Palestinian officials and diplomats in Jerusalem appear to be reading recent comments from the adminstration. Shaath said: “We have signs that the administration has retreated a little. But it may simply be a delay. We can’t be sure.”

A European diplomat based in Israel, speaking to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity, said: “It looks like Trump’s bark may have been worse than his bite. But there’s still a danger that [US ambassador] Friedman and Netanyahu will find a work-around.”

Morton Klein, the head of the Zionist Organisation of American, one of Israel’s key Israel lobby groups in Washington, told the Haaretz daily last week that Friedman had told him he would work out of US offices in Jerusalem.

Alpher suggested a possible scenario might be for Friedman to take over a section of the US consulate in Jerusalem, which serves the occupied territories. The US embassy could then function separately in Tel Aviv.

“If American Jewish leaders are insistent that the embassy moves, I could see the [Trump] administration choosing that as a compromise,” he said.

Shaath said such a manoeuvre should fool no one. “We would not accept any sort of so-called compromise along those lines. If the ambassador is working from Jerusalem, then the embassy has moved – and we will fight it.”

Source: Al Jazeera

Blood-chilling VIDEO: IDF soldier seen shooting injured ‘Palestinian attacker’

Blood-chilling VIDEO: IDF soldier seen shooting injured 'Palestinian attacker'
Shocking footage has emerged online apparently showing an Israeli soldier executing a wounded Palestinian lying on the ground. The victim had reportedly been injured in retaliation for a stabbing attack before being cold-bloodedly shot in the head.

While the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier is given medical treatment and proper care, and seems to be conscious, the Palestinian is lying on the ground immobilized. Both the Israeli servicemen and the medical staff can be seen ignoring the man until the ambulance leaves.

Seconds later, an IDF soldier reloads his weapon, approaches the Palestinian and fires a headshot at his victim. No one tries to prevent the soldier from killing the man, and the shot causes no reaction from bystanders. Armed Israelis are seen walking around as if nothing has happened.

The Palestinian could be seen moving his head at the beginning of the video, clearly indicating he was still alive before he was shot.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

US under Trump among external threats to EU – council president Tusk

US under Trump among external threats to EU – council president Tusk
European Council President Donald Tusk has called the US under President Donald Trump one of the external threats to the EU along with China, Russia and radical Islam.

The senior EU official added that the bloc must take “spectacular steps” to avoid disintegration. He said that if this did not happen, separated European nations would become dependent on the US, China and Russia.

Tusk said the EU could capitalize on Trump’s trade strategy to boost European economic ties around the world.

The remarks were made in the Estonian capital, Tallinn, where Tusk was meeting leaders of the three Baltic states. His speech mirrored an open letter to European leaders he had written earlier, ahead of a summit in Malta on Friday.

Tusk believes that the EU is currently facing a threat unprecedented since the since the signature of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which founded the European Economic Community, EU’s predecessor.

“For the first time in our history, in an increasingly multipolar external world, so many are becoming openly anti-European, or Euroskeptic at best. Particularly the change in Washington puts the European Union in a difficult situation; with the new administration seeming to put into question the last 70 years of American foreign policy,” he said in the letter.

Tusk said that in addition to external threats, the EU has to deal with domestic nationalism, “national egoism,” a “decline of faith in political integration” and rising doubts about “the fundamental values of liberal democracy.”

Tusk warned against seeing any potential end of the EU as a positive development.

The disintegration of the European Union will not lead to the restoration of some mythical, full sovereignty of its member states, but to their real and factual dependence on the great superpowers: the United States, Russia and China,” Tusk wrote to EU leaders. “Only together can we be fully independent.”

The European Council president suggested that the EU should borrow the American motto: “United we stand, divided we fall.” Variations of the phase have been used since antiquity, although its American roots date back to a pre-Revolutionary song by John Dickinson, one of the Founding Fathers.

While Tusk’s criticism of Trump is among the most vocal by EU officials since the Republican’s election, he is far from being alone. Earlier, Guy Verhofstadt, the EU’s chief negotiator on Brexit, said Trump and his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, are determined to break up the European Union.

Verhofstadt identified three major threats to the EU, with radical Islam and Russia being the first two.

“My impression is we have a third front undermining the EU, and that is Donald Trump, who … has spoken very favorably that other countries will want to break away from the EU, and that he hoped for a disintegration of the EU,” he added.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


Militant cell that planned NY & Christmas attacks in Moscow detained – anti-terrorism committee

Militant cell that planned NY & Christmas attacks in Moscow detained – anti-terrorism committee
Russian security services detained all members of a terrorist cell that had been plotting attacks during the holiday season in Moscow, the National Anti-Terrorism Committee says. The group reportedly received orders from a Syria-based top-tier commander.

The Syrian terrorist commander, identified as Abu-Zarra, ordered militants to move to Moscow in order to get weapons supplies or seize firearms from police officers, Andrey Przezdomsky, head of the National Anti-Terrorism Committee (NAC) press service, said on Tuesday.

“At this point, all members of the terrorist cells are in custody,” he added.

According to the official, migrants from central Asia and the Caucasus form the nucleus of most terrorist sleeper cells active in Russia. “Migrants coming from [these regions] – who failed to integrate into society and are locked in mono-ethnic groups – are fertile soil for terrorist activities,” Przezdomsky said.

Over the course of 2016, Russian security services eliminated over 140 members of terrorist cells, among them 24 top-tier militants, said Igor Kulyagin, the NAC’s deputy chief of staff.

All militants were shot dead in counter-terrorism operations or brief encounters with security servicemen, he said, also mentioning the killing of the “notorious leader” of Vilayat Kavkaz, an Islamic State-affiliated (IS, previously ISIS/ISIL) international terrorist group.

Kulyagin added that the intelligence agencies also foiled a cell planning terrorist attacks during the 2016 Ice Hockey World Championship hosted by Russia.

Terrorists tend to employ unconventional tactics to save money, as they cannot afford to maintain a broad network of militants, Przezdomsky added, mentioning the emergence of so-called “one-day groups,” tasked with carrying out a single attack. “They are not linked to other cells, they don’t need guidance or sanctions [for an attack],” the official noted.

In February and December last year, 11 Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) militants were detained in Moscow and Yekaterinburg, Przezdomsky said. They were planning attacks in Moscow and St. Petersburg under the control of IS emissaries, according to the NAC official. “All members of that cell knew each other in person, and came from Central Asian countries,” he said.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


US troops hold joint drills in Poland to ensure ‘unlikely attack from East even more unlikely’

US and Polish soldiers, alongside newly delivered American military hardware, have conducted joint drills as part of the biggest US deployment in Europe since the end of the Cold War.

Servicemen of the 3,500-strong 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, from Fort Carson, Colorado showcased some of their skills in front of Commander of the US Army Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, US Ambassador Paul Jones and Polish President Andrzej Duda said in Zagan on Monday.

The drills, which started at around 1:30 pm local time and lasted for about an hour, demonstrated US troops’ resolve to deter the “unlikely” potential aggression from Russia.

During the live fire exercises in Zagan, Polish-American forces split up into two teams. The task of the exercise was to stop the “enemy” advance from Zagan firing range over the distance of over 30 km to Zielona Gora. Leopard tanks from Poland’s 11th Armored Cavalry Division and the American Abrams tanks managed to repel the “enemy attack.” Anti-aircraft artillery and helicopters were also involved in the drill.

Iron Soldiers with their new partners! Less than 30 days and conducting live fire together!

“The best way to make sure that there is never an attack [from Russia] and I believe it’s unlikely, and the best way to keep it unlikely is to show a strong, deterrent capability,” Lieutenant General Hodges, told reporters.

Eighty-seven US battle tanks, 144 Bradley fighting vehicles, and 3,500 soldiers arrived in Europe earlier this month as part of NATO’s buildup near Russia’s borders, agreed at the NATO summit in Warsaw in July.

The arrival of American military equipment and personnel in Poland is another step in Operation Atlantic Resolve, a large-scale military undertaking the US launched in April of 2014, right after Crimea voted to be part of Russia.

The largest military buildup in Europe since the end of the Cold War was part of the Obama administration’s efforts to deter what it called growing ‘Russian aggression’ in Eastern Europe.

Moscow has repeatedly voiced concerns over such buildup. “These actions threaten our interests, our security,” President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier this month. “Especially as it concerns a third party building up its military presence near our borders.”

After the military exercises, the soldiers are to be distributed across Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Baltic countries. The headquarters unit will be stationed in Germany.

“Poland will become the center of gravity for US operations in Europe,” Hodges told reporters. “We believe an attack from the east is unlikely, but it’s having troops on the ground here that makes it even more unlikely.”

The deployment of 3,500 soldiers to Europe on a nine-month rotational basis comes at a time when the new US leader, Donald Trump has delivered mixed messages on NATO.

While calling the alliance “obsolete” in an interview days before his inauguration, Trump in a meeting with the British Prime Minister Theresa May last week confirmed American commitment to NATO.

The US president “confirmed he’s 100 percent behind NATO,” May told reporters last week following a bilateral meeting.

Trump has also spoken with other European leaders in Germany and France last week, with NATO featuring prominently during their discussions.

Trump committed to but would like to fight with Putin 

Photo published for Trump committed to NATO but would like to fight ISIS with Putin — RT America

Trump committed to NATO but would like to fight ISIS with Putin — RT America

US President Donald Trump hopes to have a good relationship with Russia to fight the “evil” Islamic State, he told reporters after meeting UK Prime Minister Theresa May. She said the US is committed…

“Our president has spoken with Prime Minister May, Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande and what I have heard is the affirmation of the importance of NATO and the United States commitment to NATO,” Hodges said of Trump’s phone calls and May’s trip to Washington.

At the same time, Trump, in a phone call with President Putin over the weekend, signaled that a new Russian – American partnership is possible following deteriorating bilateral relations during the Obama administration.

With uncertainty prevailing in European capitals over US commitment to NATO, Lt. Gen. Timothy Ray, deputy commander of US European Command, said the military is operating under the assumption that the American commitment will not be short-lived.

“Security in the United States begins with security in Europe,” he said, according to Stripes. “We intend to be here for quite some time.”

The US ambassador to Poland Paul Jones also voiced support for NATO’s deployment to Eastern Europe.

“We will deter and defend across the whole spectrum of conflict,” Jones said, pledging that the United States, Canada, and European allies will “defend every inch of alliance territory together.”

“Two World Wars and a Cold War have taught us stability in Europe is also important for the US” – NATO Secretary General @jensstoltenberg

Polish President Andrzej Duda welcomed the US commitment. Calling the American troop deployment in Poland a “historic moment.”

“We welcome our allies here today with open arms,”Duda said.“I do believe that this presence is going to further strengthen the transatlantic bond and our collective security.”

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Pododdziały 3. PBGB przybyły do Polski i innych krajów regionu w ramach wzmocnienia wschodnich obrzeży .

Meanwhile, the Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz sung the praises of the new US administration. “Today I know that Poland will not be threatened,” Macierewicz said. “God bless American President Trump.”

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

NWO update: Benjamin Fulford January 30, 2017: Focus on China, Middle East Map redrawn

Benjamin Fulford January 30, 2017

Historian Says Rothschilds Are Puppets of the Hasidim Jewish Sect, Chabad Lubavitch

Germany Spain Netherlands France FussiaFedFlag23h35w Estonia Flag CzechRepublicFlag23h35w Poland Flag Serbia flag 23h Serbia flag 23h Croatia Flag 23h India Flag 23h Greece Flag Portugal Flag Italy Flag Finland Flag Sweden Flag Romania Flag Norway Flag Turkey Flag Hungary Flag Bulgaria Flag Thailand flab23h35w

by Henry Makow Ph.D.
November 8, 2015, Updated from Sept 4, 2008

Historian Says Rothschilds Are Puppets of the Hasidim Jewish Sect, Chabad Lubavitch (Nov. 8, 2015)

Is this the real face of the Illuminati?schneerson.jpg

Speaking in euphemism, Lubavitcher prophet Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994) said Cabalist Jews will rule the world after an apocalypse that they intend to initiate.
A Munich-based historian Wolfgang Eggert, 54, believes orthodox Jews called Chasidim want to instigate a nuclear holocaust to fulfill Biblical prophesy. (Chasidim is plural of Chasid.) He thinks these religious fanatics must be exposed. The largest Hasidim group, the Chabad Lubavitch sect want to hasten Armageddon to facilitate the intervention of the Messiah. Eggert quotes a Lubavitch rabbi who says:”the world is waiting for us to fulfill our role in preparing the world to greet Moshiach” (i.e. Messiah.)
(Wolfgang Eggert, left) 
“All human history is about Messianicsatanic Judaism (“Chassidim”); they´re “making” it. History and politics are a big movie, and they are the directors, bringing old-testament-prophecy into reality. They captured freemasonry by building up the illuminati (through Rothschild/Jacob Frank/Weishaupt); they made a pact with the British monarchy when they financed William III to become king; they placed the British royals at the head of the Freemasons; they made the modern banking system and the Fed (through Rothschild); they made Zionism, the world wars, the European union and so on. They reign through their puppets Rothschild (whose ancestors had been part of the chassidic cult) and Rockefeller, who were the guiding force behind Bilderberg, the trilaterals etc. We are now in the “End Times”; they are trying to foment a “prophesied” Third World War.
Eggert believes both Germany and Israel are in the Hasid cross-hairs. “Germany, because the Hassidim are reading from the bible/talmud, that this country is foe to the Jews and must be killed. Israel has to burn for bringing the prophecy of armageddon into reality. In addition, they are repeating a Machiavellian, strategic “trick”: the sacrifice of the European jews in the Second World War (“shoah”) which brought them their own country- Israel. The sacrifice of the Israeli Jews shall bring them the international approval to be masters of a united word”republic”, that will be governed from Jerusalem, which, again, is being “prophesied” by Jahwe.”
While the Chabad Lubavitchers are his focus, Eggert is also concerned about [British Israel] Christian Evangelists like Jack Van Impe, left, and Timothy LaHaye who believe war is the will of God. The Books of Ezekiel and Daniel and Revelation in the New Testament prophesied Armageddon. Their desired scenario includes the destruction of the al-Aqsa mosque [the Dome of the Rock mosque], the restoration of the Third Temple on its site; the rising to heaven of the 144,000 Chosen Ones; the battle of Armageddon; mass death among Israeli Jews and the Final Coming of Jesus Christ.
According to Alison Weir, there are approximately 3,600 Chabad institutions in over 1,000 cities in 70 countries, and 200,000 adherents. Up to a million people attend Chabad services at least once a year. Numerous campuses have such centers and the Chabad website states that hundreds of thousands of children attend Chabad summer camps.
(l. Schneerson in later life.) 
According to the NY Times, Schneerson “presided over a religious empire that reached from the back streets of Brooklyn to the main streets of Israel and by 1990 was taking in an estimated $100 million a year in contributions.
Schneerson believes Jews are the acme of Creation: “The general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews.”
“The important things are the Jews, because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the divine] aim.”
“The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews.”
When Schneerson died in 1994, he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for his contribution to “global morals.” According to Schneerson, Jews are the Priests while the Noahide Laws provide “a religion for the rank and file.” Eggert quotes another Lubavitcher rabbi: “When examining the chain of frightening events [since 9-11] with a Chassidic eye, we see that the US is being pushed toward fulfilling its historic role of teaching the Sheva Mitzvos [i.e. Noahide laws] to the world.”
According to Eggert, Freemasons have always called themselves “Noachids” and incorporated the statutes into their Constitution as early as 1723.obamachabd.jpgHere is a 2004 picture of Barack Obama meeting with Rabbi Yossi Brackman, Director of the Chabad Jewish Center in Chicago. If you look, you can find pictures of many major politicians in the West posing with this sect. This website features more than a dozen of them.  In this You Tube  the Chief Rabbi of the Chabad boasted of his rapport with Vladimir Putin. Eggert says Putin’s mother is Jewish, which makes him Jewish, and that President Medvedev is Jewish on both sides.  It’s hard to say if they are beholden to the Chabadniks.

Eggert, who studied History and Politics at universities in Berlin and Munich, is the author of eight books on hidden history. While he believes that modern history is dominated by the Cabalistic plot to fulfill Biblical Prophesy, he is careful to distinguish between the Lubavitchers and other Hasidim called “Satmar” who think it is a crime to “force God’s hand” and “hasten the redemption.”

However, the Lubavitchers seem to be in control.

“Every part of modern history is linked to another and in itself to Zionism, state intelligence, lodges and alike. Without the Balfour declaration, there would have been no revolution in Russia and no America into World War One … We may start at any historical point (even with the American revolution or more far back Oliver Cromwell) [and] we´ll see, that the maker (or profiteer) of all this is Cabalistic Judaism. All serves their plan, to implement biblical prophecy.”

bushchabad.jpgEggert cites World Zionist VP Max Nordau’s speech at the 1903 Zionist Convention predicting “a future World War [and] peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.”

( Eggert, “Israel’s Geheimvatikan” Vol.2, pp.21-22)

He says the Zionists sabotaged Germany in WWI (strikes, revolts) because it wouldn’t play ball on Israel. He cites a book in Hebrew, “The Historical Moment” by M. Gonzer: “We even find nations who are slow on the uptake and who find it difficult to understand certain relations unless the rebbe–that is world history–gives them some sensible bashes which makes them open their eyes.” (Israels Geheimvatikan, vol. 1, p.47.)

If you look at the people behind the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, you will find Jews like Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland who may very well be advancing this demented agenda.


US Defence Secretary says Russia and China are “Challenging the World Order”
Apocalypse No! 
“The Jewish Crew Behind John McCain”
and my “What Every Jew (and Non-Jew) Should Know”

Wolfgang Eggert adds today:
French Revolutionary Jean-Paul Marat warned, before being murdered:

“Don’t deceived when they tell you things are better now. …Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they’ll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces.” 

Some thrilling press-headlines fit into this warning.

Oct. 5, 2015 (Politico) Brzezinski: Obama should retaliate if Russia doesn’t stop attacking U.S. assets in Syria

Oct. 8, 21015 (The Daily Express) US vs Russia military showdown is INEVITABLE top MI6 chief warns

Oct. 11, 2015 (International Business Times/SundayTimes) British Pilots Authorized to Shoot Down Russian Planes over Syria

Oct. 12, 2015 (Reuters) NATO says will help Turkey against Russia if needed

Not only some of the most efficient doomsday-networks are working for a Third World War, the money powers pursue for the same end. Humanity is caught in a deadly trap. We have to act so save us.…There are a lot of people here in north/central europa, who want to get rid of the globalist-militaristic elites/lobbies right now, the political atmosphere is getting partiotic/anti government and is at a very critical point.

First Comment from Dan:

The Chabad Lubavitch sect was a spinoff of Baal Shem Tov’s (c1700-1760) Hassidic movement.  Non-Jewish Americans think its a minor ‘denomination’ of Judaism.  In fact it’s the largest Jewish religious organization in the world. It has centers in every important city on Earth.  They’re as active at recruiting as Scientology or Krishna Consciousness, and employ similar inducements.  Consequently they’re the fastest growing Jewish religious group as well.

As with the other theocratic juggernauts that move lots of people and money under the cloak of religion, they interlock with the world’s consortium of organized crime. There have been many spectacular arrests for such charges as international narcotics, weapons and human trafficking, and of course money laundering.  As with the Vatican’s international money laundering and pedophile network, nothing sticks.


Netanyahu and the Rebbe Schneerson, 1990.   After exchanging amenities Netanyahu said; “I come to ask your blessing and your help.  In all areas, political and personal.”   The Rebbe replied, “Since last time we met many things have progressed.  What hasn’t changed however is Moshiach [Messiah] still hasn’t come.  So do something to hasten his coming.”  Netanyahu; “We’re doing. We’re doing.”

The Rebbe and Bibi Netanyahu: Politicians For Redemption 

Reminds me of scenes from the Godfather. They weren’t making small talk.  The Rebbe was anxious.  It’s a Hasidic belief that every generation of Jews has a potential Moshiach who will become THE Moshiach if that generation becomes worthy.  That man is known as the Tzadik Ha-Dor, meaning Tzaddik of the Generation.  Lubavitchers believed it was “the Rebbe” Menachem Mendel Schneerson.   Since he died in 1998, they’re waiting for the new generation’s Tzadik Ha-Dor to appear and bring on the Messianic Age.

What is the Messianic Age?

Yossi Gurvitz [former yeshiva student] explains what it means from the Talmud, here: When Israel Is Mighty

Transcript of video:

We all know what rabbis say is the origin of Judaism. Moshe [Moses] passed the Torah down to the elders, the elders passed the Torah down to the prophets, etc. All the way down to the Talmud, and there were no changes. The central motif of the Jewish understanding of history is that there were no changes [in the religion]. In other words, what the rabbis are saying now are merely minor refinements of what the rabbis had said during the time of the ‘Elders’ – the time of the Mishnah and the Talmud.

Now first of all, the problem with this version of history is that it is completely baseless. And second of all, that it has a few historical problems, and these historical problems continue to this day due to the fact that Judaism as a religion has been frozen in time for the last 1800 years. Generally speaking, Rabbinical Judaism, as it apperas in the Talmud – unlike what is generally taught in secular schools – the source of Judaism is not the Bible. The source of Judaism is the Talmud.

The people who wrote the Talmud are the ones who decided what books would be included in the Biblical canon. What they decided wouldn’t go in – didn’t go in. So for example, while the Catholic Church included the Books of Macabees in its version of the canon, Judaism did not preserve them, and in fact only the Greek version of them was preserved. Whether there were ever Hebrew or Aramaic versions of them is an interesting question, but only Christianity preserved them. The Book of Judith. The Book of Tobias.

Many other books, mostly dealing with the Jews of the Diaspora, didn’t make it into the Jewish Biblical canon, and were only preserved by Christianity. Now, the Judaism that preceded Rabbinical Judaism was pretty much erased from history. In other words, there’s not enough information to know what happened then. We know there were Sadducees, there were Pharisees – the Pharisees are the Rabbinical Jews – there were the Essenes – we don’t know anything about them for certain, and the reason we don’t know anything about them for certain is that when their enemies were victorious, the Pharisees established more than 10 religious holidays to celebrate their victories over the Sadducees, they simply erased them from history.

So you have to eke a fragment [of information] out of a fragment [of informaiton], so you can say “Maybe it was like this” or “Maybe it was like that” – it’s impossible to know what really happened. What we do know is this: from very early on, Rabbinical Judaism is a Judaism that hates humans [humanity]. It defines only Jews as humans – only Jews who believe in the religion as humans.

Okay, let’s get this exactly right: it defines only Jews who believe in the religion and are men – as full humans. And everyone else is some level of ‘other’, that must be pushed aside or, in extreme cases, destroyed. Rabbinical Jewish law does not prohibit – okay, that’s not accurate. Rabbinical Jewish law prohibits the killing of a non-Jew, but it does not punish a person for doing so. In other words, if you kill a Jew, even a Jewish woman, even the slave of a Jew – and here it’s important to note that Orthodox Judaism has never abolished slavery – then there’s a penalty you have to pay. It could come to execution or it could be a fine. They didn’t have jails.

But if you kill a non-Jew then you’re guilty, but there is no penalty. God will punish you. And that is – how shall I put it? – a bit problematic. When you say something is a crime, but there’s no punishment for committing it, then it’s not really a crime. That’s the Talmud. When you come to the writers of later exegesis, especially the Shulhan Aruch, by that poiint, he is already saying that there are situations where you can kill a non-Jew with impunity. Of course, it’s written in the 16th century, after the expulsion [of all Jews] from Spain [in 1492]. So he has to write what he wants ot say in coded language. So he calls them”idolaters”. But just so you know, there weren’t any [pagans] left in that part of the world [by that point] – not in Europe, and not in the Muslim world. So he calls them “idolaters” or other such terms, but everyone knows who he’s talking about [non-Jews, Goy, or Goyim].

The worst case, in my opinion, is the case of Maimonides, who decrees – first of all, he decrees that it is permissible to have sexual interocurse with a 3-year old girl. That age of consent is – problematic. And second of all, he decrees that if a Jew rapes a three-year-old non-Jewish girl, then she must be executed. Her, not him – because she tempted him to sin. And for this reason, you have to treat her like an animal that puts obstacles in a person’s way. And he quotes some verse about a bull or something like that. And the rabbis know that these parts of the religion that are misanthropic, that are discriminatory to non-Jeews, pose a problem for them. Because if they try to implement them – there are some rules that are very unpleasant, like that three-year-old-girl we were just talking about – if they try to implement them, there will be a pogrom.

So to avoid that situation, the Talmud defines two different states of reality. There’s one called “Darkei Shalom” [Peaceful Ways]. In other words, “This is the actual religious law, this is how you are supposed to act.” “However, since it would cause a huge mess, and people will die. So due to ‘peaceful ways’, you don’t act that way.” Now, until what point does the “peaceful ways” rule still apply? Just as long as the other situation does not exist, which is “When Israel is Mighty”. That’s when there is a Jewish regime. It is independent, and it is merciless, it can do what it likes. Under those circumstances – it’s all over, you go back to the letter of the law.

No more “peaceful ways”, no more nothng. Now when you think about Jewish history, lots of people talk about the Hasmonean Wars which was pretty much one of the only times that Jews wielded weapons and they think about what the Hasmoneans did to the Hellenized Jews [who assimilated Greek culture]. Which was to make them extinct, to destroy them. A small genocide. And I remind people of this frequently, every time Hanukah rolls around. But they didn’t stop there.

They embarked on campaigns of looting and conquest and at the beginning, during their first 20 years, wherever they arrived, they would destroy the local temples. It was prohibited for a place that was under Jewish rule to have a pagan temple. That’s what we’re talking about. They also forced the Edomites to convert to Judaism on pain of death. It was a forced conversion. Something we learn the [Spanish] Inquisition did later on. They took people and told them: ;”Either you’re dead, or you’re converting to Judaism”. And things only got worse from there.

Now, when religious zionists look at reality, they say: “We’ve got a state. We’ve got weapons. We’ve got a Jewish army. This hasn’t happened for 2, 000 years.” What this means is that God wants us to bring about the Messiah, that God wants us to build the Temple.” They skip over all of the conditions that are imposed by the Talmud on what a Messiah must be. And they go back to Maimonides. And Maimonides says, “There is no difference between our time and the time of the Messiah, other than the subordination to kingdoms.”

In other words, the only difference between the time of Maimonides – he died in 1204 – and the time of the Messiah, is who is subordinate to whom. Are the Jews subordinate to “kingdoms”, to other nations? Or can they subordinate other nations? And that is how Maimonides begins his Book of Kings. He explains what the rules are for a king, what a king can do. It emeres from the belief that, yes, there can be a king. You don’t have to first have a temple. You don’t need God to come down fromt he sky and point at someone and say, “That’s the Messiah”. You can have a king, and if he is victorious, then he’ll also be the Messian. And then you look at what religious zionists are doing about this. They want a Messiah. They want him now.

There must be cleansings. Religious law prohibits contact with non-Jews. Of course, the Kosher laws prohibit you from eating with them. Other laws forbid you from treating them fairly. You are forbidden to return a lost item to a non-Jew – except in order to “keep the peace”. There is no prohibition on stealing from a non-Jew – except in order to “keep the peace”. You can’;t say “hello” to them – unless there is no alternative. And so on and so forth.

There are all kinds of prohibitions that are entirely psychotic that are based on a religion of vengeance. Religious zionists hae a serious problem with the fact that there are any non-Jews here. The Land of Israel is suppossed to be only for Jews. So, ironically, they would manage to get along with the Muslims more or less if we weren’t involved in a military conflict with them. Because according to Judaism, Muslims are not idolaters. Muslims believe in one God. They don’t have idols, they don’t have statues, they don’t have anything like that. So ironically, during the Medieval Era, Jews got along better with Muslims than with Christians. But what can you do?

We conquered a territory populated mainly by Muslims. and the Muslims are fighting us – so those defenses fall away. And look, now they are starting to talk about genocide. You have the [book] “Torah Hamelech” [King’s Torah]. which tells you that you can kill children if there is a reason to believe that one day they could cause harm. Now, if you killed someone’s entire family and left only him alive, he will indeed have a reason to cause harm. If you stole his lands, turned him into a refugee, tossed him to Jordan or Lebanon – he will indeed have a reason to cause harm. Many people said that the book’s arguments are not sound according to religious law, and so on and so forth, but no one really tackled it head-on. And it’s no wonder that it became a best seller. Because in general, what religious zionists actually want is for the Land of Israel to be for Jews only.

Now the situation for the Christians, on the other hand, will be really bad. [According to Judaism], they are idolaters, and you have to kill them even if they do not resist Jewish rule. In Jerusalem, religious seminary students have a despicable habit: they urinate or defecate on churches. If you go there and talk to the church staff, you’ll hear it from every church. Spitting on clergymen on the street is something that happens regularly. If the priest has the gall to hit the person back, to slap him or something similar, then he is deported quietly. They cancel his residence permit in the country. If you want to justify a pogrom, all you hae to do is say the words “missionary threat”.

And from that perspective, Christianity, which is the historical arch enemy of Judaism is going to get a serious beating once the religious zionists are in power. The Christian Fundamentalists who send them money apparently don’t understand what they’re dealing with. But you know, it’s really a case of “a pox on both your houses”.

End transcript


At least 5 killed in Quebec City mosque shooting


Up to 40 people were inside city’s Islamic Cultural Center when gunmen opened fire during evening prayers; police say 2 suspected shooters arrested

ed note–this may be exactly what it appears on the surface, i.e. yet another manifestation of the same Zionist-engineered hatred for Islam that organized Jewish interests must have if they are to midwife their ‘clash of civilizations’ that line their pockets and erect the Jewish state as the world power that Judaic prophecies say will take place.

On the other hand however, it also may be something that was concocted for the purposes of putting enormous political pressure on America’s newly-minted President, who just a few days earlier, signed an executive order tightening security measures for entry into the US for individuals fleeing troubled spots in the Middle East.

Times of Israel

At least five people were killed and several were wounded after gunmen opened fire at a mosque in Quebec City in Canada late Sunday during evening prayers, according to various media reports.

A Quebec police spokesman confirmed that there were people killed, but did not say how many.

Two suspects in the shooting were arrested, he said. Police did not rule out the possibility of a third suspect who had fled the scene.

Up to 40 people were inside the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Center when the shooting began just after 8:00 pm local time (0100 GMT Monday), Reuters reported.

According to CBC, Quebec City Police Constable Etienne Doyon said at the time of the attack mostly men were gathered at the mosque for evening prayers.

Police set up a perimeter around the mosque.

One of the suspects had an AK-47, the French-language La Presse reported, adding that one of the two was also aged 27 and possessed a local, French-sounding name.

“Why is this happening here? This is barbaric,” the mosque’s president, Mohamed Yangui, said according to Reuters. Yangui was not inside the mosque when the shooting occurred.

Last June, during the Muslim month of Ramadan, a gift-wrapped pig’s head was left outside the premises of the center with a card reading “bon appétit.”

“They put a pig’s head [outside the mosque], they told us it was an isolated incident but today we have fatalities,” said Yangui, according to La Presse.

The premier and mayor blasted the ‘despicable’ act after the animal head was found wrapped with the words ‘Bonne appétit (sic)’ written on it.

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard termed the shooting an act of “barbaric violence” and expressed solidarity with victims’ families.

Quebec Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said on Twitter Sunday that he is deeply saddened by the loss of life. His office says no motive has been confirmed.

Canadia Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Sunday “Canadians grieve for those killed in a cowardly attack on a mosque in Quebec City. My thoughts are with victims & their families.”

The attack comes as Canada has vowed to provide a temporary home to Muslims and refugees after US President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration ban Friday sparked travel chaos and outrage around the world.

Canada will offer temporary residence permits to people stranded in the country as a result of Trump’s order, the immigration ministry said Sunday.

“Let me assure those who may be stranded in Canada that I will use my authority as minister to provide them with temporary residency if needed as we have done in the past,” Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said at a news conference.

Trump has suspended the arrival of all refugees to the US for at least 120 days and barred entry for 90 days to people from seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Hussen, who is of Somali origin, did not condemn the US measure but stressed that Canada would continue to pursue an immigration policy based on “compassion” while at the same time protecting the security of its citizens.

“We welcome those fleeing persecution, terror and war,” he said, echoing a welcoming Twitter post by Trudeau on Saturday.

According to the latest Canadian census, from 2011, one out of five people in the country are foreign-born.

Canada has welcomed more than 39,670 Syrian refugees between November 2015 and early January 2017, according to government figures.

UK Parliament to “Investigate” Israeli Interference

The British Parliament’s Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee has announced the launch of an official investigation into the activities of Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat exposed as wanting to “take down” U.K. politicians in an Al Jazeera undercover documentary.

The investigation will form part of a broader inquiry into the “U.K.’s policy towards the Middle East Peace Process,” a statement on the official parliamentary website has announced.

The Foreign Affairs Committee’s remit is, according to the website, the examination of the “expenditure, administration and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).”

The official statement went on to say that new inquiry into the U.K.’s Middle East policy will be conducted during 2017, a “year that contains at least three anniversaries that are significant for the issue: one hundred years since the Balfour Declaration, seventy years of United Nations commitment to a two-state solution, and fifty years since the war of June 1967.”

These historic dates, the statement said, and “a contemporary context of shifting diplomatic initiatives both within the region and among world powers, provide a setting for an inquiry to examine how UK policies towards this issue are formed, the steps the UK has taken to fulfil them and recommendations for future policy.”

Chairman of the Committee, Crispin Blunt MP, is then quoted as saying that the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains an open wound on the map of the Middle East, leaving successive generations living under the perpetual shadow of destructive violence. It is unlikely that 2017 will be the year when a just and equitable solution is reached but, a century after the Balfour Declaration, the Foreign Affairs Committee wants to examine the UK’s role and our efforts to enable a resolution.”

READ  Police in Stuttgart, Berlin, and Dresden Overwhelmed by Nonwhite Invader Crime

He said the Committee will “consider the historic and systemic issues that constitute such stubborn obstacles to peace. This context includes on-going issues of violence and incitement, internal divisions, and settlement expansion—all set within the context of Britain’s relations with the various parties to the conflict and its efforts to help them overcome these obstacles.”

The inquiry will also examine “the evolving diplomatic context, including the UK’s position in response to the policies of the new US administration, the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, and the partnership with the European Union in supporting peace as we begin the Brexit process.”

Blunt’s statement said that although the “Government may have formally closed the issue of Shai Masot . . . one of our terms of reference invites consideration of the way that foreign states and interested parties seek to influence UK policy. In any such discussion, it is necessary to recognise the legitimate right of individuals and organisations to lobby within the bounds of the law. It is important to understand the context in which the UK formulates policy.”

The terms of reference for the Committee state that it seeks “written evidence” addressing the “merits of the U.K.’s policy in support of a two-state solution,” what steps the U.K. has  “taken to fulfil this policy,” and the “viability and potential opportunities of a two-state solution.”

The Committee will also study the “consequences of failure to progress towards and deliver a two-state solution, and possible UK policy responses,” the “UK’s relationship with Israel,” the “U.K.’s relationship with the Palestinian Authority, and “how U.K. policy is influenced by other states and interested parties.”

READ  Trump: Merkel’s “Catastrophic Refugee Mistake”

The final date for the submission of written evidence is March 30, 2017.

Although the announcement of an investigation might seem to indicate an air of impartiality, the Committee’s conclusions have an element of predictability about them.

Committee Chairman Blunt, for example, is a longtime member and supporter of the “Conservative Friends of Israel” (CFI) organization—one of those groups to which Masot specifically referred to as being able to influence British policy.

Blunt even once took part in a Parliamentary Cricket Club visit to Israel for what the CFI website described as a “landmark cricket tour, in co-ordination with CFI.”

Wesley Clark to Fox News Bimbo: “We use radical Islamists for foreign policy objectives”

Wesley Clark to Fox News Bimbo: “We use radical Islamists for foreign policy objectives”

SYRIA: The Demonization of President Assad and US Hypocrisy

Syrian President Bashar Al Assad joins Christmas celebrations, Damascus 2015 (Photo: SANA)

Stephen Gowans

The Regime that Isn’t

“A substantial body of research conducted over many decades highlights the proximity between western news media and their respective governments, especially in the realm of foreign affairs,” writes Piers Robinson, Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at the University of Sheffield.

“For reasons that include overreliance on government officials as news sources, economic constraints, the imperatives of big business and good old-fashioned patriotism, mainstream western media frequently fail to meet democratic expectations regarding independence.”

Robinson’s study of news coverage of the 2003 US-UK war on Arab nationalist Iraq found that mainstream media reinforced official views rather than challenged them. [1]

One of the ways in which the mainstream media reinforce official views is by characterizing foreign governments which reject the United States’ self-proclaimed role as leader of the global order as violating Western democratic norms, regardless of whether they do or do not.

At the same time, foreign governments which categorically reject Western democratic norms, but which agree that the United States “can and must lead the global economy” (as the 2015 National Security Strategy of the United States insists) are treated deferentially by the Western press. “We give a free pass to governments which cooperate and ream the others as best as we can,” a U.S. official explained, [2] a statement of modus operandi which applies as much to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and other Western news media, as it does to the US government.

That there exists a glaring double-standard on democratic norms, under which lies a consistent standard of demonizing governments which reject US primacy while refusing to demonize governments that do not, is exemplified in a recent juxtaposition.

On December 18, US secretary of state John Kerry was in Riyadh, rhapsodizing about “His Majesty King Salman,” the head of an absolutist state which is the very antithesis of Western democratic norms. It “is good to have solid friends” in the Saudi monarchy, said the United States’ top diplomat.

The “United States partnership with Saudi Arabia is, frankly, so valuable,” added Kerry. The “relationship between our countries remains strong in every dimension. It is a relationship that’s been a priority for President Obama and myself. We’re partners, but we’re also friends.” [3]

The US government’s friend and partner is a tyranny which crushed a 2011 Arab Spring uprising for democracy that erupted on the Arabian Peninsula, while sending tanks into Bahrain to crush a related uprising there. Saudi authorities suppressed a movement for democratic rule by executing the uprising’s leadership, relying on decapitation as the favored method of liquidating democratic trouble-makers.

The regime practices an official misogyny that goes so far as to deny women the right to drive automobiles. Saudi clerics propagate worldwide an austere, hate-filled, anti-Shia strain of Islam that, along with Muslim Brotherhood ideology, inspires Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and Jabhat al Nusra.

And the House of Saud, the family dictatorship which tyrannizes the Arabian Peninsula, has not, for one second, tolerated the slightest democratic challenge to its autocratic and sectarian rule.

In short, Salman—good friend and partner of US presidents and secretaries of state, to say nothing of US arms dealers, the CIA, US oil companies, and New York investment bankers—is a dictator and a strongman who uses Western-supplied tanks to crush calls for democracy and leads a regime that is aptly characterized as a dictatorship. If ever these terms have been used by the mainstream media and US government officials to refer to the head of the Saudi state and the government he leads, I’m not aware of them. Yet these terms fit to a tee.

On the very same day Kerry was paying tribute to the anti-democratic strongman in Riyadh and celebrating the bonds of friendship between the United States and the despot in Riyadh, an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, titled “The Dictator Who Stole Christmas.” [4] Therein Wall Street Journal editor Mary Anastasia O’Grady, a practitioner of journalism for the world’s “freest press,” labelled the subject of her article a “strongman” at the head of a government she called a “regime” and a “dictatorship.”

O’Grady’s broadside was not targeted at an absolute monarch but at the president of a republic. It concerned not a leader who had assumed his role as head of state through hereditary succession, but through an election no one of an unbiased mind thought was coerced or unfair. Astonishingly, the alleged dictator O’Grady was writing about was Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela, who was elected on April 14, 2013, defeating opposition candidate Henrique Capriles (much beloved by the Wall Street Journal and other Wall Street-types) in a free and fair election. The democratically-elected Maduro, according to O’Grady, contrary to what you and the Venezuelans who elected him may think, is a dictator and strongman who leads a regime.

That O’Grady can so easily label Maduro as an aberration from Western democratic norms in egregious contradiction of the facts only underscores “the proximity between western news media and their respective governments,” as Robinson put it, or the propaganda role played by the mainstream media on behalf of US foreign policy.

This should remind us that other leaders of governments, who, like Maduro, govern with the consent of their people, but who refuse to kowtow to the international dictatorship of the United States, have also been demonized in the same manner, namely as dictators and strongmen at the head of regimes, not governments. The most salient current example of this style of propaganda is the depiction of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad along the same lines.

The depiction is completely undeserved, and is a reflection of US distaste for governments which insist on self-determination and sovereignty, instead of submission to its international dictatorship (which the mainstream media euphemize as the “Washington-led global order,” and Washington as “American global leadership.”)

Washington’s hostility to the Assad government is ideological, and is unrelated to the Syrian government’s response to the Islamist insurrection which broke out (afresh, given that similar insurrections have plagued Syria since the 1960s) in March, 2011, in no small measure helped along by the United States.

Washington has conspired to oust the government of Bashar al-Assad since at least 2003, when it launched a vicious campaign of economic warfare against the country with the intention of undermining popular support for the government by making life miserable for ordinary Syrians. Soon after Washington began to conspire with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, historically the main internal opposition to the secular Arab nationalist governments of Bashar al-Assad, and his predecessor, Hafaz al-Assad, to resume jihad against secularism in Damascus. [5]

The Muslim Brothers, and their ideological descendants, the Islamic State, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, Ahrar al-Sham, and the other Al Qaeda spinoffs, allies and auxiliaries which make up the main armed Syrian opposition, hate the Assad government because it is secular and non-sectarian, and because it rejects the Brotherhood tenet that the Quran and Sunna, the latter the record of the Prophet Muhammad’s actions and sayings, are a sufficient (and coming from God, perfect) legal foundation for Syrian society, jurisprudence and politics.

For its part, Washington hates the Syrian government for three reasons, which can be summed up in the three major goals of the Ba’ath Arab Socialist Party, the party Assad leads:

1:  Unity of the Arab nation, which threatens US domination of the petroleum-rich Middle East and North Africa

2:  Freedom from foreign domination, a position that is inimical to the principle, expressed in multiple US strategy documents that “American leadership” is “indispensable,” [6] “U.S. leadership is essential,” [7] and that the United States “will lead the world” [8]

3:  Socialism, a form of economic organization Washington abhors, to the point that it has been willing to carry out economic warfare against its practitioners with the explicit intention of coercing its abandonment.

For example, US president Eisenhower approved economic sanctions against Cuba, anticipating “that, as the situation unfolds, we shall be obliged to take further economic measures which will have the effect of impressing on the Cuban people the cost of this Communist orientation.” [9]

Similarly, the reason some US sanctions have been imposed on North Korea is listed as either “communism”, “non-market economy” or “communism and market disruption,” according to the United States Congressional Research Service. [10]

In other words, the US government believes it has a right to dictate to the people of other countries how they can organize their own economic affairs and to punish them by carrying out campaigns of economic warfare—and sometimes worse—if they fail to comply.

In short, Washington is hostile to the Syrian government because Damascus safeguards its sovereignty, insists on self-determination, and in its Arab nationalist aspirations, challenges US hegemony over the Arab world. “Syria,” Assad told an Argentine journalist, “is an independent state working for the interests of its people, rather than making the Syrian people work for the interests of the West.” [11]

Washington abhors independent states.

Prior to 2012, Assad governed with the consent of the people obtained in a presidential referendum. While this fell short of the multi-candidate presidential elections favored in the West, it was far more democratic than the hereditary succession that brought the king of Saudi Arabia and emir of Qatar, key U.S. allies in the war against Syria, to power in their countries.

In 2012, Assad led efforts to move Syria closer to Western-style representative democracy, amending the country’s constitution to transform presidential elections into multi-candidate contests. Assad stood for election against other candidates and won handily. This was not unexpected, since he is popular.

On the eve of the Islamist insurrection’s most recent outbreak, in March 2011, Time magazine reported that even “critics concede that Assad is popular” and that he had endeared himself, “personally, to the public.” [12] A week after the eruption of violence in Daraa, Time’s Rania Abouzeid would report that “there do not appear to be widespread calls for the fall of the regime or the removal of the relatively popular President.” [13]

Moreover, the demands issued by the protesters and clerics did not include calls for Assad to step down. And the protests never reached a critical mass. On the contrary, the government continued to enjoy “the loyalty” of “a large part of the population,” reported Time. [14] Over a month after the outbreak of violence in Daraa, the New York Times’ Anthony Shadid would report that the protests fell “short of the popular upheaval of revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.” [15]

That the government commanded popular support was affirmed when the British survey firm YouGov conducted a poll in late 2011 showing that 55 percent of Syrians wanted Assad to stay. The poll received almost no mention in the Western media, prompting the British journalist Jonathan Steele to ask: “Suppose a respectable opinion poll found that most Syrians are in favor of Bashar al-Assad remaining as president, would that not be major news?” Steele described the poll findings as “inconvenient facts” which were suppressed because Western media coverage of the events in Syria had ceased “to be fair” and had turned into “a propaganda weapon.” [16]

Hence, in 2011 Syria was closer to the Western model of democracy than virtually any other Arab country, and was certainly closer to Western-style democracy than were Washington’s principal Arab allies, which were all monarchical or military dictatorships.

Nevertheless, just days before flying to Riyadh to praise the Saudi dictatorship and wax rhapsodic about the strong bonds between King Salman’s regime and the United States, John Kerry offered remarks on Syria in which he referred repeatedly to the Syrian government as a regime. [17] Descriptions of Assad in the mainstream media as a dictator and strongman are commonplace.

The Syrian government is not a regime. Syria is a multi-party representative democracy headed by an elected president. Its leader is neither a strongman nor a dictator, anymore than is Venezuela’s president Nicolas Maduro.

While the US government may not like the Arab nationalist orientation of the Syrian government as a repudiation of Washington’s self-appointed role as leader of a global order, this does not make the Assad government a dictatorship headed by a strongman.

Syria, on the contrary, is closer to Western democratic norms than virtually any other Arab country, and is far closer to those norms than are the monarchies, sultanates, emirates, military dictatorships and settler colonial religious tyrannies which constitute Washington’s principal Middle Eastern allies.

If the Western mainstream media need to denounce heads of state as dictators and strongmen and foreign governments as dictatorships and regimes, they will find the list of their own governments’ strong allies and partners teeming with suitable candidates. Of course, asking them to draw from this list is to expect too much. They won’t.

As Robinson notes, mainstream media are “overly deferential to the political and economic order.” [18] The reason why is that as large businesses themselves, owned by wealthy investors, news media are integral parts of the very same political and economic order they profess to police, but which they, in reality, defend, justify and promote.

Labelling democrats dictators, and ignoring the dictatorships of allies, is simply part of the ideological role Western news media play to defend and promote the foreign policy interests of the interlocked US political and economic elite.


READ MORE SYRIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Syria Files


SYRIA: The Amnesty International Scandal, ‘Smart’ Warmongers and Terrorist Sympathizers

Prof Tim Anderson infographic demonstrates the Amnesty Internation weaponization of humanitarianism.

Tim Hayward

Most of us living outside Syria know very little of the country or its recent history. What we think we know comes via the media. Information that comes with the endorsement of an organisation like Amnesty International we may tend to assume is reliable. Certainly, I always trusted Amnesty International implicitly, believing I understood and shared its moral commitments.

As a decades-long supporter, I never thought to check the reliability of its reporting. Only on seeing the organisation last year relaying messages from the infamous White Helmets did questions arise for me.[1] Having since discovered a problem about the witness testimonies provided by Doctors Without Borders (MSF), I felt a need to look more closely at Amnesty International’s reporting.[2] Amnesty had been influential in forming public moral judgements about the rights and wrongs of the war in Syria.

What if Amnesty’s reporting on the situation in Syria was based on something other than verified evidence?[3] What if misleading reports were instrumental in fuelling military conflicts that might otherwise have been more contained, or even avoided?

Amnesty International first alleged war crimes in Syria, against the government of President Bashar Al-Assad, in June 2012.[4] If a war crime involves a breach of the laws of war, and application of those laws presupposes a war, it is relevant to know how long the Syrian government had been at war, assuming it was. The UN referred to a ‘situation close to civil war’ in December 2011.[5] Amnesty International’s war crimes in Syria were therefore reported on the basis of evidence that would have been gathered, analysed, written up, checked, approved and published within six months.[6] That is astonishingly – and worryingly – quick.

The report does not detail its research methods, but a press release quotes at length, and exclusively, the words of Donatella Rovera who ‘spent several weeks investigating human rights violations in northern Syria.’ As far as I can tell, the fresh evidence advertised in the report was gathered through conversations and tours Rovera had in those weeks.[7] Her report mentions that Amnesty International ‘had not been able to conduct research on the ground in Syria’.[8]

I am no lawyer, but I find it inconceivable that allegations of war crimes made on this basis would be taken seriously. Rovera herself was later to speak of problems with the investigation in Syria: in a reflective article published two years afterwards,[9] she gives examples of both material evidence and witness statements that had misled the investigation.[10]  Such reservations did not appear on Amnesty’s website; I am not aware of Amnesty having relayed any caveats about the report, nor of its reviewing the war crimes allegations.  What I find of greater concern, though, given that accusations of crimes already committed can in due course be tried, is that Amnesty also did not temper its calls for prospective action.  On the contrary.

In support of its surprisingly quick and decisive stance on intervention, Amnesty International was also accusing the Syrian government of crimes against humanity. Already before Deadly Reprisals, the report Deadly Detention had alleged these. Such allegations can have grave implications because they can be taken as warrant for armed intervention.[11] Whereas war crimes do not occur unless there is a war, crimes against humanity can be considered a justification for going to war. And in war, atrocities can occur that would otherwise not have occurred.

I find this thought deeply troubling, particularly as a supporter of Amnesty International at the time it called for action, the foreseeable consequences of which included fighting and possible war crimes, by whomsoever committed, that might otherwise never have been. Personally, I cannot quite escape the thought that in willing the means to an end one also shares some responsibility for their unintended consequences.[12]

If Amnesty International considered the moral risk of indirect complicity in creating war crimes a lesser one than keeping silent about what it believed it had found in Syria, then it must have had very great confidence in the findings. Was that confidence justified?

If we go back to human rights reports on Syria for the year 2010, before the conflict began, we find Amnesty International recorded a number of cases of wrongful detention and brutality.[13]

In the ten years Bashar Al-Assad had been president, the human rights situation seemed to Western observers not to have improved as markedly as they had hoped. Human Rights Watch spoke of 2000-2010 as a ‘wasted decade’.[14] The consistent tenor of reports was disappointment: advances achieved in some areas had to be set against continued problems in others. We also know that in some rural parts of Syria, there was real frustration at the government’s priorities and policies.[15] An agricultural economy hobbled by the poorly managed effects of severe drought had left the worst off feeling marginalized. Life may have been good for many in vibrant cities, but it was far from idyllic for everyone, and there remained scope to improve the human rights record. The government’s robust approach to groups seeking an end to the secular state of Syria was widely understood to need monitoring for reported excesses. Still, the pre-war findings of monitors, are a long way from any suggestion of crimes against humanity. That includes the findings of Amnesty International Report 2011: the state of the world’s human rights.

A report published just three months later portrays a dramatically different situation.[16]

In the period from April to August 2011, events on the ground had certainly moved quickly in the wake of anti-government protests in parts of the country, but so had Amnesty…


“Reality. Amnesty International has taken the amnesty out of humanity and became a killing tool by using criminals they call dissidents, political opposition and human rights activists in countries of interest.” ~ Amnesty International: Infamous Tools of Conspiracies.

Image produced by Cory Morningstar of Wrong Kind of Green.



Smart Power and the Human Rights Industrial Complex by Patrick Henningsen

Amnesty International – Imperialist Tool by Prof Francis Boyle

Amnesty International – Whitewashing another Massacre by Paul De Rooij

Amnesty International – Infamous Tool of Conspiracies by Tefsa News

George Soros Anti-Syria Campaign Impresario by Vanessa Beeley

READ MORE SYRIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Syria Files

SUPPORT 21WIRE and its work by Subscribing and becoming a Member @ 21WIRE.TV 

How to Defeat the Globalist System

By Brandon Smith

In my last two articles, ‘How Globalists Predict Your Behavior’ and ‘How To Predict The Behavior Of Globalists’, I explained the base fundamentals behind a concept with which most people are unfamiliar. They are so unfamiliar with it, in fact, that I didn’t bother to name it. In this article I hope to explain it, but I highly recommend people read the previous articles in this series before moving forward.

What I outlined, essentially, was a beginners course on 4th Generation Warfare. This methodology is difficult to summarize, but here I will list what I believe are some of its core tenets.

Fourth Gen warfare is based on a primary lesson within Sun Tzu’s The Art Of War. Sun Tzu argues in the classical military tome that the greatest strategists win wars by NOT fighting, or at least, by not fighting their opponents openly and directly. That is to say, they win by convincing their opponents that fighting back is futile and that surrender is preferable, or, they convince their opponents to destroy themselves through internal conflict and psychological sabotage. Sun Tzu felt this method was far superior to engaging in direct combat in a real world battle space.

While this might sound bizarre to some, it is becoming more and more apparent (in my view) that 4thGen warfare is now the go-to weapon for globalists. Defeating the system established by the globalists, a system prevalent for decades, is an impossible task unless 4th Gen warfare is understood.

A classic example of a tried and true form of 4th Gen attack is to initiate a civil war within a target population, and in most cases, control the leadership on both sides of that conflict. Another method is to conjure an enemy, an outside threat which may be legitimate or entirely fabricated, and use that enemy to push a target population to unify under a particular banner that benefits the globalist cabal in the long run. Fourth Gen requires patience above all else.

In fact, I would say 4th Gen is the weaponization of patience.

A 4th Gen attack is not carried out over days, or months, but years. To find a comparable experience is difficult, but I would suggest people who have the tenacity set out to learn how military snipers operate. Can you train for years mastering long distance marksmanship, crawl for hours from an insertion point to an observation point, then sit in a hole in the ground (if you are lucky enough to have a hole in the ground) for days waiting to take just one shot, perhaps the only important shot you will ever take in combat, at a vital target, and do it with certainty that you will not miss?

The amount of planning, intense precision and foresight that goes into a sniper operation is much like the kind of effort and calm needed to complete a 4th Gen psy-ops mission. This kind of warfare is dominated by the “think tanks”, and anyone hoping to counter such tactics should look into the history of one particular think tank — RAND Corporation, and their premier psy-ops tool — rational choice theory.

Whenever I hear someone argue that a conspiracy of globalists could not exist because “such plans would be too elaborate and require too much power to carry out in real life,” I have to laugh and bring up RAND, which has had almost limitless funding from globalist foundations like the Ford Foundation and was built specifically to develop not only next gen weapons, but 4th Gen psychological warfare schemes. RAND’s influence is everywhere, from politics, to the social sciences, to military applications and even in Hollywood. After studying their efforts for many years now I can say that these people are indeed smart. Some of them may not be aware of the greater consequences as they war game ideas for dominating the public, and some of them are undoubtedly morally bankrupt, but they are still smart, and should not be underestimated.

Another reference point I would suggest to researchers would be a document called ‘From Psyop To Mindwar: The Psychology Of Victory’ written by Michael Aquino and Paul Vallely for the Pentagon. In it, they make it clear that the methods of 4th Generation warfare are not limited to foreign enemies. In fact, they are recommended for use by governments against their own populations. Again, the thrust of the methodology was to manipulate a target population into subduing itself, so that force was not necessary. Aquino and Vallely note that this would be a better outcome for everyone involved, because it would help to avoid the bloodshed of insurgency and counterinsurgency.

I am skeptical that these people care at all about bloodshed or collateral damage, but I do think they would very much like the process of totalitarian centralization to be less tedious. The elites hope to streamline tyranny by convincing the public that globalization must be embraced for “the greater good of the greater number.” But, in order to accomplish this vast change in society and the collective unconscious, they need crisis and calamity. They see themselves as creators, but for them, creation is about destruction. In other words, the old world must be destroyed so that they can use the leftover building blocks to make something new.

If we do not embrace their solution of global centralization rising from the ashes, they believe they have a response for that problem too. Read my article ‘When Elites Wage War On America, This Is How They Will Do It’; more specifically, the section on Max Boot from the Council On Foreign Relations. Boot is the CFR’s resident “insurgency expert,” and while I question his ability to apply academic models to real word conflicts as if theory is akin to practice in war, it is enough to know the mindset of these elitists.

Boot’s work focuses on a particular model of quarantining insurgencies from the non-combative population, based on the methods the British used against communist guerrillas in Malaysia. In fact, Max seems to revel in the British efforts to catalog Malaysian citizens and relocate them into large cities that amounted to concentration camps. This made recruitment difficult for the insurgents and stopped them from hiding among civilian centers. It also focused food production into highly managed areas and gave the British leverage over the population. With this separation, it was much easier for the authorities to “educate” the locals on the threats of the insurgency and gain their support.

So, the question is, if this array of tactics is going to be aimed at liberty proponents and free peoples within the U.S. in particular, with an increasing potential for things to become far worse in the near term, how do we fight back?

Firstly, I need to point out a disturbing trend within the liberty movement, which is the propensity for activists to show far more interest talking about the problem than talking about solutions. Over the years I have noticed a consistent lower readership on articles having to do with specific solutions and strategies; not just my own articles, but many other analysts as well. It is much more popular to write on the reality of looming crisis rather than to write about what individuals can do to blunt the edge of the event. I would not be surprised if this article receives only half of the readership my other articles receive.

The first step in fighting back in a 4th Gen war is to acknowledge that there is no easy way out. There is no way to change the corrupt system from within. There is no way to use politics and government to our advantage. Despite all the hopes activists have, Trump is not going to save you, or America. The Republican controlled House and Senate is not going to save us. There is nothing they could do even if they wanted to.

I will write in more detail on this in my next article, but actions such as shutting down the Fed alone are half measures that will actually exacerbate a crisis in the short term, rather than defuse one. A debt jubilee (another commonly mentioned false solution) is meaningless when the value of your world reserve currency on the global market is still destroyed in the process and your treasury bonds are no longer desirable.  Pushing corporations to create a few thousand manufacturing jobs here and there is a drop in the bucket when considering the 95 million people no longer counted in the U.S. labor force on top of the millions still officially considered unemployed. There is no stopping the ongoing economic collapse from running its course.  We will be required to take our medicine eventually, and this will happen sooner rather than later.

Here is what can be done, though, to mitigate the damage and fight back against the establishment…

Separation From The System

People are always looking for grand and cinematic solutions to fighting the globalists, but the real solutions are far less romantic. Defeating the “new world order” requires individuals to take smaller actions in their day-to-day lives. Becoming more self sufficient, the ability to provide one’s own necessities, the ability to defend one’s self and family, the move away from grid dependence, homeschooling your children, a healthy skepticism of web tied technologies and the “internet of things,” etc.

This does not mean you have to go build a cabin in the woods and start typing up a manifesto, but it does mean that you will have to sacrifice certain modern comforts and amenities and manage your life in a way that might feel strange at first. To put it simply, it means you will have to learn to start doing most things for yourself and perhaps learn to live with less “things” and less mainstream stimulation.

I know many people that have undertaken this effort while still living what you might call “normal lives.” The bottom line is, if you are dependent on the system, you will never be able to fight the system.

Separation From Invasive Technologies

Remove active surveillance from your life. Stop carrying a cell phone around with you everywhere you go, or at least pull the battery until you need it. Cover or remove computer cameras. Deactivate microphones when not in use. Refuse to purchase appliances with built-in web connectivity. Refuse to participate in smart grid programs. Remove GPS modules from your vehicles. Stop posting photos constantly to Facebook and sharing your entire life on social media. Give the enemy less information to work with.

Build Real Community

Stop trying to build hollow friendships with people on the other side of the country through a cold medium like the internet and start building relationships with the people that live right in your own neighborhood or town. The one thing the elites fear more than anything else is people organizing groups that are outside of their influence. The more community groups there are, big and small, the more effort, money and resources are required to keep tabs on them all. With localized groups populated by members that know each other and have lived in one place for a long time, infiltration is a strenuous prospect and co-option is nearly impossible.

Establish Alternative Communications

Make sure your group or community has at least one ham radio expert. Resistance to tyranny requires independent communications. Without this ability you will have no access to information in the event of a crisis and thus, you will have nothing. Ham radio can be used to spread information across the country and can even reach out to other parts of the world. In the event of a breakdown in civility, ham can be used to send digital mail and files, and these files can be encrypted.

The founding fathers had the midnight ride, we have ham radio.

Refuse To Participate In Resource Management

In the event of a greater collapse, resource management will be the name of the game. For the elites to gain a stranglehold on a population, they need to isolate the insurgency (freedom loving people) from the regular (subdued) citizenry, and then they need to confiscate as many resources as possible to supply “loyalists” while starving out undesirables.

I believe a successful rebellion would require rural communities to maintain complete control over their resources and refuse to allow government to dictate how these resources are dispersed. Ultimately, in order to break an establishment stranglehold over the population through Max Boot’s method of “friendly” concentration camps, the tactic would have to be reversed. Resources may need to be cut off to these places entirely. This would remove the leverage governments would have in terms of necessities, leaving no reason for anyone to want to stay in these sorts of green zones again.

Vigilante Justice

I am not condoning OR criticizing this kind of development, but I am pointing out that it is inevitable. If top globalists continue to engage in the use of economics as a nuclear option against the public, along with their many other crimes, then individuals with the right skill-sets will likely seek them out with the intention of ventilating them. I think the danger of lone-wolf vigilantes acting without group contact and without warning is terrifying to the globalists.

They are used to being able to co-opt enemy groups or exploit informants to infiltrate and relay information. With a lone wolf, there is no trail to follow and individuals are decidedly harder to predict in their behavior and plans than groups are. I would not be surprised to see prominent globalists living in the U.S. suddenly leave the country en masse just as social unrest becomes heightened.  And, I would not be surprised to see some globalists killed anyway by fed up citizens who suddenly snap and take matters into their own hands.

Our Window Of Time Is Short

Keep in mind that the millennial generation is about 10 years away from becoming the dominant cultural force in this country, and those precious snowflakes are like another species. The majority of them long for collectivism, and they work diligently to stifle dissent in colleges and public schools. The great danger is that in ten to fifteen years many of the people within conservative movements might be too old to effectively fight back, and while we deal with economic disaster it will be millennials steeped in cultural Marxism that are elevated as part of the globalist solution.

Whatever we end up doing, I believe we have about 10 years before hitting the point of no return (with ample crisis and struggle from now until then). After this, we will either have the globalists in prison or in the ground, or, we will have a massive economic reset and a new world order. The choice is up to us, even though some people don’t want to accept it.

You can read more from Brandon Smith at his site If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

The NWO is the British Empire – the Whole World to Belong to the Rothshild/Jesuit City of London.

“I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply.” (Nathan Rothschild said (1777-1836)).

“The truth is that the United States, under its present administration, is the tool of the British Empire – the monetary financial empire which sits like a parasite, sucking the life out of Britain from the City of London and which has never gone away. (John Yoo in an article for the National Review – quoted by The UKColumn 4 Jan 2012″.


The  League of Nations after WWI was seen as a failure. Nevertheless, It was the beginning of the final attempt of achieving total world domination by the “British Empire” and the “British Crown”, the NWO,  –  cover names for the rule of the world through the City of London by its masters, the Jesuits/ Rothschild dynasty.

great-seal-hexagram-of-pentagramsThe Great Seal of the USA was  a gift from Mayer Amschel Rothschild to his Masonic/Illuminati brethren in “The New World” to remind them of his and Weishaupt´s New Order – brought by Rothschild´s agent, Haym Salomon, who raised the money for the American Revolution.illuminati-horus-osiris-eye-200

The following Report is nearly 100 years old – and the British empire has apparently vanished in the meantime – and the USA has not returned to the British “Crown” – or has it? The Telegraph 18 Aug 2014: “The United Kingdom may now be a second-rate power, but the City’s unparalleled legacy as a global financial capital still underpins its pre-eminence.” Forbes found London and New York held a “hegemony” over the rest of the world.”

Henry Makow 4 oct. 2014:The New World Order is an extension of the imperialism of the “Crown”, a clique of Jewish bankers and their Gentile accomplices devoted to “absorbing the wealth of the world” (in Cecil Rhodes words) and enslaving the human race. The first step was Wilson’s plan for the League of Nations “which we prepared for him.”

We are being colonized by this financial invisible invader. The bogus “War of Terror” obviously is directed against us.  Our jobs and resources are exported. Illegal aliens are imported. The education system is used for mass indoctrination. News is controlled. Entertainment is filled with trivia, the occult, violence and pornography.”

The London City rules the US FED and Wall Street, The rulers of the USA, the Council on Foreign Relations, the AIPAC, the ADL, the whole Jewish Lobby are servants of the the Jesuits/Rothschild. The US was founded by Masons and Illuminati – who work for a united world under the British “Crown” – i.e. the Jesuit/Rothschild dynasty.

Edward_Grey_1914The UN is the continuation of the League of Nations woven into the Peace Treaty of Versailles after WWI. It was conceived by the British Foreign Minister, Edward Grey (1905–1916), until 1910 under King Edward VII, the Rothschild puppet, who was the son of Lionel Rothschild, and closely collaborating with Col. Edward Mandell House, Pres. Woodrow Wilson´s Rasputin. Grey´s next master, King George Vhimself thus City-of-london-tower-of-babela grandson of Lione
was also surrounded by Jewish–intermarried nobility.

The immensely wealthy private bank of N. M. Rothschild & Son controlled the British Empire then as well as now –  took over the Bank of England in 1815. Then it controlled the press, the railroads and the industries with minor exceptions. It is building the Tower of Babel in defiance of God –  since their God is Lucifer.

mandell-houseJesuit and Jewish Rothschild agent Colonel Edward Mandell House was the driving force behind the Federal Reserve coup d´Etat in 1913, behind the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 –  and behind Pres. Woodrow Wilson´s decision to enter WWI –  as well as Wilson´s chief negotiator at the Versailles Peace Negotiations. More about Mandell House.

“The Colonel House Report (1919)” aka the “Col. E. M. House letter”: This report, or letter, was presented to the House of Representatives by Congressman Thorkelson of Montana, and is published in the Congressional Record of October 13, 1919, p. 598-604 inclusive. Its authenticity was discussed by members of the House and an effort was made to strike it from the Record, which failed.
No minor official would dare write such a letter to the British Prime Minister (Lloyd George), or dare discuss the important subjects contained in it; except in the line of duty. It was not written by Col. E. M. House – a nom de plume. It discloses that it was probably written by Lord Northcliffe, who was at that time the head of the British Propaganda Department in enemy countries. He sustained toward Lloyd George the same intimate relationship that once existed between Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House, and this fact may explain the name he assumed.

NorthcliffeLord Northcliffe aka Viscount Alfred Charles William Harmsworth was a famous journalist and publisher of the Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, and The Times. He was Prime Minister Lloyd George´s director of propaganda – and exercised vast influence over British popular opinion. Lord Northcliffe helped Lloyd George into power –  but later turned against him, when Lloyd George would not punish the defeated Germans as hard as Northcliffe wanted. Lord Northcliffe was a founder of the notorious Tavistock Institute to manipulate the British public opinion to accept war with Germany (WWI). This brainwashing octopus was funded by the British Royal family and the Rothschilds (to whom Northcliffe was said to be related by marriage) – and spread to the US –  where no one gets a high public office without a Tavistock brainwashing.

This is the plan of the British Illuminati elite for their one-world government, the “British Empire”. The British Royal family is Jewish (see above and here in comment 2) and Masonic, servants of the Jesuits/Rothschilds.

The Colonel House Report (1919)” aka the “Col. E. M. House letter
“The World’s Peace Foundation has issued for us a series of League of Nations pamphlets, which, with our other literature, tax the mails to the limit of their capacity. Our film concerns are preparing an epoch-making picture entitled “The League of Nations.” In brief, our entire system of thought control is working ceaselessly, tirelessly, ruthlessly, to insure the adoption of the League. And it will be adopted, for business wants peace, the righteous cannot resist a covenant, and the politicians, after shadow-boxing for patronage purposes, will yield valiantly lest the fate of the wanton and wilful pursue them.

By these means we hope smoothly to overcome all effective opposition on the part of our colony America to entering the League — that is, the Empire. As soon as the League is functioning properly, His Majesty in response to loyal and repeated solicitation, might graciously be pleased to consent to restore to this (American) people their ancient right to petition at the foot of the throne; to confer the ancient rank and style of governor general upon our Ambassador, that this colony may enjoy a status inferior to no other colony’s.

Round-tableCecil-rhodesSince that memorable day, September 19, 1877, on which the late Cecil Rhodes devised by will a fund “to and for the establishment, promotion, and development of a secret society (The Round Table)– the true aim of which and object of which shall be the extension of British rule throughout the world, and especially the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire” — the energy and intelligence of England has not been spent in vain. It would perhaps be presumptuous of me to refer here to the admirable services rendered not only by LORD NORTHCLlFFE (the probable author of the report).

The Carnegie League to Enforce Peace and its affiliate League of Small Nations are even now leading the van in our fight. Only the last great battle remains to be fought — the battle to compel America´s acceptance of the terms of the League of Nations.”

City-of-london-british-empireLeague-of-nationsFrom the moment of my arrival here, it was evident to me that such an Anglo-American alliance as would ultimately result in the peaceful return of the American Colonies to the dominion of the Crown could be brought about only with the consent of the dominant group of the controlling clans.

For those who can afford the universities, we are, as I have already mentioned, plentifully supplying British-born or trained professors, lecturers, and presidents.  British-born editors and reporters now create imperial sentiment in most American newspapers. A Canadian-born admiral now heads the United States Naval College.

Through the Red Cross, the Scout movement, the YMCA, the church, and other humane, religious, and quasi-religious organizations, we have created an atmosphere of international effort which strengthens the idea of unity of the English-speaking world. In the co-ordination of this work, Mr. Raymond Fosdick, formerly of the Rockefeller Foundation, has been especially conspicuous.

As the consortium for China, and the security company for Mexico show, our brokers and their aids have become the unchallenged financiers of the world. We have been particularly fortunate in our fiscal agents here, Messrs Pierpont Morgan & Company. Lamont and Davidson gave you valuable aid at the peace conference. They loaned $200,000,000 to Japan that our ally might build a fleet to compete with America on the Pacific carrying routes. Their attempts to retain for us control of the international mercantile marine are well known to you.

City-of-londonThrough our fiscal agents we have become the world’s purchasers. Moreover, the war has made us the custodian of the greater part of the world’s raw materials and we now largely control the oil fields of the world and thereby the world’s transportation and industry. This control would enable us to exert such pressure as would make American industrial interests amenable to His Majesty’s pleasure.
In the financial world the Anglo-American alliance is a well-established fact.

City-of-london2The City of London is an independent state marking its limits by the symbol of the Devil: dragons. The world economy is ruled from here.

We must quickly act to transfer its (US) dangerous sovereignty  to the custody of the Crown (City of London). We must, in short, now bring America within the Empire. The first visible step in this direction has been taken; President Wilson has accepted and sponsored the plan for a League of Nations which we prepared for him (Rothschild puppet Edward Grey – see above). We have wrapped this plan in the peace treaty so that the world must accept from us the League or a continuance of the war. The League is in substance (the Jesuit/Rothschild) Empire with America admitted on the same basis as our other colonies.

The Americans must see that far from surrendering their independence to the League they are actually extending their sovereignty by it. Pres. Wilson alone can satisfy them on this. He alone can father an anti-Bolshevik act which judicially interpreted — will enable appropriate punitive measures to be applied to any American who may be unwise enough to assert that America must again declare her independence. And he alone, therefore, is qualified to act for us as first president of the League.”

Jesuit Pope Francis I has a coats of arms full of pagan symbols –  turned upside down it shows the satanic pentagram (left). On 28/29 June 1963, The Vatican  alongside with Albert Pike’s Southern division of the Scottish Rite Freemasonry celebrated a black mass in the Cappella Paolina in the Vatican –  making Satan the head of the Church. Right: Detail from the  Jesuit College.


Published On 01/30/2017 | By infostormer | News, Video

The same people claiming there is a serious fake news problem are the ones creating it. The Daily Beast reported that the Quebec mosque shooters were White supremacists based on information posted by a parody Twitter account.

Like this Article? Share it!



Published On 01/30/2017 | By infostormer | News, World News

The UK has a real cuck problem. They are more concerned with stopping a future state visit by Donald Trump than dealing with the Moslem problem they have. What’s wrong with you people? Quit acting like such pretentious faggots.

From BBC:

A petition to stop US President Donald Trump’s UK state visit has gathered more than a million signatures.

Numbers of signatories have been rising rapidly since a US clampdown on immigration came into effect over the weekend, causing anger worldwide.

PM Theresa May announced the visit on her recent US trip. Downing Street said while it disagreed with the policy it was right to still work with the US.

Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn has urged the PM to postpone the visit.

The petition is now the second-most popular ever on the government’s website. MPs will discuss it on Tuesday.

It states: “Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen.”

Like this Article? Share it!


Published On 01/29/2017 | By infostormer | News, World News

It looks as if President Trump is trying to get the Saudis to help support safe zones in Syria and Yemen. In addition to the economic and political fallout, this would explain why he did not enact an immigration ban on Saudi Arabia.

From The Hill:

President Trump spoke with the leader of Saudi Arabia, King Salman, on Sunday afternoon.

The president made the call in the Oval Office, where National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and senior adviser Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, joined him.

Trump and King Salman discussed joint efforts to fight terrorism and how to address the civil war in Syria and the conflict in Yemen.

“The President requested and the King agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, as well as supporting other ideas to help the many refugees who are displaced by the ongoing conflicts,” the White House said in a statement.

We’ll have to see how this develops. Clearly having any type of safe zone in the Middle East where kebab invaders can be transported to is a net positive. Such action in Syria should be done in cooperation with the Russians and Syrians. The Saudis in many respects are part of the problem as they were sending people from their prisons to wage jihad in Syria. It is a complex geopolitical situation largely because the United States has established questionable alliances in the region.

Like this Article? Share it!

Trump Kicks Insane Jewess Nuland Out of State Department — This is What Winning Feels Like!

Dr. Patrick Slattery
Daily Stormer
January 27, 2017

Donald Trump was the first presidential candidate I ever supported who actually won, and his election was the happiest day of my professional life. He warned us that we will have to get used to winning, and now…

Nuland, › … › Biographies

Ambassador Victoria Nuland assumed her position as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs on September 18, 2013. As Assistant Secretary she is …

Did you click on the link above? It says:

We’re sorry, that page can’t be found.

That is the happiest I have ever been to see a broken link. She has been fired by Donald Trump. Listeners to the David Duke show know that for more than three years I never missed an opportunity to point out that Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland was the driving force in the Obama Administration for an aggressive policy towards Russia that aimed at regime change in Moscow and was more than willing to risk World War III to do so. In furtherance of that aim, she engineered the coup d’etat in Ukraine that replaced the constitutionally elected President with what amounts to a Jewish junta.

(Click here for a list of articles we posted about her)

And now she’s gone. While she ought to be in prison for all the lives she snuffed out in the civil war in Ukraine that she provoked, she will no doubt land a very prestigious job in a Jewish-run think or even at a university, despite her lack of academic credentials. The tribe still calls the shots at the universities. She will be a mainstay on network television as a foreign policy expert critiquing President Trump’s follies. But at least she won’t be secretary of state, which was likely what she would have been if Hillary had won the election.

Nuland was kicked out along with the rest of the State Department leadership. I cannot verify the accuracy of this chart, but it has been circulating on the internet.

This looks like “draining the swamp.” Still, I suppose I shouldn’t get too used to winning. The bulk of the replacements are bound to come from the same swamp of the foreign policy establishment, namely think tanks, universities, and the bureaucracy itself. This is all Zionist occupied territory. If we lived in a self-governing country, someone like myself with credentials and experience and a track record of being right and supporting the new president and his policy priorities would stand a good chance of being brought into the administration. However, anyone who has pointed out the massive damage caused to our society by Jewish power is persona non grata in polite company.

There is a lot of talk that uber-neocon Jew Eliot Abrams is being considered for the number 2 position at the State Department. I don’t really believe this is true. All reports seem to be based on an unsourced assertion in a Washington Post article written by Jewish reporter Josh Rogin. I think Rogin might just be lying in order to create a buzz for Abrams, knowing that, at least up until now, Jewish reporters face zero consequences for lying. He also dropped the name of neocon goy Paula Dobriansky.

Rex Tillerson already rejected John Bolton as his deputy, so I don’t see why he would take on any of Bolton’s colleagues from the tight little neocon clique that has caused so much carnage around the world. However, Tillerson has so many positions to fill and the foreign policy establishment has been under Zionist control for so long that horrible people are bound to get some important jobs.

All this underscores the urgency of moving the Overton window so that we, who are currently oppressed dissidents (even if we are largely responsible for Trump’s election), can come out of the shadowy world of alternative media and into the halls of power.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer fake cries at press conference complete with “political identity” props

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) got emotional at a press conference about President Trump’s vetting on immigration from seven countries.

Watch Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer cry during a press conference connected with President Trump’s correct enforcement of Obama’s vetting policy for seven Muslim-majority nations, is disgusting.

Where was Senator Schumer’s tears when Obama was bombing Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan etc…

Now all of a sudden Schumer is emotional about banning “muslim migrants or refugees” from entering the United States.

What are these migrants or refugees running from…maybe Obama’s bombing of their country for the last 8 years?

The Washington Examiner reports

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer held back tears Sunday while denouncing President Trump‘s executive order on immigration and refugees.

“This executive order was mean-spirited and un-American,” the Democratic senator from New York said through tears. “It was implemented in a way that created chaos and confusion across the country.”

Schumer called for the executive order to be reversed “immediately” and suggested that a bipartisan group of lawmakers could introduce legislation to overturn the immigration ban.

“If we get a few more Republicans, I think we might be able to pass legislation,” he said.

Schumer blasted Trump on Friday after the president signed an executive order that halted the country’s refugee resettlement program for 120 days and banned Syrian refugees from the U.S. indefinitely. People from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya are also prohibited from entering the U.S. for 90 days.

“Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight as a grand tradition of America, welcoming immigrants, that has existed since America was founded, has been stomped upon,” Schumer said in a statement.

“Taking in immigrants and refugees is not only humanitarian but has also boosted our economy and created jobs decade after decade,” he said. “This is one of the most backward and nasty executive orders that the president has issued.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer becomes emotional speaking against Pres. Trump’s immigration order, calling it “mean-spirited and un-American.”


BREAKING: Trump accuses McCain and Graham of looking to start World War III

In a series of Tweets, President Trump hit back at his arch-war hawk Republican adversaries.

US President Donald Trump has just said to the anti-Russian war hawk Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham to stop undermining him by criticizing his immigration reforms, and to stop “always looking for ways to start World War III”.

Here is what he said:

The joint statement of former presidential candidates John McCain & Lindsey Graham is wrong – they are sadly weak on immigration. The two…

…Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III.

These Tweets make it abundantly clear that the Senators who have supported the fascist regime in Kiev more than any others in the US are not going to have an easy time with Trump.

This comes a day after Donald Trump’s hour long phone call with Vladimir Putin where both the Ukrainian problem and the Middle East were discussed amongst other issues.

This sends a strong and unequivocal message to the two Republican troublemakers. They lost, he won!

Iraqi Parliament 25a08

Following the shock announcement that citizens of seven Muslim nations would not be allowed entry into the United States of America as of Friday 27th January 2017 for a period of 90 days, Iraq has decided to respond with equal measures, the Baghdad Invest reported.

Iraq has implemented the exact same measures:

  • No citizens of the USA can enter Iraq for a period of 90 days.
  • Citizens with existing Visas will be barred entry.

Iraq has said that once USA lifts the travel ban on citizens of Iraq travelling to the United States of America, it would do the same.

Earlier, the Iraq’s Popular Mobilization had called on the country’s government to ban U.S. nationals from entering Iraq and also to expel those already in the country.

Popular Mobilization is a coalition of paramilitary groups that fight ISIS in Iraq. It became an approved body last year by the Iraqi government.

The call to bar U.S. nationals was issued in a statement by the body’s spokesman, Ahmed al-Assadi.

Iran, the other Islamic country, facing Trump’s “extreme vetting” measures had also warned of taking required measures. Iran’s foreign ministry said Saturday the country will ban Americans from entering the country in response to US President Donald Trump’s “insulting” order restricting arrivals from Iran and six other Muslim states.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran… has decided to respond in kind after the insulting decision of the United States concerning Iranian nationals,” the ministry said in a statement carried by state television.

Israel Kills 19-Year Old Palestinian on His Birthday

  • Mourners gather around the body of Palestinian Mohammed Abu Khalifa during his funeral in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank, Jan. 29, 2017.

    Mourners gather around the body of Palestinian Mohammed Abu Khalifa during his funeral in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank, Jan. 29, 2017. | Photo: Reuters

Published 29 January 2017
Israeli forces raided the Palestinian city of Jenin and immediately opened fire after young Palestinians began to protest the incursion.

Israeli occupation forces killed a 19-year-old Palestinian in the West Bank city of Jenin as they raided the refugee camp in the city which sparked a protest by young Palestinians against the unjustified incursion.

Israel Made 2016 Deadliest Year for Palestine in a Decade

Ma’an news agency reported that Mohammed Abu-Khalifa had just celebrated his 19th birthday hours before he was killed by live ammunition used by undercover Israeli troops who came into the camp in the early hours of Sunday before Israeli armored vehicles stormed the camp and clashed with Palestinian residents.

Palestinian medics said Abu Khalifa was shot with a live bullet in the lower back that went through his body and came out his abdomen. State-run Palestinian news agency Wafa said the young Palestinian man was left on the ground for hours before paramedics were able to evacuate his body.

While the clashes lasted for hours, no Israeli soldiers were injured and an Israeli army spokeswoman said the soldiers opened fire after being “faced with immediate danger” from a few Palestinian civilians who threw stones and Molotov cocktails.

Since the beginning of 2017, Israeli troops have killed eight Palestinians, including Abu Khalifa, according to a tally by Ma’an.More than 250 Palestinians have been killed since the beginning of the unrest in October 2015, which the United Nations and Palestinian leaders blame on the frustration with failed peace efforts, continued occupation and expansion of illegal settlements.

For Netanyahu Palestinians, Not Israelis, Do ‘Ethnic Cleansing’

Meanwhile, the Israeli government, the most right-wing one in the country’s history, maintains that the Palestinian leadership and the media are inciting the violence.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right ministers are expected to continue the policy of extrajudicial killings and illegal settlement building, emboldened by the presidency of Donald Trump in the United States.


Israel demolished 143 Palestinian homes in January

Palestinians inspect the rubble of their homes that were demolished by Israeli authorities in West Bank [Nedal Eshtayah / Anadolu]

Palestinians inspect the rubble of their homes that were demolished by Israeli authorities in West Bank [Nedal Eshtayah / Anadolu]

An official Palestinian committee announced on Sunday that the Israeli occupation authorities demolished 143 Palestinian homes this month, has reported. The figure is double the number of homes destroyed by the Israelis in January 2016.

The Anti-Israeli Settlement and Wall Committee said that occupation forces carried out most of the demolitions in the areas where it is planning to establish new illegal settlements or expand existing colonies for Jewish settlers.

The Information Director of the Committee, Qasim Awwad, said that there has been an increase in the demolition of Palestinian homes compared to the increase in building new settlement units. “The Israeli authorities built three new settlements in the Jordan Valley, Nablus and Hebron,” explained Awwad. He noted that a new settlement generally starts by placing makeshift housing units on Palestinian land and then connecting them to mains electricity and water services. They then develop into full settlements.

The Israeli government has recently approved even more new settlement units in the occupied Palestinian territories, in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 2334.

Palestinian MP Mustafa Al-Barghouti pointed out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not miss any opportunity to let everyone know of his government’s settlement policy. He called for the people to wake up and confront Netanyahu’s settlement plans.

Fate of Palestinian refugees in Syria still unclear

Image of Palestinian children holding banners in solidarity with Palestinian refugees in Syria [apaimages]

Image of Palestinian children holding banners in solidarity with Palestinian refugees in Syria [apaimages]

The fate of 1,147 Palestinian refugees in Syria is still unclear, Quds Press reported on Sunday. The Task Group of the Palestinians in Syria noted that those who remain unaccounted for include 82 women.

According to the group’s report, this is only the number of Palestinian refugees who were documented as being arrested by Syrian regime forces over the past six years. The actual number of missing people could be much higher due to documentation difficulties.

The report pointed out that 458 Palestinian refugees were tortured to death inside Syrian government prisons. The figure was determined after direct contact with the families of the victims.

Meanwhile, those Palestinian refugees who were displaced from Khan Al-Sheikh refugee camp and moved to Idlib appealed for UNRWA to bear its responsibility towards them. The Task Group said it received many messages from refugees displaced from the camp describing the difficult conditions. One said that they do not have even “the simplest of needs for a simple life” as they are unable to afford rents for their homes and suffer from severe shortage of water and fuel.

Idlib is suffering from a dire economic situation, severe lack of healthcare services and a destroyed infrastructure, including schools, houses and communications systems. All of this is reflected in the lives of the displaced refugees who fled from Khan Al-Sheikh.

Six other times the US has banned immigrants


Donald Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ is not the first time specific groups or nationalities have been blocked from the US.

Over the past 200 years, US presidents have placed restrictions on the immigration of certain groups [File: Reuters]

On Friday, Donald Trump barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries – Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen – from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days.

He also suspended the US refugee programme for 120 days, specifically banning Syrian refugees until further notice, reduced the number of refugees who would be admitted this year to 50,000 and specified that refugees who were from a religious minority and fleeing religious persecution should be prioritised.

A federal judge has blocked part of Trump’s executive order, ruling that travellers who have already landed in the US with valid visas should not be sent back to their home countries, and protests in response to passport holders from some Arab countries, including US green card holders, being blocked from passing through customs or prevented from boarding US-bound planes, have taken place at airports across the country.

But this is not the first time that the US has banned immigrants from its shores. Over the past 200 years, successive American presidents have placed restrictions on the immigration of certain groups.

Here are six occasions when laws have been passed to restrict some people from entering the country.

READ MORE: Donald Trump’s #MuslimBan sparks outrage and fear

Exclusion of the Chinese

President Chester A. Arthur.

Signed on May 6, 1882.

The Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned “skilled and unskilled labourers and Chinese employed in mining” from entering the US for 10 years, was the first significant law restricting immigration to the country. It came at a time when the US was struggling with high unemployment and, although Chinese made up a very small segment of the country’s workforce, they were nevertheless scapegoated for its social and economic woes.

The law also placed restrictions on Chinese who were already in the US, forcing them to obtain certificates in order to re-enter if they left the country and banning them from securing citizenship.

The act expired in 1892 but was extended for a further 10 years in the form of another – the Geary Act. This placed additional restrictions on Chinese residents of the country, forcing them to register and to obtain a certificate of residence, without which they could be deported.

This changed in 1943 with the Magnuson Act – which allowed some Chinese immigration and for some Chinese already residing in the country to become naturalised citizens, but which maintained the ban on property and business ownership. This came at a time when China was a US ally during World War II.

Jewish refugees during World War II

President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

As millions of people became refugees during World War II, US President Franklin D Roosevelt argued that refugees posed a serious threat to the country’s national security. Drawing on fears that Nazi spies could be hiding among them, the country limited the number of German Jews who could be admitted to 26,000 annually. And it is estimated that for most of the Hitler era, less than 25 percent of that quota was actually filled.

In one of the most notorious cases, the US turned away the St Louis ocean liner, which was carrying 937 passengers, almost all of whom are thought to have been Jewish, in June 1939. The ship was forced to return to Europe, where more than a quarter of its passengers are thought to have been killed in the Holocaust.


My name is Regina Blumenstein. The US turned me away at the border in 1939. I was murdered in Auschwitz

Anarchists banned

President Theodore Roosevelt.

Signed on March 3, 1903.

In 1903, the Anarchist Exclusion Act banned anarchists and others deemed to be political extremists from entering the US.

In 1901, President William McKinley had been fatally shot by Leon Czolgosz, an American anarchist who was the son of Polish immigrants.

The act – which was also known as the Immigration Act of 1903 – codified previous immigration law and, in addition to anarchists, added three other new classes of people who would be banned from entry: those with epilepsy, beggars and importers of prostitutes.

The act marked the first time that individuals were banned for their political beliefs.

READ MORE: EU looks to fund camps in Africa to cut immigration

Communists banned

Passed by Congress on August 23, 1950, despite being vetoed by President Harry Truman.

The Internal Security Act of 1950 – also known as the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 or the McCarran Act – made it possible to deport any immigrants believed to be members of the Communist Party. Members of communist organisations, which were required to register, were also not allowed to become citizens.

Truman opposed the law, stating that it “would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights”.

Sections of the act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1993. But some parts of the act still stand.


President Jimmy Carter, April 7, 1980.

Following the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, during which the US embassy in Tehran was stormed and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days, American President Jimmy Carter cut diplomatic relations with and imposed sanctions on Iran. He also banned Iranians from entering the country.

Confirmed: Iran’s Asghar Farhadi won’t be let into the US to attend Oscar’s. He’s nominated for best foreign language film…

Today, Iranians have again been banned – one of seven Muslim majority countries included in Trump’s executive order.

Ban on HIV positive persons

Under President Ronald Reagan, the US Public Health Service added Aids to its list of “dangerous and contagious” diseases. Senator Jesse Helms’ “Helms Amendment” added HIV to the exclusion list.

In 1987, the US banned HIV positive persons from arriving in the US. The laws were influenced by homophobic and xenophobic sentiment towards Africans and minorities at the time, as well as a false belief that the HIV virus could be spread by physical or respiratory contact. Former US President Barack Obama lifted it in 2009, completing a process begun by President George W Bush.

Source: Al Jazeera News


Why is Russia so happy with Trump?

The Russian ruling elite is hoping it would be able to negotiate a new world order with Trump.

Russia was one of the few countries to celebrate Donald Trump's inauguration, writes Kurilla [EPA/Anatoly Maltsev]
Russia was one of the few countries to celebrate Donald Trump’s inauguration, writes Kurilla [EPA/Anatoly Maltsev]


Ivan Kurilla is Professor of History at the European University in St Petersburg.

The inauguration of Donald J Trump as the 45th President of the United States caused anger, anxiety, and demonstrations across the world. Few were the countries that celebrated the event. Unsurprisingly, Russia was one of those few (Israel being another).

Both the elites and the ordinary people in Russia greeted the new US president, and even some in the political opposition saw the potential for positive developments under his administration.

The reason for Russia’s warm welcome of President Trump had nothing to do with claims in the US media that he was “a Kremlin agent” or that “Russian hackers” helped him win the election. It had much more to do with expectations among the elites, the ordinary people, and even the intelligentsia, of a new direction in US-Russian relations that would de-escalate internal and external tensions and favour their interests.

Negotiating a new world order

Many times during the past decade Russian President Vladimir Putin and his subordinates claimed that the world order that emerged after the collapse of the socialist camp and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was not only unjust but also illegitimate.

There were no new foundational documents and institutions to replace those created at the end of World War II with the Yalta Conference. In the eyes of the Russian leadership, no country signed any obligation to consider the United States the only superpower and therefore nobody should comply with its leadership.

This logic explains the confrontations over Ukraine and Syria. For the Kremlin, both were used to demonstrate that there are “red lines” and that there is a need for a new world order. Russian foreign policy analysts have repeatedly claimed that the new US president might be ready to negotiate the creation of a new system of international relations to replace Yalta and the current unipolar model.

The “new Yalta” would redistribute spheres of responsibility to recognised great powers. The Kremlin, of course, sees Russia as one of them (alongside with the US, China, and perhaps Europe).

Among the ruling elite, there is also a much more modest expectation from Trump concerning matters of self-interest. Since at least 2014, after the annexation of Crimea and Russian support to the anti-Kiev rebels in Eastern Ukraine, many members of the ruling class experienced the effects of sanctions targeting them. With Trump in the White House, they expect the sanctions to be lifted, if he indeed wants to start a new chapter in Russian-US relations.

A sigh of relief

Ordinary Russians were also pleased with Trump’s victory. Part of the people’s joy we can blame on the extensively flattering coverage of his campaign and victory in the Russian media, but there were also very concrete reasons for it.

One is, again, hope for lifting of the economic sanctions. Ironically enough, ordinary Russians are actually suffering much more from the “counter-sanctions” on trade imposed by the Russian government on the EU and the US, which effectively raised the prices of basic goods and eliminated some types of quality foodstuffs from grocery stores.

OPINION: The inevitable Trumputin divorce

Still, with this new stage in the Russian-US relations, those counter-sanctions could be lifted as well. But even if the sanctions remain in place, improving relations with the US does come as a relief for the Russian people. The confrontations of the past two years encouraged not only patriotic feelings among Russians, but also feelings of anxiety. In the early fall of 2016, discussions in the Russian public space about the possibility of war with the US started for the first time since the Cold War. Trump’s victory was perceived as a sign that at least there will be no war.

America is foe no more

The opposition intelligentsia in Russia is mostly sympathetic to their US peers, the Democrats, in academia and the NGO community, and they also despise Donald Trump’s politics and style.

But even the opposition took a breath of relief with Trump’s victory. The fact is that since the winter protests of 2011-2012 against the rigged elections and the return of Putin to the presidency, the Russian regime has used the strategy of smearing its critics by accusing them of links to “evil American influences”.

That led to a legal, political, and media pressure on activists, many of whom have emigrated since 2012, and on independent civil society organisations which were subject to restrictions by a new “foreign agents” law. Thus, hostile relations with the US were instrumental in subduing the independent civil society. Nobody knows whether the regime will cease using this approach, but it would make sense to do so after America stops being a foe.

Even within the more radical opposition that would call such a consideration a “Stockholm syndrome”, there are some hopes that President Trump will prove to be a more difficult partner for Putin. This faction considered Barack Obama’s foreign policy a failure, not because it alienated Putin and imposed sanctions, but because that policy did not bring the desired results. They claim that Obama’s perceived “weakness” encouraged Putin to adopt more aggressive policies both at home and abroad, and they hope Trump will be a “tough Republican” keeping Putin quiet.

Time will tell what direction US-Russian relations will embark on. But if history is to have any predictive value, we should not be too optimistic. Both George W Bush and Barack Obama started their presidencies with rapprochement between the two countries – Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul, while Obama was eager for a “reset” policy. Both ended their second terms at a low point in relations (with the Russia-Georgia war in 2008 and with Syria and the hacking scandal in 2016, respectively).

Will this pattern be repeated with President Trump; will we witness a honeymoon for a year or two and the return to hostility in the longer term? The probability is high, but nothing is for sure.

After all, we know that the Trump presidency will be over in 2020 or 2024, but don’t know when the Putin presidency will end. It may happen before Trump’s term expires. And that would definitely open a new chapter in the troubled Russian-US relations.

Ivan Kurilla is a professor of history at the European University at Saint Petersburg.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy. 


Why are Islamist armed groups clashing in Syria?

Rebel alliances in Syria fluctuate frequently, mirroring the ever-changing complexities of the region.

The JFS accused several rebel groups of selling out the revolution against the Syrian government by attending the political talks in Astana, Kazakhstan, writes Khouri [Reuters]
The JFS accused several rebel groups of selling out the revolution against the Syrian government by attending the political talks in Astana, Kazakhstan, writes Khouri [Reuters]



Rami G Khouri is a senior public policy fellow in the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut.

The fresh clashes in Syria’s Idlib region between a dozen important Islamist and extremist rebel movements are battles for turf and authority on the ground – but they also mirror northern Syria’s ever-changing complexities, as local, regional and international actors change policies and tactics.

These actors and their aims fluctuate almost on a monthly basis, which helps explain last week’s face-off between former al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS), on one side, and the independent Islamist movement Ahrar al-Sham and half a dozen smaller allies, on the other.

The core battle between JFS and Ahrar al-Sham (AS) flared last week after JFS attacked some smaller Islamist groups that were close to AS, notably Jaish el-Mujahideen. JFS accused them of selling out the revolution against the Syrian government by attending the Russian-Turkish-Iranian-sponsored political talks in Astana, Kazakhstan. It also suspected rebels of passing on JFS locations and coordinates to foreign parties that have recently been bombing JFS.

Several smaller Islamist rebel groups found themselves in danger of being destroyed by the much stronger JFS and quickly moved to form a coalition with AS, which, in turn, promised to protect them from JFS attacks. These intra-Islamist rebel tensions increased sharply, in part due to the fallout from the rebel defeat and evacuation of Aleppo and other besieged towns, which pushed more rebels into the Idlib region.

Consequently, dozens of small and increasingly vulnerable rebel groups, whether secular or Islamist, face their inevitable moment of reckoning: will they side with the hardline JFS and work towards creating a mini-Islamic state or an emirate, while continuing to fight the Bashar al-Assad regime?

Or would they remain as part of the secular-nationalist Free Syrian Army coalition and move closer to AS, the powerful Islamist rebel group that projects itself as more pragmatic and locally anchored than JFS?

Post-Aleppo dilemmas

Rebel groups confront these issues now because regional and international players have changed the entire political and military equation in northern Syria, following Russia, Iran and Hezbollah’s successful assistance to Assad in regaining control of Aleppo.

Turkey is also actively engaged with local allies in northern Syria, as it simultaneously fights the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) and Kurdish groups that seek a more autonomous region along the Turkish border.

Russia and the United States have stepped up their air attacks against some armed groups, including JFS, while Russia, Turkey and Iran have initiated a new political process in Astana that aims to end the entire Syrian war through political negotiations that lead to a new constitution. This follows successful Turkish-Russian mediation to end the Aleppo battle and siege.

OPINION: Syria’s Civil War – One conflict, multiple battles

All these developments have squeezed JFS and AS, who find themselves as the next major target for air and ground attacks by the Syrian government and other regional and global powers. These two groups have worked together in recent years, when they primarily fought ISIL or the Syrian government, including forming a large coalition named Jaish al-Fateh in early 2015 that conquered Idlib.

Neither of them attended the Astana talks, which increases their status as likely targets for Turkish, Russian, Iranian or American bombs.

Some groups might react to the current evolving environment by slowly shifting from a military to a political battle, hoping to find a place to survive, in new forms, in a reconfigured Syria that might emerge in the coming years.

All smaller Syrian rebel groups, regardless of their secular, Islamist or extremist orientation, now face the same dilemma: they might be attacked by JFS and other hardline groups if they join political talks to achieve a ceasefire and a new constitution; if they ignore the political talks, they will be attacked militarily by the government and foreign powers, in a severely imbalanced military equation that augurs badly for them, as Aleppo showed.

Turkey’s involvement

Complicating this equation is Turkey’s efforts to entice Syrian rebel groups to join its fight against ISIL and autonomy-seeking Kurdish groups in the north, in return for Turkish support and even potential future protection and patronage in a decentralised, new Syria.

This highlights the problem that has plagued hundreds of Syrian rebel groups since 2012: unless they unite and coordinate to act jointly on the basis of their collective numbers and local legitimacy and support, they remain easy prey for their more technologically advanced foes, whether the Damascus government, its foreign backers, Turkey or the US.

This reality may explain why both JFS and AS now seek to attract or pressure smaller groups to join them – or else they all risk annihilation.

OPINION: Syria’s Civil War – One conflict, multiple battles

The attacks last week, especially on Jaish al-Mujahideen, may be only the beginning of a longer campaign by JFS to consolidate its power base, in Idlib especially. AS, for its part, is protecting and bringing into its orbit Jaish al-Mujahideen, Suqour al-Sham, Faylaq al-Sham, and other small groups that have been attacked or threatened by JFS.

Whichever of them emerges stronger will face the larger inevitable battle against ISIL, the Syrian government, and foreign powers. Some groups might react to the current evolving environment by slowly shifting from a military to a political battle, hoping to find a place to survive in new forms in a reconfigured Syria that might emerge in the coming years. Whether that happens will be clarified in the months ahead, when new conditions, actors, and tactics will surely emerge, as they have in the past few weeks.

Rami G Khouri is a senior public policy fellow at the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut and a non-resident senior fellow at Harvard University Kennedy School.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Rex Tillerson and the Myths, Lies and Oil Wars to Come


Rex Tillerson, former CEO of the ExxonMobil oil colossus is not designated Secretary of State because of his diplomatic experience. He is there because clearly the Trump Project of those Patriarchs behind Trump–ones such as Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and others–want a person from Big Oil guiding American foreign policy the coming four years.

Already as President, Trump has given the green light to the controversial Keystone XL pipelines that will not ship US oil, but costly Canada Tar Sands sludge. His EPA plans a friendly stance to the environmental hazards of shale oil production. But most essential, with Secretary Tillerson, the US plans a major reorganization of control over oil, reminding of the oft-cited Kissinger statement, “If you control the oil you control entire nations or groups of nations.”

I want to give here a personal account of the change in my own belief about the genesis of hydrocarbons as I feel it will become increasingly important in the near future to grasp precisely what the Oil Game of the Big Four Anglo-American oil giants–ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP–is truly about. It’s about creating myths, lies and ultimately oil wars based on those myths and lies.

It was during the period in late 2002 as it became clear that the Bush-Cheney US Administration was determined to destroy Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. How a US government could risk a potential break with its European and other major allies for any real or imagined threat from Iraq at that point puzzled me greatly. There must be a deeper ground, I told myself.

Then a friend sent me an article from a now-defunct website, From The Wilderness, founded by the late Mike Ruppert. The article laid out a major argument as to how the volume of oil in the ground was finite and disappearing rapidly. It argued that the single largest oil field in history, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, was so depleted that it needed water injection of millions of barrels daily to get an ever declining output of crude oil. They argued that Russia was past the “peak” in its oil. They illustrated their notion with the famous Gaussian bell curve graph. The world, after more than a Century in the hydrocarbon era, had consumed so much oil that we were near to “absolute peak.” Or so they claimed.

Absolute Peak?

I dug deeper, found other articles on the peak oil theme. It seemed to offer an explanation for the mad Iraq War. After all, Iraq according to estimates had the world’s second largest undeveloped reserves of oil after Saudi Arabia. If oil was in such short supply, it would offer an explanation.

I decided I should go deeper on such a pivotal question as the future of world oil and its potential impact on the very questions of war and peace, world prosperity or famine.

I went to the annual conference of something calling itself the Association for Study of Peak Oil (ASPO), held in May 2004 in Berlin. There I met the gurus of Peak Oil–Colin Campbell, a retired Texaco geologist whose research on well production had given the peak oil movement a seeming scientific foundation; Matt Simmons, a Texas oil banker who had writen a book titled Twilight in the Desert claiming Ghawar was well past peak. Mike Ruppert was also there as was peak oil author Richard Heinberg.

Far from being treated to a high level scientific demonstration of the geophysics behind peak oil, however, I was gravely disappointed to be witness to bitter, acrimonious verbal battles between peak oil critics such as an energy expert from the Paris International Energy Agency and various peak oil advocates who managed to lob mere ad hominem attacks on the Paris speaker rather than lay out serious science.

I decided to make a meeting with the then-President of ASPO International, Swedish atomic physicist, Kjell Aleklett, a few weeks later, at his University in Uppsala, Sweden, in an attempt to get a deeper scientific argument for Peak Oil. There Aleklett treated me to his latest slide show. He argued that, as oil was a fossil fuel, we knew, through study of plate tectonics, where all major oil deposits were to be found. Then, citing depletion of production in the North Sea, in Ghawar, Texas and a few other spots, Aleklett claimed, “voila! The case is proven.” For me it was anything but proven.

An alternative view

At that point, presented by Aleklett with what could only be described as a slide show loaded with unproven assertions, I began to question my earlier conviction about peak oil. Months before, a German researcher friend had sent me a paper by a group of Russian geophysicists on something they called “abiotic origins” of hydrocarbons. I had filed it for future reading. Now I opened it and read. I was impressed, to put it mildly.

As I searched more translations of the Russian scientific abiotic papers, I dug deeper. I learned of the highly-classified Soviet era research begun in the 1950s at onset of the Cold War. Stalin had given a mandate to the leading Soviet geo-scientists to, simply put, insure that the USSR was entirely self-sufficient in oil and gas. They should not repeat the fatal error that had contributed to Germany’s losing two world wars–lack of oil self-sufficiency.

Being serious scientists, they took nothing for granted. They began their work with an exhaustive search of world scientific literature for rigorous proof of the genesis of hydrocarbons, beginning with the accepted fossil fuel theory. To their shock, the found not one serious scientific proof in the entire literature.

I then read of the cross-disciplinary researches by academics such as Professor V.A. Krayushkin, head of the Department of Petroleum Exploration in the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kiev, one of the leading abiotic scientists.

Krayushkin presented a paper following the end of the Cold War to a 1994 Santa Fe, New Mexico conference of DOSECC (Drilling, Observation and Sampling of the Earth’s Continental Crust). There Krayushkin presented his researches of the Dnieper-Donets region of Ukraine. Traditional mainstream geology would have argued that that region would be barren of oil or gas. Traditionally-trained geologists had argued it senseless to drill for oil or gas there because of the complete absence of any “source rock” — the special geological formations which, according to Western geological theory, were the unique rocks from which hydrocarbons were generated or were capable of being generated – presumably, the only places where oil could be found, hence the term “source.”

What Krayushkin presented to the disbelieving audience of American geologists and geo-scientists went against their entire oil genesis training. Krayushkin argued that the oil and gas discoveries in the Ukraine basin came from what geologists called ‘crystalline basement,’ deep rocks where Western geological theory claimed oil and gas (which they termed ‘fossil fuels,’) could not be found. No dinosaur fossils nor tree remains could have been buried so deep, the Western theory went.

Yet the Russians had found oil and gas there, something tantamount to Galileo Galilei telling the Holy Inquisition that the Sun — and not the Earth — was the center of our system. According to one participant, the audience was not at all amused by the implications of Russian geophysics.

The speaker from Kiev went on to tell the scientists at Santa Fe, New Mexico that the Ukrainian team’s efforts to look for oil where conventional theory insisted no oil could be found had, in fact, yielded a bonanza in commercial oil and gas fields.

He described in detail the scientific tests they had conducted on the discovered petroleum to evaluate their theory that oil and gas originated not near the surface – as conventional fossil fuel theory assumes – but rather at great depth in the Earth, some two hundred kilometers deep. The tests confirmed that the oil and gas had indeed originated from great depth.

The speaker clearly explained that the Russian and Ukrainian scientists’ understanding of the origin of oil and gas was as different from what the Western geologists had been taught as was day from night.

More shocking to the audience was Krayushkin’s report that during the first five years of exploration of the northern part of the Dneiper-Donets Basin in the early 1990’s, a total of 61 wells had been drilled, of which 37 were commercially productive, a success rate of more than 60%. For an oil industry where a 30% success rate was typical, 60% was an impressive result. He described, well-by-well, the depths, oil flows and other details.

Several of the wells were at a depth of more than four kilometers, a depth of roughly 13,000 feet into the Earth and some produced as much as 2600 barrels of crude oil a day, worth almost $3 million per day at 2011 oil prices.

Following such reading, I came into personal contact with one of the leading Russian abiotic scientists, Vladimir Kutcherov, then a professor at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden’s ETH or MIT. We met several times and he tutored me in the confirmed deep earth origins of all hydrocarbons. Not from dead dinosauer detritis and biological remains. Rather oil is being constantly generated from deep in the core of the Earth in the giant nuclear oven we call the core. Under enormous temperature and pressure, the primal methane gas is forced to the surface through what they term migration channels in the Earth’s mantle. Indeed, Kutcherov demonstrated that existing “depleted” oil wells, left capped for several years, had been proven to “refill” with new oil from deep under. Depending on the elements the methane migrates through on its upwards journey, it remains gas, becomes crude oil, tar or coal.

The implications of the deep Earth genesis of hydrocarbons were profound and forced me to change my previously-accepted belief. I read further the fascinating geophysical theories of the brilliant German scientist, Alfred Wegener, the true discoverer of what in the 1960s was dubbed Plate Tectonics. I came to realize that our world is, as the Dutch oil economist, Peter O’dell famously put it, “not running out of oil, but running into oil.” Everywhere, from offshore Brazil to Russia, to China, to the Middle East. I wrote what became one of my most read online articles, “Confessions of an Ex-Peak Oil Believer,” in 2007.

Indeed I realized that the entire foundations of Western petroleum geology was a kind of religion. Rather than accept the Divine Birth, Peak Oil “church-goers” accepted the Divine Fossil Origins. No proof needed, only belief. To this day there exists not a single serious scientific paper proving the fossil genesis of hydrocarbons. It was posited in the 1760’s as an untested hypothesis, by Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. It has served the American oil industry, especially of the family Rockefeller, to build an immense fortune based on a myth of oil scarcity.

Today, clearly the new US Administration under a President Trump, with his ExxonMobil Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, is returning to the era of Big Oil after eight years of Obama and alternative strategies. If our world is to avoid yet more carnage and unnecessary wars over bountiful oil, it would be important to study the true history of our Age of Oil. In 2012 I published a book based on this work titled Myths, Lies and Oil Wars. For those interested, I’m convinced you will find it a useful alternative.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Netherlands claim Russia’s MH17 radar data ‘can’t be deciphered’

Netherlands claim Russia’s MH17 radar data ‘can’t be deciphered’
The Dutch prosecutor’s office said it lacks information to read the radar images provided by Moscow after the Dutch-led team of international investigators published its report into MH17 crash in September.

“Further information is needed to properly understand the meaning of the radar images,” a spokesman for the Dutch prosecutor’s office said in Amsterdam on Saturday, as cited by Der Standard. The spokesman claimed the format in which the data was presented by the Russian side in October has failed to meet international standards.

The Dutch investigators have forwarded a request to Moscow “to send the correct information”, Der Telegraaf reported, citing the spokesman for the prosecutor’s office.

A similar request was reportedly sent by the International Organization for Air Safety, according to the publication.

Evert van Zijtveld, chairman of the MH147 Aviation Disaster Foundation, said the confusion with the interpretation of the radar data is a major setback.

“Therefore, there remain doubts about the true causes of the crash. This could not be allowed,” he told Telegraaf, adding that the families of the victims are still in the dark about the course of the investigation.

“We still know officially nothing on the progress,” Zijtveld said.

Russia had handed over radar data from the area over Eastern Ukraine where the plane was brought down on July 17 2014 to the Dutch embassy in Moscow late October.

All 298 people onboard the plane were killed.

“We gave the Dutch side raw radar data which we discovered a month ago,” Russia’s foreign ministry told AFP at the time.

It was hoped the data could shed extra light on the circumstances of the crash, which is an ongoing source of contention between Moscow and the Dutch-led investigation team.

The September report by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), comprising aviation experts and investigators from the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Malaysia and Ukraine, determined that the Malaysia Airlines flight was shot down by a 9M38-series Buk missile from the village of Pervomayskoye, controlled by rebels at the time. It also alleged the missile was brought on to Ukrainian territory from Russia and returned after its launch.

The conclusions corresponds to Kiev’s version of the events surrounding the crash.

Moscow has however, disputed the findings, criticizing the inquiry as politically motivated and biased towards Ukraine, arguing that Kiev exploits its position as a full-fledged member of the JIT to direct the investigation.

The Russian arms company Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the Buk missile, has also cast doubts on the outcome of the probe, stating that the nature of cockpit wreckage indicate the Buk was far more likely approaching the target from the territory controlled by Ukrainian forces in the village of Zaroshchenskoye. Almaz-Antey conducted three full-scale experiments to determine the likely point of the launch.

The Russian Defense Ministry also rejected the JIT’s theory, stating that “Russian missile systems including ‘BUK’ have never crossed into Ukraine.”

READ MORE: MH17 shot down by rebels using Buk system brought from Russia – int’l investigators

Dutch authorities have said they are mulling the possibility of relaunching investigations at the crash site, following Dutch journalist Michael Spekker’s recent discovery of victims’ remains there.

The human fragments which Spekker brought with him to the Netherlands were later confiscated by police as well as his devices on which had recorded interviews with potential witnesses.

Spekker’s colleague Stefan Beck told RT earlier that some of the footage is of a sensitive nature, “We held interviews with local people, and some of those people only wanted to talk with us on basis of anonymity, so that their identity would be concealed, and as you might know, the representative of Ukraine to the Joint investigation team is the SBU, the Ukrainian secret service. And we’re very very worried that some of the people who we interviewed might get repercussions when they are known to the SBU and the Ukrainian authorities,” Beck said.

READ MORE: Further investigation possible at MH17 crash site after Dutch journalist recovers passenger’s bone

Previously, the Dutch investigators claimed it was “too dangerous” to gather evidence at the site.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


Turkish ship with top army brass causes standoff with Greek gunboats near disputed islets

Turkish ship with top army brass causes standoff with Greek gunboats near disputed islets
A Turkish Navy ship with top military commanders on board engaged in a brief but tense standoff with Greek gunboats near disputed islets in the Aegean Sea, adding to renewed tensions between NATO allies Turkey and Greece.

On Sunday, a Turkish warship carrying Chief of General Staff Hulusi Akar, as well as army, navy, and air force commanders sailed past the uninhabited rocky islets of Imia – known as Kardak in Turkey – in the Aegean Sea, Daily Sabah reported.

Greek coast guard vessels and a navy gunboat were scrambled to deal with what was viewed by the Greek military as a violation of their territory. The vessels shadowed the Turkish warship, demanding it to leave the area. A few minutes later, the Turkish vessel complied and no further incident was reported.

Later in the day, some Turkish media claimed the Greeks tried to block the ship from coming close to the disputed islets. But the Turkish armed forces, cited by state-run Anadolu news agency, denied the reports, saying the Greek patrol boats escorted them from far away.

The military also said General Akar was on his way to Aksaz Naval Base near the Turkish Aegean resort town of Marmaris. It also released a video showing the chief of the general staff on the vessel near one of the islets with a Greek gunboat sailing on a parallel course, with Imia in the background.

Located several miles from the Turkish coast and claimed by both Ankara and Athens, the islets are at the heart of a long-lasting territorial dispute. While the islets’ status remains undetermined, EU-backed Athens and warned Turkey to refrain from the use of force to resolve the dispute.

Greek diplomats believe the Turks deliberately provoked the incident in response to a decision by the Greek Supreme Court, which ruled last week against the extradition of eight Turkish service members who had fled to Greece after the failed July coup, according to Kathimerini.

The soldiers – three majors, three captains and, two sergeant majors – fled to Greece by helicopter in July last year and applied for political asylum, as they feared for their lives. The Greek Supreme Court said that the men were unlikely to receive a fair and independent trial in Turkey.

The ruling was met with dismay in Ankara, and Defense Minister Fikri Isik called it “wrong and unjust.” On Friday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told state broadcaster TRT Haber that Ankara was considering withdrawing from the migrant readmission deal between the two countries, without giving further details.

The agreement, signed by Davutoglu and Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras last March, allows asylum-seekers who crossed into Greece illegally to be sent back to Turkey before being deported to their countries of origin.

Turkish officials submitted a second extradition request to Greece and requested that Interpol issue an international arrest warrant. An Istanbul court issued arrest warrants in absentia against the officers, a judicial official told Anadolu.

‘They know how it’s done’: Turkey violated Greek airspace 2,244 times in 2014 alone

Apart from the issue of extradition, both countries have lingering territorial disputes in the Aegean. In the past, Greek military officials claimed that Turkish Air Force jets regularly violated Greek airspace over the Aegean.

The Imia-Kardak row brought Greece and Turkey to the brink of war in 1996, with both sides deploying naval ships and Special Forces units to the islets. In the midst of the crisis, a helicopter from the Greek frigate Navarino crashed over Imia while on a reconnaissance mission.

Some speculated that the helicopter went down due to Turkish fire, alleging that the incident was covered up by Ankara and Athens to prevent further escalation.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


‘We must respond’: European leaders criticize Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’

‘We must respond’: European leaders criticize Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’
European leaders, officials, and politicians have voiced concern over Donald Trump’s executive order that temporarily bans the citizens of seven Muslim-majority nations from entering the US and indefinitely bans all Syrian refugees.


French President Francois Hollande has called on European leaders to give a “firm” response to Donald Trump, whose first steps as the US president have raised concerns among some of America’s allies in Europe.

“We must conduct firm dialogue with the new American administration which has shown it has its own approach to the problems we all face,” Hollande said at a meeting of southern European Union leaders in Lisbon, Portugal on Saturday.

According to Hollande, the EU cannot remain silent when Trump voices support for the UK’s Brexit vote or suspends the arrival of refugees into US.

“When there are statements from the US president about Europe and when he talks about Brexit being a model for other countries, I think we must respond… When he refuses the arrival of refugees, while Europe has done its duty, we have to respond.”

Hollande’s remarks were echoed by French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, who insisted on Sunday that accepting refugees “is a duty.”

“The reception of refugees is a duty of solidarity. Terrorism has no nationality, discrimination is not an answer,” Ayrault wrote on Twitter.

L’accueil des refugiés est un devoir de solidarité. Le terrorisme n’a pas de nationalité, la discrimination n’est pas une reponse.


A milder opinion was shared by British Prime Minister Theresa May, who said that, while London did not agree with the executive order, the US’ immigration policies were up to its government to decide. According to her spokesperson, US immigration policy “is a matter for the government of the United States, just the same as immigration policy for this country should be set by our government.”

“But we do not agree with this kind of approach, and it is not one we will be taking. We are studying this new executive order to see what it means and what the legal effects are, and, in particular, what the consequences are for UK nationals,” the spokesperson added.

Foreign Secretary of State Boris Johnson vowed to “protect the rights and freedoms of UK nationals home and abroad,” tweeting that it was “divisive and wrong to stigmatise because of nationality.”

We will protect the rights and freedoms of UK nationals home and abroad. Divisive and wrong to stigmatise because of nationality

London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim to become the mayor of a major Western capital, took to Facebook to slam Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ as “shameful and cruel.”

The leader of the UK’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, went so far as to suggest that Trump should be barred from making his planned visit to the UK as long as his ‘Muslim ban’ remains in place, the Independent reported.

In the meantime, a petition calling for just that has gathered over 800,000 signatures.

READ MORE: Petition to ban Trump state visit gathers over 800k names, smashes debate quota

“Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen,” the petition says.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel has slammed the travel ban, adding that “the necessary, decisive battle against terrorism does not justify putting people of a specific background or faith under general suspicion,” German Der Spiegel newsmagazine reported, citing her spokesman, Steffen Seibert.

The German government is going to review the consequences of the ban for German citizens with dual nationalities and will “represent their interests, if needed, vis-a-vis our US partners,” Seibert said.

“The chancellor regrets the US entry ban against refugees and citizens from several countries,” he added.


Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn warned of the possible negative consequences of the travel ban.

“The American president is dividing the Muslim world into good and evil with this,” Asselborn told German-language Tagesspiegel newspaper. “The decision is also bad for Europe because it will increase the Muslim world’s mistrust and hatred of the West.” 


Norwegian authorities have also voiced concern over Trump’s travel ban. The country’s prime minister, Erna Solberg, told VG newspaper that refugees and other people “must be treated equally regardless of religion, nationality and skin color.”

“USA violates this by refusing entry [to refugees]… We must be resolute in the fight against terrorism, but I do not think it is right to cut so many people from certain countries,” she said.


Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström also took to Twitter to express her concern over the travel ban.

Banishing people from these seven countries “creates mistrust between people,” she wrote.

Deeply concerned about US decision not to allow entry of people from certain countries. Creates mistrust between people.


Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen called Trump’s decision “to block people from certain countries” extremely “unwise.”

“We must judge and meet each other as individuals,” he wrote on his Facebook page.

He later told Dagens Nyheter newspaper that Trump’s politics will “have very harsh consequences.”

‘Let them in’: Hundreds protest at JFK airport after Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)


Finnish Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Kai Mykkänen also responded to the travel ban imposed by Trump, saying that the EU and US should treat refugees equally.

“Finland and the rest of the EU will not and must not discriminate against refugees based on their religion. In any circumstances,” Mykkänen wrote on Twitter.

Finland and the rest of the EU will not and must not discriminate against refugees based on their religion. In any circumstances.

However, not all of Europe’s leaders have joined in the chorus of disapproval. On Saturday, a spokesperson for Czech President Milos Zeman praised the ban, saying the new US president was simply concerned about the safety of American citizens.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

US Jews see ‘tragic irony’ in refugee ban on Holocaust Remembrance Day


ADL chief invokes doomed passengers of MS St. Louis, says he will roll out plan to combat policy ‘in the coming days’

Times of Israel

President Donald Trump’s executive order banning refugees from entering the United States left much of the American Jewish community horrified — particularly as the announcement came on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

The order — titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” — immediately suspends all refugee resettlement from seven Muslim-majority nations for 90 days and forbids those from war-ravaged Syria from entering the country indefinitely.

The Anti-Defamation League’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt vowed in a statement Thursday to “relentlessly fight this policy,” noting “our history and heritage compel us to take a stand.” The ADL, a Jewish civil rights group, monitors and combats anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry across the globe.

But that was before it was announced, when rumors were circulating that Trump would soon fulfill his controversial campaign pledge, which started as a “Muslim ban” and then morphed into a proposal to halt immigration from territories, particularly in the Middle East, where terror groups have a foothold.

On Saturday, Greenblatt, who has not been shy to speak out against Trump during the US election, noted with revulsion that the presidential executive order was signed on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, likening it to passengers of the MS St. Louis, a German ship filled with 937 Jewish refugees, who were denied entry into the United States, as well as Cuba and Canada, in 1939.

“It’s impossible to ignore, whether intentional or not, the tragic irony in executing the kind of order that kept Jews out of America, like those who perished on the St. Louis and countless others, on the day when we remember the unspeakable tragedy that befell European Jewry and the Jewish people,” he told The Times of Israel.

“The tragic irony of this order being executed on the same day is, at best striking, and sad to see,” he added. “[It is] a policy that is in direct contravention to our core values as a country and all that we’ve learned in the years since the Shoah.”

On Twitter, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the head of the Union of Reform Jewry, compared the order to the Dred Scott court decision upholding slavery in the antebellum South and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

The AJC also spoke out swiftly against the order, calling it “both unjust and unwarranted” in a Friday statement.

Trump, said the organization’s CEO David Harris, is justified in wanting to assure a secure border that properly vets those who enter the country. But such blanket action is beyond the pale, he indicated.

“Blanket suspensions of visas and refugee admission would suggest guilt by association – targeted primarily at Muslims fleeing violence and oppression,” he said. “AJC regards such actions, contrary to international perceptions of a compassionate America and reinforcing anti-Muslim stereotypes, as both unjust and unwarranted.”

Trump’s executive action includes a provision that allows the US to admit refugees on a case-by-case basis during the freeze, as the government will process requests from people claiming religious persecution, but only if the religion of any such individuals is a minority religion in the respective country.

Greenblatt found that disturbing.

“It’s impossible not to see this as a broad brush that paints all Muslims from these countries with the same regard,” he said. “All of us are struggling to make sense of a policy that is at odds with the values of our country.”

He said the ADL is preparing a course of action to combat that policy of the Trump administration and will be rolling out its plan this week.

“We’ll be clarifying that in the coming days,” he said.

B’nai B’rith International said it was “deeply concerned” by the “drastic” plan.

“While we acknowledge the very real threat posed by terrorists who aim to exploit our nation’s humanitarian instincts, a more nuanced and balanced approach to helping those seeking a safe harbor is clearly preferable, and more in keeping with America’s values, than the sweeping ban being imposed by the administration,” B’nai B’rith International President Gary P. Saltzman and CEO Daniel S. Mariaschin said in a joint statement.

“Our country has a great, though sometimes imperfect, tradition of welcoming those fleeing oppression, persecution and unending civil wars,” they said.