As I became aware of the huge lie about Hitler and WWII I find the star historian, and now one of the only experts you can trust, is David Irving. Here in this nearing the end of his journey talk, he tells how he was put in solitary confinement for four hundred days (no small hell, I’ve been for three days – you go ape second day) because telling the truth in Austria is currently against the law, and you can still be thrown in prison for saying anything about the truth of what really happened in WWII. The difference with David Irving as he well describes himself is that he actually went to the sources like Hitler’s personal staff, who only talked with him because he had written a book on the bombing of Dresden. All you have to do is listen to a few of these lectures of him on YouTube to be convinced he is an extraordinary and essential figure for a very important truth that was kept from us, and I certainly plan on reading as many of his books as I can.
Shocking Free Speech Loss in Europe!!! (Irving AU)
David Irving in Australia explains the total control of the Jewish Zionists here in Los Angeles, ordering countries in Europe and around the world, actually ORDERING governments, to ban, keep out, arrest, and charge with crimes of free speech, David Irving, from speaking the truth he found in the archives about World War Two. It is absolutely shocking, and he very well explains the situation leaving no doubt to the reasonable listener that he is sincere, honest, and most probably right about what he has found, and further there is absolutely no evidence of criminal, hate mongering, or any associated element that would justify what has happened to him worldwide. This is absolutely shocking, explosive information on the current situation of earth, and we better all pay attention and be ready to stand up. We are under tyranny. Covert tyranny! Upload this!
David Irving jailed for Holocaust denial
Staff and agencies
Monday 20 February 2006 18.42 GMTFirst published on Monday 20 February 2006 18.42 GMT
The British revisionist historian and Nazi apologist David Irving was today sentenced to three years in prison after he admitted denying the Holocaust.An eight-member jury at a court in Vienna convicted Irving, 68, a few hours after it began its deliberations on the first day of his trial.
Irving had pleaded guilty to denying the Holocaust in two speeches on a visit to Austria in 1989, but said at the trial that he had later changed his views.
The speeches included a call for an end to the “gas chambers fairy tale”, and claims that Adolf Hitler had helped Europe’s Jews and that the Holocaust was a myth.
Irving told the court today he had revised his opinion after seeing the personal files of Adolf Eichmann. Speaking in German, he told the court he now accepted that the Nazis had killed millions of Jews.
At one stage, while giving evidence, he expressed sorrow for “all the innocent people” who died during the war. “I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,” he said.
Austria has the world’s stiffest laws against denying the Holocaust and Irving could have faced a maximum of 10 years in prison.
The defence had called for leniency, citing his admission and his claims that he had changed his viewpoint.
The prosecution, however, had accused Irving of changing his position as a “tactic” to escape a harsh sentence, and said the historian was an icon for neo-Nazis and revisionists around the world.
Irving appeared shocked as the sentence was read out. Moments later, an elderly man who identified himself only as a family friend called out: “Stay strong, David – stay strong,” before he was escorted from the courtroom.
Irving’s lawyer Elmar Kresbach immediately announced he would appeal the sentence. “I consider the verdict a little too stringent. I would say it’s a bit of a message trial”.
This morning, when he arrived at court, Irving told reporters: “History is a constantly growing tree – the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn. And I have learned a lot since 1989.
“Yes, there were gas chambers. Millions of Jews died. There is no question. I don’t know the figures. I’m not an expert on the Holocaust.”
Irving, who has written around 30 books, said he considered it “ridiculous” that he was standing trial for remarks made 17 years ago.
Handcuffed and wearing a navy blue suit, he arrived at the court carrying a copy of one of his most controversial books, Hitler’s War, which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.
Later in court he said he had never written a book about the Holocaust, which he called “just a fragment of my area of interest”.
The controversial historian has been in custody since he was arrested in November while driving in southern Austria, despite being barred from the country. He had been on his way to address an extreme-right student fraternity in Vienna.
In 2000, Irving sued the US Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt for libel at the British high court and lost. The presiding judge in that case, Charles Gray, wrote that Irving was “an active Holocaust denier … anti-Semitic and racist”.
He was fined several thousand pounds in 1992 in Germany for saying the Auschwitz gas chambers were a hoax.
He is said to have spent recent months in prison awaiting trial after he was denied bail writing his memoirs, under the working title Irving’s War. His lawyer said last month Irving was getting up to 300 fan letters a week from supporters around the world.
Irving has contended in the past that most of the people who died at concentration camps such as Auschwitz were not murdered but rather succumbed to typhus and other diseases.
Since you’re here …
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it. Advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure.
You certainly have already heard about the horrible Manchester, England, bombing of a concert attended by little girls that killed 22 and wounded 59 — done by another Mudslime freak suicide bomber. The concert was by Ariana Grande — a mixed race something “pop diva” promoted to educate our young girls how to be cheap sluts and mudsharks in our brave new world.
This is supposedly the bomber, Salman Abedi. Note how the (((lefty media))) will call him “British” simply because he was born in Manchester. My White little tushie.
But you got to understand a few other things “they” never talk about in the mainstream media that has put us White people into this nightmare.
While it’s probably untrue Einstein once said: “The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result,” but he could have. Now Albert Einstein was a Jew, as you probably know (he’s like a God to Jewry). Yet what they always conveniently forget to mention is that Einstein did say Zionism is pretty much the same as Nazism. Einstein realized they were plenty of hard core Zionist Jews ready to bollix up our Mr. Nice Guy brains to support the Jews invading the Levant (what they used to call Israel); to recreate a supposedly ancient homeland they’ve obsessed over for thousands of years. Jews know the deal.
The Father of our country, George Washington, said in his farewell address that getting in bed with foreign interests invites retribution and serious dangers to our republic. He was alluding to the Brits versus the French, since this was the big brouhaha of the time, but the same logic applies to the business with the Jew Zionist psychos versus the dirty terrorist A-rabs. George Washington had no idea about what subversive idiocies were to eventually infect this nation. Of course, there were hardly any Jews in America then.
Basically, what the agents of all this BS in our lands wants you to think it’s a bad thing to be “isolationists.” These are the ones who want our lands opened up to foreigners to come live here. But they don’t really want any more big fat Greek or Italian weddings, only non-White Moslem Semites from the Arab world, Asians and blacks from Africa, including ridiculous places like criminal Somalia and Nigeria.
As if we need any more such freaks in our lands.
This globalism business is a well-funded MEME promoted to our young so our race goes along with the gradual, self-destruction of White people in our own lands. You think blacks really give a crap? Sure, they might act like it just to get into the pants of some idiot White chick, get more government freebies on a silver platter, or out of Black Africa if they were unfortunately born there. It’s all been a big Jew scam, people.
This is because the main goal is not some kind of “Global Village” BS, but the dilution of White demographics in our own lands so us Whites don’t have the political and social power to expose the real rats behind it. The long term goal is to gradually turn us Whites into a dumbed-down mud race before we can stop it. This effort is clearly visible across the political and media spectrum and enforced by “PC,” yet they act like it’s nothing but crazy conspiracy talk. Clever.
This is why the least sign of White awakening creates panic among these people. They fully realize if the “Narrative” falls apart, they might face all sorts of dangers.
I realize I’m just a hard charger type of White guy. Rah, rah, America and all that jazz. That’s certainly why I used to be a big Trump guy. Absolutely true. Trump, quite obviously, turned out to be a full-fledged Zionist Jew suck-up. A traitor like all the others.
And you might have told yourself “I want to be sympatico with the Jews, since they are “God’s Chosen” and us White non-Jews treated them so terribly with pogroms and Der Fuehrer’s gas chambers. Guess what? That’s exactly what they want you to think.
In fact, if you think about all the TV programming, you can pick out this line of reasoning quite clearly. Hell, you can’t turn on the TV for five minutes before you come across something buttressing up all this.
Yep, I’m talking about brainwashing. I say that a lot here. Most folks think that means some shadowy guys in lab coats, working us like lab rats using scary forms of science in the locked backrooms of the TV networks.
No, it’s people who look no different from you or I, but have an “agenda” to turn America into some weird, mentally and sexually mixed-up, immoral society where any of us Whites who dare to “fight back” are turned into pariahs and screamed at like we’re the evil baddies.
The media Jews have been sleazing us up for decades. It distracts us from them, plus earns their corporate media beaucoup dineros. Just stop and imagine all the personal heartaches these dirtbag creeps have caused in our lands with their ever-increasing filth!
Just think about the non-stop BS about Trump colluding with the Rooskies. It goes on and on and on, doesn’t it? Even FOX news reports on it all the time. It’s pounded in our skulls across the mediaverse. That’s how they shape History to support their long-running agenda. George Orwell had these commie creeps pegged.
Think about all the tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money being wasted on this Russian nonsense. Basically, they are trying to gin up American anti-commie patriotism to find an excuse for why their lefty political favorite, Hillary, lost to Trump. Meanwhile, we have to listen to the never-ending TV crap while our country goes to hell in a handbasket.
Hell, Obama himself did a TV commercial for globalist liberal Emmanuel Macron in the French elections. Imagine Putin making a commercial for Trump back in 2016?
What we’re dealing with here is a form of hypocrite hysteria that has infected the body politic of our once formerly White countries, especially the US of A.
This is due to “PC” or political correctness. Everybody knows this is going on. It is a carefully crafted social engineering program running for decades and meant to silence with social fear us decent Christian White people.
You might be asking: “How are they getting away with all this, Mr. Smarty Pants Nazi?!” Well, for one thing, they got us at each other’s throats for saying the least thing. There’s no well-funded outfit protecting our race like the Jews and blacks have everywhere. If there was, you can bet they would be screaming “NAZI” just like you called me.
I’m just here to tell you folks who come to my site what I think is going on. Call me crazy.
“HITLER EXPOSES THE JEWISH PLAN TO RACE-MIX THE WHITE EUROPEAN PEOPLE IN MEIN KAMPF”
Some of Hitler’s thoughts on race-mixing and multiculturalism from his book Mein Kampf.
Amazing how statements such as these in the above video, which are based on common sense and empirical evidence, can be seen as “evil” and “radical” by so many, as they are today.
In our current paradigm, it is perfectly acceptable for the Jews to keep Israel racially pure, but White people must blended out of existence. Thankfully, this reality is changing very rapidly though.
More and more people are awakening to the Truth about our Leader, as Mein Kampf continues to top the book sale charts and The Greatest Story Never Told is viewed by an untold amount of people each day, and more and more European people are waking up and realizing that it is not evil to simply want your people to exist.
“There are certain truths which stand out so openly on the roadsides of life that every passer-by may see them. Yet, because of their very obviousness, the general run of people disregard such truths or at least they do not make them the object of any conscious knowledge. People are so blind to some of the simplest facts in everyday life that they are highly surprised when somebody calls attention to what everybody ought to know all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law–one may call it an iron law of Nature–which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind.
Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.
Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker. This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species.
If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile. If we review all the causes which contributed to bring about the downfall of the German people we shall find that the most profound and decisive cause must be attributed to the lack of insight into the racial problem and especially in the failure to recognize the Jewish danger.
By neglecting the problem of preserving the racial foundations of our national life, the old Empire abrogated the sole right which entitles a people to live on this planet. Nations that make mongrels of their people, or allow their people to be turned into mongrels, sin against the Will of Eternal Providence. And thus their overthrow at the hands of a stronger opponent cannot be looked upon as a wrong but, on the contrary, as a restoration of justice.
If a people refuses to guard and uphold the qualities with which it has been endowed by Nature and which have their roots in the racial blood, then such a people has no right to complain over the loss of its earthly existence. Everything on this earth can be made into something better, provided always that the racial blood is kept pure. But the loss of racial purity will wreck inner happiness for ever. It degrades men for all time to come. And the physical and moral consequences can never be wiped out.
If this unique problem be studied and compared with the other problems of life we shall easily recognize how small is their importance in comparison with this. They are all limited to time; but the problem of the maintenance or loss of the purity of the racial blood will last as long as man himself lasts. The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people.
The Jew uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people. In his systematic efforts to ruin girls and women he strives to break down the last barriers of discrimination between him and other peoples. The Jews were responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate. For as long as a people remain racially pure and are conscious of the treasure of their blood, they can never be overcome by the Jew. Never in this world can the Jew become master of any people except a bastardized people. That is why the Jew systematically endeavours to lower the racial quality of a people by permanently adulterating the blood of the individuals who make up that people. The Star of David steadily ascended as the will to National Self-Preservation declined.”
In Jewmerica, White babies being born are outnumbered by non-White babies. This problem can be fixed in short order once we remove Jews from positions within the media and academia. Young girls could then be taught from an early age that their role is to be mothers and that they are to raise children in a proper fashion. Never mind all of this bull shit about a career and being an independent career slut. That is all Jew garbage. The government should offer women incentives to have and raise White children. All the money being spent on Jew wars in the Middle East and given to welfare zombies could easily fund this initiative in a big way.
this world has never progressed because of the masses, but because of the few individuals who changed the destiny of nations. I believe in leadership and merite not in Democracy
QUOTES – JEWS SUPPORT AND ARE PUSHING THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE
“Arab migration has been the best thing that’s happened to Europe in the past 50 years. The more migrants from Africa and Asia who arrive, the better off Europe will be. Sooner or later, their children and grandchildren will marry into veteran European families and change the demographics of their countries.” Yigal Ben-Nun, Jewish writer, Nov 15, 2013
Flag this message Delete this message
“Europe has become old and decrepit, and needs human reinforcement. No force is more powerful than the human force of us Muslims. … Throughout Europe, all the hearts are infused with hatred toward Muslims. They wish that we were dead. But they have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in their midst. We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries – whether you like it or not, oh Germans, oh Americans, oh French, oh Italians, and all those like you. Take the refugees! We shall soon collect them in the name of the coming Caliphate. We will say to you: These are our sons. Send them, or we will send our armies to you.” – Sheikh Muhammad Ayed, September 2015
“We must be open and tolerant toward Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so toward us.” – Jens Orback, former Swedish government minister
“Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years were in exile there” ~ Rabbi Baruch Efrati, 2012
Sheikh Muhammad Ayed, speaking at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, encouraged the illegals to pour into Europe and mate with Europeans: “We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries. We will trample them underfoot, God willing.” — Sheikh Muhammad Ayed, speaking at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem Muslim political commentator Sukant Chandan, explaining on Russia Today what he has in mind for Europe: a veritable tidal wave of immigrants from Africa and Asia, hundreds of millions of them, until Europe turn black: “I’ll tell you one thing: black and Asian people should come here in the hundreds of millions. It’s not right that for 500 years, imperialism has looted our countries of all our wealth, has destroyed our countries. We will come here, we have been coming here, and WE WILL CONTINUE TO COME HERE IN THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS until, indeed, as Gaddafi said, EUROPE WILL TURN BLACK!”
“The English as a race are not worth saving”, Jack Straw, jew, Labour Party “If White men were not complaining, it would be an indication we weren’t succeeding and making the inroads that we are” Arthur Ochs Sulzberger
JEWISH DOCTOR SAYS: ‘RAPE WHITE WOMEN AND CREATE HALF-BREEDS!’
RAPE “RIGHT-WING” FEMALES TO CREATE “MULTICOLORED DESCENDANTS”, SAYS FRENCH DOCTOR
by Steeve Goode
In the blog section of French media outlet, Nouve L’obs, a doctor wrote that any woman who votes for Front National (French anti-mass immigration party) has a “reptilian brain” and should be raped and impregnated to produce “multicolored descendants.”
Thierry Lecoquierre, a Medical Doctor from Le Havre in Upper Normandy, has been reported to the Council of Doctors for his article, which has now been deleted from the website.
His article titled “Impregnate the female of the National Front” says this:
“Right wing women do not appear less mammal than other women, even if they have a bigger than average reptilian brain. As any woman, it is subject to hormonal moods. With a feature that ethnology confirms to us: she gets especially wet for rough men.
These female FN sympathizers certainly offer us a means to beat them. As each right-wing female appreciates the military and the macho and loathes feminist ideas, let’s play her game. Let’s take her at her own game, let’s take her and f*** her.
Since they give us the recipes for crossbreeding their pale race, use it against her side. Let’s sexually overcome these stupid right wing females, for the survival of a smiling humanity. Because they are stupid and easily tricked, like game going to the hunter, things should be easier. Let’s create a curly descent (not German mind you!) let’s curlify this “other-hating” frightened France.”
Refusing the advances of family planning, every pregnancy will result in a little half-breed or a mongrel, an artist that tomorrow she will eventually like.
Blacks, Negroes, gooks, Jews, leftists, gypsies, disabled, Freemasons and even my gay friends in solidarity: bring up your hard d**ks! Let our consciences sleep under the pillow, and jump on the right-wing pussies offered — unfortunately sometimes pretty! Hail to a vast altruistic copulation! Provide multicolored descendants to the sinking country of France.
“With one goal: kill right-wing poison in the egg.”
The kike Jew Tony Schwartz who helped Donald Trump co-author his best selling book “The Art of the Deal” in the 1980s has been making the rounds on the Jew media.
He’s saying all sorts of gibberish and claiming that it was a mistake to work on this book which sold a massive amount of copies. The Jewish Daily Forward did a report on this that you can check out.
If it was such a mistake for this Jew to work on the book, I’d like to know why this kike hasn’t returned all the shekels he’s made off of the book’s royalties.
This Jew is a hypocritical piece of trash who belongs in a concentration camp peeling potatoes.
After dealing with Jews his entire career, I personally believe that Trump knows the score about the Jews. There’s just no way you can be a successful businessman in New York City while maintaining an anti-Jew stance. It is also not politically viable in today’s environment. Looks like all of this is about to change though.
Chuck Woolery just exposed the Jewish role in Communism on Twitter. The Jews are very angry at him for this.
Former game show host Chuck Woolery recently started doing a political podcast that’s primarily geared towards boomer conservatives. Even though he’s pro-Israel, he has revealed some very uncomfortable historical facts to his audience.
A few months back he exposed the Frankfurt School as being an originator of the Marxist doctrines we see in place today. As most of you already know, the Frankfurt School was founded mostly by Jews.
He’s taken this one step further pointing out the historical Jewish connections to Communism. Here’s a few of his recent tweets.
Unfortunately, he does seem to be a bit confused about the significance of his statements. Hard to say if that’s intentional or not. He just claimed that Lenin and Marx betrayed and persecuted the Jews through Communism.
In reality, it was Jews through Communism who persecuted Christians. He should really look into the Holodomor. Millions of White Christians in Ukraine died from starvation as a result of Jewish Bolshevik policies.
Despite that, Jews everywhere have been going nuts over this. He’s being accused of anti-Semitism etc.. simply for exposing a very uncomfortable historical fact.
Communism is simply an extension of Judaism. This is a fact. The evidence proving this is overwhelming.
While we obviously have differences with Woolery, his tweets linking Jews to Communism are 100 percent correct. It is hilarious to see all these Jews squirming at the fact that he has exposed this. Some of them are trying to claim that Communism came from Marx’s atheism. Some are resorting to name calling. It is really quite pathetic to see the nonsense they’re coming up with to conceal the Jewish component to Communism.
Look at some of the responses Woolery has gotten.
This faggot has demanded that Woolery stop tweeting because he tweeted a historical fact.
Yet another brilliant example of the fundamental dishonesty of the modern political system.
These people are not able to defend their own positions, and sometimes, they don’t even pretend to be able to.
I mean, srslsy – why would you not have some answer prepared for this question? It’s like when you ask a Jew why Jews are allowed to have an ethnic state and whites are not – they stutter and them end up saying something about “muh Holocaust.”
This could be the most uncomfortable State Department press briefing moment yet.
During a press conference about US President Donald Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East, AFP journalist Dave Clark asked a department official why the US criticizes the Iranian elections and its record on democracy, but not Saudi Arabia.
“How do you characterize Saudi Arabia’s commitment to democracy, and does the administration believe that democracy is a buffer or a barrier against extremism?” Clark asked.
Stuart Jones, acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, took a full 19-second pause before responding with a brief comment, saying that during this trip, the US made “significant progress with Saudi and GCC partners in both making a strong statement against extremism”.
“Clearly, one source of extremism, one terrorism threat, is coming from Iran, and that’s coming from a part of the Iranian apparatus that is not at all responsive to its electorate,” Jones added.
The entire modern political landscape can be summed up as: “trust us, goyim – we’re God’s chosen people.”
All Religions Are True, All Lead to Same God | Teachings of Sri Ramakrishna
In this first video of the “Teachings of Sri Ramakrishna” series, Sri Ramakrishna outlines the Advaita Vedantic truth that all religions of the world are true; and all religions lead to the same ocean of God (also known as the Sat-Chit-Ananda Divine Consciousness in Vedanta).
However on account of the spiritual immaturity of the followers, who have never experienced God themselves, who have never seen God “Pratyaksha” that is face to face, who therefore indulge in narrow-minded interpretations of religious texts; it is on account of the spiritual ignorance of such followers, that the fires of bigotry, casteism, racism and fanaticism have succeeded in deluging the world.
THE RAMAKRISHNA KATHAMRITA (GOSPEL OF RAMAKRISHNA)
The above video references the Ramakrishna Kathamrita (also known as the Gospel of Ramakrishna) by Swami Abhedananda. This book records the day-to-day teachings of Sri Ramakrishna. These teachings were originally noted by Mahendranath Gupta, a direct disciple, in the Bengali language. They were later translated into English by a couple of people, one of whom was Swami Abhedananda, a God-realized direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna. This video references Swami Abhedananda’s translation.
If you ever needed any more proof that the new wonder-boy French President is nothing more than a neo-liberal, globalist puppet, then look no further than Macron’s recent meeting in Paris with Syria’s opposition, known as the Riyadh-based High Negotiations Committee (HNC)…which includes political and armed groups trying to overthrow the Assad government.
Macron says he seeks to review French policy on Syria’s war with Saudi-Qatari-Turkey funded jihadists, but welcoming a terrorist organisation to Paris, one day after meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin, and days after ISIS bombed Manchester Arena, is no way to revaluate a failed western regime change operation of a sovereign nation…or maybe it is exactly the way Macron’s globalist rulers want him to behave when dealing with Syria.
The unannounced meeting with Riad Hijab and a broader delegation from the Riyadh-based High Negotiations Committee (HNC),which includes political and armed groups, came as Macron seeks to review French policy on the six-year civil war.
“The president spoke of his personal commitment to the Syria dossier and of his support for the Syrian opposition in view of a political transition,” his office said in a statement.
Opposition officials were not immediately available for comment on the meeting.
Macron’s electoral victory has offered an opportunity for Paris to examine its policy on Syria with some considering the previous administration’s stance as too intransigent and leaving it isolated on the subject.
Macron, a newcomer to international diplomacy, said on Monday that his priority in Syria was to eradicate Islamist militants.
Alongside Putin in 17th century palace of Versailles outside Paris, Macron on Monday said he had agreed to set up a working group with Russia, including to exchange information. It was not immediately clear what that would entail.
Macron’s government says it backs U.N.-mediated peace talks in Geneva. However, Macron also called for a “political and diplomatic framework to build peace” without specifying whether it was a new initiative or part of the U.N. process.
The HNC was founded in December 2015 at a conference held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which was attended by around 100 delegates. At the end of the conference, a joint statement was issued to confirm the formation of “a High Negotiations Committee for the Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces (HNC), with its headquarters in Riyadh, to undertake the tasks of choosing a negotiating delegation and to act reference point for negotiators with the representatives of the Syrian regime on behalf of the participants”.
The group’s chief negotiator, Mohammed Alloush, a member of Jaish al-Islam, resigned from the HNC in May 2016 because of the lack of progress in the Syrian peace process.
In September 2016, the HNC set out a detailed transition plan for Syria, committing the country to democratic and religious pluralism. The 25-page document was launched in London and was welcomed by the United Kingdom’s government.
In January 2017, the HNC announced that it will support the Syrian peace talks in Astana, which began on 23 January.
In February 2017, the HNC chief coordinator Riyad Farid Hijab rejected a statement by Staffan de Mistura that the latter will select delegates for the Syrian opposition in Geneva. He also objected to the participation Democratic Union Party (PYD) in the Geneva conference.
The HNC has faced criticism from Russia because it includes groups like Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam. Its transition plan in September 2016 was also criticized by the opposition Kurdish National Council and the Assyrian Democratic Organization due to it not addressing minority ethnic groups in Syria.
The Kurdish National Council withdrew from the HNC on 29 March 2017 in protest to the latter’s opposition to federalism and human rights for Kurds in Syria.
A Mad Sultan is easier to deal with than a crazed pussy.
French President Emmanuel Macron has lumped the three very different figures of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan into the same category saying that they all see the world in terms of ‘power’. The clear question is, what is the antithesis of power in this instance? But like with most strange accusations made by Macron, he refused to clarify his cryptic remark.
Frankly, the only thing that the three leaders have in common is that their speeches are far easier to understand than Macron whose rhetoric is often impenetrable even in his native language.
But of the three leaders Macron picked on, Erdogan is the only one famous for being unpredictable, flippant, overly prideful, arrogant and often undiplomatic. In this sense he is the only one like Macron.
Macron is however in fact worse.
1. Erdogan Would Never Insult Trump, Putin or Xi
Even many seasoned western diplomats have commented on the agitated schoolboy attitude that Macron displayed in front of Vladimir Putin by insulting the leader of a vastly more powerful nation to his face and when he was an invited guest no less. It is virtually unheard of for a President who invites a foregn leader as a guest to use a public press conference to slander the media, domestic policies and foreign policies of the guest in question, but this is exactly what Macron did to President Putin.
Then there is the homoerotic handshake that Macron gave to a rather bemused and bored looking Donald Trump, something that strikes of arrogance as much as oddness.
Erdogan is at least wise enough to generally only talk about his desire to build a new-Ottoman style Turkish power base in front of his own supporters at home. When meeting with the Presidents of superpowers whether Russia, China or the United States, Erdogan is always considerably more measured in his words, even if his pompous attitude at times slips through.
In other-words the Erdogan at home is much more unhinged than the Erdogan abroad, especially when he’s with leaders of more powerful countries.
Erdogan is flippant but not stupid. Macron appears to be both.
2. Erdogan Is Actually In Charge
One way to command respect is to actually have the ability to back up what is said. While Erdogan’s ambitions of re-conquering former Ottoman lands will probably not be able to happen, the fact is that Erdogan rules Turkey with a supreme, near dictatorial level of control. His army is his, so is his diplomatic corps. A recent Presidential Referendum in Turkey made the powers of the Turkish Parliament more or less irrelevant.
Macron by contrast has a domestic policy which he more or less happily surrenders to the EU and a foreign policy controlled by NATO.
Vladimir Putin was quick to question whether France has a military policy in Syria that is independent of the agenda and tone set by the United States. This remark quickly shut Macron up.
3. Erdgoan Preaches But He Doesn’t Lecture
Erdogan likes to tell other countries that they need to become more ‘Turk friendly’ and that it is somehow the right and duty of Turks to go forth and carry good tidings of the Sultan. When this is directed at country’s once enslaved by Ottoman Turkey such remarks are inflammatory. But when the remarks are directed at western and central Europe (as they often are), it is rather amusing as these European countries are doing far more to destroy themselves than Erdogan and his followers ever could.
By contrast, Macron lectured Vladimir Putin like a little schoolgirl trying to overcompensate for lack of affection from her parents by brown nosing the teacher. It’s a kind of sickness. Putin was not amused. He kept his cool and doubtlessly restrained his desire to teach Macron why he has a black belt in Judo.
Macron also wants to lecture Donald Trump about the glories of doing politics like the loser that Macron is. I’m sure Trump is far more frightened of Mar-A-Lago running out of chocolate cake than he is of Macron’s threats.
Erdogan is naked in his desire to spread his own unique definition of Turkishness throughout parts of the world. Macron by contrsast thinks the entire world should become as weak and compromised and ideologically driven by liberalism as he is. The rest of the world doesn’t care and never will. He ought to realise that.
4. Sultans Command More Respect Than Pussies
Erdogan has earned the nickname ‘Mad Sultan’ among his detractors. He’s earned it for good reason. He behaves like a neo-Ottoman sultan in terms of his policies even though he’s more of a right-wing South American style dictator in terms of his style and execution of governance.
Macron’s by style can best be described in the inimitable words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov when he commented on the American election circus…
5. Turkey Is Still A Relevant Nation
With few exceptions a leader is only as powerful and consequently respected as his country is powerful. Turkey, whether one loves or hates Erdogan, is a powerful country with an economy which holds a great deal of potential and a young vibrant population.
Turkey is changing the course of regional history, right now for the worse but because of this, Turkey cannot be ignored and should not be. There was a Turkey before Erdogan and there will be a Turkey long after him. Russia’s leadership realises this which is why they conduct good relations with Erdogan in spite of many difficult prevailing circumstances.
France by contrast is merely a province. It is a political province of the EU, a military and foreign policy province of the US and an economic province of the Rothschild banking cartel whose butler is now the President.
Macron’s inability to think normally, logically and reasonable will be his undoing. Erdogan has managed to be strong enough and at times wise enough not to let his much more manly ego get in the way.
Ahead of the late-night vote, Likud minister Ofir Akunis told parliament, “We are voting tonight on the connection between the Jewish people to its land.”
Israel passed a law Monday retroactively legalizing about 4,000 settler homes built on privately-owned Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank, a measure that human rights groups have called “theft” and one that would end any hopes for Palestinian statehood.
Hanan Ashrawi, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the main Palestinian political umbrella body, said in a statement that the law gave settlers a green light to “embark on a land grab.”
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist, racist coalition government are deliberately breaking the law and destroying the very foundations of the two-state solution and the chances for peace and stability.”
The U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Nickolay Mladenov said in a statement that the law “will have far-reaching legal consequences for Israel and greatly diminish the prospects for Arab-Israeli peace.”
The news came just hours after Israel conducted airstrikes in the Palestinian Gaza strip injuring at least two Palestinians, the first attack by Israel in months that results in casualties.
Witnesses told Ma’an news agency that at least eight Israeli missiles were fired at several locations across the besieged Palestinian territory. Israel said it was responding to a rock thrown from the strip that landed in an open space and resulted in no damages or injuries.
Under the new law, settlers could remain on the land if they built there without prior knowledge of Palestinian ownership or if homes were constructed at the state’s instruction. Palestinian owners would receive financial compensation.
But its passage may only be largely symbolic as it violates Israeli Supreme Court rulings on property rights. Israel’s attorney general has said it is unconstitutional and that he will not defend it in front of the Supreme Court.
Ahead of the late-night vote, Likud minister Ofir Akunis told parliament, “We are voting tonight on the connection between the Jewish people to its land. This entire land is ours.”
Although the legislation, passed by a vote of 60 to 52, was backed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition, political sources have told news outlets that Netanyahu privately opposed the bill over concerns it could provide grounds for prosecution by the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
But the far-right Jewish Home party, a member of the coalition looking to draw voters from the traditional base of Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party, pushed for the legislation after the forced evacuation of 330 settlers last week from an outpost built on private Palestinian land.
With Netanyahu under police investigation on suspicion of abuse of office, Likud has been losing in opinion polls, therefore Netanyahu did not stand in the way of the vote because he did not want to alienate his supporters and boost Jewish Home’s base.
The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem condemned the bill’s passage, saying it “proves yet again that Israel has no intention of ending its control over the Palestinians or its theft of their land.”
The group said that the passage of the law just weeks after the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for the halt of settlement building was a “slap in the face” to the international community by Israel.
Days After Lebanon’s Liberation Day Celebrations, Israel Building ‘Mock Lebanese Village’ to Fight Hezbollah
Published 30 May 2017
Hezbollah has warned that any such war between the two would end in a “guaranteed loss” for the Israeli regime.
Just days after Lebanon celebrated the 17th anniversary of its Resistance and Liberation Day, when southern Lebanon was freed from Israeli occupation thanks to the efforts of Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah, the Israeli army announced the creation of a new training facility — a mock Lebanese village — in case of war with the Shia resistance group.
The Snir facility, being built in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, will have multiple entry points, a mock Hezbollah command and control headquarters, residential buildings, mosques, and public buildings, Press TV reported.
“(Snir) is a Lebanese village, showing the Lebanese challenge, which is growing greater; showing the Lebanese enemy (Hezbollah), which is developing. In the village, there are people acting as enemy fighters, who are very close to the types of threats that we expect from Hezbollah in the next round,” Brigadier General Einav Shalev, commander of the Army’s Ground Forces Division said.
Lebanese President Michel Aoun responded by saying that any Israeli attempt to violate Lebanon’s sovereignty would be met with the “appropriate response,” Press TV reported.
Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s deputy leader, also stated in defiance last month that the resistance movement’s high level of defense readiness has thus far deterred Israel from launching a new act of aggression against the country. He warned that any such war between the two would end in a “guaranteed loss” for the Israeli regime.
In a blatant but not altogether surprising display of arrogance and aggression, the United States recently dropped leaflets on the al-Tanf road, warning the Syrian military to halt its advance toward Tanf and demanding a retreat.
According to reports both by Leith Abou Fadel of Al-Masdar and from SouthFront, the leaflets were dropped after the Syrian military had advanced to the Shehmi area, which is located about 55km from the city of Tanf. The leaflets not only warned the SAA to stop advancing but demanded that it withdraw to the Zaza triangle.
According to local sources cited by SouthFront, the leaflets contained sectarian expressions.
Syrian TV reported that the SAA has managed to advance in and around the Scientific Research area of the eastern desert of the Suweida countryside. The Syrian military was also able to repel an attack launched by the Western-backed terrorist group known as the Free Syrian Army in the same area.
In addition, SouthFront has reported that the “US-led forces” used Switchblade suicide drones in order to target the SAA positions with Grad missiles south of Zaza.
The move toward Tanf is significant because it puts Syrian military forces moving toward U.S. and U.K. Special Operations Forces stationed at the same location.
The base, located at al-Tanf, has been operational for around a year.
The area is of substantial strategic importance to the regime, as controlling it would help re-establish a road link with Iraq to the south.
In June 2016, Russian jets, providing top cover for the Syrian military, bombed the base. No casualties were reported.
In April, the base reportedly came under attack from Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
The UK government refused to comment in line with its long standing policy relating to Special Forces operations.
The US has reportedly warned against further encroachment on the base and it remains unclear how foreign troops would respond to contact with Syrian forces.
The precise disposition and number of UK forces in unknown though they are likely to be either British Army personnel from 22 SAS or Royal Marines from the SBS – Britain’s so-called ‘Tier 1’ operators. Other units that operate under the same ‘no comment’ umbrella include the Special Forces Support Group (SFSG), formerly the 1st Battalion of The Parachute Regiment, which supplies additional troops to SF operations and the shadowy Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), which provides expert close surveillance capabilities.
The possibility of a direct Syrian clash with US/UK forces and thus a Russian clash with US/UK forces is now becoming very real as the Syrian government does not seem ready to allow the US and UK to simply invade and occupy any more territory than they already have.
By now, it should be clear that the presence of the FSA in the Tanf area is nothing more than ruse designed to provide a tar baby for the Syrian military to fire upon – going under the guise of “moderate rebels” – which will then allow the West to scream that Syria is attacking moderates, violating agreements, and threatening American soldiers, and thus justify some type of U.S./U.K. reprisal.
Still, it appears that Syria and its Russian allies may be reaching the end of their patience with America’s arrogant invasions and chest thumping in Syria. The obvious strategy for the Syrian military is to lift the siege of Deir ez-Zour and retake Raqqa before America, Kurds, or America’s Kurdish terrorist forces are able to do so and thus begin choking the ability of terrorists to move back and forth, supply, and direct military efforts against the Syrian government. After the immediate goal is reached, the SAA will be tasked with surgically removing the cancer inflicted upon the country by the United States.
“Targeting the Coptic Christians in Egypt is not something new, as a matter of fact it has lately morphed into some kind of a systematic pattern”
Bodies lie in the desert after the bus attack on Coptic Christians near Minya in Egypt
Report by Dr. Ashraf Ezzat
For Veterans Today – Alexandria, Egypt
In less than six hours, Egyptian security apparatus has been able to investigate the deadly attack on a bus carrying Christians to a remote monastery in Upper Egypt, identify the perpetrators, and swiftly act in retaliation by striking targets, not inside Egypt, but in Libya. Well, that was a faster reaction than that which was conducted by those sluggish British policemen in Manchester. I think England should dump the American CIA guys (Who took responsibility for Manchester leaks) and instead focus on bolstering intelligence sharing with the (truly professional and relentless) Egyptian security authorities.
The Egyptian fighter jets carried out strikes on Friday directed at camps in Libya which Egyptian military authorities claim have been training (Islamist) militants who killed dozens of Coptic Christians earlier in the day. The latest estimate of the dead is 29 dead and 24 seriously wounded. The Coptic group was heading to the Saint Samuel Monastery, outside Minya city, about 220km south of Cairo, when the masked attackers, who came in three pickup trucks, opened fire on them before fleeing the scene.
Targeting the Coptic Christians in Egypt is not something new, as a matter of fact it has lately morphed into some kind of a systematic pattern (well-funded and trained – and politically manipulated, I might add)
Does anyone still remember the horrific church bombing in Alexandria which killed 21 Coptic Christians, few months before the January revolution back in 2011? I still do, because I was two hundred meters away from the Church, 15 minutes before the blast.
In the initial investigations that were not completed, the Security Apparatus of Mubarak was found somehow implicated in orchestrating the bombing. It was too obvious who would benefit from that attack. The bombing would create a strong public feeling of uncertainty and fear, a smoke screen to allow Mubarak (under the extended emergency law) to win another term in office. It is worth mentioning here that 2018 is the year of the upcoming Presidential Elections in Egypt (under yet another extended emergency law)
President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi said he had ordered strikes against what he called terrorist camps, declaring in a televised address that states that sponsored terrorism would be punished.
“Egypt will never hesitate to strike terror camps anywhere … if it plans attacking Egypt whether inside or outside the country,” Sisi said.
Trump and El-Sisi’s meeting in Washington last April
Meanwhile, Egyptian military sources reported on Friday that Egyptian air force planes carried out six strikes directed at militant (terrorist) camps near Derna in Libya. The city of Derna is in Eastern Libya, between Benghazi and the Western Egyptian borders with Libya.
That makes Derna not only a strategic location for Egypt but also for general, Khalifa Haftar, a Libyan military officer and the head of the Libyan National Army in East Libya which is opposed to the UN-backed Tripoli government.
Haftar is supported by the military in Egypt, United Arab Emirates’ government and some sources say the American CIA.
After the latest (positive) meeting of President Trump with President Sisi in Wshington, one wouldn’t expect the US to issue a condemnation of the Egyptian strikes in Libya.
It seems that both presidents had a mutual understanding on fighting terrorism in the Middle East, where Egypt’s military and air force is expected to play a major role on the ground (especially in Libya and Sudan).
East Libyan forces loyal to General, Khalifa Haftar said they participated in the Egyptian air strikes, which had targeted rebel forces linked to the so called Islamic State (IS) at a number of sites and would be followed by a ground operation.
Sources in Derna heard four powerful explosions and informed some online news media that the strikes had targeted camps used by fighters belonging to the Majlis al-Shura militant group.
But Majlis al-Shura spokesman Mohamed al-Mansouri said in a video posted online that the Egyptian air strikes did not hit any of the group’s camps, but instead hit civilian areas. In the past two years, the Egyptian air force has carried out several strikes on Derna, notably in February 2015 and March 2016, which targeted the same militias of Majlis al-Shura.
Libyan General, Khalifa Haftar
Although Mansouri also denied any link between the Majlis al-Shura group and the IS-suspected attack earlier on Friday, in a contradictory move, the Islamic State group on Saturday claimed responsibility for the attack.
Clothes and shoes of Coptic Christians could be seen scattered in and around the bus, while the bodies of some of the dead civilian victims lay in the desert sand nearby, covered with black sheets.
Eyewitnesses said three small buses were attacked. First to be hit was a bus taking children to the monastery as part of a church-organized trip, and the other two buses that followed were taking the families.
The gunmen boarded the vehicles and shot all the men and took all the women’s gold jewelry. Then the masked militants shot the women and children in the legs.
Security forces launched a hunt for the attackers, setting up dozens of checkpoints and patrols on the desert road.
Egyptian/Coptic Christians, whose church dates back nearly 2,000 years, make up a minority sect of about 10 percent of Egypt’s population of 92 million.
They say they have long suffered from persecution, but in recent months the frequency of deadly attacks against the Coptic Christians has increased. About 70 have been killed since December in bombings claimed by Islamic State at churches in the cities of Cairo, Alexandria and Tanta.
An Islamic State campaign of murders in North Sinai forced hundreds of Christians to flee the vast Northern Governorate (bordering Israel) in February and March.
In the aftermath of those subsequent attacks, many Christians feel insecure and constantly threatened. They say that the state either does not take their plight seriously enough or cannot protect them against militant Islamic attacks.
With bombings in Paris and elsewhere across Europe and war in the Middle East, it’s strange to hear speculation about a fictional Russian threat, Vladimir Putin said in an exclusive interview with Le Figaro.
The Russian president, who visited Paris to meet with his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, on Monday, expressed the belief that Moscow and Western capitals “all want security, peace, safety and cooperation.”
“Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc.,” the Russian leader in the interview to be published in full on Wednesday.
“What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia.”
“You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues,” he added.
Fighting international terrorism is among the issues on which Russia and the West must work together, Putin said.
‘No proof Assad used chemical weapons’
When asked about the Western claims that the Syrian government of Bashar Asssad used chemical weapons against its own people, the Russian leader reiterated that the accusations were groundless and politically motivated.
He reminded that that when the alleged attack happened in the town of Khan Shaykhun in Syria’s Idlib province on April 4, Moscow called on Washington and other interested parties to send inspectors to the Syrian airfield from where the alleged chemical originated as well as to the site of the bombing.
However, both Russian proposals were refused by the Western partners, Putin said, adding, “If chemical weapons were used by President al-Assad’s official agencies, modern verification equipment would certainly find traces of this.”
“In my opinion, the accusations have been made for the sole purpose of justifying the use of additional measures, including military ones, against Assad. That is all. There is no proof that Assad has used chemical weapons. We firmly believe that that this is a provocation. President Assad did not use chemical weapons,” he said.
Putin said that he agreed with French counterpart Emmanuel Macron that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was “a red line.”
“Moreover, I believe that this issue should be addressed on a broader scale. President Macron shares this view. No matter who uses chemical weapons against people and organizations, the international community must formulate a common policy and find a solution that would make the use of such weapons impossible for anyone,” the Russian leader said.
Putin highlighted the role of an agreement to establish four de-escalation zones in Syria, free from fighting between Syrian government and rebels, and called it “an extremely important milestone” toward a political settlement.
However, he added that the zones should not “become a prototype for the future territorial division in Syria.”
“On the contrary, I expect that these de-escalation zones, if peace is established, and the people who will be controlling them, will cooperate with the official Syrian authorities,” the Russian president said.
US & Saudi Arabia say it’s necessary to maintain Syria whole & united – White House — RT News
The Syrian conflict must be solved through political means with the country’s unity and territorial integrity maintained, the US and Saudi Arabia has said in a joint statement released by the White…
The nascent cooperation within these zones should pave the way for a broader political reconciliation, followed by a new constitution and elections, Putin said, stressing that only the Syrian people have the right to decide the political future of their country and, in particular, of President Assad.
Putin also noted that Turkey, Iran, the Syrian government and the armed opposition, as well as Russia, all play an important role in ensuring that the Syrian ceasefire works.
NATO’s military build-up ‘threat to international security’
Weighing on the outcome of the recent NATO summit, at which Russia was branded a threat to security, Putin pointed to the ambiguous signals Moscow is receiving from the alliance.
“What attracted my attention is that the NATO leaders spoke at their summit about a desire to improve relations with Russia. Then why are they increasing their military spending? Whom are they planning to fight against?” Putin said, adding that Russia nevertheless “feels confident” in its own defenses.
Washington’s appeal to other NATO members to ramp up their military spending and alleviate the financial burden the US is forced to shoulder is “understandable” and “pragmatic,” Putin said.
But the strategy employed by the alliance against Russia is “shortsighted,” the Russian president added, referring to the NATO’s expanding missile defense infrastructure on Russia’s doorstep and calling it “an extremely dangerous development for international security.”
Putin lamented that an idea of a comprehensive security system envisioned in the 1990s that would span Europe, Russia and US has never become a reality, arguing that it would have spared Russia many challenges to its security stemming from NATO.
“Perhaps all this would not have happened. But it did, and we cannot rewind history, it is not a movie.”
‘Ball in Ukraine conflict resolution is in Kiev’s court’
Moscow is not a party to the Ukrainian conflict, Putin said, noting that it all boils down to “first and foremost” conflicting parties to put an end to the protracted hostilities in the country’s east.
“This conflict is internal – a Ukrainian conflict primarily,” he stressed, arguing that “the source of all problems” that have been plaguing Ukraine “an unconstitutional forceful seizure of power in Kiev in 2014.”
Putin said that the road toward a longstanding peace goes through the full implementation of the Mink agreements, in which “the ball is in the court of the official Kiev authorities.”
As the number one step to end the ongoing military stalemate, Putin named the immediate withdrawal of heavy weaponry and troops by the Kiev authorities from the designated borderline area, which they refuse to do, citing rebel shooting. Putin argued that the latter would not stop retaliating while the heavy weaponry is stationed there.
Kiev must also comply with the political conditions set forth in the accords, that is granting the breakaways Lugansk and Donetsk Republics a special status and amnesty to the rebels. While both bills have been passed by the Ukrainian legislature, none of them has taken effect to date.
However, instead of meeting these provisions, Kiev further encroaches on the rights of its citizens in the eastern Ukraine by condoning and then joining the railway blockade of the region, Putin said.
“Can we speak of changes for the better in this situation? Regrettably, we have not seen any so far.”
A powerful bureaucracy is preventing US presidents from making changes, Vladimir Putin told Le Figaro, saying he’s not surprised Donald Trump hasn’t restored relations with Moscow amid a power struggle – just as Obama failed to shut down Guantanamo.
Despite early signals from the Trump administration that it would not mind improving relations with Russia, which seemed to hit rock bottom during the last months of the Obama presidency, Moscow “had no special expectations” with regards to the new US President Trump, the Russian leader said in an interview to be published in full Wednesday.
While US presidents “come and go,” its political landscape is hardly prone to changes, Putin said, noting that the incumbent US leader “is steering a traditional US policy.”
This political invariability can be ascribed to the sprawling US bureaucratic machine, which imposes rigid constraints on every neophyte leader as soon as he rises to power, Putin argued.
“When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits… These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes,” Putin elaborated, noting that no administration is able to escape this trap, which significantly narrows its room for maneuver.
Putin argued that former US President Obama also fell victim to the system as he was not able to deliver on his pre-election promise to close the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison. Describing Obama as a “forward-thinking man,” Putin said that he has no doubt that Obama genuinely wanted to follow through his pledge, but failed even though the controversial Cuban prison was known primarily for torture and a practice of unlawful detentions.
“Can you imagine France or Russia acting this way? This would have been a disaster. But it is possible in the United States and continues to this day,” Putin said, referring to widespread and well-documented human rights abuses in the prison.
The Russian president said Moscow still hopes for a political normalization with Washington, but is in “no hurry” and “ready to wait” until the anti-Russian hysteria, fueled by the defeated party which seeks to shift the blame for its own loss on Russia, subsides.
“That said, I am cautiously optimistic, and I think that we can and should be able to reach agreements on key issues,” he said.
Criticizing the increase in NATO military spending and its build-up on Russia’s doorstep, Putin nevertheless noted that Trump showed a “pragmatic and understandable approach” when he demanded from other NATO member states to share the financial burden of common defense with the US.
Dismissing allegations of Russian meddling in the US and French presidential elections, Putin argued that claims that Moscow was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee emails have not been supported by evidence. He added that it does not take much effort to cover up the source of the attack for the purpose of making Moscow a scapegoat.
“As President Trump once said, and I think that he was totally right when he said it could have been someone sitting on their bed or somebody intentionally inserted a flash drive with the name of a Russian national, or something like that,” Putin said.
The Russian leader believes that essence of the problem lies not in the Moscow’s perceived interference in the electoral process, but in the unwillingness of those who were stunned by the defeat in the November elections to take responsibility for their poor performance.
“They are absolutely reluctant to admit this, and prefer deluding themselves and others into thinking it was not their fault, that their policy was correct, they did all the right things, but someone from the outside thwarted them. But it was not so. They just lost and they have to admit it,” Putin said.
Apparently, Trump turned out to be “closer to the people and better understood what ordinary voters want,” Putin said, suggesting that the Democrats need to put up with the fact and adding that when those drop this mindset “it will be easier for us to work [with the US].”
While there is no timeline for when such a turnaround will happen, Putin believes that this phase in US-Russia relations, during which Russia is being dragged into US internal policy, is temporary.
“The fact that this is being done using anti-Russia tools is not good, as it brings discord into international affairs,” Putin said. “But it will pass, everything passes, and this will pass as well.”
Thierry Meyssan observes the actions that President Trump is taking to convince his allies and partners to drop the jihadists that they support, arm, and supervise. Contrary to the picture painted by the international Press and its political adversaries, for the last four months, the White House has been pursuing an anti-imperialist policy which is beginning to bear fruit: the process of the cessation of Saudi support for the Muslim Brotherhood, the end of the coordination of the jihadists by NATO, and the process of the cessation of Western financing of the Muslim Brotherhood.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK |
Although NATO was conceived to protect the West against the Soviet Union, Donald Trump has redirected it. While it maintains the goal of rivalling with Russia, it will now dedicate half of its means to the fight against jihadism.
From the 3rd conference of the Friends of Syria, on 6 July 2012 in Paris, to the investiture of President Trump, on 21 January 2017 in Washington, the United States, France and the United Kingdom never ceased organising the war against Syria, while constantly pretending to be negotiating a political resolution.
Over the last 16 years, and particularly during his Presidential electoral campaign, Donald Trump has presented himself as a militant anti-imperialist. Contrary to what is claimed by his detractors, the fact that he is a billionaire in no way compromises his political convictions.
Since he arrived at the White House , President Trump has had to fight against his own administration, of which 98% of the senior civil servants voted Hillary Clinton, and also against the allied governments of his predecessor.
So, over the last four months, he has continued to follow his desire to liberate his country and the world by instigating a series of actions which his adversaries either deform or present as contradictory.
During the Summit of the Arabo-Muslim States, on 21 May in Riyadh, Donald Trump appealed to his interlocutors in general and Saudi Arabia in particular to break off all contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and to sever all ties with Islamic terrorism . Aware that he was asking King Salman to give up his main army, he gifted him with a replacement arsenal worth 110 billion dollars.
Despite the bursts of generosity of the King and his court, at the end of the summit, Saudi Arabia published a declaration without prior approval by the other participants . This document may be read as the announcement of the creation of an « Islamic Military Coalition », an expansion of the « Joint Arab Forces » whom we saw at work in Yemen. But it may also serve later as a justification for Saudi occupation of regions of Syria, Iraq and elsewhere which had been liberated by Daesh.
At the Nato summit, on 25 May in Brussels, Donald Trump invited his allies to offer a minute of silence before a fragment of the Berlin Wall and a piece of débris from the Twin Towers. Reminding them that they had accepted – in the name of Article 5 of the Treaty – the principle of the fight against terrorism during the attacks of 9/11, he obliged them to redirect the aims of the Alliance . It will of course maintain its anti-Russian function, but is now dedicated to the eradication of the jihadists which it has so far been coordinating from the base at Izmir (Turkey). As well as this, he compelled them to share their information concerning terrorist organisations via a Coordinated Intelligence Cell.
At the G7 Summit in Taormina, 26 May, Donald Trump managed to strong-arm his allies into making a declaration « against terrorism and violent extremism » . In reality, his partners only accepted the agreement in order to prevent the spilling over of terrorism to the West from the areas where they organise it, finance it and supervise it. In any case, the G7 began a process aimed at drying up not only the financing of terrorism, but also that of violent extremism, in other words the Muslim Brotherhood, the source of terrorism.
This declaration was only possible in the context of the attack in Manchester perpetrated on 22 May, by the son of an M16 double agent, both an ex-member of Mouamar Kadhafi’s security services and of Al-Qaïda . But it is clear that the British still have no intention of depriving themselves of the Muslim Brotherhood.
However, it does seem possible that France and Germany are beginning to clean up their services. It will take them a while. Donald Trump has still not been able to do so in his own administration. Thus, on 20 May in Jeddah, the Pentagon delivered arms to the jihadists,honouring a contract signed in the final days of the Presidential transition . These new weapons include multiple rocket-launchers and Bulgarian OT-64 SKOT tanks.
In order to understand the hype surrounding the phenomena of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, we need to understand the prevailing global economic order and its prognosis. What the pragmatic economists have forecasted about free market capitalism has turned out to be true; whether we like it or not. A kind of global economic entropy has set into motion: money is flowing from the area of high monetary density to the area of low monetary density.
The rise of BRICS countries in the 21st century is the proof of this tendency. BRICS are growing economically because the labor in developing economies is cheap; labor laws and rights are virtually nonexistent; expenses on creating a safe and healthy work environment are minimal; regulatory framework is lax; expenses on environmental protection are negligible; taxes are low; and in the nutshell, windfalls for multinational corporations are huge.
Thus, BRICS are threatening the global economic monopoly of the Western capitalist bloc: that is, North America and Western Europe. Here, we need to understand the difference between manufacturing sector and services sector. Manufacturing sector is the backbone of economy; one cannot create a manufacturing base overnight.
It is based on hard assets: we need raw materials; production equipment; transport and power infrastructure; and last but not the least, a technically-educated labor force. It takes decades to build and sustain a manufacturing base. But the services sector, like the Western financial institutions, can be built and dismantled in a relatively short period of time.
If we take a cursory look at the economy of the Western capitalist bloc, it has still retained some of its high-tech manufacturing base, but it is losing fast to the cheaper and equally robust manufacturing base of the developing BRICS nations. Everything is made in China these days, except for high-tech microprocessors, softwares, a few internet giants, some pharmaceutical products, the Big Oil and the all-important, military hardware and defense production industry.
Apart from that, the entire economy of the Western capitalist bloc is based on financial institutions: the behemoth investment banks that dominate and control the global economy, like JP Morgan chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs in the US; BNP Paribas and Axa Group in France; Deutsche Bank and Allianz Group in Germany; and Barclays and HSBC in the UK.
After establishing the fact that the Western economy is mostly based on its financial services sector, we need to understand its implications. Like I have contended earlier, that it takes time to build a manufacturing base, but it is relatively easy to build and dismantle an economy based on financial services.
What if Tamim bin Hammad Al Thani (the ruler of Qatar) decides tomorrow to withdraw his shares from Barclays and put them in an Organization of Islamic Conference-sponsored bank in accordance with Sharia? What if all the sheikhs of the Gulf States withdraw their petro-dollars from the Western financial institutions; can the fragile financial services-based Western economies sustain such a loss of investments?
In April last year, the Saudi foreign minister threatened  that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets if Congress passed a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
Bear in mind, moreover, that $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the US, if we add its investment in the Western Europe, and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf’s investment in North America and Western Europe.
Similarly, according to a July 2014 New York Post report , the Chinese entrepreneurs had deposited $1.4 trillion in the Western banks between 2002 to 2014, and the Russian oligarchs were the runner-ups with $800 billion of deposits.
Moreover, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf’s oil in the energy-starved industrialized world, here are a few rough stats from the OPEC data: Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3 million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold more than half of world’s 1500 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves.
Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry’s sales of arms to the Gulf Arab States, a report  authored by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama Administration had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during its eight years tenure.
Similarly, during its first international visit after the inauguration to Saudi Arabia last week, the Trump Administration has signed arms deals worth $110 billion, and over 10 years, total sales would reach $350 billion.
Notwithstanding, we need to look for comparative advantages and disadvantages here. If the vulnerable economy is their biggest weakness, what are the biggest strengths of the Western powers? The biggest strength of the Western capitalist bloc is its military might.
We must give credit to the Western hawks that they have done what nobody else in the world has the courage to do: that is, they have privatized their defense production industry. And as we know, that privately-owned enterprises are more innovative, efficient and in this particular case, lethal. But having power is one thing and using that power to achieve certain desirable goals is another.
The Western liberal democracies are not autocracies; they are answerable to their electorates for their deeds and misdeeds. And much to the dismay of pragmatic, Machiavellian rulers, ordinary citizens just can’t get over their antediluvian moral prejudices.
In order to overcome this ethical dilemma, the Western political establishments wanted a moral pretext to do what they wanted to do on pragmatic, economic grounds. That’s when 9/11 took place: a blessing in disguise for the Western political establishments, because the pretext of the “war on terror” gave them a free pass to invade and occupy any oil-rich country in the Middle East and North Africa region.
No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Middle East in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of 1980, which states: “Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
During the last 16 years of the so-called “war on terror,” the Western powers have toppled only a single Islamist regime of the Taliban in Afghanistan and three “unfriendly” Arab nationalist regimes: Saddam’s Baathist regime in Iraq, Qaddafi’s Afro-Arab nationalist regime in Libya and for the last seven years, they have desperately been trying to overthrow another anti-Zionist Baathist regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
More to the point, it is only a “coincidence” that Iraq has 150 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels of oil per day, while Libya has 45 billion barrels reserves and it used to produce 1.6 million barrels per day before the civil war.
Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary global political and economic order, according to a recent infographic  by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel are currently stationed all over the world; including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.
By comparison, the number of US troops in Afghanistan is only 8,500 which is regarded as an occupied country. Thus, all the European, Far Eastern and Middle Eastern states mentioned in this list are not sovereign states but the virtual colonies of the US.
Sources and links:
 Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill:
Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. In fact, it’s not a democracy at all.
In the eyes of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide — even those who might criticize some of its policies — Israel is, at the end of the day, a benign democratic state, seeking peace with its neighbors, and guaranteeing equality to all its citizens.
Those who do criticize Israel assume that if anything went wrong in this democracy then it was due to the 1967 war. In this view, the war corrupted an honest and hardworking society by offering easy money in the occupied territories, allowing messianic groups to enter Israeli politics, and above all else turning Israel into an occupying and oppressive entity in the new territories.
The myth that a democratic Israel ran into trouble in 1967 but still remained a democracy is propagated even by some notable Palestinian and pro-Palestinian scholars — but it has no historical foundation.
Israel Before 1967 Was Not a Democracy
Before 1967, Israel definitely could not have been depicted as a democracy. As we have seen in previous chapters, the state subjected one-fifth of its citizenship to military rule based on draconian British Mandatory emergency regulations that denied the Palestinians any basic human or civil rights.
Local military governors were the absolute rulers of the lives of these citizens: they could devise special laws for them, destroy their houses and livelihoods, and send them to jail whenever they felt like it. Only in the late 1950s did a strong Jewish opposition to these abuses emerge, which eventually eased the pressure on the Palestinian citizens.
For the Palestinians who lived in prewar Israel and those who lived in the post-1967 West Bank and the Gaza Strip, this regime allowed even the lowest-ranking soldier in the IDF to rule, and ruin, their lives. They were helpless if such a solider, or his unit or commander, decided to demolish their homes, or hold them for hours at a checkpoint, or incarcerate them without trial. There was nothing they could do.
At every moment from 1948 until today, there had been some group of Palestinians undergoing such an experience.
The first group to suffer under such a yoke was the Palestinian minority inside Israel. It began in the first two years of statehood when they were pushed into ghettos, such as the Haifa Palestinian community living on the Carmel mountain, or expelled from the towns they had inhabited for decades, such as Safad. In the case of Isdud, the whole population was expelled to the Gaza Strip.
In the countryside, the situation was even worse. The various Kibbutz movements coveted Palestinian villages on fertile land. This included the socialist Kibbutzim, Hashomer Ha-Zair, which was allegedly committed to binational solidarity.
Long after the fighting of 1948 had subsided, villagers in Ghabsiyyeh, Iqrit, Birim, Qaidta, Zaytun, and many others, were tricked into leaving their homes for a period of two weeks, the army claiming it needed their lands for training, only to find out on their return that their villages had been wiped out or handed to someone else.
This state of military terror is exemplified by the Kafr Qasim massacre of October 1956, when, on the eve of the Sinai operation, forty-nine Palestinian citizens were killed by the Israeli army. The authorities alleged that they were late returning home from work in the fields when a curfew had been imposed on the village. This was not the real reason, however.
Later proofs show that Israel had seriously considered the expulsion of Palestinians from the whole area called the Wadi Ara and the Triangle in which the village sat. These two areas — the first a valley connecting Afula in the east and Hadera on the Mediterranean coast; the second expanding the eastern hinterland of Jerusalem — were annexed to Israel under the terms of the 1949 armistice agreement with Jordan.
As we have seen, additional territory was always welcomed by Israel, but an increase in the Palestinian population was not. Thus, at every juncture, when the state of Israel expanded, it looked for ways to restrict the Palestinian population in the recently annexed areas.
Operation “Hafarfert” (“mole”) was the code name of a set of proposals for the expulsion of Palestinians when a new war broke out with the Arab world. Many scholars today now think that the 1956 massacre was a practice run to see if the people in the area could be intimidated to leave.
The perpetrators of the massacre were brought to trial thanks to the diligence and tenacity of two members of the Knesset: Tawaq Tubi from the Communist Party and Latif Dori of the Left Zionist party Mapam. However, the commanders responsible for the area, and the unit itself that committed the crime, were let off very lightly, receiving merely small fines. This was further proof that the army was allowed to get away with murder in the occupied territories.
Systematic cruelty does not only show its face in a major event like a massacre. The worst atrocities can also be found in the regime’s daily, mundane presence.
Palestinians in Israel still do not talk much about that pre-1967 period, and the documents of that time do not reveal the full picture. Surprisingly, it is in poetry that we find an indication of what it was like to live under military rule.
Natan Alterman was one of the most famous and important poets of his generation. He had a weekly column, called “The Seventh Column,” in which he commented on events he had read or heard about. Sometimes he would omit details about the date or even the location of the event, but would give the reader just enough information to understand what he was referring to. He often expressed his attacks in poetic form:
The news appeared briefly for two days, and disappeared. And no one seems to care, and no one seems to know. In the far away village of Um al-Fahem,
Children — should I say citizens of the state — played in the mud And one of them seemed suspicious to one of our brave soldiers who
shouted at him: Stop!
An order is an order
An order is an order, but the foolish boy did not stand, He ran away
So our brave soldier shot, no wonder And hit and killed the boy.
And no one talked about it.
On one occasion he wrote a poem about two Palestinian citizens who were shot in Wadi Ara. In another instance, he told the story of a very ill Palestinian woman who was expelled with her two children, aged three and six, with no explanation, and sent across the River Jordan. When she tried to return, she and her children were arrested and put into a Nazareth jail.
Alterman hoped that his poem about the mother would move hearts and minds, or at least elicit some official response. However, he wrote a week later:
And this writer assumed wrongly
That either the story would be denied or explained But nothing, not a word.
There is further evidence that Israel was not a democracy prior to 1967. The state pursued a shoot-to-kill policy towards refugees trying to retrieve their land, crops, and husbandry, and staged a colonial war to topple Nasser’s regime in Egypt. Its security forces were also trigger happy, killing more than fifty Palestinian citizens during the period from 1948–1967.
Subjugation of Minorities in Israel Is Not Democratic
The litmus test of any democracy is the level of tolerance it is willing to extend towards the minorities living in it. In this respect, Israel falls far short of being a true democracy.
For example, after the new territorial gains several laws were passed ensuring a superior position for the majority: the laws governing citizenship, the laws concerning land ownership, and most important of all, the law of return.
The latter grants automatic citizenship to every Jew in the world, wherever he or she was born. This law in particular is a flagrantly undemocratic one, for it was accompanied by a total rejection of the Palestinian right of return — recognized internationally by the UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948. This rejection refuses to allow the Palestinian citizens of Israel to unite with their immediate families or with those who were expelled in 1948.
Denying people the right of return to their homeland, and at the same time offering this right to others who have no connection to the land, is a model of undemocratic practice.
Added to this was a further layering of denial of the rights of the Palestinian people. Almost every discrimination against the Palestinian citizens of Israel is justified by the fact that they do not serve in the army. The association between democratic rights and military duties is better understood if we revisit the formative years in which Israeli policy makers were trying to make up their minds about how to treat one-fifth of the population.
Their assumption was that Palestinian citizens did not want to join the army anyway, and that assumed refusal, in turn, justified the discriminatory policy against them. This was put to the test in 1954 when the Israeli ministry of defense decided to call up those Palestinian citizens eligible for conscription to serve in the army. The secret service assured the government that there would be a widespread rejection of the call-up.
To their great surprise, all those summoned went to the recruiting office, with the blessing of the Communist Party, the biggest and most important political force in the community at the time. The secret service later explained that the main reason was the teenagers’ boredom with life in the countryside and their desire for some action and adventure.
Notwithstanding this episode, the ministry of defense continued to peddle a narrative that depicted the Palestinian community as unwilling to serve in the military.
Inevitably, in time, the Palestinians did indeed turn against the Israeli army, who had become their perpetual oppressors, but the government’s exploitation of this as a pretext for discrimination casts huge doubt on the state’s pretense to being a democracy.
If you are a Palestinian citizen and you did not serve in the army, your rights to government assistance as a worker, student, parent, or as part of a couple, are severely restricted. This affects housing in particular, as well as employment — where 70 percent of all Israeli industry is considered to be security-sensitive and therefore closed to these citizens as a place to find work.
The underlying assumption of the ministry of defense was not only that Palestinians do not wish to serve but that they are potentially an enemy within who cannot be trusted. The problem with this argument is that in all the major wars between Israel and the Arab world the Palestinian minority did not behave as expected. They did not form a fifth column or rise up against the regime.
This, however, did not help them: to this day they are seen as a “demographic” problem that has to be solved. The only consolation is that still today most Israeli politicians do not believe that the way to solve “the problem” is by the transfer or expulsion of the Palestinians (at least not in peacetime).
Israeli Land Policy Is Not Democratic
The claim to being a democracy is also questionable when one examines the budgetary policy surrounding the land question. Since 1948, Palestinian local councils and municipalities have received far less funding than their Jewish counterparts. The shortage of land, coupled with the scarcity of employment opportunities, creates an abnormal socioeconomic reality.
For example, the most affluent Palestinian community, the village of Me’ilya in the upper Galilee, is still worse off than the poorest Jewish development town in the Negev. In 2011, the Jerusalem Post reported that “average Jewish income was 40 percent to 60 percent higher than average Arab income between the years 1997 to 2009.”
Today more than 90 percent of the land is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Landowners are not allowed to engage in transactions with non-Jewish citizens, and public land is prioritized for the use of national projects, which means that new Jewish settlements are being built while there are hardly any new Palestinian settlements. Thus, the biggest Palestinian city, Nazareth, despite the tripling of its population since 1948, has not expanded one square kilometer, whereas the development town built above it, Upper Nazareth, has tripled in size, on land expropriated from Palestinian landowners.
Further examples of this policy can be found in Palestinian villages throughout Galilee, revealing the same story: how they have been downsized by 40 percent, sometimes even 60 percent, since 1948, and how new Jewish settlements have been built on expropriated land.
Elsewhere this has initiated full-blown attempts at “Judaization.” After 1967, the Israeli government became concerned about the lack of Jews living in the north and south of the state and so planned to increase the population in those areas. Such a demographic change necessitated the confiscation of Palestinian land for the building of Jewish settlements.
Worse was the exclusion of Palestinian citizens from these settlements. This blunt violation of a citizen’s right to live wherever he or she wishes continues today, and all efforts by human rights NGOs in Israel to challenge this apartheid have so far ended in total failure.
The Supreme Court in Israel has only been able to question the legality of this policy in a few individual cases, but not in principle. Imagine if in the United Kingdom or the United States, Jewish citizens, or Catholics for that matter, were barred by law from living in certain villages, neighborhoods, or maybe whole towns? How can such a situation be reconciled with the notion of democracy?
Thus, given its attitude towards two Palestinian groups — the refugees and the community in Israel — the Jewish state cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be assumed to be a democracy.
But the most obvious challenge to that assumption is the ruthless Israeli attitude towards a third Palestinian group: those who have lived under its direct and indirect rule since 1967, in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. From the legal infrastructure put in place at the outset of the war, through the unquestioned absolute power of the military inside the West Bank and outside the Gaza Strip, to the humiliation of millions of Palestinians as a daily routine, the “only democracy” in the Middle East behaves as a dictatorship of the worst kind.
The main Israeli response, diplomatic and academic, to the latter accusation is that all these measures are temporary — they will change if the Palestinians, wherever they are, behave “better.” But if one researches, not to mention lives in, the occupied territories, one will understand how ridiculous these arguments are.
Israeli policy makers, as we have seen, are determined to keep the occupation alive for as long as the Jewish state remains intact. It is part of what the Israeli political system regards as the status quo, which is always better than any change. Israel will control most of Palestine and, since it will always include a substantial Palestinian population, this can only be done by nondemocratic means.
In addition, despite all the evidenceto the contrary, the Israeli state claims that the occupation is an enlightened one. The myth here is that Israel came with good intentions to conduct a benevolent occupation but was forced to take a tougher attitude because of the Palestinian violence.
In 1967, the government treated the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a natural part of “Eretz Israel,” the land of Israel, and this attitude has continued ever since. When you look at the debate between the right- and left-wing parties in Israel on this issue, their disagreements have been about how to achieve this goal, not about its validity.
Among the wider public, however, there was a genuine debate between what one might call the “redeemers” and the “custodians.” The “redeemers” believed Israel had recovered the ancient heart of its homeland and could not survive in the future without it. In contrast, the “custodians” argued that the territories should be exchanged for peace with Jordan, in the case of the West Bank, and Egypt in the case of the Gaza Strip. However, this public debate had little impact on the way the principal policy makers were figuring out how to rule the occupied territories.
The worst part of this supposed “enlightened occupation” has been the government’s methods for managing the territories. At first the area was divided into “Arab” and potential “Jewish” spaces. Those areas densely populated with Palestinians became autonomous, run by local collaborators under a military rule. This regime was only replaced with a civil administration in 1981.
The other areas, the “Jewish” spaces, were colonized with Jewish settlements and military bases. This policy was intended to leave the population both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in disconnected enclaves with neither green spaces nor any possibility for urban expansion.
Things only got worse when, very soon after the occupation, Gush Emunim started settling in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, claiming to be following a biblical map of colonization rather than the governmental one. As they penetrated the densely populated Palestinian areas, the space left for the locals was shrunk even further.
What every colonization project primarily needs is land — in the occupied territories this was achieved only through the massive expropriation of land, deporting people from where they had lived for generations, and confining them in enclaves with difficult habitats.
When you fly over the West Bank, you can see clearly the cartographic results of this policy: belts of settlements that divide the land and carve the Palestinian communities into small, isolated, and disconnected communities. The Judaization belts separate villages from villages, villages from towns, and sometime bisect a single village.
This is what scholars call a geography of disaster, not least since these policies turned out to be an ecological disaster as well: drying up water sources and ruining some of the most beautiful parts of the Palestinian landscape.
Moreover, the settlements became hotbeds in which Jewish extremism grew uncontrollably — the principal victims of which were the Palestinians. Thus, the settlement at Efrat has ruined the world heritage site of the Wallajah Valley near Bethlehem, and the village of Jafneh near Ramallah, which was famous for its freshwater canals, lost its identity as a tourist attraction. These are just two small examples out of hundreds of similar cases.
Destroying Palestinians’ Houses Is Not Democratic
House demolition is not a new phenomenon in Palestine. As with many of the more barbaric methods of collective punishment used by Israel since 1948, it was first conceived and exercised by the British Mandatory government during the Great Arab Revolt of 1936–39.
This was the first Palestinian uprising against the pro-Zionist policy of the British Mandate, and it took the British army three years to quell it. In the process, they demolished around two thousand houses during the various collective punishments meted out to the local population.
Israel demolished houses from almost the first day of its military occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The army blew up hundreds of homes every year in response to various acts undertaken by individual family members.
From minor violations of military rule to participation in violent acts against the occupation, the Israelis were quick to send in their bulldozers to wipe out not only a physical building but also a focus of life and existence. In the greater Jerusalem area (as inside Israel) demolition was also a punishment for the unlicensed extension of an existing house or the failure to pay bills.
Another form of collective punishment that has recently returned to the Israeli repertoire is that of blocking up houses. Imagine that all the doors and windows in your house are blocked by cement, mortar, and stones, so you can’t get back in or retrieve anything you failed to take out in time. I have looked hard in my history books to find another example, but found no evidence of such a callous measure being practiced elsewhere.
Crushing Palestinian Resistance Is Not Democratic
Finally, under the “enlightened occupation,” settlers have been allowed to form vigilante gangs to harass people and destroy their property. These gangs have changed their approach over the years.
During the 1980s, they used actual terror — from wounding Palestinian leaders (one of them lost his legs in such an attack), to contemplating blowing up the mosques on Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem.
In this century, they have engaged in the daily harassment of Palestinians: uprooting their trees, destroying their yields, and shooting randomly at their homes and vehicles. Since 2000, there have been at least one hundred such attacks reported per month in some areas such as Hebron, where the five hundred settlers, with the silent collaboration of the Israeli army, harassed the locals living nearby in an even more brutal way.
From the very beginning of the occupation then, the Palestinians were given two options: accept the reality of permanent incarceration in a mega-prison for a very long time, or risk the might of the strongest army in the Middle East. When the Palestinians did resist — as they did in 1987, 2000, 2006, 2012, 2014, and 2016 — they were targeted as soldiers and units of a conventional army. Thus, villages and towns were bombed as if they were military bases and the unarmed civilian population was shot at as if it was an army on the battlefield.
Today we know too much about life under occupation, before and after Oslo, to take seriously the claim that nonresistance will ensure less oppression. The arrests without trial, as experienced by so many over the years; the demolition of thousands of houses; the killing and wounding of the innocent; the drainage of water wells — these are all testimony to one of the harshest contemporary regimes of our times.
Amnesty International annually documents in a very comprehensive way the nature of the occupation. The following is from their 2015 report:
In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli forces committed unlawful killings of Palestinian civilians, including children, and detained thousands of Palestinians who protested against or otherwise opposed Israel’s continuing military occupation, holding hundreds in administrative detention. Torture and other ill-treatment remained rife and were committed with impunity.
The authorities continued to promote illegal settlements in the West Bank, and severely restricted Palestinians’ freedom of movement, further tightening restrictions amid an escalation of violence from October, which included attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians and apparent extrajudicial executions by Israeli forces. Israeli settlers in the West Bank attacked Palestinians and their property with virtual impunity. The Gaza Strip remained under an Israeli military blockade that imposed collective punishment on its inhabitants. The authorities continued to demolish Palestinian homes in the West Bank and inside Israel, particularly in Bedouin villages in the Negev/Naqab region, forcibly evicting their residents.
Let’s take this in stages. Firstly, assassinations — what Amnesty’s report calls “unlawful killings”: about fifteen thousand Palestinians have been killed “unlawfully” by Israel since 1967. Among them were two thousand children.
Imprisoning Palestinians Without Trial Is Not Democratic
Another feature of the “enlightened occupation” is imprisonment without trial. Every fifth Palestinian in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has undergone such an experience.
It is interesting to compare this Israeli practice with similar American policies in the past and the present, as critics of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement claim that US practices are far worse. In fact, the worst American example was the imprisonment without trial of one hundred thousand Japanese citizens during World War II, with thirty thousand later detained under the so-called “war on terror.”
Neither of these numbers comes even close to the number of Palestinians who have experienced such a process: including the very young, the old, as well as the long-term incarcerated.
Arrest without trial is a traumatic experience. Not knowing the charges against you, having no contact with a lawyer and hardly any contact with your family are only some of the concerns that will affect you as a prisoner. More brutally, many of these arrests are used as means to pressure people into collaboration. Spreading rumors or shaming people for their alleged or real sexual orientation are also frequently used as methods for leveraging complicity.
As for torture, the reliable website Middle East Monitor published a harrowing article describing the two hundred methods used by the Israelis to torture Palestinians. The list is based on a UN report and a report from the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. Among other methods it includes beatings, chaining prisoners to doors or chairs for hours, pouring cold and hot water on them, pulling fingers apart, and twisting testicles.
Israel Is Not a Democracy
What we must challenge here, therefore, is not only Israel’s claim to be maintaining an enlightened occupation but also its pretense to being a democracy. Such behavior towards millions of people under its rule gives the lie to such political chicanery.
However, although large sections of civil societies throughout the world deny Israel its pretense to democracy, their political elites, for a variety of reasons, still treat it as a member of the exclusive club of democratic states. In many ways, the popularity of the BDS movement reflects the frustrations of those societies with their governments’ policies towards Israel.
For most Israelis these counterarguments are irrelevant at best and malicious at worst. The Israeli state clings to the view that it is a benevolent occupier. The argument for “enlightened occupation” proposes that, according to the average Jewish citizen in Israel, the Palestinians are much better off under occupation and they have no reason in the world to resist it, let alone by force. If you are a noncritical supporter of Israel abroad, you accept these assumptions as well.
There are, however, sections of Israeli society that do recognize the validity of some of the claims made here. In the 1990s, with various degrees of conviction, a significant number of Jewish academics, journalists, and artists voiced their doubts about the definition of Israel as a democracy.
It takes some courage to challenge the foundational myths of one’s own society and state. This is why quite a few of them later retreated from this brave position and returned to toeing the general line.
Nevertheless, for a while during the last decade of the last century, they produced works that challenged the assumption of a democratic Israel. They portrayed Israel as belonging to a different community: that of the nondemocratic nations. One of them, the geographer Oren Yiftachel from Ben-Gurion University, depicted Israel as an ethnocracy, a regime governing a mixed ethnic state with a legal and formal preference for one ethnic group over all the others. Others went further, labeling Israel an apartheid state or a settler-colonial state.
In short, whatever description these critical scholars offered, “democracy” was not among them.
Ilan Pappe is an Israeli historian and socialist activist. He is a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter, director of the university’s European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies. Most recently, he is the author of Ten Myths About Israel
TOP PHOTO: An activist is arrested by Israeli forces during a Day Of Rage protest against the Prawer-Begin Plan in front of the Israeli settlement Beit El, Al Jalazun, West Bank, November 30, 2013. (Photo: Activestills.org)
Delegates at the 2009 Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism convention in London. The organization issued a declaration calling on governments to use an Israel-centric definition of antisemitism and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.”
For two decades, some Israeli officials and Israel partisans have worked to embed a new, Israel-focused definition of antisemitism in institutions around the world, from international bodies and national governments to small college campuses in heartland America. This effort is now snowballing rapidly. As a result, advocacy for Palestinian rights is well on the way to being curtailed and even criminalized as “hate.”
As the world has witnessed the oppression and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, many people have risen in protest. In response, the Israeli government and certain of its advocates have conducted a campaign to crack down on this activism, running roughshod over civil liberties (and the English language) in the process.
The mechanism of this crackdown is the redefinition of “antisemitism” to include criticism of Israel, and the insertion of this definition into the bodies of law of various countries.
Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent), for two decades a campaign has been underway to replace that definition with an Israel-centric definition. That definition can then be used to block speech and activism in support of Palestinian human rights as “hate.” Various groups are applying this definition in law enforcement evaluations of possible crimes.
Proponents of this Israel-centric definition have promoted it step by step in various arenas, from the U.S. State Department and European governments to local governments around the U.S. and universities.
While this effort has taken place over the last two decades, it is snowballing rapidly at this time. The definition is increasingly being used to curtail free speech and academic freedom, as well as political activism.
Furthermore, such politicizing of an important word may reduce its effectiveness when real antisemitism occurs, doing a disservice to victims of true bigotry.
As of this writing, the U.S. Congress has endorsed the distorted definition, the governments of the UK and Austria have officially adopted it (in December and April, respectively), various U.S. State legislatures are considering it, and numerous universities are using it to delineate permissible discourse. Many representatives and heads of other states around the world have embraced the new meaning, even if they have yet to officially implement it.
This article will examine the often interconnected, incremental actions that got us where we are, the current state of affairs, and the public relations and lobbying efforts that are promoting this twisting of the definition of “antisemitism” — often under cover of misleadingly named “anti-racism” movements.
Claims of “Antisemitism” Used to Silence Support for Palestinians
Israel long claimed that its 1948 creation was on “a land without a people for a people without a land,” and many people may still believe this founding myth. The fact is, however, that the land was originally inhabited by an indigenous population that was approximately 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, and a little under 5 percent Jewish. The Jewish State of Israel was created through the ejection of approximately three-quarters of a million people.
Over the decades since Israel’s founding in 1948, accusations of antisemitism have been leveled against many people who criticized Israeli actions. Indeed, the accusation was used effectively to silence very prominent critics.
However, for most of that time, the meaning of the term itself was not in question. The standard definitionwas, in Google’s terms, “hostility to or prejudice against Jews.” Around the turn of this century, though, certain advocates began promoting official and even legal definitions of antisemitism that included various kinds of criticism of Israel.
Conflating Criticism of Israel with Antisemitism
Unsurprisingly, the new definitions appear to have originated from within the Israeli government, or at least with an Israeli government official.
The definitions adhere to a pattern set by a man named Natan Sharansky, who was Israel’s Minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs and chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel. Sharansky founded a Global Forum against Anti-Semitism in 2003, stating: “The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.”
But Sharansky apparently didn’t mean a counteroffensive against just anti-Jewish bigotry, but an offensive against criticism of Israel. The following year he wrote a position paper that declared: “Whereas classical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, ‘new anti-Semitism’ is aimed at the Jewish state.”
Sharansky’s paper laid out what he called the “3-D Test of Anti-Semitism.” Sharansky applied the term “antisemitic” to criticism of Israel in three cases. First, he argued that statements that “demonize” Israel are antisemitic — by being, in his mind, unfairly harsh. (Some of those allegedly guilty of “demonizing” Israel are Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, Alice Walker, Human Rights Watch, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, French President François Mitterrand, and others.)
Second, Sharansky declared that it’s antisemitic to apply a “double standard” to Israel — in other words, to criticize Israel for actions that other states may also take. However, if one could never criticize, protest or boycott abuses without calling out every single other similar abuse, no one would ever be able to exercise political dissent at all.
Finally, Sharansky said it’s antisemitic to “delegitimize” Israel, or dispute its “right to exist” (a standard Israeli talking point for many years). In fact, insisting Israel has the “right” to exist amounts to saying it had the right to expel Muslim and Christian Palestinians in order to found a religiously exclusive state. (See “What ‘Israel’s right to exist’ means to Palestinians,” by John Whitbeck, published in the Christian Science Monitor.)
Sharansky’s outline provided the pattern for a European agency to create a new definition of antisemitism the next year, 2005 — a definition that would then be adopted by a succession of organizations and governments, including the U.S. State Department.
Kahn had been a President of the European Jewish Congress, elected in a plenary session in Israel, and said the Congress “would demonstrate its solidarity with Israel” and that he hoped European countries would “coordinate their legislation outlawing racism, anti-Semitism or any form of exclusion.”
Kahn was chairman of the Monitoring Centre’s management board and called the “personification” of the agency. Within three years, the Centre issued a position paper calling for the definition of anti-Semitic offenses to be “improved.”
A few years later, Israeli professor Dina Porat took up the effort to create a new definition. Working with her were Kenneth Stern and Rabbi Andrew “Andy” Baker of the American Jewish Committee. Stern reports that when the Monitoring Centre’s then head, Beate Winkler, had failed to deliver the desired definition, Andy Baker “smartly developed a working relationship with her.” Stern and others then created a draft for the Monitoring Centre to use.
In 2005 the agency issued its “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism,” largely based on that draft. It included an array of negative statements about Israel as examples of antisemitic offenses. While standard dictionary definitions of antisemitism didn’t even mention Israel, fully half of the newly devised Monitoring Centre definition referred to Israel.
Once the Monitoring Centre had created its expanded definition, certain Israel partisans used it to promote similar definitions elsewhere. And while the Monitoring Centre itself continued to term it only a “working” definition and its replacement organization eventually withdrew the definition, in other countries and agencies the expanded definition became official.
In addition, quite frighteningly, proponents pushed successfully to begin applying the Israel-centric definition to law enforcement.
In the United States
The same year Sharansky created his “3-D” antisemitism test — a year after he founded the Global Forum against Anti-Semitism — the U.S. Congress passed a law establishing exceptional government monitoring of antisemitism. The law created a special State Department envoy and office for this monitoring, over objections of the State Department itself.
The law, called the “Global Anti-Semitism Review Act,” included a line that subverted its meaning by enshrining a new definition of antisemitism aligned with Sharansky’s: “Anti-Semitism has at times taken the form of vilification of Zionism, the Jewish national movement, and incitement against Israel.”
The bill was introduced in April 2004. That June, a Congressional hearing was conducted about how to combat antisemitism. A major witness was Israeli minister Sharansky. In his testimony Sharansky proposed his “3-D” Israel-connected definition for anti-Semitism.
State Department officials objected to the proposed legislation, saying the new office was unnecessary and would be a “bureaucratic nuisance” that would actually hinder the Department’s ongoing work. A State Department press release opposing the new office described the many actions that State was already taking against antisemitism.
Despite this opposition, the Senate bill acquired 24 cosponsors representing both parties, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Sam Brownback, Saxby Chambliss and Ted Stevens. Similar bills (here and here) were introduced in the House of Representatives, acquiring 35 cosponsors, again including both Republican and Democratic leaders. The legislation passed easily and quickly became law.
The first Special Envoy, Gregg Rickman, endorsed the European Monitoring Centre’s Working Definition in 2008. Rickman’s report called it a “useful framework” for identifying and understanding antisemitism. After Rickman left the State Department, he went to work for the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the major Israel advocacy organization that lobbies Congress.
The next Special Envoy, Hannah Rosenthal, took this campaign a major step forward: In 2010 the office officially adopted the European Monitoring Centre’s definition.
Rosenthal was extremely proud of having achieved this “breakthrough” definition. She began making use of it quickly, establishing a 90-minute course on the new antisemitism at the Foreign Service Institute, the training school for diplomats.
“We have now a definition we can train people on,” she told the Times of Israel, “and we’ve been very aggressive in training foreign service officers.”
Rosenthal announced that with the new definition including criticism of Israel, their reporting on antisemitism improved “300 percent,” even though, she said, that didn’t mean that antisemitism had actually increased in all the countries monitored.
The gloves were off. Now fully half of the official U.S. State Department definition of antisemitism had gone beyond the normal meaning of the word to focus on Israel.
Applying the New Definition to U.S. Citizens
The State Department uses the new definition to monitor activities overseas. But once the State Department definition was in place, efforts began to use it to crack down on political and academic discourse and activism within the U.S.
This past December (2016) the U.S. Senate passed a law to apply the State Department’s definition (i.e. the Sharansky-Stern-Rosenthal definition) of antisemitism to the Education Department, for use in investigating reports of religiously motivated campus crimes.
A companion bill for the House is supported by AIPAC, the ADL, the Jewish Federations of North America and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
South Carolina’s House of Representatives recently passed legislation under which the State Department’s definition “would be used in probes of possible anti-Semitism at state colleges and universities.” The state senate will consider this in 2018. If passed, it will mean that the state will now probe criticism of Israel on state campuses.
Such efforts are also ongoing in California. In December Democrat Brad Sherman called on the California Secretary of Education to “expand its definition to include certain forms of anti-Israel behavior.” Pro-Israel organizations such as the Amcha Initiative have also been pushing the state legislature for several years to officially adopt the State Department definition. So far these have been defeated but continue to be promoted.
A parallel effort has been occurring on U.S. campuses. In 2003 Sharansky said that college campuses were “one of the most important battlefields” for Israel.
Student councils or other groups at various universities have passed resolutions adopting the State Department definition, which can then be used to block campus events about Palestine.
An ongoing campaign to ensure Israel partisans become influential in student government has supported these efforts. This campaign was announced by an AIPAC leader in 2010: “We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government,” he said. “That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.” (Video here.)
An example of these resolutions is the 2015 bill at Indiana University. The resolution denounced anti-Semitism “as defined by the United States State Department” and stated that the student government would not fund antisemitic activities or activities that “undermine the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.” It also said that student government executives and Congress members would undergo diversity training on anti-Semitism.
According to the student newspaper, the bill was written by Rebekah Molasky, a fellow with the international pro-Israel organization Stand With Us. After the resolution was passed, “the bill’s sponsors and outside supporters hugged and high-fived before gathering in the hallway to take a picture to commemorate the moment.”
As evidenced above, such resolutions can now be used to censor student events. The UC San Diego resolution largely replicated the Indiana format, announcing that the student government will not support activities that “promote anti-Semitism” under the new definition, including “denying Israel the right to exist.” Stand With Us applauded the resolution.
In 2012, an organization called the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law was founded and immediately began promoting the new definition. Within a year it launched an initiative to establish student chapters at law schools throughout the U.S. to advance “the organization’s mandate to combat campus anti-Semitism through legal means.” The Center helped push the South Carolina legislation. It is one of numerous organizations promoting the new definition.
(Incidentally, former Supreme Court Justice Brandeis was a leader in the world Zionist movement and worked in public and covert ways to promote it — see here.)
A number of analysts have pointed out some of the many significant flaws with such legislation.
Anthony L. Fisher at Reason.com writes of Congress’s December law applying the State Department definition to the Education Department: “It gives the federal government the authority to investigate ideas, thoughts, and political positions as violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Fisher continues: “By specifically using the broad language of a 2010 State Department memo attempting to define anti-Semitism, the Senate bill wades into thought policing.”
Attorney Liz Jackson wrote in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times: “Anyone who values the constitutional right to express political dissent should worry about this development.”
On the other side of the debate is New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, formerly Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor and before that editor of an Israeli newspaper. Stephens, extremely hawkish on Israel, writes and speaks fervently against the movement to boycott Israel (BDS) and what he says is antisemitism on US campuses and elsewhere. In a Wall Street Journal editorial, he claimed that “anti-Semitism is the disease of the Arab world.”
In 2014 Stephens spoke at the Tikvah Fund, a philanthropic foundation committed to supporting the “Jewish people and the Jewish State,” opining that it would be a scandal if Jewish people failed “to do all we can to assure the survival of the Jewish State.”
U.S. and European Lawmakers Pressure Governments to Ban Criticism of Israel
During all this time, parallel efforts to promote the new definition continued in Europe.
In 2009 an organization called the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (ICCA) took up the effort to spread the expanded definition. The group says it brings together parliamentarians from “around the world” to fight antisemitism and lists a steering committee of six European and U.S. legislators.
The group held a conference in London in 2009 at which it issued a “London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism,” which was signed by then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other heads of state and legislators. This declaration called on governments to use the European Monitoring Centre’s definition and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.”
It was couched in “anti-racism” terms, but when we look at the declaration’s recommendations combined with its definition of antisemitism, one thing becomes clear: In the declaration, numerous lawmakers of the Western world called on world governments to restrict political dissent.
Specifically, they called on governments to outlaw certain forms of criticism of Israel, including calls to boycott Israel; to regulate criticism of Israel in the media; to monitor criticism of Israel online and elsewhere; and to prosecute critics of Israel under “hate crimes” legislation.
Among numerous other demands, the lawmakers declared that governments:
“must expand the use of the EUMC [Monitoring Centre] ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’” including “as a basis for training material for use by Criminal Justice Agencies;”
should “isolate political actors” who “target the State of Israel;”
“should legislate ‘incitement to hatred’ offences and empower law enforcement agencies to convict;”
“should … establish inquiry scrutiny panels;”
“should utilise the EUMC [Monitoring Centre] ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’ to inform media standards;”
“should take appropriate and necessary action to prevent the broadcast of antisemitic programmes on satellite television channels, and to apply pressure on the host broadcast nation to take action to prevent the transmission of antisemitic programmes” (keeping in mind here that the declaration’s definition of “antisemitic” includes various criticism of Israel);
“should use domestic ‘hate crime’, ‘incitement to hatred’ and other legislation … to prosecute ‘Hate on the Internet’ where racist and antisemitic content is hosted, published and written” (again keeping in mind what is defined as “antisemitic”);
and that “education authorities should … protect students and staff from illegal antisemitic discourse and a hostile environment in whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts.”
In 2015 the European Commission created a special position to coordinate work on combating antisemitism and appointed German national Katharina von Schnurbein to the post. Schnurbein proceeded to promote the use of the Israel-centric definition.
UK and Austria Adopt Definition
In December 2016, the UK announced it would formally adopt the Israel-centric definition. It was quickly followed by Austria, which adopted the definition in April 2017. The Austrian justice minister had previously announced that the new definition would be used in the training of new judges and prosecutors.
UK Prime Minister Theresa May made the announcement during a talk before 800 guests at the Conservative Friends of Israel’s annual lunch.
UPI reported: “The British police are already using this definition, which can now also be used by other groups, such as municipal councils and universities. The definition is not a law, but provides a formal interpretation of an illegal act that can serve as a guideline for criminal proceedings.” Shortly afterward the UK’s higher education minister sent a letter informing universities that the government had adopted the IHRA definition and directing them to utilize it.
(The London council quickly followed suit with its own adoption of the definition, and other cities have now done the same. In May the Israel-Britain Alliance (IBA) began asking candidates for Parliament to sign a pledge that they would support the new definition.)
A number of groups objected to the definition, arguing that the definition “deliberately equates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews.”
Opponents said it was “vigorously promoted by pro-Israel lobbyists to local authorities, universities, Labour movement organisations and other public bodies.”
They stated that after its adoption there had been “an increase in bannings and restrictions imposed on pro-Palestinian activities, especially on campuses.” Some of the cancellationscited the IHRA definition. Oxford Professor Stephen Sedleywrote in the London Review of Books that the IHRA definition gives “respectability and encouragement to forms of intolerance which are themselves contrary to law.”
Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, recipient of the President’s Medal of the British Operational Research Society and Chair of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, said there were many examples of the definition creating a “chilling effect” on institutions’ willingness to permit lawful political activity, “even when the definition was not specifically cited.”
The American Jewish Committee, which has offices in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Rome, and Warsaw, reported that it had “met with senior European government officials to encourage OSCE adoption of the definition.” However, adoption of the definition has so far been blocked by one member: Russia.
AJC leader Rabbi Andrew Baker wrote that the AJC would now work “to foster its greater use by the individual states of the OSCE and members of the European Union.”
Inter-Parliamentary Coalition’s American Representatives
Two American Congressmen are among the six-member steering committee of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (CCA).
According to the site, Deutch “works closely with his colleagues in the House and Senate to… pass resolutions strongly opposing manifestations of anti-Semitism at home in South Florida, across the United States, and around the world.”
Florida Congressman Ted DeutchThe website reports: “Congressman Ted Deutch is a passionate supporter of Israel whose advocacy for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship stretches back to his youth. Ted spent his summers at Zionist summer camp, worked as a student activist in high school and college, and served in leadership roles on several local and national Jewish organizations throughout his professional career. Today, Ted serves as Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s influential Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, where he continues to champion Israel’s security during a time of great volatility in the Middle East.”
Deutch is also a member of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. His ICCA bio announces that he plans to use this position “to continue to publicly condemn anti-Semitism.”
Deutch receives considerable funding from the pro-Israel lobby.
In March Deutch led a bipartisan letter to Trump “Urging Forceful Action on Anti-Semitism.” It demanded ‘a comprehensive, inter-agency strategy that called for the Justice Department to investigate “anti-Semitic crimes” and “ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice.”
Deutch was one of two Congresspeople who introduced the December law to apply the State Department definition to education.
The other U.S. Congressman on the steering committee of the ICCA is Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey. Smith is also a senior member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. According to the website Open Secrets, a large proportion of his campaign donations are also from pro-Israel sources.
Natan Sharansky twice testified at hearings Smith chaired. In a speech at an event honoring Smith for his work against antisemitism, Smith remembered that Sharansky had “proposed what he called a simple test to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. He called it the three Ds: Demonization, double standard, and de-legitimization.”
Spreading the New Definition Under Cover of “Anti-Racism” Movement
UK universities have seen repression of pro-Palestinian activism on an epic scale. In 2007 the UK’s National Union of Students (NUS) adopted the new antisemitism definition at its national conference, when pro-Israel students introduced a motion entitled “AntiRacism: Challenging Racism on Campus and in Our Communities.” Some student unions at various UK universities then did the same.
This was a particularly ironic name for a pro-Israel motion, given that many people around the world consider Israel’s founding ideology, political Zionism, racist. In fact, in 1975 the UN General Assembly specifically passed a resolution that “Zionism is a form of racism.”
(The resolution was revoked In 1991, but not because the world body had changed its mind. In that year President Bush was pushing for the Madrid Peace Conference, which he hoped would end the “Arab-Israeli” conflict. When Israel said it would only participate in the conference if the UN revoked the resolution, the U.S. pressured member states to do just this.)
Through the years numerous entities have affirmed that Zionism is a type of racism, including conferences in South Africa and a recent UN commission which reported that Israel was practicing apartheid. (This report was then removed by the UN Director General, after Israeli and U.S. pressure.)
The UK student actions exemplify a trend that has pervaded this movement since the beginning: Efforts to shut down pro-Palestinian activism, curtail free speech and police thought both online and off are repeatedly packaged as “anti-racism” and sometimes “anti-fascism.”
Campaign for New Definition Overcomes Hiccups
Taken together, these steps towards redefining “antisemitism” to include criticism of Israel, and then ban it, are effectively (and increasingly rapidly) producing significant results in terms of actual regulation and even law enforcement. Nevertheless, there apparently has been some resistance to the change.
In 2013, the successor organization to the European Monitoring Centre (called the European Fundamental Rights Agency) quietly dropped the working definition from its website. Without any public announcement, the definition was simply no longer on its site. When questioned about this, the agency’s director simply said that the organization had “no mandate to develop its own definitions.”
Proponents of the definition were outraged. Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center complained that the agency’s “disowning of its own definition is astounding” and that “those who fight antisemitism have lost an important weapon.” (The Wiesenthal Center is a global organization that declares it “stands with Israel” with offices in Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, Miami, Chicago, Paris, Buenos Aires, and Jerusalem.)
However, the fact that the Monitoring Centre had never officially adopted the definition, and that its successor organization now had apparently discarded it, seems to have been ignored by those who had adopted it.
The U.S. State Department continues to use the discarded version. The only difference is that the PDF that gave its Monitoring Centre origins has been removed from State’s website.
The following year, the World Jewish Congress, which represents Jewish umbrella bodies in 100 countries, called on “all countries to adopt a binding definition of anti-Semitic crimes based on the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism developed by the former European Union Monitoring Commission (EUMC) and used in a number of states’ law enforcement agencies.”
IHRA Picks Up the Ball
Other groups stepped into the vacuum and kept the definition alive. In 2016 The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted the definition.
The U.S. Brandeis Center applauded the move, saying that “because the IHRA has adopted it, the definition has now officially been given the international status that it was previously lacking.”
The Brandeis Center reported that this was the “culmination of a process initiated by Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, two years ago, with help from others including Ira Forman and Nicholas Dean of the U.S. Department of State.”
Forman was the State Department Special Anti-Semitism Envoy under Obama, reportedly led Obama’s reelection campaign in the Jewish community, had worked for Bill Clinton, and had served as Political Director and Legislative Liaison for AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying organization. Nicholas Dean had been the State Department Special Envoy for the Holocaust.
The New York Jewish Week reported that Forman and Dean “played a pivotal role in diplomatic efforts that led to the recent adoption by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance of a Working Definition of Anti-Semitism.”
“This is the first-ever formal international definition of anti-Semitism, and a potentially crucial tool for forcing governments and international agencies to confront and take action against it,” the article continued.
Pressure On State Department to Continue Extra Monitoring
Among much budget slashing proposed by President Donald Trump were cuts to the State Department that would have ended funding for the antisemitism monitoring office and special envoy (though State Department monitoring of antisemitism would continue even after the cuts).
Various organizations are lobbying to keep the office and envoy, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a U.S. organization whose mission is to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people” but which in effect seems to serve as an American extension of the most right-wing elements of Israel’s government. It has a long and infamous history of attacking critics of Israeli policy as “antisemites” and also uses an Israel-centric definition of antisemitism.
The ADL and allies pointed to a rash of bomb threats against Jewish institutions to strengthen their argument that this exceptional office must be funded. A letter with over a hundred signatories was sent to Trump demanding that he keep the dedicated State Department position, a bipartisan letter in support of retaining that special monitor was circulated in Congress, and over 100 Holocaust memorial groups and scholars urged Trump to keep the office.
As this political fight has raged, the ADL, which has a budget of over $56 million, sent out press releases to national and local media around the country reporting that antisemitic incidents have soared. The release was repeated almost verbatim in numerous national media and in individual states (as a random example, a Massachusetts headline declared: “Report: Anti-Semitism on the rise in Massachusetts.”)
However, it is impossible to know how many of the antisemitic incidents reported by the ADL were actually related to criticism of Israel, because the ADL didn’t release the data on which these results were based.
In addition, the ADL’s reported spike includes a spate of threats called in to Jewish organizations, schools and community centers that, thankfully, were hoaxes. The vast majority of threats (reportedly to over 2,000 institutions) apparently were perpetrated by an 18-year-old Jewish Israeli who reportedly suffers from medical and mental problems. (This alleged perpetrator is also accused of trying to extort a US Senator, threatening the children of a US official, and a range of other crimes.)
Another individual, an American in the U.S., apparently perpetrated eight hoax bomb threats in a bizarre campaign to get his former girlfriend in trouble.
A Jewish News Service article says the threats by the Israeli teen made up a significant percentage of the ADL’s spike and reported: “The Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) decision to count an Israeli teenager’s alleged recent bomb hoaxes as ‘anti-Semitic incidents’ is prompting criticism from some Jewish community officials.”
An ADL official admitted that the audit is an approximation, saying “the science on it is currently being written.” A regional ADL director said that “this is not a poll or a scientific study,” but rather “an effort to get a sense of ‘what’s going on in people’s hearts.’”
Regarding hard data, the report said that anti-Semitic assaults across the nation had “decreased by about 36 percent.”
The ADL blames various groups for antisemitism, pointing the finger at people of color with claims that Hispanic Americans and African Americans are “the most anti-Semitic cohorts,” at “white supremacists” and at Trump’s election — but not at the Israeli teen responsible for 2,000+ hoax threats that terrorized Jewish institutions, nor at its own distorted, Israel-connected definition.
Claims of increased antisemitism are cited repeatedly in calls for the U.S. government to maintain funding for the special State Department monitoring.
Former Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and two Democratic congressional representatives, Reps. Nita Lowey of New York and Deutch of Florida, are among those demanding that Trump appoint a new antisemitism monitor and maintain this office at full strength, even while he cuts other federal spending.
Power tweeted: “Anti-semitism is surging in world. Entire Trump admin needs to focus on it & envoy position must be kept.”
Lowey demanded: “The president must show he takes the rise of anti-Semitism seriously by immediately appointing a special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism and fully staffing the Special Envoy’s office.”
In a May 2017 speech, World Jewish Congress leader Ronald Lauder said, “Being anti-Israel is being anti-Semitic.” He announced that the congress “is creating a new communications department, or what you might call Hasborah” to counter this new “antisemitism.”
Many Jewish writers and activists dispute Lauder’s contention and oppose the campaign to conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel. An article in Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper points out that “were anti-Zionism a cover for the abuse of individual Jews, individual Jews would not join anti-Zionist groups. Yet many do. Jewish students are well represented in anti-Zionist groups like Students for Justice in Palestine.”
Rabbi Ahron Cohen of Naturei Kartei (“Guardians of the Faith”) writes that “Judaism and Zionism are incompatible and mutually exclusive.” Cohen states that antisemitism is “an illogical bigotry. Anti-Zionism, however, is a perfectly logical opposition, based on very sound reasoning, to a particular idea and aim.”
Cohen argues: “According to the Torah and Jewish faith, the present Palestinian Arab claim to rule in Palestine is right and just. The Zionist claim is wrong and criminal. Our attitude to Israel is that the whole concept is flawed and illegitimate. So anti-Zionism is certainly not anti-Semitism.”
The article, by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, begins: “For three months, Dia Mansur was certain his mother was dead. He was 15 years old when he saw her collapse in the living room of their home, felled by a bullet fired by an Israel Defense Forces soldier that sliced into her face, tearing it apart. He saw his mother lying on the floor, blood oozing from her mouth…”
Levy, citing a report by an Israeli human rights organization, writes that from September 2000 to through February 2017, “Israel killed 4,868 noncombatant Palestinian civilians, more than one-third of them (1,793) were children and adolescents below the age of 18.” (More info here.)
He continued: “Thousands of others, who were also not involved in fighting, have been wounded and permanently incapacitated.” (Photos here.)
A few weeks before that report, Ha’aretz published an article that described Israel’s month-long imprisonment of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, one of over 200 Palestinian children taken by Israeli forces in a little over three months. The boy, accused of throwing stones against Israeli soldiers, would have been released from incarceration earlier, except that his impoverished family didn’t have enough money to pay the fine.
In the article, Israeli journalist Amira Haas reported that the boy’s father said that his son “wasn’t how he used to be before he was arrested.” “He used to joke,” the father said, “and he stopped doing that. He talked a lot, and now he is silent.”
Haas wrote that UNICEF had issued a report four years ago that Israel was “extensively and systematically abusing detained Palestinian children and youth.” Today, she reported, “The stories of physical violence, threats, painful plastic handcuffs and naked body searches remain almost identical.”
Sadly, every week there are similar stories.
To the multi-billion dollar network of lobbies advocating for conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, those who work to get such information to the American people – whose government gives Israel $10 million per day – are antisemitic.
Many others of all faiths and ethnicities have a different view.
Sixteen years ago I wrote: “Equating the wrongdoing of Israel with Jewishness is the deepest and most insidious form of anti-Semitism of all.”
It is ironic that it is the Israel lobby that is today doing this equating, and that it has worked to invert the very meaning of antisemitism itself. Rather than denoting only abhorrent behavior, as it once did, today the term is often officially applied to what many consider courageous actions against oppression.
More troubling, still, these lobbying groups are working to outlaw conduct that numerous people (including many Israelis and Jewish Americans) consider morally obligatory.
It seems imperative for Americans who wish for justice and peace in the Middle East, and who oppose Orwellian distortions of language and law, to speak out against this campaign – while we can.
N.B. I deeply hope that no one will exaggerate or misrepresent the information this article reveals. The actions above were taken by specific individuals and organizations. They alone are responsible for them, not an entire religious or ethnic group, most of whom quite likely have little idea that this is occurring.
Timeline for creating new Israel-centric definition of antisemitism
Following is a timeline of some of the key events in the creation, promotion and adoption of the Israel-focused definition of antisemitism. It provides an outline, but does not include every step of the process, all the key players, or every action.
1991 – Jean Kahn is elected president of the European Jewish Congress at its plenary session in Israel. He announces an ambitious agenda, including demonstrating solidarity with Israel and European countries coordinating legislation to outlaw antisemitism.
1997 – Kahn “convinces 15 heads of state” to create the The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia to focus on “racism, xenophobia and antisemitism.”
2000 – The Monitoring Centre issues a position paper calling for the definition of antisemitic offenses to be “improved.”
2003 – Israel’s minister for diaspora affairs Natan Sharansky founds the Global Forum against Anti-Semitism, stating: “The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.”
2004 – Sharansky, who is also chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel, issues a position paper that lays out the “3-D Test of Anti-Semitism:” statements that “demonize” Israel, apply a “double standard” or “delegitimize” Israel are “antisemitic.” These will form the blueprint for new definitions adopted by lobbying organizations and finally governments.
2004 – US Congress passes law establishing special office and envoy in the State Department to monitor antisemitism that includes statements about Israel under this rubric. (Sharansky is witness at Congressional hearing.)
2004 – American Jewish Committee directors Kenneth Stern and Rabbi Andrew “ Andy” Baker work with Israeli professor Dina Porat to draft a new antisemitism definition and push the Monitoring Centre to adopt it, according to Stern. Their draft drew on Sharansky’s 3 D’s.
2005 – Monitoring Centre issues a “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism” that includes Sharansky’s 3 D’s, based on Stern et al’s draft. While standard dictionary definitions of antisemitism didn’t even mention Israel, fully half of the newly devised Monitoring Centre definition referred to Israel.
2007 – UK’s National Union of Students (NUS) adopts the new antisemitism definition focused on Israel, after pro-Israel students introduce a motion misleadingly entitled “AntiRacism: Challenging Racism on Campus and in Our Communities.” Some student unions at various UK universities then follow suit.
2008 – The first U.S. State Department Special Envoy on antisemitism, Greg Rickman, endorses the Monitoring Centre working definition in State Department report to Congress. (Rickman later went to work for AIPAC.)
2009 – The Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (CCA), which brings together parliamentarians from around the world, issues the London Declaration signed by then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others. The Declaration calls on governments to use the Monitoring Centre definition and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.” US Congressmen Ted Deutch and Chris Smith are members of the CCA’s steering committee.
2010 – Second US State Department Special Envoy on antisemitism Hanna Rosenthal officially adopts European Monitoring Centre definition; this is subsequently referred to as the State Department definition of antisemitism. Rosenthal creates course on antisemitism using this definition to train Foreign Service Officers.
2013 – Successor organization to the European Monitoring Centre (called the European Fundamental Rights Agency) quietly drops the working definition from its website. When questioned about this, the agency’s director says the organization had “no mandate to develop its own definitions.” (Groups using the definition continue to use it.)
2014 – Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, with help from Ira Forman and Nicholas Dean of the U.S. Department of State, initiates efforts for another agency to adopt and promote the working definition of antisemitism.
2015 – European Commission creates a special position to coordinate work on combating antisemitism, appointing German Katharina von Schnurbein to the post. Schnurbein proceeds to promote use of the Israel-centric definition.
2015 – Indiana University passes resolution denouncing “anti-Semitism as defined by the United States State Department and will not fund or participate in activities that promote anti-Semitism or that ‘undermine the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.’” University of California Santa Barbara and UCLA also pass such resolutions.
2016 – The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), consisting of 31 Member Countries, adopts the definition; the goal is to inspire others to also adopt “a legally binding working definition.” An analyst writes that the IHRA action is “a potentially crucial tool for forcing governments and international agencies to confront and take action.”
December 2016 – U.S. Senate passeslaw to apply the State Department’s definition of antisemitism to the Education Department, for use in investigating reports of religiously motivated campus crimes. Now the law defines actions connected to criticism of Israel as “religiously motivated.”
December 2016 – UK announces it will formally adopt the Israel-centric definition–the first country to do so besides Israel. UK Prime Minister Theresa May made the announcement during a talk before 800 guests at the Conservative Friends of Israel’s annual lunch.
December 2016 – Adoption of the definition by the 57-member Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which had been heavily lobbied by the American Jewish Committee, is blocked by Russia. The AJC then says it will push for individual member states to adopt it.
March 2017 – South Carolina House of Representatives passes legislation under which the State Department’s definition “would be used in probes of possible anti-Semitism at state colleges and universities.” The Senate version will be discussed in 2018. Similar bills are being considered in Virginia and Tennessee.
Austria adopts the definition. (The Austrian justice minister previously announced that the new definition would be used in the training of new judges and prosecutors.)
The ADL, which uses Israel-centric definition of antisemitism, announces that antisemitism has risen by 86 percent in 2017, but includes questionable statistics. News organizations throughout the U.S. report the ADL claim.
Reports that Trump administration budget cuts might cause special antisemitism envoy position to remain vacant provokes outrage among Israel lobby groups and others. Samantha Power calls for entire Trump administration to focus on antisemitism. Soon, Trump administration says it will fill post.
All 100 US Senators send a letter to UN demanding it stop its actions on Israel and connects these to antisemitism.
May 2017 –
Israel-Britain Alliance begins asking candidates for Parliament to sign a pledge that they will support the new definition.
 I’m using the newer, unhyphenated spelling of this word, which seems to be growing in popularity. I feel it is a more appropriate spelling, since the hyphenated version suggests that it refers to all Semites, which is incorrect. The word was created in 1879 specifically to refer to anti-Jewish prejudice.
 Former Israeli parliament member Shulamit Aloni explained this in a 2002 interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy now. “It’s a trick. ” she said. “We always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are ‘anti-Semitic’.
Aloni noted that the pro-Israel lobby in the United States “is strong, and has a lot of money.” She continued: “Ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong … their attitude is ‘Israel, my country right or wrong.’”
“It’s very easy,” she said, “to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as ‘anti-Semitic’ and use that claim to justify everything Israel does to the Palestinians.”
Examples abound of critics of Israel silenced in this way. One telling story is that of once-famous journalist Dorothy Thompson, who was virtually erased from history after writing about the Palestinian cause. Read about her here and here.
 Dictionaries all agreed on this meaning, with one exception that caused considerable outrage. This was Merriam-Webster’s mammoth unabridged dictionary, which included a second meaning: “opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel.”
When some people discovered this extra, Israel-related meaning in 2004 and raised objections to it, there was a general outcry that the additional meaning was inaccurate and should be removed, including by New York Times columnist and linguistics arbiter Jeffrey Nunberg, who wrote that it “couldn’t be defended.”
Merriam-Webster responded by saying that the extra meaning would “probably be dropped when the company published a new unabridged version in a decade or so.” The company hasn’t published a new version yet, but it seems to have followed through with this decision. The online version of the unabridged dictionary, which says it is updated with the latest words and meanings, makes no mention of Israel or Zionism.
 An increasingly common Israeli talking point is the claim that it’s antisemitic to deny the Jewish people their “right to self-determination.” This is disingenuous: Self-determination is the right of people on a land to determine their own political status, not the right of some people to expel others in order to form an exclusive state on confiscated land. In reality, the principle of self-determination would have had the Muslim, Christian and Jewish residents of historic Palestine forming a government for all of them, and today would give Palestinians living under Israeli occupation the freedom to determine their own destiny.
 The other witnesses were representatives of the Orthodox Union of Jewish Congregations, American Jewish Committee, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, Anti-Defamation League, National Conference for Soviet Jewry, B’nai B’rith International, World Jewish Congress, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Shai Franklin, and Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP.
 An organization called Students Supporting Israel (SSI) takes credit for most of these initiatives. Created in 2012 at the University of Minnesota by Israeli Ilan Sinelnikov and his sister, Valeria Chazin, SSI now has chapters on over 40 college campuses around the U.S., at least three high schools, and some campuses in Canada. In 2015 Israel’s Midwest Consulate chose SSI to receive the award for “Outstanding Pro Israel Activism.” Campus Hillels are also frequently involved.
 The AJC’s Andy Baker reported: “It is part of police-training materials in the UK.”
 An antifa group in France, for example, reportedly shut down a talk by an anti-Zionist intellectual.
 A number of analysts have also suggested that some antisemitism may at times be an (inappropriate) response to Israeli violence and oppression of Palestinians. Yale Chaplain Bruce Shipman pointed out in a letter to the New York Times that an earlier period of reported rising antisemitism in Europe paralleled “the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank.” Israel partisans were outraged and Shipman was soon required to resign.
Pope Francis, who leads the Roman Catholic church, is loved by most, including many public figures. Some consider him the “people’s Pope” because of his obvious loose adherence to the Word of God, changing the rules as he goes to be a more inclusive Pope. The problem with this is that no man has rights to change the written Word of God, not even the self-proclaimed “Vicar of Christ”, who in reality, is anything but…
Many have wondered why he failed to preach the Gospel during his visit to the US back in Sept. 2015, when he had the attention of millions. The answer is actually pretty simple- he has another agenda, one that is very dark and is leading millions down the path to destruction.
I ask that you watch this video with an open mind, putting any preconceived opinions about Pope Francis aside and examine the facts, most of which are in his own words. In short, he is pushing for the One World Religion that scripture warns us of…
We are living in the End Times, the signs are everywhere, Bible prophecy is being fulfilled every day. If you make the decision to be saved, it will be the best decision you have ever made. You can start with the “Sinner’s Prayer”:
“Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.”
‘Deceitful propaganda’ – Emmanuel Macron on RT and Sputnik
Newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron explained his team’s decision to deny RT and Sputnik, both Moscow-based news outlets, accreditation during his campaign, by labeling the media outlets as “propaganda.”
Believing the Russian ‘Hacking’ Claim
May 26, 2017
Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian “hacking” claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the “fact” is just assumed, as David Swanson explains.
By David Swanson
When the U.S. public was told that Spain had blown up the Maine, or Vietnam had returned fire, or Iraq had stockpiled weapons, or Libya was planning a massacre, the claims were straightforward and disprovable.
CIA Director John Brennan addresses officials at the Agency’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia. (Photo credit: CIA)
Before people began referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, somebody had to lie that it had happened, and there had to be an understanding of what had supposedly happened. No investigation into whether anything had happened could have taken as its starting point the certainty that a Vietnamese attack or attacks had happened. And no investigation into whether a Vietnamese attack had happened could have focused its efforts on unrelated matters, such as whether anyone in Vietnam had ever done business with any relatives or colleagues of Robert McNamara.
All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. U.S. corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the case.
There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact to the . . .
“Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election” (Yahoo).
“Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking” we’re told by the New York Times, but what is “election hacking”? Its definition seems to vary widely. And what evidence is there of Russia having done it?
The “Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections” even exists as a factual event in Wikipedia, not as an allegation or a theory. But the factual nature of it is not so much asserted as brushed aside.
Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the principled stand “I don’t do evidence,” testified that “the fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to act to prevent further instances of that.” He provided no evidence.
Activists have even planned “demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election.” They declare that “every day we learn more about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election.” (March for Truth.)
Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is steadily rising in the U.S. public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact.
Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the “Russian influence on the election” is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It’s as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi.
A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed. There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both claims have passionate believers.
Still, the claims about Russia are unique in their wide proliferation, broad acceptance, and status as something to be constantly referred to as though already established, constantly augmented by other Russia-related stories that add nothing to the central claim. This phenomenon, in my view, is as dangerous as any lies and fabrications coming out of the racist right.
Robert Fisk put it best: “Trump Is About To Really Mess Up In The Middle East”. Following his fantastically stupid decision to attack the Syrian military with cruise missiles, Trump or, should I say, the people who make decisions for him, probably realized that it was “game over” for any US policy in the Middle-East so they did the only thing that they could do: they ran towards those few who were actually happy with this aggression against Syria: the Saudis and the Israelis. Needless to say, with these two “allies,” what currently passes for some type of “US foreign policy” in the Middle-East will only go from bad to worse.
There are many ways in which Saudi Arabia and Israel are truly unique: they are both prime sponsors of terrorism, they are both nations deeply steeped in ideologies which can only be described as uncivilized (Wahabism and Jewish supremacism) and they both are armed to the teeth. But they also have one other thing in common: in spite, or maybe because of, their immense military budgets, these two nations are also militarily very weak. Oh sure, they have lots of fancy military hardware and they like to throw their weight around and beat up some defenseless “enemy”, but once you set aside all the propaganda you realize that the Saudis can’t even deal with the Houtis in Yemen while the Israelis got comprehensively defeated by 2nd rank Hezbollah forces in 2006 (the top of the line Hezbollah forces were concentrated along the Litani river and never saw direct combat): the entire Golani Brigade could not even take Bint Jbeil under control even though that small town was only 1.5 miles away from the Israeli border.
This is also the reason why the Saudis and the Israelis try to limit themselves to airstrikes: because on the ground they simply suck. Here again the similarity is striking: the Saudis have become “experts” at terrorizing defenseless Shia (in the KSA or in Bahrain) while the Israelis are the experts on how to terrorize Palestinian civilians.
— § —
With Trump now officially joining this ugly alliance, the US will contribute the military “expertise” of a country which can’t even take Mosul, mostly because its forces are hiding, literally, behind the backs of Kurdish and Arab Iraqis. To think that these three want to take on Hezbollah, Iran and Russia would be almost comical if it wasn’t for the kind of appalling bloodshed that this will produce.
Alas, just look at what the Saudis are doing to Yemen, what the Israelis did to Gaza or Lebanon or what the US did to Iraq and you will immediately get a sense of what the formation of this nefarious alliance will mean for the people of Syria and the rest of the region. The record shows that a military does not need to be skilled at real warfare to be skilled at murdering people: even though the US occupation of Iraq was, in military terms, a total disaster, it did result in almost one and a half million dead people.
What is also clear is who the main target of this evil alliance will be: Iran, the only real democracy in the Middle-East. The pretext? Why – weapons of mass destruction, of course: the (non-existing) chemical weapons of the Syrians and the (non-existing) nuclear weapons of the Iranians.
In Trump’s own words: “No civilized nation can tolerate the massacre of innocents with chemical weapons” and “The United States is firmly committed to keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and halting their support of terrorists and militias that are causing so much suffering and chaos throughout the Middle East”.
Nothing new here.
As for how this evil alliance will fight when it does not have any boots worth putting on the ground? Here, again, the solution as simple as it is old: to use the ISIS/al-Qaeda takfiri crazies as cannon fodder for the US, Israel and the KSA. This is just a re-heated version of the “brilliant” Brzezinski plan on how to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Back to the future indeed. And should the “good terrorists” win, by some kind of miracle, in Syria, then turn them loose against against Hezbollah in Lebanon and against the Shias in Iraq and Iran. Who knows, with some (a lot) of luck, the Empire might even be able to re-kindle the “Caucasus Emirate” somewhere on the southern borders of Russia, right?
For one thing, the locals are not impressed. Here is what the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, had to say about this: “The Israelis are betting on Isis and all this takfiri project in the region… but in any case they know, the Israelis, the Americans, and all those who use the takfiris, that this is a project without any future. I tell you, and I also reassure everyone through this interview: This project has no future.”
He is right, of course. And the newly re-elected President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, openly says that the Americans are clueless: “The problem is that the Americans do not know our region and those who advise US officials are misleading them.”
It is pretty clear who these ‘advisors’ are: the Saudis and the Israelis. Their intentions are also clear: to get the Americans to do their dirty work for them while remaining as far back as possible. You could say that the Saudis and Israelis are trying to get the Americans to do for them what the Americans are trying to get the Kurds to do for them in Iraq: be their cannon fodder. The big difference is that the Kurds at least clearly understand what is going on whereas the Americans are, indeed, clueless.
Many fully understand what is happening. A good example of this acute awareness is what b had to say on Moon of Alabama after reading the transcript of the press briefing of Secretary of Defense Mattis, General Dunford and Special Envoy McGurk on the Campaign to Defeat ISIS:
My first thought after reading its was: “These people live in a different world. They have no idea how the real word works on the ground. What real people think, say, and are likely to do.” There was no strategic thought visible. Presented were only some misguided tactical ideas.
A senior British reporter, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, the President of Iran and a US blogger all seem to agree on one thing: there is no real US “policy” at work here, what we are seeing is a dangerous exercise in pretend-strategy which cannot result in anything but chaos and defeat.
So why is the Trump administration plowing ahead with this nonsense?
In response to this onslaught, all that Trump initially could come up with was to sacrifice his closest allies and friends (Flynn, Bannon) in the vain hope that this would appease the Neocons. Then he began to mindlessly endorse their “policies”. Predictably this has not worked either. Then Trump even tried floating the idea of having Joe Lieberman for FBI director before getting ‘cold feet’ and changing his position yet again. And all the while while Trump is desperately trying to appease them, the Neocons are doubling-down, doubling-down again and then doubling-down some more. It is pretty clear by now that Trump does not have what it takes in terms of allies or even personal courage to tackle the swamp he promised to drain.
As a result what we are seeing now looks like a repeat of the last couple of years of the Obama administration: a total lack of vision or even a general policy, chaos in the Executive Branch and a foreign policy characterized by a multiple personality disorder which see the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, the CIA and the White House all pursuing completely different policies in pursuit of completely different goals. In turn, each of these actors engages in what (they think) they do best: the Pentagon bombs, the State Department pretends to negotiate, the CIA engages in more or less covert operation in support of more or less “good terrorists” while the White House focuses its efforts on trying to make the President look good or, at least, in control of something.
Truth be told, Trump has nothing at all to show so far.
Russia: according to rumors spread by the US, former corporate executive Rex Tillerson was supposed to go to Moscow to deliver some kind of ultimatum. Thank God that did not happen. Instead Tillerson spent several hours talking to Lavrov and then a couple more talking to Putin. More recently, Lavrov was received by Tillerson in the US and, following that meeting, he also met with Trump. Following all these meetings no tangible results were announced. What does that mean? Does that mean that nothing was achieved?
Not at all, what was achieved is that the Russians clearly conveyed to the Americans two basic thing: first, that there were not impressed by their sabre-rattling and, second, that as long as the US was acting as a brain-dead elephant in a porcelain store there was no point for the Russians to work with the US.
To his credit, Trump apparently backed down and even tried to make a few conciliatory statements. Needless to say, the US Ziomedia crucified him for being “too friendly” with The Enemy. The outcome now is, of course, better than war with Russia, but neither is it some major breakthrough as Trump had promised (and, I believe, sincerely hoped for) during his campaign.
DPRK/PRC: what had to happen did, of course happen: all the sabre-rattling with three aircraft carriers strike groups ended up being a gigantic flop as neither the North Koreans nor the Chinese were very impressed. If anything, this big display of Cold War era hardware was correctly interpreted not as a sign of strength, but a sign of weakness. Trump wasted a lot of money and a lot of time, but he has absolutely nothing to show for it. The DPRK tested yet another intermediate range missile yesterday. Successfully, they say.
The Ukraine: apparently Trump simply does not care about the Ukraine and, frankly, I can’t blame him. Right now the situation there is so bad that no outside power can meaningfully influence the events there any more. I would argue that in this case, considering the objective circumstances, Trump did the right thing when he essentially “passed the baby” to Merkel and the EU: let them try to sort out this bloody mess as it is primarily their problem. Karma, you know.
So, all in all, Trump has nothing to show in the foreign policy realm.
He made a lot of loud statements, followed by many threats, but at the end of the day somebody apparently told him “we can’t do that, Mr President” (and thank God for that anonymous hero!). Once this reality began to sink in all which was left is to create an illusion of foreign policy, a make-believe reality in which the US is still a superpower which can determine the outcome of any conflict.
Considering that the AngloZionist Empire is, first and foremost, what Chris Hedges calls an “Empire of Illusions” it only makes sense for its President to focus on creating spectacles and photo opportunities. Alas, the White House is so clueless that it manages to commit major blunders even when trying to ingratiate itself with a close ally. We saw that during the recent Trump trip to Saudi Arabia when both Melania and Ivanka Trump refused to cover their heads while in Riyadh but did so when they visited the Pope in the Vatican. As the French say, this was “worse than a crime, it was a blunder” which speaks a million words about the contempt in which the American elites hold the Muslim world.
There is another sign that the US is really scraping the bottom of the barrel: Rex Tillerson has now declared that “NATO should formally join the anti-Daesh coalition”. In military terms, NATO is worse than useless for the US: the Americans are much better off fighting by themselves than involving a large number of “pretend armies” who could barely protect themselves in a real battlefield. Oh sure, you can probably scrape a halfway decent battalion here, maybe even a regiment there, but all in all NATO forces are useless, especially for ground operations. They, just like the Saudis and Israelis, prefer to strike from the air, preferably protected by USAF AWACs, and never to get involved in the kind of ugly infantry fighting which is taking place in Syria. For all their very real faults and problems, at least the Americans do have a number of truly combat capable units, such as the Marines and some Army units, which are experienced and capable of giving the Takfiris a run for their money. But the Europeans? Forget it!
It is really pathetic to observe the desperate efforts of the Trump Administration to create some kind of halfway credible anti-Daesh coalition while strenuously avoiding to look at the simple fact that the only parties which can field a large number of combat capable units to fight Daesh are the Iranians, Hezbollah and, potentially, the Russians. This is why Iranian President Rouhani recently declared that
“Who fought against the terrorists? It was Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Russia. But who funded the terrorists? Those who fund terrorists cannot claim they are fighting against them” and “Who can say regional stability can be restored without Iran? Who can say the region will experience total stability without Iran?”
In truth, even the Turks and the Kurds don’t really have what it would take to defeat Daesh in Syria. But the worst mistake of the US generals is that they are still pretending as if a large and experienced infantry force like Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc could be defeated without a major ground offensive. That won’t happen.
So Trump can dance with the Wahabis and stand in prayer at the wailing wall, but all his efforts to determine the outcome of the war in Syria are bound to fail: far from being a superpower, the US has basically become irrelevant, especially in the Middle East. This is why Russia, Iran and Turkey are now attempting to create a trilateral “US free” framework to try to change the conditions on the ground. The very best the US are still capable of is to sabotage those efforts and needlessly prolong the carnage in Syria and Iraq. That is both pathetic and deeply immoral.
— § —
When I saw Trump dancing with his Saudi pals I immediately thought of the movies “Dances with Wolves” and “Titanic”. Empires often end in violence and chaos, but Trump has apparently decided to add a good measure of ridicule to the mix. The tragedy is that neither the United States nor the rest of the planet can afford that kind of ridicule right now, especially not the kind of ridicule which can very rapidly escalate in an orgy of violence.
With the European politicians paralyzed in a state subservient stupor to the Rothschild gang, Latin America ravaged by (mostly US-instigated) crises and the rest of the planet trying to stay clear from the stumbling ex-superpower, the burden to try to contain this slow-motion train wreck falls upon Russia and China.
As for Trump, he made a short speech before NATO leaders today. He spoke about the “threats from Russia and on NATO’s eastern and southern borders”.
“What we’ve been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It’s a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we’re effectively accepting their version of reality.” ~ Vanessa Beeley
The only thing keeping westerners from seeing through the lies that they’ve been told about Syria is the unquestioned assumption that their own government could not possibly be that evil. They have no trouble believing that a foreigner from a Muslim-majority country could be gratuitously using chemical weapons on children at the most strategically disastrous time possible and bombing his own civilians for no discernible reason, but the possibility that their government is making those things up in order to manufacture consent for regime change is ruled out before any critical analysis of the situation even begins.
Despite the evil and unforgivable invasion of Iraq having happened a mere fourteen years ago, sold to the public based on nothing but lies and mass media propaganda, mainstream America is unwilling to consider the possibility that this is happening again. Unwilling to turn and face the implications of what this would mean for their worldview, their self-image, and the entire system they’ve developed for examining and interpreting their experience of their lives up until this point.
Independent investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley has emerged from her latest trip to Syria burning with a new kind of fire. There’s something in her voice and the posture she now takes which conveys a new kind of authority, a sense that she has now seen enough and gathered enough evidence to observe unmasked the full picture of this monster of deceit she’s been fighting.
In her recent phenomenal interview on The Sane Progressive, Beeley shreds the entire work of fiction we’re being fed, from small details which show that the “White Helmets” are literally nothing other than Al-Qaeda members wearing special hats, to a breakdown of the way NGOs are used by government foundations and plutocrats to help construct propaganda narratives, all the way up to a big-picture analysis of the general unwholesome dynamic that gave rise to these despicable manipulations in the first place.
If you can set aside one hour of free time in the next few days, please give it to this important interview. If you have more time, watch it again, take notes, pause frequently, and research what she’s saying. You’ll never find such a densely-packed arsenal of weaponry for use in our media war against America’s unelected power establishment.
Beeley’s statements about the White Helmets (who, despite their ubiquitous image in the west, nobody in East Aleppo had even heard of during her time there last year) have now been backed by none other than award-winning journalist John Pilger, who called them “a complete propaganda construct” in a recent interview.
I have lost all patience with people who involve themselves in the conversation about the current Syrian administration by acknowledging the existence of western lies and propaganda about Syria and yet still maintaining that Assad is an evil dictator who needs to be deposed somehow.
This is an astonishingly common perspective in online discourse about Syria even among people who are relatively woke to what’s going on; they see it as the more moderate and well-reasoned position to simultaneously acknowledge that the US power establishment is known to use lies, propaganda and false flags to manufacture public consent for devastating acts of military violence, and also that Assad is horrible and evil.
There’s this odd, unquestioned assumption that the most honest position to espouse when two narratives contradict each other is to stand right in between them. This is a logic fail; it is a result of bad thinking. The midway point between two positions is not always the most truthful ground; when slavery was being debated, the correct position between “slavery is great” and “slavery is evil” was not “slavery is okay sometimes”. The correct position between “kill all Jews” and “don’t kill any Jews” is not “kill some of the Jews”. The correct position between “Our leaders are lying to us about Syria to manufacture consent for a regime change invasion” and “Assad is an evil dictator who needs to be deposed” is not “Well they’re both kinda true, it’s complicated.”
In reality, we cannot know with any degree of certainty how good or bad a leader Assad is. There’s too much smoke in the air, too much propaganda and deliberate deceit clouding our vision to get a clear picture of the complete political dynamic of an entire government. No reasonable, clear-thinking person can justifiably say with any degree of confidence that Assad is an evil dictator. There is no way to know.
What we can know with absolute certainty is that we are being lied to about Syria by western governments and the mass media propaganda machines which promote their oligarchic agendas. The mountains of evidence that are coming out against the White Helmets, the fact that Amnesty International is the same organization that promoted the false Nayirah testimony which was used to manufacture consent for the Gulf War, the fact that CNN recently staged a fake interview featuring a seven year-old girl who can’t speak English reading scripted anti-Assad propaganda to an unsuspecting audience; there is enough there to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the same power establishment that lied to us about Iraq is now lying to us about its neighbor Syria.
The only question is whether or not you have the emotional and intellectual integrity to face this reality.
We can also know that Assad is neither stupid nor insane. If you haven’t seen the interview he gave last month, check out the above video in which he tells his side of the story in perfect English. This is not the slobbering madman we’re asked to believe launched a sarin gas attack on his own civilians for no reason at the most inopportune time possible. Nor is he the strategic brute who gasses children to keep his citizenry fearing that there’s no limit to the savagery he’ll inflict upon them as in the narrative being promulgated by corporate media, since he tells them that he’d ever do such a thing in the interview.
It is possible that he is corrupt, it is possible that he has been needlessly oppressive in some ways; there’s no way to know in the current environment. But he is definitely neither stupid nor insane, as he would have needed to have been to have launched the Idlib gas attacks when he is alleged to have.
As the interviewer Debbie Lusignan said to Beeley
“Even if people are having a hard time because there is such a bombardment of disinformation and it’s very hard to sort it out and the alternative media is being suppressed and censored, basic common sense says that these are the same media outlets and the same political establishment structures that have been lying to us for all these other atrocities that we always find out after the fact were based on disinformation and manipulation and false information,” said Debbie. “So at this point, the American people themselves need to take some responsibility in terms of understanding that we have had such a history of this being the status quo, the way that the United States justifies and launches wars.”
“Our premise should be — they’re going to lie to us. And our burden of real proof should be through the roof.”
Is it possible that there is a power establishment governing your country which is so evil that it would engineer the deaths of children in a false flag attack to manufacture consent for a strategically valuable regime change it’s been seeking for decades? It’s uncomfortable to consider this possibility.
Much easier to believe there’s a depraved nutcase foreigner hurling chemical weapons and barrel bombs at civilians willy nilly who needs to be taken out by Good Guys. Much more difficult to do the rigorous intellectual and emotional work needed to escape from the institutional brainwashing Vanessa Beeley describes in her article “Gaslighting: State Mind Control and Abusive Narcissism” and do the necessary research to get a clear picture of what is going on. But you undeniably have the ability to make that choice, here and now as you finish this article.
Are you the sort of person who can face uncomfortable truths and revise their worldview accordingly, or the type who compartmentalizes and avoids them for the sake of cognitive comfort?
Step into the light.
LINKS & MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE WHITE HELMETS:
Arab NATO reserve force to fight terrorism is myth and propaganda
Trump playing his reality TV host role as president and the great coalition builder
[ Editor’s Note: Peter Ford is out in front once again debunking mass media fake geopolitical news, which the airheads in Saudi Arabia have taken the lead on with their paper Arab NATO. To attempt something like this – after its Arab Yemen coalition was dead on arrival after it was announced – shows they are lost in space.
Because Egypt had the large and professional army, it was slotted to take the lead with the Yemen effort, but Sisi played the Saudi game – he agreed to be involved and then did nothing. He knew that sending his troops to fight the poor Yemeni people would create bad morale inside the army, plus he wanted it focused on fighting the al-Qaeda problem in the Sinai.
But Ford makes a good point, which Western media and governments will not touch, that the Saudi Army, despite the huge funding and professionally trained manpower, is really a fake one, as no one really intends to fight.
When government workers typically would only work an hour a day, relying on the army of contract immigrant slave workers to do 95% of the work, why would they expect the military people to chose to be slaves when they could pretend to be soldiers and collect their paychecks like everyone else?
But the fake Saudis and the fake Trump were a match make in heaven, because as strange as it seems, they are cut from similar cloth. Both have schemed and exploited their way to the top, and are experts at survival, where one of their talents is diverting attention from their sordid pasts onto someone else.
Iran seems to have been agreed upon as the new retread bogeyman when the prior attempts failed, even when totally exposed as a hoax with the P5+1 agreement, and although the Israelis could not produce a shred of proof that Iran had a secret nuke program. This new attempt is so idiotic as to be beyond comprehension, until you look at who is behind it.
While we are seeing a big ramping up of this charge of Iran being the biggest state-sponsor of terrorism in the region, neither the Saudis nor Trump feel it necessary to present us with a white paper on the details, so we can compare it to the white papers we already have on the US’ and Saudi’s long history of using proxy terrorism. You just can’t make this stuff up… Jim W. Dean ]
This includes research, needed field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving, and more – Thanks for helping out
– First published … May 23, 2017 –
The Saudis and the Emiratis would never dare put their troops onto a battlefield in Syria or Iraq for fear the troops would mutiny and join ISIS, says Peter Ford, the former UK ambassador to Syria and Bahrain.
US President Donald Trump on Sunday addressed leaders of 55 Muslim-majority countries who gathered for the Arab-Islamic American Summit in Saudi Arabia’s capital Riyadh.
Washington and Middle East countries signed a new pact that promises to provide extra troops to fight terrorists. The so-called Riyadh declaration says leaders of those Islamic countries are ready to provide a reserve force of 34,000 troops when needed.
RT asked analysts where this “reserve force” of 34,000 troops will be used? Peter Ford said he thinks “it’s a myth.” In his opinion, the Saudis and Emiratis “cannot count on the loyalty of their own troops.”
“It is a symbolic gesture so Trump can look good in the eyes of the American and the wider Western media. Let’s be realistic here: this whole visit was not about advancing the fight against terrorism, or advancing Middle East peace – it was about Trump trying to recover some prestige after his battering back home in Washington. So these symbolic gestures and these pictures of him doing Saudi dancing in Riyadh,” Ford said.
This entire Saudi trip “was designed to restore Trump’s image,” the former ambassador added. “If he were serious, then in his big speech yesterday we would have heard some acknowledgment of the two countries, which are doing most to resist ISIS. That is the government of Iraq and the government of Syria.
But Trump did not make any acknowledgment whatsoever of these countries, and he also tried to portray Iran, as the biggest threat in terms of terrorism, while this is a blatant distortion that has not been one single instance that Trump could point to of Iranian-inspired terrorism in the West,” he said.
Independent journalists Rania Khalek said it was specifically said this “reserve force” would be used in Iraq and Syria. She says it is interesting because many of the countries at the gathering on Sunday, “especially Saudi Arabia, have been investing a lot of money in extremist groups operating in Iraq and Syria.”
So, she added, “they are actually responsible for the extremism problem that they are now being tasked with combating.”
Khalek also did not rule out a possibility that this force could be the basis for some kind of an action against Iran, which was not only excluded but also repeatedly bashed at this summit.
“This entire summit was based on not just selling weapons, but on also isolating Iran. When you have a summit based on American-Arab-Islamic understanding, and you exclude Iran, which is a state that’s majority Shia. And you have an audience full of the Sunni leaders from Arab countries, it sends a message. So it is about isolating Iran, as well as it has been sending a message to Iran that ‘we’re all against you’,” she told RT.
Understanding the Polish Obsession with Salomon Morel
When Poland needs to blame its Jews for something, inevitably we hear about the case of Shlomo Morel, who the Polish people call Salomon Morel. Mr. Morel has been accused of war crimes by Poland. This brief article will attempt to refute the claims and outline the facts of the case. As far as I know, it is the only such document to do so in the English language. I doubt anything positive about Morel has been written in the Polish language.
A Life of Loss
Mr. Morel was born in Garbow, northwest of Lublin, in 1919 and studied Torah and Talmud as a youngster. His father baked bread and the family lived in Garbow’s one brick house. Shlomo grew up a happy-go-lucky, playful boy who still put on his tefillin and said his ‘Baruch ata’s.
He was 20 when the Germans invaded Garbow. Local Polish thugs picked up his father, mother, and one brother in Christmas week, 1942, as Shlomo watched from the top of a haystack. “Where are your other sons?” said the Poles, but Shlomo’s mother wouldn’t say, and local Polish people punished her by shooting the father, then the brother, and finally her.
Surviving Against All Odds
That night Shlomo and another brother, Yitzchak Morel, hid in a mausoleum. In March of 1943, they joined the Jewish partisans. Young Yitzchak Morel was on a partisan tank — a horse-drawn sleigh — when some Poles jumped on and killed him. Despite these tragic losses, Shlomo Morel went through the war loving laughter and telling the Yiddish jokes he had heard growing up in Garbow. He always had his mandolin with him, strapped on his shoulder when he walked, its fingerboard in his fist overhead. In his other fist was his Mauser shotgun, without which any Jew in the forests of Poland would be susceptible to death from the enemy Nazis or anti-Jewish Polish locales.
In March of 1944, his partisan unit, which was led by Shmuel Jegier and, after Jegier was murdered, Frank Blaichman and Samuel Gruber, waded across the Wieprz River in March, 1944 to join the Grynszpan partisan unit. These units, of which Morel was an important part, were among the most successful in all of Europe. A remarkable number of Jewish partisans survived in the forests near Parczew, Poland, among them the young Morel. More than just survive, they were involved in cutting phone poles between Lublin and Wlodawa, attacking police headquarters and government posts in Kaplonosy and Parczew, blowing up troop and ammunition trains, hijacking German supply trucks, and killing Germans and collaborators whenever possible.
Assigned to Duty
Morel had lost his entire family, but survived the war. On his liberation, he was assigned to the Office of State Security and the camp commandant’s post at Schwientochlowice near Katowice. During the war, the location had been the site of the Zgoda Labor Camp. After the war it became a detention camp for Germans complicit in murdering Jews. Suddenly the tables were turned, and a Jew was in charge of the Germans.
What facts can be established about the camp at Schwientochlowice? There were three categories of people sent to this detention center: a – The majority of the internees at the Schwientochlowice camp were placed there under the terms of the decree of the Polish National Liberation Committee (PKWN) of Nov. 4, 1944 “on security measures vis-a-vis traitors to the Nation” of Poland; b – The remaining prisoners were interned in the camp on the basis of the “August decree” of Aug. 31, 1944 on “Fascist-Nazi criminals and traitors to the Polish Nation” and c – the law of May 6, 1945 on the exclusion of hostile elements from Polish society (1). In February of 1945, Aleksy Krut was put in charge of the camp, and Morel was appointed head of the camp in May of 1945. At this time Morel was just 26 years old and says by his own admission he had neither training nor experience in administering a prison (2).
Out of the several thousands of prisoners, only a handful were subsequently brought to justice. Documents were found indicating that several former prisoners at Schwientochlowice were convicted of crimes connected with the German occupation. One of them, a resident of Bielsko from group II on the Volksliste, received four years in prison for tormenting the Polish population during the war. Other prisoners included members of the Nazi party, including dozens from Prudnik and Glubczyce who attained the rank of Ortsgruppenleiter, or Local Group Leader (3).
The prisoners of the Schwientochlowitz camp worked in nearby factories. On August 1, 1945, there were 5,048 prisoners in the camp. Typhus spread in the prison like a wildfire. Thirty percent of the prison was wiped out by the typhus epidemic, or roughly 1,500 persons, between late July and September of 1945 (4).
Accusations and Allegations
Morel is accused of outrageous crimes against humanity for these 1,500 deaths. According to the book “Genocides by the Oppressed” by Nicholas A. Robins and Adam Jones, Morel “presided over a murderous regime founded on assaults and atrocities against German captives”. They continue: “They got Germans to beat each other, they raped German women, and trained their dogs to bite off men’s genitals at the command of ‘Sic’.” Authors Robins and Jones never mention the typhus epidemic at the Schwientochlowice detention camp. Nor do they note the fact that the Germans being detained in the camp were themselves mostly murderers and tyrants themselves.
Much of the criticism of Morel comes from the book “Eye for an Eye”, written by a Jewish man, John Sack. The main theme of the book is that Jews ran internment camps for Germans in postwar Poland. Sack’s book has largely remained off of book shelves because it is slanderous and has little truth to it. In 1995, Germany outlawed the book, calling it “anti-Semitic fodder”.
In truth, most Holocaust survivors went directly to Displaced Persons Camps throughout Europe, and sought emigration out of Europe. The idea that Jews were murderers either during or after the Holocaust in Europe is preposterous.
Poland Versus an Aging Holocaust Survivor
John Sack makes specific assertions about Shlomo Morel that simply cannot be proven. The testimonies against Morel were never enough to bring him back to Poland for trial, and given Poland’s historical anti-Semitism, it’s difficult to say whether those who were imprisoned could be reliable and unbiased witnesses. Having studied Poland during the Holocaust period and since, my best answer is: No, these witnesses could not be either reliable or unbiased.
Coincidentally, Sack’s book also contains a transcript of evidence that Morel was himself not guilty of any crimes whatsoever. In 1989, Morel was interviewed by a prosecutor in Poland, Piotr Brys, about his role in the Schwientochlowitz camp.
“Good day,” Brys began. “I’m going to interrogate you in the case concerning the camp at Swietochlowice. You can be prosecuted for perjury on the basis of Article 172 of the Penal Code, but you have the right not to answer me on the basis of Article 166, Paragraph 1.”
“All right,” said Shlomo calmly.
“Did you work at Swietochlowice?” said Brys.
“Yes. I was the commandant there.”
“You were the commandant starting when?”
“The first days of February, 1945.”
“As commandant what did you do?”
“I commanded that camp.
“Some people died at Swietochlowice. What of?”
“Typhus,” said Shlomo.
“And where were they buried?”
“At the cemetery in Swietochlowice.”
Was there a torture cell at Swietochlowice?”
“No, not that I know of,” Shlomo said.
A few weeks later Brys again met with Morel, and brought a supposed “victim” of the camp, a woman named Dorota Boreczek, who was Polish and age 15 in 1945. The camp was supposed to be for Germans.
She accused Shlomo of war crimes and was brought to identify him. When asked if she recognized the man in front of her, Mr. Morel, she replied to Brys that she did not recognize the man in front of her. When told who he was, she said to him, “You did the same thing the Fascists did!”
“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” said Shlomo.
“Well, that’s what the Fascists say,” Dorota continued. “They don’t know what we’re talking about, about Auschwitz. You murdered people,” Dorota explained, getting louder. “Why did you do it? Why?”
“You’re lying,” said Shlomo.
Near him was Brys, who was listening carefully, and Shlomo stayed as serene as a Buddha, “The prisoners at Swietochlowice loved me. A guard even married me.” Shlomo married a Catholic Polish woman (5).
A few days later Mr. Morel came back with a four-page answer. He said that the prisoners at Swietochlowice were always treated well. He said that the guards didn’t shoot except on May 7, 1945, to celebrate the Allies’ victory over the Germans. He said “I recall with pity” that prisoners had died of typhus, but it said that these prisoners had brought the typhus to Swietochlowice.
The author John Sack, who was obsessed with this story prior to his death, even met with Morel. At his kitchen table, Sack accused Morel of committing crimes against humanity. Morel firmly denied the accusations.
So, there you have it. It is one person’s word against another person’s word. An old Jewish man whose family was murdered was being harassed by the Polish government — the only government in Europe where Jews have never received any restitution for crimes against them or confiscated property during the Holocaust.
Thus, Morel made a decision many people would have made: He left Poland and emigrated to Israel in January, 1992. At age 72 Mr. Morel was unemployed and his pension from Poland couldn’t be transferred to him in Israel. He was forced to do what many Jews have been forced to do for centuries: Start from scratch in a new country.
One of the Polish prosectors, Marek Grodzki, as well as the head of the German community in Katowice, Dietmar Brehmer, concluded that there was no evidence against Mr. Morel.
Despite this, a different prosecutor, Jerzy Rucinski, blamed Morel for the deaths of 1,583 people and Mr. Morel was indicted in May, 1995 for crimes against the Polish nation.
There is a tremendous lack of evidence that Morel was ever involved in such crimes, and the fact that there was a widespread typhus epidemic has been established, and is even verified by anti-Morel crusader John Sack himself.
In short, the case against Morel is very weak. It amounts to one person’s word against another person’s word, and would certainly fail in any court of law in the United States.
Mr. Morel was in Israel at the time, and stayed there until he passed away on February 14, 2007. He was never was extradited to Poland because Israel said the statute of limitations had expired on the war crimes.
Now, however, when a Polish person wants to highlight how evil we Jews are, they inevitably turn to the case of Mr. Morel, despite the fact that there is no substantive evidence that Morel did anything wrong.
Polish anti-Semites need an excuse to blame Jews for crimes against Poland. In Morel’s case they found an old and defenseless Jewish man who was easy to brand as a symbol of how evil Jews are to some people in Poland. A sad case indeed.
(1) Article 1 of this decree stated that “A Polish citizen who, during the German occupation, declared his allegiance to German nationality on the territory of the so-called General Government and voivodship of BiaÅ‚ystok … shall be subject to … detention for an unspecified period in a detention centre (camp) and compulsory work”, Dz.U [Official Journal] no. 11/44, item 54.
(2) Letter from Salomon Morel to the Regional Commission for the Investigation of Crimes against the Polish People in Katowice dated 7 XI 1992, IPN Ka, Case files…, pp 78-81, see also Oboz Pracy w Swietochlowicach w 1945 roku. Dokumenty, zeznania, relacje, listy [Labour Camp in Swietochlowice in 1945. Documents, testimonies, reports, letters], selected and edited by and with an introduction by A. Dziurok, Warsaw 2002, pp. 89-92.
(3) H. Piecuch, Akcje specjalne: od Bieruta do Ochaba [Special operations: from Bierut to Ochab],Warsaw 1996, pp. 27-28.
(4) G. Gruschka, Zgoda-miejsce zgrozy. Oboz koncentracyjny w Swietochlowicach [Zgoda, a place of doom. The concentration camp at Swietochlowice], Gliwice 1998, p. 51.
In 1994, soon after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Morel was indicted by Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the “revenge killings” of 1,500 ethnic prisoners from Upper Silesia (most of them Polish Silesians and German civilians). After his case was publicized by the Polish, German, British, and American media, Morel fled to Israel and was granted citizenship under the Law of Return. Poland twice requested his extradition, but Israel refused to comply and rejected the more serious charges as being false, potentially part of an antisemitic conspiracy, and again rejected extradition on the grounds that the statute of limitations against Morel had run out, and that Morel was in poor health.
Salomon Morel was born on November 15, 1919 in the village of Garbów near Lublin, Poland, the son of a Jewish baker. During the Great Depression, the family business began to falter. Therefore, Morel moved to Łódź where he worked as a sales clerk, but returned to Garbów following the outbreak of war in September 1939.
World War II
Morel’s family went into hiding during World War II in order to avoid being placed in the ghetto. According to his own story of courage in the face of German occupation – that was told by Solomon Morel himself while in Israel (“mandolin with him… In his other fist was his Mauser“) – Morel’s mother, father and one brother were killed by Polish collaborators during Christmas of 1942. Solomon Morel and his brother Izaak survived the Holocaust hidden by Józef Tkaczyk, a Polish Catholic. In 1983, Józef Tkaczyk was designated as one of the Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem for saving the Morel brothers.
The official Polish accounts of Morel’s wartime activities however, differ substantially from his own story. According to the Institute of National Remembrance, at the beginning of 1942 Salomon Morel and his brother Izaak organised a criminal band to commit robberies in the surrounding villages. Their criminal activity ended when during one of their robberies they were captured by members of the Polish People’s Army. To avoid punishment Morel placed the blame on his brother, and then joined the Soviet partisans in the Parczew area (see also Parczew partisans), where he worked as a janitor and a guide through the forests. His two brothers died during the war, one in 1943, another in 1945.
The Israeli mass media and government presented yet a different version of his life. The Israeli letter rejecting extradition states that Morel joined the partisans of the Red Army in 1942, and was in the forests when his parents, sister-in-law, and one brother were allegedly killed by Polish Blue Police. According to a number of media sources, Morel claimed that he was at one point an inmate in Auschwitz and over thirty of his relatives were killed in the Holocaust.
As the Eastern Front advanced, Morel and other communist partisans came out of hiding. In the summer of 1944, Morel organized the Citizen Militia in Lublin. Later, he became a prison commander at the Lublin Castle, where many soldiers of the anti-communistArmia Krajowa (Home Army) were imprisoned and tortured.
On March 15, 1945, Morel became commander of the infamous Zgoda camp in Świętochłowice. The Zgoda camp was set up by the Soviet political police, or NKVD, after the Soviet Army entered southern Poland. In February 1945 the camp was handed over to the Communist Polish secret service, the notorious Urząd Bezpieczeństwa. Most prisoners in the camp were Silesians and German citizens, while a small number were from “central Poland”, and about 38 foreigners.
Sometimes children were sent to the camp along with parents. Prisoners were not accused of any crime, but were sent by decision of Security Authorities. Authorities tried to convince society that prisoners were only ethnic Germans and former Nazi war criminals and collaborators. It is estimated that close to 2,000 inmates died in the camp where torture and abuse of prisoners were chronic and rampant. The camp was closed in November 1945.
Morel continued his career in the prison services, reaching the rank of a colonel as the head of prison in Katowice in 1968. In 1964 he defended his master’s degree on “The prisoners’ labor and its value” at Wrocław University‘s Law School. Over the course of his career, the communist government awarded him the Cavalry Cross of the Polonia Restituta and the Golden Cross of Merit. In 1990, after the fall of communism, the General Commission for the Investigation of Crimes against the Polish Nation, precursor to the Institute of National Remembrance, started investigating the abuses carried out at the Zgoda camp. In 1992, Morel immigrated to Israel, where he still received pension from Poland.
In 1998, Poland requested that Morel be extradited for trial, but Israel refused. A reply sent to the Polish Justice Ministry from the Israeli government said that Israel would not extradite Mr. Morel as the statute of limitations had expired on war crimes.
In April 2004, Poland filed another extradition request against Morel, this time with fresh evidence, upgrading the case to “communist crimes against the population.” The main charge against Salomon Morel was that, as commandant of the Zgoda camp at Świętochłowice, he created for the prisoners in this camp, out of ethnic and political considerations, conditions that jeopardised their lives, including starvation and torture. The charges against Morel were based primarily on the evidence of over 100 witnesses, including 58 former inmates of the Zgoda camp. In July 2005 this request was again formally refused by the Israeli government. The response rejected the more serious charges as being false, potentially part of an antisemitic conspiracy, and again rejected extradition on the grounds that the statute of limitations against Morel had run out, and that Morel was in poor health. Ewa Koj, a prosecutor with the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, criticized the decision. “There should be one measure for judging war criminals, whether they are German, Israeli or of any other nationality,” Koj said, but the Polish Foreign Ministry decided not to press the matter further. Morel died in Tel Aviv on February 14, 2007.
The 340 hours of tapes, which cover from April 9, 1973 to July 12, 1973, were released by the Nixon Presidential Library and are the last set of tapes made by recording devices installed at the White House by Nixon.
The one tape shows how, in a phone discussion in mid-April 1973 with Henry Kissinger, a Jew who at the time was the national security adviser, Nixon expresses concerns that Jews would torpedo an upcoming U.S.-Soviet summit.
If that happened, Nixon said, “Let me say, Henry, it’s gonna be the worst thing that happened to Jews in American history.” He added, “If they torpedo this summit — and it might go down for other reasons — I’m gonna put the blame on them, and I’m going to do it publicly at 9 o’clock at night before 80 million people.”
He continued: “They put the Jewish interest above America’s interest, and it’s about goddamn time that the Jew in America realizes he’s an American first and a Jew second.”
“They put the Jewish interest above America’s interest, and it’s about goddamn time that the Jew in America realizes he’s an American first and a Jew second.” – Richard Nixon was right
Nixon accused the Jews of holding American foreign policy “hostage to Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union,” and added that “the American people are not going to let them destroy our foreign policy — never!”
Nixon was referring to a summit meeting where one of the topics of discussion was a peace solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question which involved Israel giving back land seized during the 1967 war.
The fact that the Jewish lobby could create enough pressure to potentially sabotage an international conference, as Nixon outlined, is more proof of the power of those Jewish Supremacists in determining American policy—even under a president who was aware of their influence.
It is no doubt significant that Nixon made this threat of “naming” the Jewish lobby on national television directly to what he knew to be the leading Jewish Supremacist in his government,. Kissinger.
Nixon knew that Kissinger would relay this message back to his tribe, and they would stop their efforts to sabotage the summit—which was indeed exactly what happened.
* Another tape released reveals that Nixon also attempted to reduce the swarm of Jews who made up, even then, senior White House and government officials.
When asked about appointees, Nixon told presidential counselor Anne Armstrong there should be “No Jews. We are adamant when I say no Jews. … But Mexicans are important. Italians, Eastern Europeans. That sort of thing.”
NOTE – PRESIDENT NIXON WAS CAUGHT ON AUDIO TAPES AGREEING THAT JEWS HAVE A “POWERFUL STRANGLEHOLD ON US MEDIA. HE SAID DURING HIS SECOND TERM HE WAS GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. UNFORTUNATELY FOR NIXON HE NEVER GOT A SECOND TERM. WATERGATE BROKE, THANKS TO 3 JEWISH GENTLEMEN. WASHINGTON POST REPORTERS BOB WOODWARD, AND CARL BERNSTEIN, AND WILLIAM MARK FELT, SR. OF THE FBI. OVER 90% OF AMERICANS ARE COMPLETELY UNAWARE THAT THEY’RE BEING RULED OVER BY JEWS.
I CAN’T BELIEVE ANYONE WOULD HAVE THE NERVE TO DEFEND THE JEWS BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION….UNLESS YOU ARE A JEW…THE JEWS ARE THE ONLY RACE ON EARTH (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CIA BACKED ISIS, AND ISLAMIC RADICALS) THAT ARE ALLOWED TO OPENLY PARTICIPATE, AND CALL FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF OTHER RACES. IT’S “TOLERATED” IN THE EYES OF THE MEDIA MACHINE FOR THE JEWS TO BE RACIST. THE JEWS ARE THE MOST SPITEFUL, AND HATEFUL GROUPS OF VIRUS’ ON THIS PLANET! SAY I’M WRONG!
A company that makes Bobblehead figures of different historical figures has now caught the wrath of Jews because of a “Holocaust Anne Frank Bobblehead” that is currently being sold on Amazon.
Anne Frank is a figure that Jews have used to help promote their ridiculous Holohoax. She is said to have died during World War II leaving behind a diary that many historians believe was forged either by her father Otto Frank or novelist Meyer Levin. Despite its questionable authenticity, the Jews have used it along with Elie Weisel’s Night as two of their most prominent pieces of Holohoax propaganda.
So with this said, it is comical that the Jews are so outraged over an Anne Frank Bobblehead figure. There didn’t appear to be any malicious intent by the manufacturers as it seems clear that they fully accept the official version of their ridiculous Holohoax.
The Jews did say that they would be troubled if somebody made an Adolf Hitler Bobblehead figure, so perhaps that’s something someone should create and sell. Just think how many tears Jews would shed if somebody did that.
For some, the young Jewish martyr Anne Frank personifies the Holocaust.
For others, she is a plastic toy that bobs along on your dashboard.
Recently, I bought an Edgar Allan Poe bobblehead at The News Journal’s charity sale. Smitten, I began searching the Internet for other literary figures to amass a collection.
So, I was a bit shocked to discover a “Holocaust Anne Frank Bobblehead” being sold on Amazon.com for $19.95.
Four reviewers wrote in, appalled.
“This is the most degrading thing I’ve ever seen,” one wrote. “What is wrong with people?” said another.
So far, the doll has not garnered national attention
Wendy Berger, the Jewish Federation of Delaware’s development director, said she had neither seen nor heard of the doll before The News Journal sent her a product link.
The Federation issued the following statement:
“The Jewish Federation of Delaware finds it disturbing and in poor taste that any company would produce a product that appears to make light of any historical tragedy.”
Berger declined further comment.
It’s unclear how long the doll has been on the market, since the Seattle, WA company that produces it, Off the Wall Toys, did not respond to a request for comment.
The company, known for producing funny toys and gag gifts, also sells bobbleheads that resemble former Pres. George W. Bush, Pres. Barack Obama, Elvis, Mother Teresa, Helen Keller, Moses and former North Korean dictator Kim II-sung. Other Amazon sellers market bobbleheads of Jesus and Pope Francis.
Which begs the question: Should certain historical figures be considered off-limits for kitschy toys?
The national Anti-Defamation League weighed in.
Deborah Lauter, the ADL’s director of civil rights, said she had never seen the toy before.
“When I heard about it, it just seemed crass and insensitive,” she said.
But then she took a closer look. The manufacturer’s description notes Anne Frank as a “beloved victim of the Holocaust.”
“The way they promoted it, there appears to be no malicious intent,” Lauter concluded. “I could see it resonating as a heroine figure for young people.”
“We would obviously be troubled by a bobblehead of Hitler being sold,” she added.
Today, acting as a hostile elite, American Jewry’s political agenda is to bring about a “New American Order” by overthrowing the White Christian power bloc and replacing it with multi-culturalism wherein Jewry gains the upper hand through rivalries and divisions between racial groups.
Indeed, “pluralism,” now accepted as academia’s description of America’s cultural makeup, works to the Jew’s advantage by which he hides behind the cover of a diverse national complexion, while pulling the strings of political influence.
The watershed of American history — the critical turning point — was the passing of The Open Immigration Law of 1965, of which, its chief proponent, Senator Jacob Javits, proclaimed at its passage, “Open The Flood Gates!”
Joining Javits in the annihilation of White Christian America, were The American Council for Judaism, The Jewish Federation, B’nai B’rith, and the Jewish-run ACLU.
Passage of the legislation changed our historic immigration policy from a quota based preference system to one involving chain immigration where an unlimited number of families of immigrants were allowed entry.
The “floodgates” have indeed been opened. American Jewry made sure of it. Reacting to this tidal wave of Third World immigrants, white citizens of America are enclosing themselves in “implicit white communities” rather than fighting back POLITICALLY to prevent further ruination of their nation by the “hostile elite” which now rules America.
A NEW POLITICAL AGENDAPOLITICS IS A DEADLY SERIOUS BUSINESS for American Jewry. And controlling the levers of political influence is now clearly in the hands of the Zionist cabal.An in-your-face-demonstration of Jewry’s political hegemony is the arrival of Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court. With Kagan’s pending confirmation, — Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the US population — will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. (It is now 45%)
Jewish over-representation also appears in Congress, with 45 Jews out of 435 members (15%) – and is manifest at the Federal Reserve Bank Board of Governors, with 5 Jews out of 7 members (80%).
This political elite, as Dr Kevin MacDonald describes it, has permeated every area of American life: -1- The financial elite that profited from wholesale fraud in the mortgage market -2- The academic elite that excludes ideas related to a Christian world view -3- The media elite that supports an expansive ethno nationalism in Israel while condemning any hint of ethno nationalism in White Americans.
Throughout history, nations have passed laws prohibiting Jews from holding civil offices. Justinian the Great, Emperor of the Byzantine Christian Empire in the 6th Century, (Jews do not allow public schools to teach Byzantine history) codified in his Justinian Code that Jews should “hold no honors” in Byzantine civil life.
THIS SECOND-CLASS CITIZENSHIP of the Jews, as crystallized in the Justinian Code, was thus entrenched in the medieval world and remained the policy of monarchical rule until the Jewish-inspired French Revolution — and attained full cessation at the end of WW I with the Jewish-funded Russian Revolution.In today’s Western world, where “democracy” reigns supreme, preventing Jewry from civil rule is impossible. Democracy, a Zionist institution wherein Jewish money and media control determine election results, is an open field for continual and growing Jewish influence.
But a grassroots movement that recognizes the need to stop the “over-representation” of American Jewry is a viable vision for the near future. Indeed, an oracle for a new political agenda.
How will it take place? What will motivate and initiate its flowering into a national force? A seed is now being planted. Watch for it, for it is bound to grow into a mighty tree…
Quoting former Israeli political adviser Mitchell Barack, the New York Times referred to Trump as the “Liberace of world leaders,” in reference to the flamboyant, piano player Wladziu Valantino Liberace, known as “Mr. Showmanship,” who was, at times, the highest paid entertainer in the world and his successful career lasted over four decades.
New York Magazine quoted former U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro trying to decipher the supposedly complicated persona of Trump.
“Either Trump’s visit was substance-free — or he ‘is being uncharacteristically subtle’ in planting the seeds for a new round of peace negotiations,” the magazine quoted and paraphrased Shapiro’s tweets.
“Liberal” U.S. media, which has stooped to many lows in its attacks on Trump — including his family, his mannerism, his choice of words, even mere body language — became much more sober and quite respectful in the way they attempted to analyze his short trip to Israel, and the very brief detour to Bethlehem, where he met with Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas.
“Mr. Trump’s speech at the Israeli Museum was so friendly and considerate of Israeli emotions,” reported the New Your Times, “that one right-wing Israeli legislator described it as deeply expressive of the ‘Zionist narrative.’”
Palestinian emotions, however, were of no consequence, neither to the Trump entourage nor, of course, to the New York Times or others in mainstream media.
The Washington Post, on the other hand, still found fault, but, certainly not because of Trump’s lack of balance and his failure to deride the Israeli Occupation and Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians.
Despite the fact that Trump has, indeed, fully embraced a “Zionist narrative,” and a right-wing version of it, making no reference to a Palestinian state, he still fell short. His performance at Israel’s national Holocaust Memorial did not impress the Washington Post.
Max Bearak wrote, “Trump’s entry in the guest book at Israel’s National Holocaust Memorial was strangely upbeat, self-referential and written in his signature all caps: ‘IT IS A GREAT HONOR TO BE HERE WITH ALL OF MY FRIENDS — SO AMAZING & WILL NEVER FORGET!’”
Bearak found such choice of words and the style in which it was written sort of offensive, especially if compared with the supposed thoughtfulness of former President Barack Obama.
In contrast, Obama wrote a significantly longer note, which partly read, “At a time of great peril and promise, war and strife, we are blessed to have such a powerful reminder of man’s potential for great evil, but also our capacity to rise up from tragedy and remake our world.”
Neither then nor now did the Washington Post bother to examine the historical context in which this particular sentence was written and find the hypocrisy of the whole endeavor. If they bothered to ask Palestinians, they would have found a whole different interpretation of Obama’s words.
Indeed, wherever occupied Palestinians look, they find “man’s potential for great evil”: a 400-mile Israeli wall being built mostly over their land; hundreds of military checkpoints dotting their landscape; a suffocating military occupation, controlling every aspect of their lives. They see the holiest of their cities, Bethlehem and Al-Quds — Occupied East Jerusalem — subdued by a massive military force; thousands of their leaders thrown into prison, many without charge or trial. They see siege; an endless war; daily deaths and senseless destruction.
But since none of this matters to the “Zionist narrative,” it subsequently matters so very little to mainstream U.S. media, as well.
Trump’s trip to Israel, however short was a master stroke by the ever-unpredictable Liberace of world politics although it takes no particular genius to figure out why.
From a U.S. mainstream media perspective, to be judged “presidential” enough, all U.S. presidents would have to commit to three main policies. They are, in no particular order: privileging the economic business elites, waging war at will, and unconditionally supporting Israel.
So far, U.S. media, which has been otherwise polarized based on political allegiances, has taken a break from its raging conflict over Trump’s presidency and rallied behind him on two separate occasions: when he randomly bombed Syria and during his visit to Israel.
Ironically, the man has often been judged for lacking substance on numerous occasions in the past. In fact, his trip to Israel was the most lacking and most divisive. However, the fact that he consistently reiterated Israeli priorities was enough for the media to give him a chance. Their collective verdict seems to rebrand his lack of substance as his unique “subtle” way of making politics.
Israeli media, which is often more critical of the Israeli government than U.S. media ever dare, needed to keep up with its “democratic” tradition. But Trump’s groveling also gave them little room for criticism. The often-impulsive president stuck to the script this time and followed his repeatedly rehearsed speech and media comments to the letter.
But Josefin Dolsten insisted on finding a way to nitpick, composing for the Times of Israel the “seven awkward moments from Trump’s Israel trip.”
One of these awkward moments, Dolsten wrote was “a White House statement listing Trump’s goals for the trip includ(ing) a hilarious (and juicy!) typo: ‘Promote the possibility of lasting peach’ between Israel and the Palestinians. Yes, we get it — it meant to say peace, but who’s to say the two sides can’t bond over some delicious fruit?”
For Palestinians, it must not be easy to find the humor in these tough times. Hundreds of their prisoners, including their most popular leader, Marwan Barghouti, were enduring a prolonged and life-threatening hunger strike in which they were making the most basic demands for better treatment, longer visitation hours with their families and the end of arbitrary detentions.
More telling, on the day Trump along with right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lectured Palestinians on peace, Tuqua Hammad, a 17-year-old, was shot for allegedly throwing stones at Israeli military vehicles at the entrance of her village of Silwad, near Ramallah.
The teenager “was shot in the lower extremities and Israeli troops prevented a Palestinian ambulance from accessing the victim to treat her,” the Ma’an news agency reported.
A few miles away, Trump was writing his remarks after visiting Israel’s Holocaust Museum. Regrettably, he failed to meet the expectations of the Washington Post, for unlike Obama, he was not poignant enough in his language and style.
The irony of the whole story is inescapable, but U.S. media cannot see this, for it also seems to follow a script, in which Palestinian rights, dignity and freedom are hardly ever mentioned.
Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include “Searching Jenin,” “The Second Palestinian Intifada,” and his latest “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story.”
Almost 2,000 people from 10 towns in the municipal regions of Eduardo Neri and Tepecoacuilco formed local self-defense groups to protect themselves from the rising levels of violence and insecurity, reported local media.
The towns are located in the middle of a turf war between organized criminal groups Guerreros Unidos and Los Rojos, who are battling for control of the lucrative region. The area is home to several mines, including the Los Filos mine, owned by Canadian company Goldcorp.
“People are afraid that innocent lives could be lost in the shootouts,” said Leonardo Avalos Ferrer, leader of the self-defense groups.
“We believe it is necessary. We are not doing this because we want to. We can’t continue to let in people who steal cars, extort us and hurt people who are not to blame,” he told El Sur.
To mark the announcement, supporters and members of the newly-formed groups marched Sunday down the Mexico-Acapulco federal highway. The protesters wore white T-shirts with the label “Community Police,” the national coat of arms and the name of the community they belonged to.
Members of the community police force in the neighboring Heliodoro Castillo municipal, as well as workers from the mine, supported the march. No state or federal authority agreed to meet with the protesters.
“We don’t want to keep asking for more security. It’s tiring to keep asking and I don’t think there will be a response. It’s been like this for many years and we don’t think going to authorities will change anything,” said Avalos Ferrer.
The armed community groups announced that starting Sunday they will install roadblocks at the entrance of Mezcala, the entrance point to Carrizalillo, where many of the mines are located.
“We think this is the best way for the government to see that Mezcala and its neighboring communities want peace,” Avalos Ferrer said.
The state of Guerrero is one of the most dangerous in Mexico. Just recently, 100 presumed members of a drug cartel assaulted seven journalists covering a story on drug-related crime.
US’ unilateral moves are putting peace in Europe in jeopardy, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel says.
Germany unleashed a volley of criticism against US President Donald Trump, slamming his “short-sighted” policies that have “weakened the West” and hurt European interests.
The sharp words from Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Monday came after Trump concluded his first official tour abroad, which took him to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Brussels and then Italy for a G7 summit.
They followed Chancellor Angela Merkel’s warning on Sunday that the United States and Britain may no longer be completely reliable partners.
Germany’s exasperation was laid bare after the G7 summit that wrapped up on Saturday with the US refusing so far to sign up to upholding the 2015 Paris climate accord.
Days earlier, in Saudi Arabia, Trump had presided over the single largest US arms deal in American history, worth $110bn over the next decade and including ships, tanks and anti-missile systems.
“Anyone who accelerates climate change by weakening environmental protection, who sells more weapons in conflict zones, and who does not want to politically resolve religious conflicts is putting peace in Europe at risk,” Gabriel said on Monday.
“The short-sighted policies of the American government stand against the interests of the European Union,” he said. “The West has become smaller, at least it has become weaker.
“We Europeans must fight for more climate protection, fewer weapons, and against religious [fanaticism], otherwise the Middle East and Africa will be further destabilised,” Gabriel said.
‘Take fate into our hands’
Germany’s harsh words for Washington, traditionally a close ally, were highly unusual and came as relations have grown increasingly frosty.
When Trump was inaugurated in January, Merkel had told the billionaire and former reality TV show star that cooperation would be on the basis of shared democratic values.
The relationship between Merkel and Trump contrasts with the warm ties between her and former US president Barack Obama – who last week travelled to Berlin to attend a key Protestant conference.
Obama’s participation in a forum with Merkel last Thursday came hours before her meeting with Trump in Brussels at the NATO summit.
At the alliance’s meeting on Thursday, Trump lambasted 23 of the alliance’s 28 members – including Germany – for “still not paying what they should be paying” towards the funding of the bloc.
After the NATO and G7 summits, Merkel said at an election rally in southern Germany that “the times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I’ve experienced that in the last few days.
“We, the Europeans, will have to take our fate into our own hands. Our friendship with the US, the UK, our neighbourly relationship with Russia and also with other countries count, of course. But we must know, we have to fight for our own future,” she said.
In response to Merkel’s comments, Britain said it would be a “strong partner” to Germany.
“As we begin the negotiations about leaving the EU, we will be able to reassure Germany and other European countries that we are going to be a strong partner to them in defence and security and, we hope, in trade,” Britain’s interior minister Amber Rudd told BBC radio.
“We can reassure Mrs Merkel that we want to have a deep and special partnership so that we can continue to maintain European-wide security to keep us all safe from the terrorists abroad and those that are trying to be nurtured in our country,” she said.
Separately, France’s Defence Minister Sylvie Goulard said that Trump’s broadside at NATO allies could boost efforts toward a common European defence policy.
“At a time when we want to take steps forward for Europe and its defence, it is a spur,” said Goulard.
Trudeau invites pope to Canada for apology to natives
Reconciliation with indigenous people necessary for healing after ‘residential school’ horrors, Justin Trudeau says.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged Pope Francis to visit Canada to apologise to indigenous peoples for the Catholic Church’s treatment of aboriginal children in schools it ran there.
Starting in the late 19th century, about 30 percent of children of Canada’s native peoples, or about 150,000 children, were placed in what were known as “residential schools” in a government attempt to strip them of their traditional cultures and ancestral languages.
For more than a century the schools were government-funded, but many were administered by Christian Churches, the majority by Roman Catholics. Many children were physically and sexually abused.
“I told him how important it is for Canadians to move forward on real reconciliation with the indigenous peoples and I highlighted how he could help by issuing an apology,” Trudeau told reporters after meeting the pope on Monday.
He said he had invited the Argentine-born pontiff to make the apology in Canada.
Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission said in a 2015 report that the practice, which kept children from the First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples far from their parents, amounted to “cultural genocide”.
The commission made 94 recommendations, including that the pope issue a formal apology in Canada to survivors and their descendents for the Church’s “role in the spiritual, cultural, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse” of the children.
Trudeau said in their private talks, the pope “reminded me that his entire life has been dedicated to supporting marginalised people in the world, fighting for them, and that he looks forward to working with me and with the Canadian bishops to figure out a path forward together”.
Canadian bishops have said the pope might visit next year.
Trudeau said he and the pope also discussed climate change. Unlike US President Donald Trump, who met the pope last week, Trudeau and Francis agree that climate change is caused by human activity.
“We talked about how important it is to highlight the scientific basis of protecting our planet and the moral and ethical obligations to lead, to build a better future for all people on this Earth,” Trudeau said.
At last week’s Group of Seven (G7) summit in Sicily, Trump refused to back a landmark international agreement reached in Paris in 2015 to reduce global warming.
Trump said he would decide this week on whether to pull out of the accord, which was backed by his predecessor Barack Obama.
Trudeau, who is Catholic, said he had “a deeply personal and wide-ranging, thoughtful conversation with the leader of my own faith”.