Israel Will Forcibly Deport All Non-Jewish Illegal Aliens After Court Ruling, Government Says

The Israeli Justice Minister has announced that Israel will shortly be introducing a law which will forcibly deport all non-Jewish illegal aliens—including all “asylum seekers”—from the Jews-only ethnostate following a High Court ruling in that country which approved Israel’s current deportation program, but limited it to those “volunteering” to leave.
According to a report in the Jerusalem-based Times of Israel, the High Court of Justice on Monday allowed the Jewish ethnostate’s government to continue with its policy of deporting all illegal invaders from Africa back to Rwanda or Uganda—irrelevant of their original country of origin—but said that that state cannot jail those who refuse to go for more than 60 days.
The Jewish judges unanimously rejected a petition by human rights groups against the deportation practice, but said that the “deportations could only to be carried out with the agreement of the illegal aliens.
Previously Israel had detained “refugees” in an open prison in the middle of the desert for up to 12 months, imposing such harsh restrictions upon them that many chose to be “voluntarily deported” just to get out the Jewish state.
The Times of Israel further reported that following the new court ruling, Israeli officials said they would amend the law so that the invaders could be deported without their consent.
“The High Court removed from the state the ability to pressure the illegal infiltrators,” Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked was quoted as saying. “It turned the [migrant’s] lack of cooperation into a reward. We will fight this until we achieve the necessary results.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backed his justice minister up, saying that “We will need to pass a new law that will permit us to enforce these agreements,” adding that this was one of a three-pronged policy against the nonwhite invaders.
The other two include the fence built between Israel and the Sinai to “prevent infiltrators” and the agreement that Netanyahu worked out with Rwanda to facilitate the deportations.
The Israeli policies are in direct contradiction to the “open borders” policies endorsed and propagated by all Jewish organizations, synagogues and religious bodies in non-Jewish countries in Europe, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
At the same time, all of these Jewish bodies support Israel. The hypocrisy is too blatant to be coincidental, and must be deliberate: Jews support “open borders” for non-Jewish countries, but “closed borders” for their own country.

Barbara Lerner Spectre calls for destruction of Christian European ethnic societies

Staunch promoter of multiculturalism for Australia, says multiculturalism is bad for Israel

Blog: Isi Leibler loves multiculturalism. Except he also really hates it.

Isi Leiber on Australia: “There is a need to sit together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture that spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being part and parcel of.”

Isi Leibler on Israel: “Multiculturalism has no place in Israel.”

Isi Leiber is an internationally known Jewish leader and former chairman of the board of directors of the World Jewish Congress and the former leader of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. He was major proponent of multiculturalism, open borders, and cultural Marxism in Australia. He moved to Israel in 1999 and still advocates multiculturalism for Australia while advocating nationalism and homogeneity in Israel at the same time.

In 2012 he wrote this article explicitly praising the decline of Australia homogeneity. He gloats that Australia is no longer “exclusively white and primarily of British origin.” Leiber praises the downfall of the “racist exclusionary” White Australia Policy.

However, Leiber is now living in Israel and showing shocking hypocrisy. He writes article for the Jerusalem Post about the horrors of multiculturalism in Israel. He recently wrote in the Jerusalem Post that “this is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews.” Leiber has also stated “multiculturalism has no place in Israel.”

Isi’s wife Naomi is the president of Emunah, a Jewish women’s organization. She says that “assimilation and intermarriage” are the “greatest threats to world Jewry.”


Australia’s Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, who will be visiting Israel this week, has a longstanding warm relationship with the Jewish community.

Carr boasts a distinguished political career, having served uninterruptedly for a record 10 years as premier of Australia’s most populous state, New South Wales, retiring in 2005. He was recently appointed foreign minister by Prime Minister Julia Gillard in March 2012.

Carr’s links with the Australian Jewish community date back many years. He was one of the founding members of Labor Friends of Israel and was also renowned for his support for the campaign for Soviet Jewry.

He is an admirer of left-wing Israeli writer Amos Oz and has on occasion been critical of various Israeli government policies, its settlement program in particular.

In 2003, he created a stir when he presented the Sydney Peace Prize to Hanan Ashrawi, the acerbic Palestinian critic of Israel. But notwithstanding this, Carr has been and unquestionably remains a genuine friend of Israel and the Jewish people and the government of Israel will undoubtedly treat him accordingly.

Australia’s positive relationship with Israel dates back to when Australian troops served in Palestine in the course of the two World Wars. To this day, veteran Israelis recount vignettes of the warm and uninhibited relationships with the Australians in stark contrast to the cold and frequently hostile British attitudes displayed throughout the mandatory period.

Since 1948, when Labor Party leader Dr. H. V. Evatt served as UN president, until today – with the solitary exception of prime minister Gough Whitlam, whose hostility against Israel during the Yom Kippur War is considered an aberration – successive governments on both sides of the political spectrum have consistently displayed friendship to Israel.

Australian governments also supported broader Jewish concerns. In 1962, Australia became the first country at the UN to raise the issue of Soviet state-sponsored anti-Semitism and called for the right of Jews to emigrate, with successive governments making significant global contributions towards ameliorating the plight of Soviet Jews.

The Australian Embassy in Moscow was regarded as a haven for refuseniks who they invited to receptions despite the tensions this created with the Soviet authorities.

The Australian government made major contributions to the global campaign to rescind the UN resolution bracketing Zionism with racism and also acted as intermediaries for Jewish leaders who sought to promote diplomatic relations between Israel and Asian countries.

Following the previous Liberal (conservative) government headed by John Howard, who emerged as Israel’s greatest champion amongst world statesmen, concerns that the new Labor government would distance itself from Israel proved to be totally unfounded.

In fact, aside from the small Green factions, Israel today enjoys genuine bipartisan support throughout the entire Australian parliament.

Until the late 1940s, Australia’s population was exclusively white and primarily of British origin. It was regarded as a backward colonial outpost notorious for its racist exclusionary White Australia Policy. Initially, there was considerable anti-Semitic based populist opposition to the entry of prewar Jewish refugees and postwar survivors.

Why should a country so geographically distant from the Middle East with a relatively small Jewish community (approximately 120,000), have adopted such a warm relationship with Jews and Israel? One of the principal factors was is that in the late 1940s, Australia underwent radical change. It scrapped the White Australia policy, rescinded its restrictive immigration policy and recruited migrants, initially from Europe but then extended to Asia, transforming itself into one the most open-minded multicultural countries in the world.

The genesis of the Jewish community dates back to the end of the 18th century when Jews were amongst the first convicts deported from England to Australia. It was a declining and rapidly assimilating community until the Second World War when it was reinvigorated by Jews fleeing Nazi persecution and survivors from the camps. Indeed, Australia’s Jewish community absorbed more Holocaust survivors proportionately than any other Jewish community, aside from Israel.

Jewish cultural and religious life developed dramatically. The immigrants created an extraordinary network of Jewish day schools ranging from Chabad to Reform and even Yiddishist, which catered for the majority of Jewish youngsters.

The “Lucky Country” was a special boon for Jewish immigrants, most of whom were penniless and shattered Holocaust survivors.

They worked hard and many prospered, with a notable number becoming the leading commercial and industrial giants in the nation.

Whilst a poor Jewish underclass still remains, on the equivalent of a Forbes rich list, Jewish former refugees comprise an extraordinarily high proportion of Australia’s most successful and wealthy businessmen. It is notable that in their public business profiles, many refer proudly to their Jewish and Zionist ties.

Since the 1980s, the Jewish community has been augmented by Russians and large numbers of South Africans, the latter financially independent and rapidly assuming important communal leadership roles.

Jews have also been appointed to prominent roles in public life. Gen. Sir John Monash was Australia’s military commander during World War I. Sir Isaac Isaacs and Sir Zelman Cowan – the latter an active Zionist – served as governors general.

Until the 1960s, most Jews were inclined to support the Labor Party because the conservatives were then perceived as aloof, hostile and even anti-Semitic. Today, they divide their support between both parties.

The large proportion of Holocaust survivors encouraged a strong communal Zionist orientation.

The leadership invested enormous efforts towards promoting the case for Israel at the political level, not hesitating to protest and confront governments they considered were displaying bias or double standards against Israel in conforming to global politically correct approaches.

Despite the geographical distance, the Australia- Israel Chamber of Commerce is undoubtedly the most popular and efficient Chamber in the country. This all-encompassing Jewish passion for Israel was the critical factor leading to the current bipartisan pro- Israel orientation of the mainstream political parties.

Jewish leaders were equally aggressive in fighting against anti-Semitism and all forms of discrimination. To the pride of the community, some assumed key roles in the broader area of human rights. For example, my brother Mark Leibler, a long-standing Zionist and Jewish leader, was last year appointed as co-chairman of the prestigious “Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal Peoples.”

Needless to say, Australian Jewry today is confronted with similar challenges to other Diaspora communities. Assimilation and intermarriage whilst relatively low (25 percent), is growing. In addition, the cost of Jewish education is now prohibitive for all but the affluent and the vast majority of children in schools are subsidized by independent fundraising.

But Australian Jewry remains one of the strongest and probably most Zionist Jewish communities in the world. This is reflected in aliya statistics. There must be close to 15,000 Australian expatriates now living in Israel (10% of the entire community). They strengthen the ties with the Jewish state.

If Australian Jews represented the norm, the long-term survival prospects for Diaspora Jews would be much better than is the case.

Israel’s standing on the international arena would be much better if, in addition to Canada and the US, there were a few other governments displaying the same even-handedness as Australia.

Herald Sun

Australia’s biggest-selling daily newspaper
September 27, 2000:

Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler

By John Masanauskas

Melbourne – Jewish leader Isi Leibler, a staunch defender of Australian multiculturalism, says the policy has no place in Israel.

“This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews,” he told a Jerusalem newspaper.

Mr. Leibler has previously said that multiculturalism in Australia was something that “we are all proud being part and parcel of.”

The founder of Jetset Travel moved to Israel two years ago as chairman of the World Jewish Congress. He recently published an essay arguing that Zionism, or Jewish nationalism, was under threat in Israel by “post-Zionists”.

“A post-Zionist is someone who actually looks positively towards the end of the Jewish people in ethnocentric terms, as a national group, and no longer sees the Jewish people as one united people,” he told the Jerusalem Post.

Mr. Leibler said post-Zionists were pushing a universalist agenda in schools aimed at eliminating Jewish nationalism and creating a multicultural state.

But Mr. Leibler, 65, has the opposite view of multiculturalism in Australia.

During the Pauline Hanson debate in 1993, he warned that multiculturalism was under threat by extremists.

“There is a need to sit together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture that spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being part and parcel of, and which is really under threat,” Mr. Leibler said.

Isi Leiber writes for the Jerusalem Post Dec. 2, 2015:

Sensitive to the despicable behavior by much of the world which denied haven to European Jews on the eve of the Holocaust, I react instinctively with compassion when I hear about the plight of refugees. I am personally sensitive to this issue, fortunate as an infant to have been provided with a haven in Australia on the very eve of World War II. Most of my family in Belgium was murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust.

But despite this, I am astonished at what I consider to be the dangerous and irrational gut response from bleeding- heart rabbis, Jewish leaders and organizations blindly calling on governments to absorb en masse the so-called “Syrian refugees” and trivializing the Holocaust by comparing them to the Jews of Nazi Europe.

The principal reason to deplore this approach is that the overwhelming majority originate from Muslim countries other than Syria, and an estimated 70 percent are men of military age. Thus it is evident that the majority of this “refugee” population is not traditional families seeking sanctuary, but men seeking economic enhancement. Furthermore, over 95% of these “refugees” are Sunnis, whom IS claims to represent and, unlike the Jews during the Holocaust, do not face genocide.

Major European countries already harboring a substantial Muslim fundamentalist population will be further weakened by the new “refugees” who, whether Shi’ite or Sunni, all share a common contempt for democracy, Western values, Christianity and above all are pathologically anti-Semitic. It would also be delusional to imagine that these migrants will be more effectively integrated than their predecessors who seek to create parallel societies within their host countries. In the absence of adequate screening, the “refugees” will undoubtedly continue to include jihadis, especially taking account of the Islamic State (IS) boasts that it has embedded thousands of fighters in the exodus.

They will augment and strengthen the swelling Muslim enclaves – 50 million already living in Europe – which seek to impose Sharia law. Bernard Lewis, the renowned Islamic scholar, has predicted that unless drastic steps are taken to stem this movement, the high birth rates of the migrant population will irreversibly transform the entire demography of the region and bring about a Muslim majority by the end of the century.

Setting aside the broad threat to Western civilization in Europe, it will be the Jews who will initially bear the brunt of Islamic fundamentalist hatred.

It is therefore utterly ironic that at a time when Jewish institutions and schools in Europe require military protection and many Jews are leaving the continent because of escalating anti-Semitism, we find Jews worldwide at the vanguard promoting a migration movement comprising primarily the bitterest anti-Semitic elements.

Even more incredible is the almost universal inclination by Jewish leaders to make analogies between the status of the current Middle East refugees and Jews during the Holocaust.

Former British chief rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks was one of the first to make this analogy and his lead was taken up by a broad plethora of other American and global Jewish leaders and organizations ranging from the Washington Holocaust Museum to the Anti-Defamation League to the American Jewish Committee, as well as Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbinical groups. They all conveyed a central message: Jews, above all other groups, must support the entry of refugees because of the pain Jews underwent when anti-Semites denied them haven from the Nazis.

One of the most shocking recent remarks came from British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, a highly regarded and dedicated Jewish leader. The London Jewish Chronicle reports that Mirvis, together with four other United Synagogue rabbis, visited a refugee camp on the Macedonian border. The chief rabbi and his colleagues were warned not to inflame the prevailing hostility against Jews and to “dress down” when they entered the camp and put on baseball caps to hide their kippot. Yet Mirvis was apparently so moved by the plight of the inmates that he felt obliged to draw comparisons to “what as Jewish people we have seen before. …I’ve been thinking about bunkers in Auschwitz where there was a very different end.” Ironically, Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister Asa Romson, after making a similar statement, apologized, stating that “it was wrong to make the comparison with Auschwitz.”

While reaching out and providing assistance to refugee families in distress is highly commendable, to make such analogies between these “refugees” and Jews facing Nazi genocide is abominable and trivializes the Holocaust.

Jews who obtained refuge from the Nazis integrated into their host societies and never sought to impose their Jewish values – in stark contrast to the tensions created in Europe over recent decades by Islamic immigrants seeking to impose Sharia law on their host societies.

In fact, the Jewish refugees and immigrants from Nazi persecution were all highly committed advocates for strengthening democracy and made major contributions to the economic and cultural enrichments of the countries that provided them haven.

Nor can one point to a single example of a second-generation Jew transformed into a terrorist by extremist rabbis as has been the case with many second-generation Muslims indoctrinated in European countries by extremist mullahs into becoming jihadis. The idea of Jews engaging in terrorism in Western countries is simply inconceivable.

Isi Leibler writes in 2010:

Until the 1950s, Australia was a far cry from the country of today. It was racist, bigoted ,anti-Semitic and notorious for its White Australia policy. However by absorbing migrants from all corners of the world, Australia evolved into a unique multicultural society, open-minded, liberal and tolerant. Yet, today, determined not to follow the disastrous example of Europe which provided free rein to minorities opposing the central tenets of democracy and freedom, many Australians realize that multiculturalism can only succeed if the participants share a commitment to the open society. Today, despite growing anti-Semitism, the standing of the Jews is similar to the US and the influence of Muslim migrants is limited.
Australian Jews are proud that since the birth of Israel, with only one exception, consecutive Australian governments have remained strongly supportive. The links go back to Australian soldiers who served in Palestine in both world wars and developed warm relations with Jews in the Yishuv in 1940-41.
Australia has also been highly supportive of major Jewish global endeavors such as the struggle to free Soviet Jewry. As far back as 1962, it became the first country to raise the issue of Soviet anti-Semitism and the refusal to grant Jews the right to make aliya at the UN. Former refuseniks will recall that the Australian embassy in Moscow was highly forthcoming in extending whatever help and support possible and even held receptions for them. In my visits to the Soviet Union, successive Australian prime ministers, despite incurring the rage of the Soviet authorities, instructed the Moscow embassy to provide me with transportation and support in meeting refuseniks.
The government also played a major role in the struggle to rescind the UN resolution bracketing Zionism with racism and assisted Australian Jewish leaders in their efforts to help pave the way for diplomatic relations between Israel and both India and China.
MUCH OF the credit for this can be attributed to a united Jewish leadership which was never reticent in raising its voice to confront governments displaying bias against the Jewish state or conforming to the anti-Israeli stance of the international community. There was also a longstanding tradition by the Jewish community to facilitate visits to Israel for a wide cross-section of parliamentarians. Likewise, the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce emerged as possibly the most effective and successful of all the chambers of commerce.
The Australia-Israel relationship was strengthened during the 11 years of the Howard government. Over the past year, just prior to the overthrow of prime minister Rudd by his own party, there were concerns that the policy had tilted against Israel because the government was canvassing support for election to the UN Security Council. Following a meeting with the national Jewish leadership, the situation appeared to have been resolved but was never tested because shortly afterward, Gillard displaced Rudd.
It would seem that today bipartisan support for Israel will be maintained. However, there are concerns. Gillard is regarded as being evenhanded and friendly, but the Labor Party was obliged to forge an alliance with the Greens whose attitude toward Israel is highly antagonistic. However, most of her new cabinet is pro-Israel, as is the powerful opposition.
Of course, all is not rosy. The younger generation, like its global counterparts, lacks the passion of its forbears who lived during the Holocaust and witnessed the struggle to establish the State of Israel. The cost of day school education has risen considerably, with many parents unwilling to match the sacrifices of their parents to ensure a Jewish education for their children. The level of intermarriage, while low compared to the US and most European countries, is growing.
There is also a discernible change in the political climate. Australian trade unions, traditionally bastions of support for Israel, now even endorse anti-Israeli boycotts. The churches, many of which were previously hostile, have intensified their anti-Israeli approach. Anti-Israeli activity at universities is escalating and encouraged by a number of Jewish academics. Anti-Zionist Jewish splinter groups have emerged although in contrast to the US, they are totally marginalized from the mainstream.


The First Jewish Lie: The Old Testament fabrication that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt — John Kaminski

It seems that Jews have lied about their history in the Old Testament. Overwhelming new evidence by top Egyptian and Israeli scholars shows that Jews were never slaves in Egypt. 

Pictures and captions by Darkmoon

Giseh, Sphinx u.Pyramiden / Farblitho. - Giza / Sphinx a.Pyramids / Col.Litho. -

If the Jews had been living in Egypt for centuries as slaves, 
surely they would have noticed the pyramids and the Sphinx? 
Strangely, neither of these great architectural wonders of the world
are mentioned even once in the Old Testament!  

Jews lie. Jews have always lied. And most assuredly, Jews are still lying today about everything that has to do with themselves and their sordid history.

So considering how they have wrecked the United States, Russia, Germany and so many other countries by mentally lobotomizing and financially castrating all of them, it should come as no surprise that Jews have falsified their own history from the very beginning.

Or to put it more concisely in the words of an Egyptian medical doctor named Ashraf Ezzat:

“The truth is that ancient Egypt never knew any Pharaohs nor any Israelites. Egypt was never the land of Exodus and Palestine was never the Promised Land.”

Backed by every reputable expert in the known world, Ezzat argues that ancient Hebrew history as we know it today is based on one colossal lie — that events described as happening in Egypt, if they happened at all, really happened in Arabia. Which means that according to his version, the tales of Joseph, Moses and the Exodus might still be true, but the location in which they are alleged to have happened are false.

To the average person, this would seem a farfetched assertion were it not for the supportive testimony of the world’s top Egyptologists, from James Henry Breasted to Donald Redford to Israel Finkelstein. Even some Israeli experts agree, including the head of archeology at Tel Aviv University. Prof. Ze’ev Herzog, in a 1999 article in Ha’aretz, said:

“The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel.”


The Crossing of the Red Sea ROSSELLI (1439 – 1507)

[LD: The Old Testament tells us that God helped to part the waves of the Red Sea, allowing his Chosen People to cross over miraculously to the other side as they fled from Pharaoh’s pursuing army. As soon as the Egyptian army descended into the same trench, God let the waves return in a huge collapsing wall onto the heads of the evil Egyptians who were all drowned. 

Amusing titbit. “Red Sea pedestrians”  =  Monty Python’s politically incorrect euphemism for “Jews”. [LD]


Needless to say, this revelation has profound implications for all of the world’s major monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which all base their deeply flawed legitimacy on these questionable Old Testament legends.

For Dr. Ezzat, the ferreting out of the real story of the Jews is a matter of defending the reputation of his illustrious homeland, the oldest known human civilization, the mysterious land of the pyramids and the Sphinx. Ezzat seeks merely to uncover the truth buried beneath two thousand years of deliberate and slanderous misrepresentation of a culture that provided the foundation of the monotheistic religions which have “borrowed” heavily from Egyptian tradition but neglected to mention the source as they claimed these well-known rituals as their own.

51QdWU4ISkL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-v3-big,TopRight,0,-55_SX278_SY278_PIkin4,BottomRight,1,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_Ezzat has labored at this task for several years on his Pyramidion websitebut now has taken a big step forward with the publication of “Egypt Knew No Pharaohs Nor Israelites” (pictured). The book is available in a Kindle edition for a mere $5 and contains lots of very valuable live links, including Breasted’s famous “Dawn of Conscience” essay and instructive background material from the Roman writer Plutarch, Egyptologist Donald Redford and contemporary reporter Juan Cole using archivist Peter Myers’ encyclopedic background data.

The book is a real treasure trove of objective Biblical history, an essential counterweight to the overabundance of unreliable religious proselytization material that handicaps objective historical scholars everywhere with self-absorbed misinformation.

Defending Egypt’s honorable tradition

Many factors set Ezzat on this detective trail of the Biblical deception that castigates Ancient Egypt as an immoral, slave-keeping society.

The first clue was that the Old Testament never mentioned the pyramids, making the writers of that document the first and probably the only visitors to Egypt who never mentioned these awe-inspiring structures.

Ezzat’s contention, backed by solid empirical scholarship, is that the events of the Old Testament occurred in southwestern Arabia, in a province called Mizraim, or Misr, a location now near modern day Yemen, which is where he says the tribe of Israel was really born.

The second tipoff was the terrain, which in the OT more resembles hilly Arabia rather than flat Egypt. Also, the Bible recounts droughts, which Egypt never had, only fluctuations in the flooding of the Nile. Many of the events ascribed to the area of present day Palestine actually occurred much further south down the coast of the Red Sea, Ezzat insists. Furthermore an even more telling detail in the Joseph story was the camel caravan carrying “gum, balm and myrrh”, which were products of Arabian trade, not Egypt’s.

The third and most revealing clue was the notion of slavery, which Ezzat claims was never practiced in Egypt until the Greeks and Persians brought the practice with them a thousand years later than the supposed time of Moses and Joseph.

Some stories state the pyramids were built by slaves, but history shows us the pyramid builders were willing volunteers, as the village of the pyramid builders attests.

And the fourth aspect of this millennia-old Old Testament fraud was the label of pharaoh, which no Egyptian document ever uses. But the leader of the Mizraim tribe was called Faraon, which made the switch from Hebrew to Greek and the creation of a villainous pharaoh many centuries later an easy trick to pull off. Egypt, one of the best documented of all ancient civilizations, never once used the term pharaoh.

This is truly a tale of two Egypts: Egypt was mentioned in the Bible around 700 times; the Israelites were not mentioned once in the Egyptian records.

The 5th century BC historian Herodotus, commonly known as “the father of history”, never mentioned pharaohs, only kings. Herodotus also never mentioned Israel, repeatedly mentioned Palestine, Syria and the Phoenicians, never mentioned Jews or Canaanites, and never mentioned any Jewish holy temple.

But more than anything else, it was the insult to Ancient Egypt’s extremely enlightened religious philosophy — moral practices that have never been equalled by the civilizations that came later — that compelled Ezzat to defend the honor of a remarkable culture that survived for the better part of three millennia, longer – you make take note — than any other culture in world history.

“Deceitfully linking the story of Moses and his Pharaoh has tarnished the image of one of humanity’s greatest civilizations,” Ezzat writes. “Ancient Egypt has been stabbed in the heart by this two-thousand year duplicity. And this deception is likely to continue if we don’t expose the truth about the Israelite stories and their Arabic origin and the Septuagint fraud.”

"Egypt has been stabbed in the back by a 2000-year duplicity!"
“Ancient Egypt has been stabbed in the back by a two-thousand year duplicity!”

Corrupt Jewish translators

In the 2nd century BC, the Hebrew bible was translated from Aramaic to Greek at the legendary Library of Alexandria. Seventy Jewish scribes, hence the designation of the Septuagint Bible, were assigned this task by the Ptolemies in which they cunningly replaced this obscure tribal leader Faraon with the mighty Egypt and its king. The Greek version, with this malicious distortion of ancient history, has been the source for all translations of the Bible worldwide ever since.

The Septaguint deception had been the result of a Greek-Jewish bond very similar to nowadays’ American-Israeli one. (Controlling and manipulating world superpowers — ancient and modern — is obviously an old Jewish proficiency also demonstrable in the old Jewish/Persian arrangement that led to the release from Babylonian Captivity and the complicity with the Roman Empire to control and contain Christianity.)

Replacing the Arabic town of Mizraim/Misr with pharaonic Egypt in the stories of the Patriarchs has not only distorted the Israelite stories but the historiography of the whole ancient Near East.

The dangers this misrepresentation presents to modern times are numerous.

Number one, modern Egyptians have been detached from their own culture.

Number two, the lies presented in the Bible that have filtered into other religions present a violent danger based on mistaken information.

For instance, the Salafis, hardened Islamists and jihadists, want to demolish all of ancient Egypt’s monument and temples, including the Pyramids and the Sphinx, because they believe these are the idols Pharaoh worshipped while rejecting the true word of God delivered by Moses.

So here is a closed-minded mass murder plot based on the fairy tale of Jewish slaves building the Pyramids

The Exodus tale is about slaves, toiling in 400 years of continuous bondage. The failure of his brothers to murder Joseph is told both in the Qu’ran and the Bible. The brothers sold him to the Ishmaelites, not the Egyptians, for 20 shekels of silver (Genesis 37:26-28).

The Septaguint deception repeated through contemporary filmmaking was evident in the recent Ridley Scott film (which flopped at the box office!) Exodus: Gods and Kings.

Egypt banned this movie for its “Zionist view of history”. The same scam perpetrated by the Jews for 3000 years — changing history to dupe the public — is still being run today in Hollywood.

Although Exodus: Gods and Kings is set in Egypt, you won’t actually be able to see it there. According to Deadline magazine (and reported by Ezzat), Scott’s adaptation of the biblical story of Moses has run afoul of Egyptian censors. Abdul Sattar Fathi, the head of the Egyptian state censorship board, harshly criticized the film, citing “historical mistakes” such as claiming the Jews built the pyramids and portraying Moses as a general, not a prophet.

“Furthermore,” Fathi said, “it shows ancient Egyptians as a mob group persecuting peaceful Jews. Our board has refused this out of respect for Egyptians’ feelings.”

(Peaceful Jews, I like that. Could be the only example in history of peaceful Jews. No surprise that only Hollywood could come with a concept like peaceful Jews, which is surely a type of human being that has never before been seen in history. Go tell the Palestinians about peaceful Jews.)

Says Ezzat, who remains scrupulously impartial when it comes to contemporary politics, Egypt is simply not where this story took place.

At the time, Israel wasn’t there

Jews lie. How many modern examples do you need? Six million dead in a Holocaust that never happened? People all over the world paying reparations for crimes they didn’t commit and being thrown in jail when they ask for proof of these crimes. A Jewish company producing poison food and a Jewish government forcing people to eat it. Jews murdering thousands of unarmed peasants and calling it self defense, triggering wars all over the world through covert manipulation of governments it has bought.

Current Israeli rabble rouser Binyamin Netanyahu said recently in a speech that the Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3000 years ago. Yet another Jewish lie.

Ezzat says no.

“The Jewish people were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BC . . . There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 2200s BCE . . . The chronicle of events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave results or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 12 plagues.”

Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent “Jewish people” in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon.

So Jerusalem was not ‘the city of David,’ since there was no city there when he is said to have lived there. No sign of magnificent palaces or great states has been found in the archeology of this period, and the Assyrian tablets, which recorded even minor events throughout the Middle East, such as the actions of Arab queens, don’t know anything about any great kingdom of David and Solomon in geographical Palestine.

Not a thing.

Palestine was not the homeland for the kingdom of Israel and the stories of its early patriarchs. The inception of Judaism and the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and Moses happened in Arabia and Yemen, Ezzat writes. The blatant failure of Biblical archeology in the land of Palestine is primarily due to a premise completely flawed and a Bible (Septaguint) cunningly tampered with (by the same evil creeps who manipulate our news and educational materials today).

Egypt’s written records date back to 1870 BC. No trace of the Israelites.

Slavery was a common tradition in Arabia but not in Egypt. Slavery didn’t come to Egypt “until 7th to 4th century BC, with the influence of the Persian/Greek invasions.”

This tradition of slavery lingers on in Yemen, where foreigners aren’t allowed to get a job without the sponsorship of a native called a kafeel who control all aspects of their lives.

In his breakthrough theory “Bible Came from Arabia” Dr. Kamal Salibi has discovered more than one hundred place names in Arabia and North Yemen that amazingly matched the ones mentioned in the Torah, Ezzat writes.

“Placing the Israelites back in their native Arabic land will no longer make the pervasive future of slavery in the stories of Joseph and Moses alien or inexplicable, or the walls and fortifications of mountainous villages tumbled by Joshua unreal and unverifiable.

“The land Joshua conquered was a small territory in North Yemen. The Egypt of the Bible is not the Egypt of the NIle Valley but an obscure little town in the southwestern desert of ancient Arabia called Mizraim, or Misr in Hebrew and Arabic.

“The Exodus took place in a much humbler way and on a much narrower scale in an obscure little village in ancient South Arabia,” Ezzat writes.

“If Egypt knew no Pharaohs, then it goes without saying that Egypt never knew Moses, either. And if Moses never set foot in Egypt, then the Exodus’ road map into the Promised Land has to be redrawn.”

A conception of world harmony

The lies began a long time ago. According to the Old Testament, written by Jews, ancient Egypt is the land of idolatry, tyranny and slavery.

It is this slander at which Ezzat bristles, because the precepts of the ancient Egyptian religion were plagiarized by its Christian and Muslim successors lock, stock and barrel.

“Maat is the Egyptian concept of world harmony based on justice, balance and truth. Maat, or the lady of truth, as personified by ancient Egyptians in the shape of a lady wearing the feather of truth on her head and holding the balance of justice, is the code of ethics by which all Egyptians, including monarchs, should follow,” Ezzat writes.

The late Prof. Breasted, in a beautiful introduction to his 1933 classic Dawn of Conscience, writes in a live link from the book:

“The Egyptians possessed a standard of morals far superior to that of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) over a thousand years before the Decalogue was written.”


Famous Egyptologist Professor James Henry Breasted 
in his office at the Oriental Institute, 1929

So Ezzat is not making this stuff up. Breasted is one of the most respected historians ever. And Ezzat’s insistence that much of the material in the Old Testament is fabricated, distorted and plagiarized is true.

For instance, the wisdom of Amenemope, preserved in an Egyptian papyrus in the British Museum, was translated into Hebrew in ancient times and, circulating in Palestine, was the source for a whole section of the Old Testament Book of Proverbs.

“Our moral heritage derives from a wider human past enormously older than the Hebrews, and it has come to us rather through the Hebrews than from them. Man arose to high moral vision two thousand years before the Hebrew nation was born,” Ezzat writes.

Just like in modern times, when in World War II Germany was presented as the bad guy while the Jewish countries the U.S., Britain and Soviet Union were presented as the good guys, the Hebrews presented Israelite interlopers as the brave heroes and innocent Egyptians as the villains, which like the juxtaposition of Israeli murderers and Palestinian victims into Jew freedom fighters and Islamic terrorists is a historical injustice and unforgivable lie of the type that so debilitates our existence today.

Jews lie. They always have, and they always will.


Like this? Share it now.

The Bar Kokhba revolt

marked a time of high hopes followed by violent despair. The Jews were handed expectations of a homeland and a Holy Temple, but in the end were persecuted and sold into slavery. During the revolt itself, the Jews gained enormous amounts of land, only to be pushed back and crushed in the final battle of Bethar.

When Hadrian first became the Roman emperor in 118 C.E., he was sympathetic to the Jews. He allowed them to return to Jerusalem and granted permission for the rebuilding of their Holy Temple. The Jews’ expectations rose as they made organizational and financial preparations to rebuild the temple. Hadrian quickly went back on his word, however, and requested that the site of the Temple be moved from its original location. He also began deporting Jews to North Africa.

The Jews prepared to rebel until Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah calmed them. The Jews then satisfied themselves with preparing secretly in case a rebellion would later become necessary. They built hideouts in caves and did shoddy work building weapons so that the Romans would reject the weapons and return them to the Jews.

The Jews organized guerilla forces and, in 123 C.E., began launching surprise attacks against the Romans. From that point on, life only got worse for the Jews. Hadrian brought an extra army legion, the “Sixth Ferrata,” into Judeato deal with the terrorism. Hadrian hated “foreign” religions and forbade the Jews to perform circumcisions. He appointed Tinneius Rufus governor of Judea. Rufus was a harsh ruler who took advantage of Jewish women. In approximately 132 C.E., Hadrian began to establish a city in Jerusalem called Aelia Capitolina, the name being a combination of his own name and that of the Roman god Jupiter Capitolinus. He started to build a temple to Jupiter in place of the Jewish Holy Temple.

As long as Hadrian remained near Judea, the Jews stayed relatively quiet. When he left in 132, the Jews began their rebellion on a large scale. They seized towns and fortified them with walls and subterranean passages. Under the strong leadership of Shimon Bar-Kokhba, the Jews captured approximately 50 strongholds in Judea and 985 undefended towns and villages, including Jerusalem. Jews from other countries, and even some gentiles, volunteered to join their crusade. The Jews minted coins with slogans such as “The freedom of Israel” written in Hebrew. Hadrian dispatched General Publus Marcellus, governor of Syria, to help Rufus, but the Jews defeated both Roman leaders. The Jews then invaded the coastal region and the Romans began sea battles against them.

The turning point of the war came when Hadrian sent into Judea one of his best generals from Britain, Julius Severus, along with former governor of Germania, Hadrianus Quintus Lollius Urbicus. By that time, there were 12 army legions from Egypt, Britain, Syria and other areas in Judea. Due to the large number of Jewish rebels, instead of waging open war, Severus besieged Jewish fortresses and held back food until the Jews grew weak. Only then did his attack escalate into outright war. The Romans demolished all 50 Jewish fortresses and 985 villages. The main conflicts took place in Judea, the Shephela, the mountains and the Judean desert, though fighting also spread to Northern Israel. The Romans suffered heavy casualties as well and Hadrian did not send his usual message to the Senate that “I and my army are well.”

The final battle of the war took place in Bethar, Bar-Kokhba’s headquarters, which housed both the Sanhedrin (Jewish High Court) and the home of the Nasi (leader). Bethar was a vital military stronghold because of its strategic location on a mountain ridge overlooking both the Valley of Sorek and the important Jerusalem-Bet Guvrin Road. Thousands of Jewish refugees fled to Bethar during the war. In 135 C.E., Hadrian’s army besieged Bethar and on the 9th of Av, the Jewish fast day commemorating the destruction of the first and second Holy Temples, the walls of Bethar fell. After a fierce battle, every Jew in Bethar was killed. Six days passed before the Romans allowed the Jews to bury their dead.

Following the battle of Bethar, there were a few small skirmishes in the Judean Desert Caves, but the war was essentially over and Judean independence was lost. The Romans plowed Jerusalem with a yoke of oxen. Jews were sold into slavery and many were transported to Egypt. Judean settlements were not rebuilt. Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina and the Jews were forbidden to live there. They were permitted to enter only on the 9th of Av to mourn their losses in the revolt. Hadrian changed the country’s name from Judea to Syria Palestina.

In the years following the revolt, Hadrian discriminated against all Judeo-Christian sects, but the worst persecution was directed against religious Jews. He made anti-religious decrees forbidding Torah study, Sabbath observance, circumcision, Jewish courts, meeting in synagogues and other ritual practices. Many Jews assimilated and many sages and prominent men were martyred including Rabbi Akiva and the rest of the Asara Harugei Malchut (ten martyrs). This age of persecution lasted throughout the remainder of Hadrian’s reign, until 138 C.E.

SourcesEncyclopedia Judaica. “Bar Kokhba”. Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem.
H.H. Ben Sasson, Editor. A History of the Jewish People. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969.
History Until 1880: Israel Pocket Library. Keter Publishing House Ltd., Jerusalem, 1973.
The Jewish Encyclopedia. “Bar Kokba and Bar Kokba War.” Funk and Wagnalls Co. London, 1902.
Kantor, Morris. The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia. Jason Aronson Inc., New Jersey, 1989.




If there’s one rite of passage that every American politician must pass through it’s doing obeisance to the Jews at the Wailing Wall.

Even Rand Paul caved to the Jews (something his father would never do) and found himself sacrificing his own son to the Kotel Rabbi looking as if he was being led away to the slaughter.

You see, taking the mark of the beast in order to buy Jewish admission to sell political services is every American politician’s career-dependent rite of passage.

Now, the Jews would have us believe that there’s something sacred about the Western Wall, that it’s a remnant of the Second Temple, where paper prayers of the Goyim are snatched by the ‘Divine Presence’ who supposedly dwells in its crevices and stones.



Dead wrong.

The Wailing Wall is actually the remains of a Roman fortress called “Fort Antonia” built north of the actual Temple where no protruding rock ever existed but rather was built upon the Gihon Spring.

The rock upon which the Dome of the Rock was built adjoining the Western Wall was actually the centerpiece around which Fort Antonia was built. There’s nothing sacred about this rock or this Wall.

This is attested to by the eyewitness, Jewish historian Josephus, who also wrote in his “Jewish Wars” that the Romans left nothing above or below ground of the Second Temple so that one coming to Jerusalem thereafter would never believe a Temple ever existed.


According to Josephus, Titus, the Roman General who razed Jerusalem to the ground in 70 AD, allowed Fort Antonia to remain to house the Tenth Legion left to monitor Roman affairs in Jerusalem.

And thus the prophecy of Christ, “Not one stone will be left upon another,” was fulfilled. God will not be mocked.

If you still don’t believe me, then get the book, “The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot,” by Professor Dr Ernest Martin, and you’ll surely be convinced.

Now, what Rand Paul should have known is that the Wailing Wall is the seat of a Satanic ritual outlined by the 13th Century Jewish occult system known as the Kabbalah as expounded in the Zohar and expanded upon by the 18th Century Hasidic Movement.

You see, this so-called ‘Divine Presence’ at the Wailing Wall is actually the Kabbalistic feminine emanation of their false god, the “Shekinah.”

Watch closely how the rabbis thrust their pelvises and penises back and forth in a prescribed prayer movement called “davening” in which the Jew copulates with the ‘Shekinah’ in order to give birth to an erotic union with the ‘Ein Soph,’ the Kabbalistic masculine emanation of their false god.


Now watch this young Jewish boy, who instinctively knowing that “davening” is a lewd and embarrassing act…just can’t bring himself to perform the thrusting of his pelvis.

My friends, for Rand Paul, and for so many other saps like McCain, Bush, Obama, Clinton, and Romney, to perform the rite of political passage at the Wailing Wall is nothing less than to shake hands with the Devil.


And if God doesn’t dwell in temples made by human hands, (as the Bible tells us), much less would He dwell in a Roman fortress.

The hoax is on.

Not only are our politicians selling their souls to the Jews at a Roman fortress named Fort Antonia, now misnamed, ‘The Western Wall,’ they’re participating in a lewd occult ritual where the so-called ‘Divine Presence’ is actually Satan himself.

Satan’s seat is at the Wailing Wall and our politicians—brought there by the Jews—are carrying him all the way back home to America.









Murder Case of Iconic Palestinian Political Cartoonist Re-Opened  

  • Naji Salim Hussain al-Ali (L) and his most iconic cartoon, of a refugee Palestinian boy, Handala (R).

    Naji Salim Hussain al-Ali (L) and his most iconic cartoon, of a refugee Palestinian boy, Handala (R). | Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Published 30 August 2017
“My brush is my only weapon, I use it to stand against the vicious forces of evil in our world,” Naji Salim Hussain al-Ali.

Handala, with his back to the viewer, dressed in ragged clothes and bare-footed, has over the years become a symbol for the Palestinian right to return.

Ghassan Kanafani, the Palestinian Revolutionary Killed by Israeli Intelligence

The character’s creator — Naji Salim Hussain al-Ali — was murdered in broad daylight 30 years ago. The suspects have yet to be found.

But three decades after the Palestinian cartoonist was killed, UK police have launched a new probe into his case, appealing for anyone who may have leads on who killed al-Ali.

“A lot can change in 30 years — allegiances shift and people who were not willing to speak at the time of the murder may now be prepared to come forward with crucial information,” Commander Dean Haydon, head of Scotland Yard’s Counter Terrorism Command (CTC) said in a police statement Tuesday.

On August 29, 1987, al-Ali, while walking in West London, was shot in the back of the neck. Witnesses at the time said he had been pursued by a man for around 40 seconds just moments before. Another person was also seen driving away from the scene.

 best known 4 his drawing of (a sketch of a 10yo boy stands barefoot in rugged clothes w/ his back turned & hands clasped)

Investigators have been searching for anyone who might have information on the identity of the two men.

Al-Ali’s family has also welcomed the reopening of the case. His son Osama said they were “encouraged” by it, and hope that it will lead to “some path towards resolution, so we know what happened”, according to Ma’an.

The cartoonist had grown up in the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon before moving to Kuwait. He had also worked alongside the Palestinian revolutionary and novelist Ghassan Kanafani who first published al-Ali’s drawings in 1961.

Palestinian Activist Rasmea Odeh Appears in US Court Before Deportation

As al-Ali’s cartoons often satirized both Israeli and Arab politics, many believe his murder was politically motivated.

“At the time police arrested several suspects with links to the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) and the Israeli intelligence service Mossad but with little in the way of hard evidence. No one has ever been charged with the murder,” said Al Jazeera’s Paul Brennan from London.

“My brush is my only weapon, I use it to stand against the vicious forces of evil in our world,” al-Ali had once said.

WATCH: Silencing Palestine – Prison & Repression


Promised Land – Shattered Lives


More Americans believe than do not believe Israel was given to the Jewish people by God: But does the Bible support this belief? Daniella Weiss, a leader of Israel’s Jewish settler movement, clearly stands with the believers.

The claim that God promised the land to the Jews has been a major factor in the establishment of today’s state of Israel, the Jewish colonization of the land, and the terrible suffering this has caused for Jews as well as Palestinians. But is this claim true?

Answering this requires examining the conditions God put on the “land grant” and the consequences of violating those conditions:

Dan McGowan, Executive Director of Deir Yassin Remembered, narrates this “rest of the story,” citing The New English Bible for clarity. Then viewers should be better able to decide whether God gave the land to the current state of Israel and how to help end the suffering.

Rachel Corrie: REAL Footage of death

Footage from Rachel’s murder by the Israeli Defense Forces. Actual cockpit transmission from the D-9 bulldozer driver to the watch tower, saying he “hit an object” and “I think the object got hit by the dobby (D-9) and he is in a severe condition.” He is asked “Did you see him?” and responds “Yes I saw him, I think he is dead.”

Rachel Aliene Corrie (April 10, 1979 — March 16, 2003) was an American member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). She was killed in the Gaza Strip by an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer when she was standing or kneeling in front of a local Palestinian’s home, thus acting as a human shield, attempting to prevent the IDF from demolishing the home. The IDF stated that the death was due to the restricted angle of view of the IDF Caterpillar D9 bulldozer driver, while members of the International Solidarity Movement said “there was nothing to obscure the driver’s view.” A student at The Evergreen State College, she had taken a year off to travel to the Gaza Strip during the Second Intifada.

Gaza 2014


90% of Iraqi children have lost a relative, orphans exposed to rape & abuse

– charities to RT:

The battle against ISIS in Iraq has devastated civilian lives, particularly those of children. While some have been reunited with surviving relatives, hundreds of them remain abandoned or in dire need of psychological help in Iraqi orphanages.

Over the past months, together with Iraqi and Russian authorities, RT has been leading a “Bring them home” campaign, focused on returning Russian speaking orphans back home. Some of the children, recognized by their relatives after being shown on RT, have already been sent to their families.

“We already managed to return six children [to Russia],” Iraq’s ambassador to Russia, Haidar Mansour Hadi, told RT.

The ambassador explained that once children, whose parents are believed to have been killed while fighting in IS ranks are discovered, they are put in government run children’s homes in Baghdad, where “they are provided with the best services, looked after and given food, clothing and good caring until we find their relatives and they prove the kinship.”

There are several such children’s homes in the Iraqi capital, but the plan is to put all of those children in one home, so it is easier to coordinate the efforts of various government entities involved in the process and speed it up. Iraq is also in the process of setting up a database “to know exactly how many children, how many people the Iraqi government and the Iraqi embassy can help through diplomatic and legal channels, to return those children safely home.”

Just this week, two more children, whose parents are believed to be Russian-speaking, were brought into the orphanage in Baghdad. However, getting the new arrivals to open up and talk has proved to be a difficult process.

READ MORE: Iraq will be free from ISIS terrorists ‘within days’ – Iraqi ambassador to RT

Mouhamed allegedly speaks a mixture of Russian and Arabic, but says nothing to reveal his identity. He has an injury on one of his knees.

Haddja says nothing at all. She is suffering from a wound to her ankle, in what appears to be a severe burn.

One of their mates said both children were brought into the orphanage at night, and she has not heard either of them speak Russian since. The team working on the ground is now trying to establish if the children are of Russian descent.

‘We are waiting you home’: Relatives of Russian children in Iraq come forward after RT coverage 

Many Iraqi children have endured more bloodshed and agony than most adults will in a lifetime. Children living in violent environments experience horrors which most others are not subjected to, such as destruction of their homes, the death of parents, siblings and friends. Those who end up by themselves are forced to make critical survival decisions at a young age to live through situations where they believe they will die.

“Nearly 90 percent of children have lost a member of their family – either they were kidnapped or killed. When they were escaping – they were shot at from behind, or fell on booby traps,” Aram Shakaram, from Save The Children, told RT.

Once found by authorities and brought to relative safety, the children require both psychological and physical help, support which orphanages in Iraq are struggling to provide.

“We are helping those children, certainly we don’t have enough resources. Children are almost everywhere,” Shakaram noted. “But ultimately, the support comes from family, from government and from extended family. Once we connect the children, everyone is keen to receive them and support them.”

The problem, as RT’s Murad Gazdiev has found out in Erbil, Iraq, is making that connection with the lost relatives, especially since most of them suffer from psychological trauma and don’t talk much.

“As soon as a helicopter flies around, the children drop to the floor and cry. Some of them cry at night. Some fear when they see foreigners. Some fear when they see strangers. Some shut up and say no word for a long time, until they open up,” Maulid Warfa from the United Nations Children’s Fund told RT.

“It’s severe distress. And many of them are wounded – some of the hospitals we visit confirm that the biggest number of civilians they have in the hospitals are children,” Warfa added.

Previous studies of psychological problems in persons who have witnessed and experienced the horrors of war noted a wide range of conditions. Post traumatic stress disorder and various forms of anxiety disorders are most common, in addition to depression and prolonged grief disorder.

Helping children of foreign ISIS fighters find homes is no easier than helping Iraqi orphans reunite with loved ones.

 is actively trying to bring several dozen children from Iraqi orphanages back home 

Photo published for 7yo girl helps track down two sisters in Iraqi orphanage shown in RT coverage — RT News

7yo girl helps track down two sisters in Iraqi orphanage shown in RT coverage — RT News

A seven-year-old girl has helped her two missing friends, sisters living at an orphanage in Baghdad, find their relatives in Dagestan. She spotted them when watching an RT video about children whose…

“It is much better if foreign children were reunited with their families. They will have problems here – with documents, in schools, with healthcare. They need their families love,” the director of Mosul’s orphanage, Tahin Ami, told RT.

Even those children who live with relatives are prone to abuse and various dangers of the war-torn country, RT has found.

“They are vulnerable to abuse. They are vulnerable to trafficking, they are vulnerable to any danger that children are exposed to,” Warfa noted. “With today’s technology, a bad group could go get those children and harm them.”

To protect them, Warfa says, social care workers teach them not to talk to strangers. Charities also try avoiding to needlessly show children on camera in order to protect their identities.

Deadly Surprises:  leaves booby traps throughout as Iraqi army fights for city 

Photo published for Sappers’ nightmare: RT films devastation in heavily booby-trapped Tal Afar — RT News

Sappers’ nightmare: RT films devastation in heavily booby-trapped Tal Afar — RT News

Booby-traps and mines left behind by Islamic State in emptied houses, destruction and almost no civilians – this is the reality in a town of Tal Afar liberated with great fanfare by US-backed Iraqi…

The Iraqi government is meanwhile trying to return children of foreign ISIS fighters back home, and is in the process of setting up a database to help the repatriation process, Ambassador Hadi told RT.

“There were terrorists from almost 100 countries, including from the US, Europe, and even as far as China, who we were fighting in Iraq,” Hadi said. “We believe there is probably more.”

So far, about 500 children of those terrorists have been discovered in areas previously controlled by IS, the diplomat noted.

The ambassador also expressed hope that more countries will join Russia’s initiative to help return home the innocent children of their radicalized parents, who chose to die in Iraq fighting alongside the terrorist group.

“We believe that once we clear up all the areas and find [such] children there, more countries will come forward and contact us asking for their children back.”

If you have any information about the children in our videos, you can contact us at

French labor reform protesters denounce Macron’s ‘assault on workers’ rights’ (VIDEOS)

Several hundred activists have taken to the streets of a Paris suburb, protesting against new labor reforms which will make it easier for companies to hire and fire workers, and accusing President Emmanuel Macron of failing to represent the people.

The rally, organized by a group of trade unions, Solidaires and the CGT as well as associations like Attac France and Members of the Right to Housing (DAL), denounced the reforms of the labor code that is currently under government discussion.

Protesters arrived at the HEC School of Management in the Jouy-en-Josas suburb –where France’s largest employer federation MEDEF are hosting their ‘Summer University’ – to speak out against the perceived influence of the French business lobby over their newly elected business friendly president.

“Mr. Macron represents the big bosses, and those who want to cut public services, social protection and everything achieved by workers,” one of the protesters at the rally told RT.

The Movement of the Enterprises of France (MEDEF), has been making their own demands to Macron’s government as it works to reform the country’s Labor Code. Speaking to Europe 1 radio, the vice-president of MEDEF Thibault Lanxade confirmed that his organization has great “confidence” in the reforms carried out by Macron.

Protesters however believe that MEDEF, which represents over 750,000 companies of all sizes, does not represent the interests of workers.

“It is about ideology. To be able to sack workers more easily and stop work. In fact, he wants to get rid of employee protections altogether. It is a big attack of the hierarchy. Corporate deals will now take over,” another protester added.

Reforming the country’s strict labor laws has been one of Macron’s top priorities. On Tuesday, his government begun the final round of talks with trade unions’ representatives on liberalizing the labor laws which the government hopes will reduce the 9.5 percent unemployment rate in France.

Francois Hollande’s Socialist government sparked months of protests trying to push through a less ambitious labor bill last year.

Now Macron strives to grant employers more power to negotiate employment conditions with workers, which some believe will diminish the weight of trade unions. The 39-year-old former investment banker also wants to cap the compensation awarded by courts in workers dismissal cases. The final version of the reforms will be presented on 31 August.

‘Radical new path’: Macron proposes cutting French parliament by third

The CGT union has already called for a massive nationwide rally on September 12. Force Ouvriere (FO), the third largest trade union in France, turned down an invitation to participate. Despite the snub, huge numbers are expected to march through the streets.

Why Are There No Statues Of Jewish Confederate Judah Benjamin To Tear Down?

Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson, the three most famous Confederate heroes, have hundreds of memorials and monuments in public spaces throughout the United States dedicated in their memory.

Judah Philip Benjamin, the most significant Jewish political figure in the United States during the 19th century — often called the “brains of the Confederacy” — has four. One is a house that Benjamin never owned. One’s a rusted bell. None of them are statues of his likeness.

Though Benjamin was a brilliant legal mind, a legendary orator and Confederate President Jefferson Davis’s right-hand man, it is likely that the reason he has no major monuments is that he alienated himself from both Jewish and non-Jewish Southerners.

“Non-Jews didn’t make statues of him because he was a Jew, and Jews didn’t make statues of him because he was intermarried and not really associated with the Jewish community,” said Jonathan Sarna, the Joseph H. & Belle R. Braun Professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University and the author, in 2015, of “Lincoln and the Jews.”

“He kind of lost both sides,” Sarna added.

Because of his less-than-revered status, Benjamin has not become a focus of the current movement to remove statues of Confederate figures that has roiled the nation and shaken President Trump’s administration. It was the Virginia city of Charlottesville’s push to remove a statue of Lee that sparked last weekend’s white supremacist rally, which left one counter-demonstrator dead and many others injured.

Some historians say Jews should be more aware of how their history was deeply intertwined with the Confederacy — and with slavery.

“It’s hard to excise Judah Benjamin’s memory from the American Jewish consciousness, because it’s not in the American Jewish consciousness,” said Robert Rosen, who recounted Benjamin’s life in the 2000 book “The Jewish Confederates.”

There is only one known statue of a Jewish Confederate leader. It depicts David Levy Yulee, an industrialist, plantation owner and Confederate senator from Florida, and it shows him sitting on a bench. The statue commemorates a railway he built, not his Senate service. It stands in the small northern Florida town of Fernandina Beach (population: 12,500), and so far no one has suggested toppling it.

Benjamin was the child of English merchants whose ancestors were Jews evicted from Spain in 1492. After getting kicked out of Yale University at 16, he became a lawyer in New Orleans and married a Catholic daughter of a prominent local family. He eventually established a successful practice in commercial law at a time when the city was a center of international trade.

That included slaves. Although Benjamin represented slaves in multiple cases, acknowledging their humanity in public and private, he would ultimately determine that slaves, as property, were a man’s right.

“Judah Benjamin is a great example of how Southern Jews were assimilated into Southern society,” Rosen said. “But of course they accepted all the values of that society, including slavery.”

While it appears that the majority of Southern Jews owned slaves, of those most had only house slaves. (There were only four Jews in 1830 who owned more than fifty slaves.) Benjamin, however, owned a 300-acre plantation and 140 slaves to grow and harvest sugarcane on it. (One of his biographers has asserted that he was a “humane” slave owner.)

Benjamin was elected to the U.S. Senate from Louisiana, and in the Senate he gained a reputation as a legendary orator and as an apologist for slavery. One member of Congress called him “an Israelite with Egyptian principles.” When the moment of secession came, Benjamin gave an epic final speech on the floor of the Senate, bidding “a respectful farewell” to his “brother senators.”

Benjamin had many roles in the Confederacy, moving from attorney general to secretary of war to secretary of state. Rosen called him the “smartest person in the whole Confederate government.” Benjamin’s knack for working behind the scenes, however, and the influence he held over Davis, led others in the Confederate Cabinet to distrust him. Many called him Davis’s “pet Jew.”

“He was discreet, loyal, a workaholic, somebody you wanted on your side,” Rosen said. In his book, Rosen writes that Benjamin negotiated loans for the cash-starved Confederacy and was the South’s “spymaster,” possibly even organizing a plot to kidnap Abraham Lincoln in the waning days of the war.

“He certainly was the most important person in the government other than Davis,” Rosen added.

As the South began to lose the war, Benjamin received much of the blame, though in truth he did as much as possible to keep the rebellion alive. Historians agree that he was unduly made a scapegoat for the South’s misfortunes in the war.

Popular sentiment toward him declined only when, in the final days of the Confederacy’s existence, he fled for England by way of the Bahamas and escaped persecution by the North. In London he became a lawyer, and British historians consider him a significant contributor to British legal theory.

As far as leaving a mark on the Southern Jewish community, Benjamin pretty much vanished without a trace. Although he never hid his Jewish ancestry, he made little to no effort to establish it as a part of his personal life.

“Benjamin had a kind of ambivalence towards the Jewish community, meaning he never denied being a Jew and never changed his name, but on the other hand his wife was not Jewish and his daughter was not Jewish,” Sarna said.

Many held Benjamin in low regard for another reason: A lot of historians now suspect that he was gay. This hypothesis, Sarna said, “explains a lot of things.”

For one, Benjamin burned all his personal documents on his deathbed.

“Folks who were gay — well into the 20th century — were enormously self-conscious about being discovered, and few of their papers remain,” Sarna said.

Furthermore, the stated reason for Benjamin’s early dismissal from Yale was “ungentlemanly conduct,” a common euphemism for being gay in the 19th century. Perhaps most tellingly, Benjamin’s wife lived in Paris for nearly five decades during their marriage. He visited her and their daughter once a year at most.

Despite all this, there are two central reasons that Benjamin has never been cast in bronze and set atop a granite platform, and they have little to do with the biographical details of his life. One concerns the Southern Jewish community, and the other the motivations for building Confederate monuments in the first place.

The majority of Confederate monuments were erected in the late 19th and early 20th century at the height of white backlash against black political participation during Reconstruction. Benjamin, a politician born in the West Indies, did not fit the nostalgic attraction for Confederate battle-hardness and unshakable Southern identity that was in vogue at that time.

“The memorialization happened long after the war, and it was done in a kind of way to evoke a romantic image of what the Confederacy had been,” said Eric Goldstein, a professor of American Jewish history at Emory University. “Of all the people you could choose to memorialize, Benjamin did not fit that mold.”

Josh Parshall, a historian at the Goldring/Woldenberg Institute for Southern Jewish Life, said that Southern Jews — especially families with deep Southern roots — took part in this Confederate nostalgia. It was a way not only of life, but also to stay out of the path of white Southerners.

“For those communities that had been in the South at the time of the Civil War, or who arrived shortly thereafter, participating in the commemoration of the Confederacy was a way of being part of the local white communities,” Parshall said.

However, for various reasons these communities were not interested in raising monuments of their own. A popular opinion at the time was that Jews should not create “graven images” of famous Jews, since it would defy the third of the Ten Commandments.

Parshall also noted that the composition of Southern Jews was changing rapidly during the Confederate nostalgia craze of the early 20th century.

Jews pouring into cities like Atlanta and Houston from Eastern Europe had little truck with Confederate apologists. According to Rosen, the one Jewish community that might have put up a statue to the man — in Charleston, South Carolina, where he was raised — was too poor to memorialize much of anything: That city’s monument to the Confederacy wasn’t erected until 1932.

There was at least one attempt to raise a real statue of Benjamin — but it wasn’t even by a Jewish organization. In August 1910, The Daily States, a New Orleans evening newspaper, suggested in an editorial that the city’s planned memorial to Davis include a statue of Benjamin on the other side of Canal Street, in downtown New Orleans. “We refer to Judah P. Benjamin, one of the most remarkable men of his age, and one of the most intellectual his splendid race has produced,” the editorial read.

“The life of such a man ought to be an inspiration to mankind. To the members of the Jewish race, upon whom he shed such luster, it ought to be particularly a labor of love to inaugurate and carry to success a subscription movement to make the monument possible,” the editorial added.

But when the statue of Davis was eventually erected in 1911 and the street adjacent to it renamed Jefferson Davis Parkway, Benjamin’s likeness was nowhere to be seen. It’s unclear why.

The city of New Orleans removed the Davis statue in May.

Today, Benjamin’s legacy lives on in strange ways, even though he hasn’t been a focus of the pushback against white supremacists that is sweeping the nation and has put Trump on the defensive.

Benjamin’s face appears on the Confederacy’s $2 bill, which, issued in 1862, can fetch about $25 on eBay Inc. (The $1,000 bill, featuring John C. Calhoun and Andrew Jackson, has sold for tens of thousands of dollars at auctions.)

Some “alt-right” conspiracy theorists have tried to frame Benjamin as a Trojan horse for Jewish influence in the Confederacy. One Jewish “alt-right” blogger, known as Reactionary Jew, uses Benjamin’s face as his profile picture on Twitter.

Rosen thinks it’s a shame that more American Jews do not know about the Jewish Confederate, even with Benjamin’s support for slavery.

“He was the most successful Jewish figure in American politics until [Louis] Brandeis,” Rosen said.

“If there were a statue, I would defend it,” he added. “Maybe I’ll build a statue, now that you’ve called me.”

Contact Ari Feldman at or on Twitter, @aefeldman

Read more:


General Lee Rides Again!


by Veiko Hessler

ALL ACROSS America a great iconoclasm is happening. What started with murmurs of disapproval and the banishing of suspect symbols has become an out and out torrent of inchoate rage against collective memory. In towns and cities across the South, Confederate monuments that have stood in their silent watch for a century or more are being dismantled and removed in the dead of night by cowardly municipal councils hoping to appease the howling mob.

Frustrated with the slow pace of bureaucratic vandalism, the same mob has taken it on itself to engage in vigilante vandalism to destroy these icons in broad daylight instead — literally trampling and spitting on the past with self-congratulatory abandon.

This attack on history is not new. It is simply the culmination of a process which has been ongoing in Hollywood and in print for years; the psychological destruction of history has now manifested itself in the physical realm. Yet their actions which aim to show their strength, in reality show their weakness. Though they may be able to operate with seeming impunity, the factor which above all motivates them is fear. They are frightened of history itself, and its power to potentially awaken the spirit of resistance.

It is unsurprising they should accelerate their campaign to destroy history in the era of Brexit and Trump. These electoral earthquakes exposed the precariousness of their ideological hegemony and showed indisputably a hardening resistance to their agenda. But far from backing down in the face of the turning tide, they have sought to speed up their plans to sever nations from their roots by erasing the great continuous procession of the past. In their efforts to convert all to their nihilistic, relativistic, and hedonistic ideology tearing down the heroes of history is essential, because the great heroes of the past, through their actions, prove there are objective standards to live up to. They prove that an individual can transcend circumstance, conquer adversity, and above all — resist the prevailing currents of thought. General Lee is an infuriating figure for the left, because although sullied by the supposed moral infirmity of his cause, The Marble Man who carried out his duty to the end with impeccable conduct in the face of overwhelming odds still captures the imagination of many.

They believe that by removing his likeness and attempting to erase him from history, they will extinguish his ability to awaken the will to resist in those who are seeking idols in an age of villains. It is important that they do this now, because more and more people are surveying the vulgar, vapid, and morally sick nature of modernity and becoming restless and disillusioned. More and more people are realising we have chosen the wrong path, and to choose a different route we must return to where we came from — we must look back to our ancestors. In the minds of the fearful, they must stamp out the dim embers of a coherent collective mythology now, once and for all, to complete their plans for a rootless, international, and meaningless world. A world in which they can guiltlessly aspire to nothing, because no man ever was better than another. A world in which no one is subjected to judgement, because they fear if they ever were, they would be found wanting.

For all their hollow espousal of tolerance, it is inconceivable to them to believe that the Confederate memorials represent in actuality the pinnacle of tolerance. They are the embodiment of a respectful reconciliation between old enemies, a graceful nod to the notion that people can fight and die on opposite sides, but in the end, come together as one to build a collective future. A nation that has the capacity to build memorials to those who disagreed violently with its fundamental ideals without rancour surely is a nation replete with tolerance.

If they believe that by destroying these signifiers they can make the past simply go away, they are wrong. For every statue they topple, for every set of bones they disturb (literally, in the case of Nathan Bedford Forrest), for every memorial that is melted down, they stoke the fires of resistance.

By their conspicuous and reckless actions, they expose the true fundamental political and philosophical dichotomy of our time — it is not “right” or “left,” but builders and destroyers. Those who wish to preserve and grow, and those who wish to venerate random destruction and waste. They have made a catastrophic miscalculation — the history of the West is too bejewelled, too powerful, and too large to be swept away by a few fearful and jealous pygmies.

It is telling that the statue that was toppled in Durham, North Carolina was not a memorial to a great general, but a humble tribute to commemorate all the nameless hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers who died, not for a belief in some odious economic system or grand ideology, but simply because they were inspired by a deep-seated desire to preserve their locality, their order, their way of life. In the moment that the monument simply known locally as ‘Old Joe’ was cast to the ground and set upon by a frothing mob, it was retroactively vindicated. The great mass of Confederate soldiers was roused to take up arms against their own nation exactly because they feared that one day, this would happen: that the nation itself would fall into the hands of the ignorant, the fearful and foolish, who sought to erase it. The vandals may have succeeded in destroying a statue, but in doing so they released the ghosts dormant within.

The boiling indignation of any true patriot at the lawless and reckless destruction of our heritage instantly created thousands more supporters of that heritage. We may still be outnumbered, but we have something that our enemies will never have. While they live their lives wracked by self-doubt, fearful and riven by existential crisis in the meaningless world they have created, we march with thousands of years of glorious history on our side. Our path may be difficult, but every step we travel we are cheered on by the multitude of those who fought and died to make our world possible.

While the destroyer can only feel strength in the mob, every one of our actions is guided by the wisdom and strength of those who came before us. When we march together, we march not only as friends and comrades standing against the tide of destruction and decay, but we march in lockstep with the tenacious columns of those Confederate soldiers who gave their lives in a heroic act of collective defiance. They may pull down Robert E. Lee, but they will not pull down Western civilization. His likeness may have vanished from many parks across the country — but that is only because General Lee rides again!

* * *

Source: Author


Jews Dictate to US Mayors, Tech Firms: Suppress Rights of “Racists”

Jonathan Greenblatt, boss of the organized-crime-linked ADL

Introductory Note: As we write this, the National Alliance is under attack. As our Chairman William White Williams announced today:

Unfortunately the National Alliance is under attack, as are other effective pro-White groups, following the Charlottesville skirmish. Our payment and donation platform, Stripe, (similar to Paypal), that we have used for several years without incident, was revoked without justification yesterday. We are working to replace it with another service as soon as possible so folks can again support us with convenient electronic transfers. Be patient; we’ve come to expect this sort of mistreatment from some of those we contract with for services.

The American Express credit card folks informed us Wednesday that they will no longer honor charges made to us through their service. Tuesday our new National Alliance Books shopping cart was cancelled similarly after being in service less than three months. Again, no violations of their TOS (Terms of Service) were cited. That’s because we never once violated them. The provider, Cart66, capitulated to pressure from Jews, just as did American Express and Stripe. These denials of service are not coincidental, but part of a coordinated campaign against White racial loyalists by Jews and their goyische collaborators. and other truth-telling groups are in worse shape than the Alliance, and many such sites have gone completely down. Jews are leveraging widespread belief in their latest false narrative (“Racists committed murder in Charlottesville!”) and the emotional reaction to it into pressure on service providers, who doubtlessly are told that their company’s name will be listed among those providing service to “murdering Nazi bigots” in the next issue of the ADL report or the Atlantic or other Jewish-controlled publications — unless, of course, they quickly sever ties with the “Nazis,” then all will be well and their company’s and CEO’s and owner’s name will not appear. It is a tried and true Jewish pressure tactic, and it may to continue to work for a few more years.

Seizing what they see as an emotional moment of heightened vulnerability, the ADL today publicly pushed mayors of many US cities to curtail the rights and freedoms of White citizens, and pressured tech firms to “deplatform” those who are aware of Jewish criminal and subversive activities. The following report is based on information from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

* * *

THE MAYORS of America’s largest cities have agreed to “launch a partnership” with the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) “to combat hate and bigotry.” [Read: to suppress exposure of genocide against Whites and of other crimes]

Nearly 200 mayors have joined the agreement, which was announced Friday, since it was first circulated Tuesday night among the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The mayors are agreeing to “explicitly condemn racism, white supremacy and bigotry, and to implement educational and public safety programs to safeguard vulnerable populations and discourage discrimination.”

Signers include the mayors of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C, and Phoenix.

“For decades, America’s mayors have taken a strong position in support of civil rights and in opposition to racism and discrimination of all kinds,” the Mayors’ Compact reads. “We are now seeing efforts in our states and at the highest levels of our government to weaken existing civil rights policies and reduce their enforcement. We have seen an increase in hate violence, xenophobic rhetoric, and discriminatory actions that target Muslims, Jews, and other minorities.”

The compact sets out a 10-point program that includes public officials being expected to denounce citizens whom Jews designate as “bigots”; restricting public speech “to ensure public safety”; spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money to the ADL and other Jewish organizations to indoctrinate police officials and officers and convince them that they must consider White advocates to be “criminals” and “terrorists” and give them special scrutiny at all times; working with “community leaders” to “combat bigotry” [read: spend millions in public funds to support anti-White hate groups, including violent, armed Antifa]; and “strengthening anti-bias education programs in schools.” [read: programming our children to believe that any expression of White interests or solidarity is “hate”]

Many of the points echo a plan of action that the ADL called on the White House to adopt earlier this week. The Jewish group, which has strong ties to organized crime and which was founded largely to defend a Jewish sex criminal a century ago, proposed the plan following what they called “the white supremacist rally” in Charlottesville, Virginia, and President Donald Trump’s response, which the ADL and many others have slammed.

“The events in Charlottesville once again showed us we have much work to do to bring Americans together,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, the ADL’s national director on a conference call with reporters. “We know that hate is on the rise. ADL can’t wait any longer for the president to act. ADL is ready to work with communities across the country to combat hate.”

The announcement of the compact comes during a high-profile week for the ADL. The group received $1 million donations from Apple and 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch, and announced a “partnership” with Bumble, a dating app, to block bigoted profiles. Whites should, apparently, not be allowed to prefer their own race when dating, a step that no other Jewish group has dared take before.

Some of the [prostitutes calling themselves] mayors also portrayed the compact as “a response in part to the president’s equivocation [sic] of white supremacists and those who oppose them.” Steve Adler, the Jewish mayor of Austin, Texas, who has volunteered for the ADL in the past, said during the call that “mayors don’t need a teleprompter to say Nazis are bad.”

“There’s a clear lack of a moral compass,” Mayor Shane Bemis of Gresham, Oregon, a city of 100,000 east of Portland, said on the call. “This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, how he has continued to divide us since the election. It is clearly, in my view, an absence of any sort of moral leadership from the president.”

[“Morality” is now apparently defined as wanting to suppress and punish Whites.]

* * *

Source: Jewish Telegraphic Agency and National Vanguard correspondents

Bolton’s JCPOA exit plan to lead to fiasco for US: Iran FM

by Jim W. Dean, VT Editor   … with Press TV,  Tehran

Iran has a tiny fraction of its former reprocessing capacity, and yet Deep Staters want to break the deal

[ Editor’s Note: As the saying goes, the good may die young, but the wicked surely do not. Deep Stater John Bolton raises his craggy head one more time, compliments of the National Review, a long time proponent of “special interests”.

In what I can only view as an attempt at humor, Bolton claims he is only going public because Trump would not grant him an audience to set him straight on Iran. Imagine that. One of the signs that you are dealing with a Deep Stater is their incredible gall.

Another clue is their total denial of the abject failure of their anti-Iran Jihad, proven when all of their and Israel’s claims of a nuclear weapons-armed Iran turned out to be a complete hoax – a conspiratorial psyops actually. Some, like me, consider it an act of treason to attempt to take our country into war on completely false information.

Trump is showing signs of Dick Cheneyism with his pressuring US Intel to find something to use to breach the Iran nuclear deal. And I have to point out again that this is being done with virtually no one in media or anywhere else mentioning that the claims of Iran’s secret nuke program were a hoax. Not even Iran mentions this, when it is the biggest credibility crusher club that it has to use on provocateurs like Bolton.

What the Bolton crowd does not get is Iran does not stand alone now. Russia and China and Europe were fully behind the old Iran sanctions, and they are fully behind implementing the agreement now. We are seeing a kind of attempted coup to have the US break an international agreement, pushed by those who supported fabricated claims.

If you see any outrage over this from any of the US civic and security-related organizations, please let me know. All I can see is a barren wasteland, in terms of organizations willing to stand up to the oath of defending the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I thought we were supposed to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them, but maybe that is considered and old-fashioned sentiment now… JD ]

Jim’s Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal –

This includes research, needed field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving, and more – Thanks for helping out


Iran’s Zarif

–  First published  …  August 30,  2017  –

Iran’s foreign minister has slammed a “game plan” drawn up by a veteran US diplomat for the Washington administration to exit the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement, saying John Bolton’s strategy would only lead to “a fiasco” for the United States.

“This plan will definitely be a huge failure for the United States and it will lead to the further isolation of America in the international arena,” Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a Wednesday interview.

Bolton, a hawkish ally of US President Donald Trump, elaborated on what he called the game plan in an op-ed published on Monday in the National Review, laying out a “strategy” for the campaign to leave the Iran deal and “its execution.”

He openly stated that he shares Trump’s strong antipathy toward the 2015 the nuclear deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), between Iran and six world powers, including the US.

He claimed the plan had to be presented publicly, as Trump declined to meet him and receive his suggestions regarding the issue amid staff changes at the White House.

Zarif pointed to Bolton’s previous plan over a decade ago to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment program, saying, “Mr. Bolton should remember that if his policy had been successful, the US would not have had to come to the negotiating table with Iran after 10 year of pursuing that policy and reach an agreement.”

The Iranian foreign minister argued that Washington’s decade-long pursuit of Bolton-engineered policy to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment eventually had no result but a significant increase in the number of Iran’s centrifuges from 200 to nearly 20,000.

This shows that pressure and sanctions will not affect the political will of the Iranian nation, Zarif said.

Trump President took over from his Barack Obama as America’s leader in January. He rose to power mainly on the platform of undoing every major policy achievement of the former administration.

Trump intensely campaigned against the Iran deal and remains a steadfast critic of the landmark deal, which is viewed internationally as a major win for diplomacy; however, Iran’s full compliance has forced the US president to twice certify the deal to Congress.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), tasked with monitoring Iranian compliance, has consistently verified that Iran has been holding up its end of the bargain.

In what is seen by analysts as an attempt to find pretexts to escape a third certification, the new US administration is currently lobbying with the IAEA to request access to Iranian military sites as part of the deal.

Trump has also set up a team of his White House confidantes to present him with “options” other than certifying Iranian compliance with the deal to the Congress. Such certification is needed by US law every 90 days in order for the Congress to continue to withhold nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, itself a US commitment under the JCPOA.

The White House is also pressuring intelligence officials in the United States to produce intelligence that could be used to declare Iran in violation of a nuclear deal the president despises.


Related Posts:

The Same Ol’ Afghan War Fallacies

Unless President Trump can pull off a peace deal with the Taliban, his Afghan War policy is following the same bloody and futile path that his predecessors took, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar describes.

By Paul R. Pillar

President Trump’s statement on Afghanistan has numerous shortcomings. It portrays as a “new strategy” what is instead a familiar kicking of a can down the road. It combines Trump’s habit of heaping blame on his predecessors with a warmed-over version of what those predecessors did in Afghanistan.

President Donald Trump describing his policy toward the Afghan War, at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, on Aug. 21, 2017. (Screenshot from

It declares a determination to “win” while leaving one guessing as to exactly what a win would mean in Afghanistan. It fails to address underlying problems of governance in that country. It gives no basis for expecting or even hoping that the U.S. military expedition there will not go on forever.

Added to these features is a further notion that Trump shares with many others, including observers who in other respects are critical of his policy. This is the idea that there is a direct connection between extremists having a physical presence in a distant land and the United States facing a terrorist threat at home.

Trump used the term safe haven four times in his speech. He declared that the basic purpose of the military expedition in Afghanistan was, “We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that enable terrorists to threaten America.”

One hears this same idea over and over. The current U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, General John W. Nicholson, Jr., says, “The requirement to keep pressure on these terror groups to prevent another attack on our homeland .?.?. fundamentally, that is why we are here.” Such statements — and not only about Afghanistan — are minor rephrasing of the old notion of “fight them over there or else we’ll have to fight them at home.”

That notion is not valid, and never has been. The very physical distance involved works against the relevance of foreign havens to terrorist threats against the homeland. One cannot drive a truck bomb, or even the ingredients for one, across the Atlantic Ocean. To the extent any physical space is required to prepare a terrorist attack, a house or apartment in or near the city being targeted is — as a long history of terrorist incidents has demonstrated — much more useful to terrorists than a piece of real estate on another continent.

Very little safe space of any sort is required for high-impact terrorism. After the recently discovered terrorist cell in Spain suffered the mishap of accidentally blowing up the house they were using in a Catalonian village to prepare explosives, they turned to the no-space-required technique of renting vehicles and using them to run down people in the street — the most popular terrorist modus operandi in the West in recent months. As for the terrorist-related functions of recruitment and operational coordination, most of that occurs not in any physical space but in cyberspace.

The ‘Safe Haven’ Myth

Even if the idea of a foreign safe haven being critical to international terrorist operations were valid, it could not be a sound basis for justifying a military expedition in any one country. Havens are fungible, and extremists driven from one place can set up shop somewhere else. The focus on Afghanistan is a historical legacy of one group’s operations in the past, which in turn were a legacy of an anti-Soviet insurgency in the even more distant past.

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney receive an Oval Office briefing from CIA Director George Tenet. Also present is Chief of Staff Andy Card (on right). (White House photo)

The current prime foes in Afghanistan, the Taliban, are not an international terrorist group and never have been one. The Taliban are instead narrowly focused on political power and the nature of the social order within Afghanistan.

It is true that a patch of foreign real estate may be required for more ambitious operations such as organizing and training a militia. But the world is full of militias that do not threaten the United States, and they certainly should not be equated with terrorist threats to the U.S. homeland.

The establishment of a mini-state on Iraqi and Syria territory by the so-called Islamic State or ISIS raises the further issue of how such a seizure of territory might inspire radicalized individuals elsewhere. But the inspiration depends more on ideology and grievances than on a territorial presence, as has been demonstrated by ISIS-inspired terrorism in the West that has continued and even increased while the mini-state has been getting crushed.

The persistence, especially in the minds of Americans, of the erroneous notion about safe havens and terrorism has much to do with 9/11, its searing effect on the American consciousness, and Al-Qaeda’s past residency in Afghanistan. But the notion is a misreading of that piece of history, even without getting into overlooked details about phases of the Afghan civil war and the nature of the relationship between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Most of the preparations for the 9/11 operation did not take place in Afghanistan; most took place in the West, including in apartments in Hamburg, hotels in Spain, and flight schools in the United States.

The safe haven notion also has become a convenient mantra to cite as a rationale for continuing U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan for other reasons. Those reasons may include fear that if a pullout from Afghanistan were followed by a major anti-U.S. terrorist attack, domestic political opponents would make a rhetorical connection between the two whether the connection were valid or not. And the more the mantra is recited, the more believable such alleged connections sound to the public.

Fearing a Backlash

More general habits of thought, especially American habits, are also in play. One is a tendency toward spatial thinking that associates good guys and bad guys with different places on a map. There is a tendency to imagine a Mordor whether one exists or not. A further American tendency is to equate solving a security problem with an overseas use of military force. Related to that is the American view of terrorism as primarily a foreign threat, notwithstanding the nature of most terrorist attacks within the United States since 9/11.

President Barack Obama concludes a National Security Council meeting in the Situation Room of the White House, April 19, 2016. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

An unfortunate effect of the persistent notion about terrorist safe havens is not only costly and unnecessary military expeditions; the notion also worsens the terrorist threat itself. The overseas deployment of U.S. military forces provides a major motivation for anti-U.S. terrorism. The collateral casualties and damage that inevitably result from operations by those forces accentuate the grievances that underlie such terrorism.

A relevant reminder about this comes from an incomplete and misleading passage in Trump’s speech about Afghanistan. He referred to Iraq and asserted that “the vacuum we created by leaving too soon gave safe haven for ISIS to spread, to grow, recruit, and launch attacks.” What he did not mention was that ISIS did not exist before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. The group arose, under a different name, as a direct result of the invasion and of the warfare within Iraq that the invasion ignited.

And lest we forget, a major part of the campaign to sell the invasion to the American public involved the fear of terrorism, the specter of dictators giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, and the idea that if we don’t fight the bad guys over there they will attack us at home.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is author most recently of Why America Misunderstands the World. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)


Syria’s Assad says terrorists’ plot has failed, vows resistance until final victory

Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:25PM
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (R) and visiting Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Jaberi Ansari meet in Damascus on August 30, 2017. (Photo by SANA)
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (R) and visiting Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Jaberi Ansari meet in Damascus on August 30, 2017. (Photo by SANA)

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says the terrorists’ plot in Syria has failed, stressing that the country will not rest until the full restoration of security to the entire Syrian territory.

The Syrian president made the remarks in a meeting with visiting Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Jaberi Ansari in Damascus on Wednesday.

Assad said victories made by the Syrian forces and their allies have changed the global attitude towards the Syrian crisis and forced those countries that supported terrorists to change their policies.

He highlighted efforts made by Iran and other friendly countries to support the Syrian people in their resistance and fight against terrorism.

The Syrian president also praised the support of the Iranian leadership and nation for Syria in its fight against terrorism and underlined the need for Tehran and Damascus to remain vigilant and improve coordination at the current juncture.

During the meeting, the Iranian diplomat, who arrived in Damascus on Wednesday, briefed Assad on the diplomatic efforts made by Tehran and its negotiations with various regional and international sides with respect to the developments in Syria.

The two sides also exchanged views on the process of the Astana talks aimed at resolving the crisis in the Arab country.

Jaberi Ansari, who heads Iran’s delegation to the Astana talks, also emphasized the need for close consultations between Iran and Syria.

Astana has hosted five rounds of peace talks on Syria since January. Russia, Iran, and Turkey serve as guarantor states in the peace process. The negotiations are aimed at bringing an end to the foreign-backed militancy in Syria, which began in March 2011.

In a Tuesday Facebook post, the Kazakh Foreign Ministry said the next round of the Syria talks in the Kazakh capital may be held in mid-September.

Earlier this month, United Nations Special Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura also hoped for a “serious negotiation” between the Damascus government and the opposition in October or November.

The UN has previously organized seven rounds of almost unsuccessful talks between the Syrian government and foreign-backed opposition since a devastating war began in the Arab country.

Separately on Wednesday, Jaberi Ansari also held talks with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Jaberi Ansari (4th, L) meets with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem in Damascus on August 30, 2017.

During the meeting, the Iranian diplomat praised the purging of the terrorist groups of Daesh and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham from Syria’s mountainous region of Qalamoun as a great achievement by the Syrian army and the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement.

Jaberi Ansari expressed satisfaction with the restoration of relative stability in Damascus and other parts of the country.

For his part, Muallem praised Iran’s support for the Syrian government and nation.

He said the developments on the battlefield have forced all the countries that were supporting the terrorists to change their calculations.

On August 19, the Lebanese military launched an anti-terror operation on the Syrian border. Hezbollah and the Syrian army also started a simultaneous offensive against Daesh in Qalamoun region.

Daesh had lost much of their mountainous enclave straddling the border between Syria and Lebanon since the two offensives began on opposite sides of the frontier.

On Monday, Daesh militants and their families started to evacuate Qalamoun, and head towards the eastern part of Syria as part of a negotiated deal to end the extremists’ presence there.

President Assad and the Syrian Armed Forces have Shaken US Hegemony to the Core

Syrian Arab Army in southern Syria. (Photo: Facebook)


In this article, Thierry Meyssan distinguishes the analysis and strategy of President Assad on the one hand and Maduro and Morales on the other. His aim is not to place these leaders in competition, but rather to call upon each of them to remove themselves from political catechisms and to pay due attention to the lessons learnt from the most recent wars.

In May 2017, Thierry Meyssan appeared on Russia Today and explained where the South American elites were going wrong in their fight against US imperialism. He insisted that there has been a sea-change in the way the US now wages armed conflicts and we now need to radically rethink how we should defend our homeland.

The operation to destabilize Venezuela continues. The first phase: violent gangs demonstrating against the government killed passers by, as if citizenship created no bonds between them. The second phase: the major food suppliers organized food shortages in the supermarkets. Then some members of the forces attacked several ministers, called for a rebellion and now have retreated into hiding.

Of course the international press never ceases to hold the “regime” responsible for the deaths of demonstrators. Yet it is a fact that a number of videos testify that these demonstrators were deliberately assassinated by demonstrators themselves. No regard is paid to this and on the basis of this false information, the press then proceeds to qualify Nicolas Maduro as a “dictator” just as it did six years ago with respect to Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar el-Assad.

The United States has used the Organization of American States (the OAS) as an arm against President Maduro just like it once used the Arab League against President al-Assad. Caracas, not expecting to be excluded from the Organization, denounced this method and left of its own accord.

Maduro’s government has however two failures on its balance sheet: the vast majority of its voters did not go to the polling stations for the legislative elections of 2015, allowing the opposition to sweep a majority in Parliament. it was caught out by the crisis of food products, even though the same thing had been organized in the past in Chile against Allende and in Venezuela against Chávez. It required several weeks to put in place new circuits to provide food.

In all likelihood, the conflict that begins in Venezuela will not be held back by its borders. It will ooze out, embracing the entire North West of the South American continent and the Caribbean.

An additional step has been taken with military preparations against Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador following Mexico, Colombia and British Guyana. The team responsible for co-ordinating these measures is from the former Office of Global Democracy Strategy. This was a unit established by President Bill Clinton, then continued by Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz. Mike Pompeo, the current director of the CIA, has confirmed that this unit exists. This has led to rumours in the press, followed up by President Trump, of a US military option.

To save his country, President Maduro’s team has refused to follow the example of President al-Assad. Maduro’s team thinks that there is no real comparison between what is happening in Venezuela and Syria. The United States, the principal capitalist power, would set off to Venezuela to steal its oil, according to a plan that has been repeatedly played out in the past on three continents. This point of view was given further weight by a speech that Evo Morales, Bolivia’s President, recently delivered.

Let us recall that in 2003 and 2011, President Saddam Hussein, the Guide Muammar Gaddafi and a number of President Assad’s advisors reasoned similarly. They thought that the US would attack the following states in succession: Afghanistan and Iraq, then Tunisia, Egypt and Libya and Syria. And why? For the sole reason of bringing about the collapse of regimes that were resisting its imperialism and controlling hydrocarbon resources in an expanded Middle East. A number of anti-imperialist authors cling to this analysis today. So for example, they use it to try to explain the war against Syria by reference to the interruption of the Qatari gas pipeline project.

Now, this line of thinking is turning out to be false. The US is not looking to reverse progressive governments (Libya and Syria), nor to steal the region’s oil and gas. Its intent is to decimate States, to send people of these countries back to a pre-historic time where “man did not love his neighbour as God loved him but would pounce like a wolf upon his neighbour” [Translator’s note: the literal translation of the French original is: “man was a wolf for man”].

Has toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and the regime of Gaddafi brought peace back to these states? No! Wars have continued even though “government of occupation” has been set up in Iraq, then a government composed of other governments in the region including those who collaborated with the imperialists opposed to national independence. Wars are still being waged. This surely evidences that Washington and London had no intention of toppling these regimes nor defending democracy. These were transparent covers for their true intentions which were to eliminate the people in these states. It is a basic observation that rocks our understanding of contemporary imperialism.

This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq— in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon’s New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented.

Imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which profits from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other will be a zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is fixated on surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they need without any duty to account to anyone.

JPEG - 37.9 kb
According to this map, taken from one of Thomas P. M. Barnett’s power point slides, presented at a conference held at the Pentagon in 2003, every state in the pink zone must be destroyed. This project has nothing to with the struggle between classes at the national level nor with exploiting natural resources. Once they are done with the expanded Middle East, the US strategists are preparing to reduce the North West of Latin America to ruins.

Since the eighteenth century and the British Civil War, Western development has been triggered by its attempt to do all it can to avoid chaos. Thomas Hobbes taught us to support the thinking of the State rather than risk experiencing this torment for another time. The notion of chaos only returned to us with Leo Strauss, after the Second World War. This philosopher, who has personally trained a number of personalities within the Pentagon, intended to build a new form of power by plunging part of the world into hell.

Jihadism inflicted onto an expanded Middle East has shown us what is chaos.

While President Assad reacted as anticipated to the events of Deraa (March – April 2011), by sending his army to quell the jihadists of the Mosque al-Omari, he was the first to understand what was happening. Far from increasing the powers of the forces to maintain order to repress the aggression sourced from abroad, he equipped his people with the means to defend their homeland.

First: he lifted the state of emergency, dissolved the special courts, freed the Internet communications and forbade the armed forces to use their arms if to do so would endanger the lives of innocent civilians.

When Assad took these decisions he was clearly not going with the flow. And these decisions were ladened with consequences. For example, at the time of the attack of a military convoy at Banias, soldiers held off using their weapons in self-defence; they preferred to be mutilated by the bombs of their attackers and occasionally die, rather than to fire, risking injuring inhabitants that were looking at them being massacred without intervening.

Like many at this time, I thought that the President was too weak and his troops too loyal; that Syria was going to go down. However six years on, Bashar el-Assad and the Syrian armed forces met the challenge. While at the beginning the soldiers have struggled alone against foreign aggression, gradually, every citizen came on board, to defend the country.

Those who were not able to or who did not want to resist, went into exile. It is clearly the case that the Syrian people have greatly suffered. That said, Syria is the only State in the entire world, since the Vietnam War, to have resisted until imperialism tires itself out and surrenders.

Second: faced with this invasion of a multitude of jihadists, from Muslim populations all over the world – Morocco to China, President Assad took the decision to abandon part of his territory to save his people.

The Syrian Arab Army confined itself to the “useful Syria”, that is, to the cities. It abandoned the countryside and the deserts to the attackers. Damascus kept supervising, uninterruptedly, the provision of food to every region under its control. Contrary to an idea accepted by the West as common knowledge, the only areas where there is famine are those areas under Jihadi control and in the cities that it has besieged; the “ foreign rebels” (forgive this oxymoron), supplied by “humanitarian” associations, use the distribution of food packages as a means of making starving populations submit to them.

The Syria people have seen for themselves how the Republic alone assumed the role of feeding them and protecting them. The Muslim Brotherhood and their jihadists played no part.

Third: In a speech delivered on 12 December 2012, President Assad traced, how he intended to remake political unity in his country. Of special mention, he pointed out the need to draft a new constitution and to submit it to adoption by a qualified majority of his people then to proceed to democratically elect all institutional officials, including of course, the President.

At that time, the Westerners mocked the claim of President Assad to call elections when the war was at its bloodiest. Today, all diplomats involved in resolving this conflict including the UN, support Assad’s plan.

While Jihadi commandos were freely roaming the entire country, notably Damascus, and were murdering politicians even invading their homes where their families were, to do so, President Assad has encouraged dialogue with nationals who oppose him. He guaranteed the security of the liberal Hassan el-Nouri and the Marxist Maher el-Hajjar so that they too, might risk presenting themselves at the presidential elections in June 2014. Despite an appeal to boycott issued by the Muslim Brotherhood and Western governments, despite jihadi terror, despite the fact that millions of citizens were exiled abroad, voter turn out (of those present) was 73.42 %.

In the same way, from the beginning of the war, he created a ministry for National Reconciliation, something never seen before in a country where war is going on. Assad handed the ministry over to Ali Haidar, the President of PSNS, an allied party. He negotiated and concluded thousands of agreements taking into account the amnesty of citizens who had taken arms against the Republic and their integration in the Syrian Arab Army.

During this war, President Assad has never used force against his own people. This is so, despite the allegations of those who freely accuse him of widespread torture. So, let me be clear: he has never set up mass executions nor mandatory conscriptions. It is always possible for a young man to avoid his military obligations. Administrative procedures allow any male citizen to evade national service if he does not desire to defend his country with weapons in hand. Only the exiled who have not had the occasion to pursue these procedures may find themselves in violation of these laws.

President Assad being greeted by Syrian civilians on a recent tour of areas recently liberated from US coalition terrorism. (Photo: Syria Times)

For six years, President Assad has not stopped on the one hand, making an appeal to his people, asking them to thrust upon him obligations, and on the other hand, trying to feed them and to protect them, as far as he is able. He has always assumed the risk of giving before receiving. That is why today, he has won the confidence of his people, and can count on their active support.

South American elites are wrong to pursue the fight of the previous decades for a fairer distribution of their wealth. The battle which they must focus is no longer one where the majority of the people and small class of privileged individuals are on opposite sides.

The choice put to the peoples of the expanded Middle East and to the people of South America is this: aut defendendum vobis patriam est aut morendum vobis est (you must either defend your homeland or die). It is this question that they will have to respond to.

The facts prove it: the number one priority of imperialism today is no longer plundering natural resources. Imperialism, unscrupulous, dominates the world. Yet now its vision has expanded to wiping out people and to destroying the societies in the regions where it is already exploiting resources.

In this iron era, the Assad strategy alone allows us to stand tall and free


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

Israel Statistics Bureau: 1.2 Million Arab Muslims in Israel, 35% under the age of 14

JERUSALEM – JULY 28 : Palestinians gather to celebrate near Jerusalem’s Old City as they enter the Al Aqsa Mosque following the removal of Israeli security measures at the entrances to Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on July 28, 2017. ( Enes Canlı – Anadolu Agency )

According to the data from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, the number of Muslims in Israel, including occupied Jerusalem, reached 1,534, 000 in 2016 (including 320.000 Jerusalemites) constituting up to 17.7 % of the population.

These data, which was published on the occasion of Eid Al-Adha, showed that the number of Muslims increased during 2016 by 36 thousand. This indicates that the rate of population growth remained constant over the last three years at 2.4% a year, the highest rate of any group in the country.

Read More: Official data: Israel uses 85% of total area of historical Palestine

Jerusalem has the largest concentration of Muslims of any city, with 320.000 Muslim inhabitants, making up to 36.2% of the total. Moreover, Jerusalem comprises 21% of the total Muslim population of Israel (occupied Jerusalem). Rahat, a city in the Negev desert, is next with a population of 64.3 thousand Muslims.

The data revealed that the fertility rate (the average number of births per woman) among Muslims is in decline. The rate decreased from 4.7 births per woman in 2000 to 3.29. Yet, this rate is still the highest in the country, in comparison to that of the Jews, Christian Arabs and the Druze Arabs.

The Muslim community is relatively young. The number of children under 14 is 35% (534.3 thousand), while the number of the elderly people above 65 is 3.9% (59.8 thousand).

These data also showed that the number of unemployed Muslims is much higher than that of the Jews and Christian Arabs at 4.7%, slightly higher than that of the Druze Arabs (4.2%).

Read More: For Israel displacing Bedouins is financially rewarding

In terms of higher education, it was revealed that there has been an increase in the number of those who obtained academic degrees among Muslims. It grew from 7.3% in 2015 to 7.7 % in 2016. However, the number of those who obtained academic degrees is still low compared to the number in the country in general, which reached 18.8%.

In addition to that, the 2015 data dealt with the distribution of the household expenses, where the total monthly expenses within Muslim families was 12.202 shekels, compared to 15.930 shekels for a Jewish family. Yet Muslim families are bigger, with 4.7 members in comparison with 3.1 within the Jewish family.

  • According to the distribution of the expenses, it was shown that Muslims spend 23% of their expenses on food, compared to 15.5 % for the Jewish population.
  • The percentage of housing expenses for Muslims reaches 19.7% of the total, compared to 25.5% among Jews.
  • For household expenses, Muslim famies spend 1223 shekels monthly, whereas the Jewish families spend 1521 shekels.
  • Muslim families spend 640 shekels on furniture and household items and around 668 shekels monthly on clothes and shoes, whereas the Jewish family spend 557 shekels and 463 shekels, respectively.
  • Health expenses within Muslim families reach 566 shekels monthly, while Jewish families spend 935 shekels.
  • When it comes to education, culture and housing, Muslim families spend 1110 shekels monthly compared to Jewish families who spend 1958 shekels.
  • On transportation and communication, Muslim families spend 2453 shekel monthly, whereas Jewish families spend 3194.
  • On other products and services, Muslim families spend 899 shekels monthly, while Jewish families spend 769 shekels.
  • The figures revealed that in the same year, the rate of using microwave reached 67.5% while Jewish families’  use of the same device reached 88.3%.
  • The number of the freezers (not refrigerators) among Muslims is twice that of the Jews, reaching 41.8% compared to 20.2%.
  • The rate of using the dishwashers does not exceed 18.2% among Muslims, compared to 43.1% among Jews.
  • 64.7 % of Muslims use computers, compared to 82.4% of Jews.
  • When it comes to the internet, data reveals that 37.8 are connected to the internet, whereas the percentage reaches 78.8% among the Jews.

The data also showed that 89.5% of Muslims watch TV via satellite whereas cable TV subscribers’ percentage is only 4.6 %. Among Jews, the percentage of the cable TV subscribers reaches 67.9%, whereas the percentage of those who use the satellite TV is only 4.8%.


The Sykes-Picot Agreement

(officially the 1916 Asia Minor Agreement) was a secret agreement reached during World War I between the British and French governments pertaining to the partition of the Ottoman Empire among the Allied Powers. Russia was also privy to the discussions.

Click to Enlarge:

The Middle East per the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

The first round of discussions took place in London on November 23, 1915 with the French government represented by François-Georges Picot, a professional diplomat with extensive experience in the Levant, and the British delegation led by Sir Arthur Nicolson. The second round of discussions took place December 21 with the British now represented by Sir Mark Sykes, a leading expert on the East.

Having juxtaposed the desiderata of all the parties concerned – namely the British, the French and the Arabs – the two statesmen worked out a compromise solution. The terms of the partition agreement were specified in a letter dated May 9, 1916, which Paul Cambon, French ambassador in London, addressed to Sir Edward Grey, British foreign secretary. These terms were ratified in a return letter from Grey to Cambon on May 16 and the agreement became official in an exchange of notes among the three Allied Powers on April 26 and May 23, 1916.

According to the agreement, France was to exercise direct control over Cilicia, the coastal strip of Syria, Lebanon and the greater part of Galilee, up to the line stretching from north of Acre to the northwest corner of the Sea of Galilee (“Blue Zone“). Eastward, in the Syrian hinterland, an Arab state was to be created under French protection (“Area A). Britain was to exercise control over southern Mesopotamia (“Red Zone“), as well as the territory around the Acre-Haifa bay in the Mediterranean with rights to build a railway from there to Baghdad. The territory east of the Jordan River and the Negev desert, south of the line stretching from Gaza to the Dead Sea, was allocated to an Arab state under British protection (“Area B“). South of France’s “blue zone,” in the area covering the Sanjak of Jerusalem and extending southwards toward the line running approximately from Gaza to the Dead Sea, was to be under international administration (“Brown Zone“).

In the years that followed, the Sykes-Picot Agreement became the target of bitter criticism both in France and in England. Lloyd George referred to it as an “egregious” and a “foolish” document. Zionist aspirations were also passed over and this lapse was severely criticized by William R. Hall, head of the Intelligence Department of the British Admiralty, who pointed out that the Jews have “a strong material, and a very strong political interest in the future of the country and that in the Brown area the question of Zionism… [ought] to be considered.”

Click to Enlarge:

Areas of Palestine per the agreement

The agreement was officially abrogated by the Allies at the San Remo Conference in April 1920, when the Mandate for Palestine was conferred upon Britain.

Text of Sykes-Picot Agreement

It is accordingly understood between the French and British governments:

That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.

That in the blue area France, and in the red area great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.

That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the Shariff of Mecca.

That great Britain be accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and acre, (2) guarantee of a given supply of water from the Tigres and Euphrates in area (a) for area (b). His majesty’s government, on their part, undertake that they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to any third power without the previous consent of the French government.

That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the British empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there shall be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by railway through the blue area, or (b) area, or area (a); and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against British goods on any railway or against British goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the blue area, area (a), or area (b), and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against french goods on any railway, or against french goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

That in area (a) the Baghdad railway shall not be extended southwards beyond Mosul, and in area (b) northwards beyond Samarra, until a railway connecting Baghdad and Aleppo via the Euphrates valley has been completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two governments.

That great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (b), and shall have a perpetual right to transport troops along such a line at all times. It is to be understood by both governments that this railway is to facilitate the connection of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the french government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may also traverse the Polgon Banias Keis Marib Salkhad tell Otsda Mesmie before reaching area (b).

For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as in areas (a) and (b), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversions from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement between the two powers.

There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the above mentioned areas. The customs duties leviable on goods destined for the interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the administration of the area of destination.

It shall be agreed that the french government will at no time enter into any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such rights in the blue area to any third power, except the Arab state or confederation of Arab states, without the previous agreement of his majesty’s government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to the french government regarding the red area.

The British and French government, as the protectors of the Arab state, shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not consent to a third power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula, nor consent to a third power installing a naval base either on the east coast, or on the islands, of the red sea. This, however, shall not prevent such adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of recent Turkish aggression.

The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab states shall be continued through the same channel as heretofore on behalf of the two powers.

It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the Arab territories will be considered by the two governments.

I have further the honor to state that, in order to make the agreement complete, his majesty’s government are proposing to the Russian government to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your excellency’s government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will be communicated to your excellency as soon as exchanged. I would also venture to remind your excellency that the conclusion of the present agreement raises, for practical consideration, the question of claims of Italy to a share in any partition or rearrangement of turkey in Asia, as formulated in Article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915, between Italy and the allies.

His Majesty’s Government further consider that the Japanese government should be informed of the arrangements now concluded.

Sources:Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved.
The Avalon Project and Middle East Maps [the maps are not in the original document]

L. Stein, The Balfour Declaration (1961), 237–69, index; E. Kedourie, England and the Middle East (1956), 29–66, 102–41; J. Nevakivi, Britain, France and the Arab Middle East (1969), 35–44, index; C. Sykes, Two Studies in Virtue (1953), index; H.F. Frischwasser-Ra’ana, The Frontiers of a Nation (1955), 5–73; I. Friedman, The Question of Palestine, 1914 – 1918. British-Jewish-Arab Relations (1973, 19922), 97–118; idem, Palestine: A Twice Promised Land? The British, the Arabs and Zionism, 1915 – 1920 (2000), 47–60.

Palestinian population is 4.95 million

Palestinians enjoy a day at the beach in Gaza on 29 June 2017 [Mohammed Asad/Apaimages]

The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) and the National Council for Population has issued a breakdown of the Palestinian population for World Population Day.

The estimated population in Palestine as of mid-2017 is 4.95 million

Based on estimates prepared by the PCBS, which were reached in accordance with the results of the general census of the population, housing units and establishments in 2007, the estimated population in Palestine as of mid-2017 is approximately 4.95 million.

Of this 2.52 million are male and 2.43 million are female. The estimated population in the West Bank is about 3.01 million, including 1.53 million males and 1.48 females, while the population in Gaza is estimated to be over 2 million, including approximately 988,000 males and 956,000 females.

The Palestinian community in the Gaza Strip is younger than in the West Bank

As of mid-2017 children of 14-years-old and below make up 38.9 per cent of the total population in Palestine with 36.6 per cent in the West Bank and 42.6 per cent in the Gaza Strip.

The number of Palestinians who are 65-years-old and over has dropped. They make up an estimated 2.9 per cent of Palestinians with 3.3 per cent in the West Bank and 2.4 per cent in the Gaza Strip.

Image of Palestinian children on 20 November, 2016 in Gaza City, Gaza [Ali Jadallah/Anadolu Agency]

High population density in the Gaza Strip

The population density in Palestine is high in general, particularly in the Gaza Strip. The estimated population density for 2017 has reached nearly 823 individuals per km2 in Palestine, amounting to 532 individuals per km2 in the West Bank and 5,324 individuals per km2 in the Gaza Strip.

High fertility rates in the Gaza Strip

Based on the results of the Palestinian Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey in 2014 the total fertility rate in Palestine as a whole has declined to 4.1 births between 2011 and 2013 compared to 6.9 births in 1997.

The fertility rate in the West Bank between 2011 and 2013 was 3.7 births compared to 5.6 births in 1997. However, in the Gaza Strip, the birth rate reached 4.5 births between 2011 and 2013 compared to 6.9 births in 1997.

Read: Seven births per hour, ten deaths per day

Expected decrease in birth and mortality rates in Palestine between 2016 and 2020

Population projections indicate that the total birth rate in Palestine would fall from 30.9 births per 1,000 individuals in 2016 to 29 births per 1,000 individuals in 2020. Mortality rates are also expected to decline in Palestine from 3.5 deaths per 1,000 individuals in 2016 to 3.4 deaths per 1,000 individual in 2020.

Decline in average household size

There has been a decline in the estimated average household size in Palestine from 6.4 members in 1997 to 5.2 members in 2016.

The average household size in the West Bank dropped to 4.8 members in 2016 compared to 6.1 members in 1997. In the Gaza Strip the average family size dropped to 5.7 members in 2016 from 6.9 members in 1997.

1 in every 10 families are headed by a woman

Data from the Labour Force Survey in 2016 indicates that 11 per cent of households in Palestine are headed by females, amounting to 12 per cent in the West Bank and 9 per cent in the Gaza Strip.

Households headed by females are usually relatively small, as the average size of households headed by females in 2016 had three members, compared to the average of 5.7 members making up households headed by men.

Low female participation in the work force compared to men in the first quarter of 2017

The results of the Labour Force Survey indicate that the percentage of Palestinians in the work force has reached 45.8 per cent during the first quarter of 2017.

This amounts to 45.8 per cent in the West Bank compared to 45.7 per cent in the Gaza Strip. Moreover, the percentage of females in the work force is considered low compared to the percentage of males, as the percentage of female participation is 19.4 per cent, amounting to 17.6 per cent in the West Bank and 22.3 per cent in the Gaza Strip, while men make up 71.6 per cent of the work force, amounting to 73.3 per cent in the West Bank and 68.6 per cent in the Gaza Strip.

Over a quarter of those participating in the work force are unemployed during the first quarter of 2017

Data indicates that the percentage of unemployed individuals amongst the work force during the first quarter of 2017 reached 27 per cent in Palestine, amounting to 18.8 per cent in the West Bank and 41.1 per cent in the Gaza Strip.

The unemployment rate in Palestine amongst females in the workforce has reached 46.6 per cent compared to 21.9 per cent of males.

Nearly 9 per cent of individuals aged 15 and above have not completed any educational stage

Data from 2016 regarding the level of education in Palestine indicates that the percentage of individuals aged 15 and above who completed a Bachelor’s degree or higher has reached 14 per cent, while those who have not completed any educational level amount to 9 per cent.

Illiteracy amongst women is 3.5 times higher than amongst men

Data from 2016 indicates that the illiteracy rate amongst individuals aged 15 and above in Palestine has reached 3.1 per cent, but this percentage varies considerably between men and women. The percentage of illiterate men is 1.4 per cent while it reached 4.8 per cent amongst women.

Read: Palestinians organise reading chain in Gaza seaport

Over ¾ of Palestinian families lived in owned property

The percentage of Palestinian families living in homes owned by a family member was around 77 per cent in 2016, amounting to 79 per cent in the West Bank and 72 per cent in the Gaza Strip. The percentage of families living in rented properties in Palestine was 9 per cent of families, amounting to 9 per cent in the West Bank and 7 per cent in the Gaza Strip.

88 per cent of Palestinian families’ main source of water is a public water system

Eighty-eight per cent of Palestinian families live in properties receiving their main water source from a public water system. This amounts to 83 per cent in the West Bank and 94 per cent in the Gaza Strip. Data for 2016 indicated that nearly all the families in Palestine live in properties connected to the public electricity network in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.


Over half of Palestinian households live in housing connected to a sewage network

Of Palestinian households 37 per cent live in properties connected to cesspits or wastewater disposal, amounting to 56 per cent in the West Bank and 9 per cent in the Gaza Strip whilst 62 per cent of Palestinian households live in properties connected to a sewage network, 43 per cent in the West Bank and 91 per cent in the Gaza Strip.

Translated from Ma’an, 11 July 2017.

Theodore Herzl, Vienna

American Legion calls for full investigation into Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty

In a historic move, the American Legion, at its national convention in Reno on Thursday, August 24, 2017, approved Resolution 40 (text provided below) calling for the first full U.S. government investigation of Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty.

Gunnery Sergeant Bryce F. Lockwood (USMC, ret.) was on hand during the entire convention working for passage of the resolution, which originated earlier this year from Post 40 in Seattle in the American Legion Department of Washington (state).

Lockwood was awarded the Silver Star for “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action in connection with the unprovoked and unexpected armed attack on U.S.S. LIBERTY (AGTR-5), in the Eastern Mediterranean, on 8 June 1967.”

Lockwood said there were a lot of “hand shakes, hugs, and some tears” after the vote.

The American Legion’s resolution brings the nation’s largest veterans organization back on the side of the USS Liberty survivors, family, and supporter in calling upon the “115th United States Congress to publicly, impartially, and thoroughly investigate the attack on the USS Liberty and its aftermath and to commence its investigation before the end of 2017, the 50th anniversary year of the attack.”

The resolution also aligns the Legion with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which, in 2013, adopted Resolution 423 at their national convention calling for the attack to be investigated.

The Liberty was a U.S. Navy electronics ship operating in international waters in the eastern Mediterranean when it was attacked by Israeli forces, killing 34 and injuring at least 174.

The ship’s commander received the Congressional Medal of Honor and the crew is one of the most decorated for a single engagement in U.S. Navy history.

The claim is sometimes incorrectly made that the attack has already been investigated. However, a one-week-long Naval inquiry was only tasked with investigating crew performance during the attack, and Congress has never investigated it, as reported in the July 1997 issue of The American Legion Magazine and elsewhere.

While Legion members have long been supportive of the Liberty crew, Legion leaders have oftenmanaged to torpedo resolution. The resolution was passed over a recommendation by a Legion steering committee member that it be rejected.

For more information go to or see See key resolution documents at

Text of the resolution as passed by the convention National Security committee on August 20:

National Headquarters,  The American Legion Ninety-Ninth Annual National Convention, Reno, Nevada August 22, 23, 24, 2017

WHEREAS, on June 8, 1967, while operating in support of the National Security Agency (NSA) in international waters, properly marked as to her identity and nationality, and in calm, clear weather in the eastern Mediterranean, the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was the target of an unprovoked attack by Israeli military forces that killed 34 members of the Liberty’s crew and wounded 173; and,

WHEREAS, in recognition of their heroic efforts during and after the Israeli onslaught, Liberty crew members were awarded the Presidential Unit Citation, 2 Navy Crosses, 12 Silver Stars, 20 Bronze Stars, more than 200 Purple Hearts, and the ship’s captain, Navy Commander William. L. McGonagle, was awarded the Medal of Honor; and,

WHEREAS, the June 28, 1967 public summary of proceedings of the Navy Court of Inquiry into the attack stated: “It was not the responsibility of the Court to rule on the culpability of the attackers and no evidence was heard from the attacking nation”; and,

WHEREAS, according to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) information reports from June and October, 1967, sources in Tel Aviv reported: “Israel’s forces knew exactly what flag the [L]IBERTY was flying” and Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan “personally ordered the attack” on the Liberty over the objections of senior uniformed military personnel, one of whom characterized the attack as “pure murder”; and,

WHEREAS, Richard Helms (Director of Central Intelligence, 1966-1973), stated in a 1984 CIA interview: “everything possible was done to keep from the American public really the enormity of this attack on an American naval vessel” and “since this is for the Agency’s record, I don’t think there can be any doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing … any statement to the effect that they didn’t know that it was an American ship … is nonsense”; and,

WHEREAS, Lieutenant General Marshall S. Carter, USA (ret.) (Director of the NSA, 1965-1969), recalled in a 1988 NSA interview that he stated at a Congressional hearing in 1967 that the attack on the Liberty “couldn’t be anything else but deliberate. There’s just no way you could have a series of circumstances that would justify it being an accident” and Carter indicated this remained his belief in 1988; and,

WHEREAS, in a 2003 affidavit published in the Congressional Record, Captain Ward Boston, Jr., JAGC, USN (ret.), legal counsel for the 1967 Navy Court of Inquiry stated: “I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd [president of the Court of Inquiry] that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity’ despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary”; and,

WHEREAS, according to the findings, published in the Congressional Record, of the 2003 Independent Commission of Inquiry, chaired by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, USN (ret.): “there is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew” and “the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack”; and,

WHEREAS, in 2013, the Veterans of Foreign Wars adopted Resolution 423 calling “upon Congress to immediately investigate the attack on the USS Liberty by the armed forces of Israel on June 8, 1967, in order to determine the truth behind the attack, and to bring closure to the families and crew”; and,

WHEREAS, in August 1967, after the conclusion of the Navy Court of Inquiry, the American Legion adopted Resolution 508 (rescinded in 1984 without being first reviewed) declaring the published report of the Navy Court of Inquiry “fails to provide the American public with a satisfactory answer as to the reason for the attack” and stating that “The American Legion denounces and condemns Israel’s irresponsible attack” and demanding “a complete and thorough investigation of the incident”; and,

WHEREAS, according to Gurney Williams III, writing in The American Legion Magazine (“Death Strikes the Liberty“, July 1997), Congress has never investigated the Israeli attack on the Liberty; now therefore be it,

RESOLVED, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Reno, Nevada, August 22, 23, 24, 2017, that The American Legion calls upon the 115th United States Congress to publicly, impartially, and thoroughly investigate the attack on the USS Liberty and its aftermath and to commence its investigation before the end of 2017, the 50th anniversary year of the attack.

The final text of the resolution is expected to soon appear on the American Legion’s digital archive page:



Aid and Comfort to the Enemy: American Legion Honchos Betray Liberty Veterans

More information about the Liberty here.

The Six Day War and Israeli Lies: What I Saw at the CIA

The Six Day War and Israeli Lies: What I Saw at the CIA

By Melvin A. Goodman, CounterPunch

On too many occasions in U.S. history, the use of force has been justified with either corrupt intelligence or just plain lies.  Such was the case in the Mexican-American War; the Spanish-American War; the Vietnam War; and the 2003 Iraq War.  The checks and balances that were needed to prevent the misuse of intelligence were not operative, and Presidents Polk, McKinley, Johnson, and Bush deceived the American people, the U.S. Congress, and the press.  In 1967, Israeli officials at the highest level lied to the White House about the start of the Six-Day War.

As a junior analyst at the CIA, I helped to draft the report that described Israel’s attack against Egypt on the morning of June 5, 1967.  There were sensitive communications intercepts that documented Israeli preparations for an attack, and no evidence of an Egyptian battle plan.  The Israelis had been clamoring about indications of Egyptian preparations for an invasion, but we had no sign of Egyptian readiness in terms of its air or armored power.  The assumption was that the Israelis were engaging in disinformation in order to gain U.S. support.

My own view was that Egypt would be unlikely to start a war with Israel while half of its army was tied down fighting in a civil war in Yemen.  CIA’s Arabists believed that Egyptian President Nasser was bluffing, and cited the low quality of Cairo’s military equipment.

Walt Rostow meets with President Johnson in the Oval Office. Rostow played down US intelligence estimates in favor of what turned out to be Israeli lies.

We were therefore shocked when President Johnson’s national security adviser, Walt Rostow, refused to accept our intelligence assessment on the Israeli attack.  Rostow cited “assurances” from the Israeli ambassador in Washington that under no circumstances would the Israelis attack first.  Over the protests of Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan, the Israeli government lied to the White House about how the war started.  President Johnson was told that the Egyptians had initiated firing on Israeli settlements and that an Egyptian squadron had been observed heading toward Israeli. Neither statement was true.As a result, our report describing surprise Israeli attacks against Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian airfields encountered a hostile response from the National Security Council.  Fortunately, CIA director Richard Helms supported our assessment, and the National Military Command Center corroborated the report as well.  Rostow summoned Clark Clifford, chairman of the President’s Foreign Advisory Board and a leading NSC Arabist Hal Saunders to examine our analysis, and both men provided corroboration.In addition to lying to the White House about the start of the war, Israeli military officers lied to the American ambassador to Israel, Walworth Barbour, about non-existent Egyptian military movements.  The CIA, meanwhile, had the benefit of satellite photography that showed Egyptian planes parked on airfields wingtip-to-wingtip, which pointed to no plan to attack.

Twenty years later, I learned that a confident of the president, Harry McPherson, was in Israel at the start of the war and accompanied Ambassador Barbour to the meeting with Prime Minister Eshkol.  When Israeli air raid sirens began to wail during the meeting, Israeli intelligence chief General Aharon Yariv assured everyone there was no need to move to an underground bunker.  If we had this information in 1967, it would have corroborated our analysis that the Israelis had destroyed more than 200 Egyptian planes on the ground.

Israeli forces attacked the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, killing 34 and injuring over 170.

In addition to lying about the start of the war, the Israelis were even more deceitful three days later when they attributed their malicious attack on the USS Liberty to a random accident.  If so, it was a well planned accident.  The ship was a U.S. intelligence vessel in international waters, both slow-moving and lightly armed.  It brandished a five-foot-by-eight-foot Stars and Stripes in the midday sun, and didn’t resemble a ship in any other navy, let alone a ship in the arsenal of one of Israel’s enemies. Yet the Israelis claimed that they believed they were attacking an Egyptian ship.

The Israeli attack took place after six hours of intense, low-level reconnaissance.  It was conducted over a two-hour period by unmarked Mirage jets using cannons and rockets.  Israeli boats fired machine guns at close range at those helping the wounded, then machine-gunned the life rafts that survivors dropped in hope of abandoning the ship.  The NSA investigation of the disaster remains classified to this day.

To sign a petition on the Liberty, go here. For additional actions to take, go here.


Documentary on the Liberty:

U.S. Corporate Bond Bonanza Seen on Republican Tax Cut Plan


17. Januar 2017, 10:42 MEZ 17. Januar 2017, 14:37 MEZ
  • Change would cap leverage and limit new supply, Barclays says
  • Debt-to-Ebitda ratios could drop from 4.1 to 3 on lower tax

Donald Trump to the rescue?

The $8.55 trillion U.S. corporate bond market has bucked concerns over mounting company indebtedness and so far resisted fears about the knock-on effects of the potential unraveling of the 35-year-old bull-run in government debt.

Now, analysts at Barclays Plc are giving fixed-income investors fresh reason to be constructive on U.S. corporate bonds in the medium- to long-term. They predict the incoming Republican administration’s far-reaching tax reforms may give the market a new lease of life by curbing the post-financial crisis jump in leverage for industrial issuers, and buoying returns for bondholders over the next decade.

Barclays analysts led by New York-based Jeffrey Meli said companies may use more of their retained earnings to finance operations at the expense of bond issuance, in the event that President-elect Trump signs off on a tax plan advanced by congressional Republicans that includes a proposal to reduce corporate tax rates to 20 percent from the current 35 percent .

“A cut to the tax rate would increase the cash flow available to companies to service debt and, thus, improve credit quality,” the analysts wrote in a recent note. “Furthermore, we expect companies to decrease leverage because the tax shield benefit of debt would be reduced at lower tax rates, effectively increasing the after-tax cost of debt.”

In other words, even as lower taxes provide companies with more firepower to service debt obligations from their cash-flow, the reduction in the tax rate would make borrowing in the bond market less alluring relative to equity funding, thereby encouraging firms to reduce so-called gearing ratios.

Supply Cut

The analysts project U.S. corporate issuers could decrease debt-to-earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (Ebitda) ratios from 4.1 times to about 3 times, if corporate tax rates were lowered to 20 percent. That move would likely be driven by industrial companies given their greater regulatory freedom to decide gearing strategies compared with the likes of banks and utilities, two other big issuers in the debt market.

They also predict the growth rate of U.S. industrial debt will decline, with the market growing to around $3 trillion over the next decade from around $2.5 trillion currently, compared with $4 trillion in the event of no change in the tax regime.

That could provide another fillip for the corporate bond market, which has been rallying since the November elections thanks to an uptick in risk appetite, higher expectations for corporate earnings, and demand for debt obligations that help cushion the impact of rising interest rates.

House Republican plan to pay for lower corporate taxes calls for the removal of the right companies enjoy to deduct interest payments from income — a key tax benefit that has boosted the incentive for corporate borrowing for half a century. That isn’t a base-case assumption of the Barclays analysts, but if the policy does see the light of day it would also prove friendly to investment-grade bondholders by reducing the incentive for firms to dice with debt, they said.

That echoes a December analysis from Bank of America Corp. showing the removal of the benefit may cause the $4.94 trillion investment-grade corporate bond market to contract by as much as 30 percent.

To be sure, far-reaching tax reforms won’t trigger firms to enact sweeping changes to their capital structures overnight, given the risk such policies might be reversed if the political climate shifts. Projecting corporate-financing behavior more generally isn’t straight-forward.

Still, while the post-election rally in equities has been driven, in part, by expectations of tax reforms, Barclays’ forecasts underscore how a Trump-fueled regime change in the fiscal landscape may cap debt supply and crimp leverage to juice returns in the long-term, even as other headwinds for bond investors mount.


United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011

Excerpt from Wikipedia

The United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011 was a stage in the ongoing political debate in the United States Congress about the appropriate level of government spending and its effect on the national debt and deficit. The debate centered around the raising of the debt ceiling, which is normally raised without debate. The crisis led to the passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The Republican Party, which had retaken the House of Representatives the prior year, demanded that the President negotiate over deficit reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling, the statutory maximum of money the Treasury is allowed to borrow. The debt ceiling had routinely been raised in the past without partisan debate and without any additional terms or conditions. This reflects the fact that the debt ceiling does not prescribe the amount of spending, but only ensures that the government can pay for the spending to which it has already committed itself. Some use the analogy of an individual “paying their bills.”

If the United States breached its debt ceiling and were unable to resort to other “extraordinary measures”, the Treasury would have to either default on payments to bondholders or immediately curtail payment of funds owed to various companies and individuals that had been mandated but not fully funded by Congress. Both situations would likely have led to a significant international financial crisis.

On July 31, two days prior to when the Treasury estimated the borrowing authority of the United States would be exhausted, Republicans agreed to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for a complex deal of significant future spending cuts. The crisis did not permanently resolve the potential of future use of the debt ceiling in budgetary disputes, as shown by the subsequent debt-ceiling crisis of 2013.

The crisis sparked the most volatile week for financial markets since the 2008 crisis, with the stock market trending significantly downward. Prices of government bonds (“Treasuries”), rose as investors, anxious over the dismal prospects of the US economic future and the ongoing European sovereign-debt crisis, fled into the still-perceived relative safety of US government bonds. Later that week, the credit-rating agency Standard & Poor’sdowngraded the credit rating of the United States government for the first time in the country’s history, though the other two major credit-rating agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, retained America’s credit rating at AAA. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that the delay in raising the debt ceiling increased government borrowing costs by $1.3 billion in 2011 and also pointed to unestimated higher costs in later years.[1] The Bipartisan Policy Center extended the GAO’s estimates and found that delays in raising the debt ceiling would raise borrowing costs by $18.9 billion.[2]

Under US law, an administration can spend only if it has sufficient funds to pay for it. These funds can come either from tax receipts or from borrowing by the United States Department of the Treasury. Congress has set a debt ceiling, beyond which the Treasury cannot borrow (this is similar to a credit limit on a credit card). The debt limit does not restrict Congress’s ability to enact spending and revenue legislation that affects the level of debt or otherwise constrains fiscal policy; it restricts Treasury’s authority to borrow to finance the decisions already enacted by Congress and the President. Congress also usually votes on increasing the debt limit after fiscal policy decisions affecting federal borrowing have begun to take effect.[3] In the absence of sufficient revenue, a failure to raise the debt ceiling would result in the administration being unable to fund all the spending which it is required to do by prior acts of Congress. At that point, the government must cancel or delay some spending, a situation sometimes referred to as a partial government shut down.

In addition, the Obama administration stated that, without this increase, the US would enter sovereign default (failure to pay the interest and/or principal of US treasury securities on time) thereby creating an international crisis in the financial markets. Alternatively, default could be averted if the government were to promptly reduce its other spending by about half.[4][5][6]

An increase in the debt ceiling requires the approval of both houses of Congress. Republicans and some Democrats insisted that an increase in the debt ceiling be coupled with a plan to reduce the growth in debt. There were differences as to how to reduce the expected increase in the debt. Initially, nearly all Republican legislators (who held a majority in the House of Representatives) opposed any increase in taxes and proposed large spending cuts. A large majority of Democratic legislators (who held a majority in the Senate) favored tax increases along with smaller spending cuts. Supporters of the Tea Party movement pushed their fellow Republicans to reject any agreement that failed to incorporate large and immediate spending cuts or a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.[7][8]


US debt ceiling at the end of each year from 1981 to 2010. The graph indicates which president and which political party controlled Congress each year.

US debt from 1940 to 2010. Red lines indicate the Debt Held by the Public (net public debt) and black lines indicate the Total Public Debt Outstanding (gross public debt). The difference between the two is the debt that is held by the federal government itself. The second panel shows the two debt figures as a percentage of US GDP (dollar value of US economic production for that year). The top panel is deflated so every year is in 2010 dollars.

Debt Ceiling

In the United States, the federal government can pay for expenditures only if Congress has approved the expenditure in an appropriation bill. If the proposed expenditure exceeds the revenues that have been collected, there is a deficit or shortfall, which can only be financed by the government, through the Department of the Treasury, borrowing the shortfall amount by the issue of debt instruments. Under federal law, the amount that the government can borrow is limited by the debt ceiling, which can only be increased with a separate vote by Congress.

Prior to 1917, Congress directly authorized the amount of each borrowing. In 1917, in order to provide more flexibility to finance the US involvement in World War I, Congress instituted the concept of a “debt ceiling”. Since then, the Treasury may borrow any amount needed as long as it keeps the total at or below the authorized ceiling. Some small special classes of debt are not included in this total.[citation needed] To change the debt ceiling, Congress must enact specific legislation, and the President must sign it into law.

The process of setting the debt ceiling is separate and distinct from the regular process of financing government operations, and raising the debt ceiling does not have any direct impact on the budget deficit. The US government passes a federal budget every year. This budget details projected tax collections and outlays and, therefore, the amount of borrowing the government would have to do in that fiscal year. A vote to increase the debt ceiling is, therefore, usually seen as a formality, needed to continue spending that has already been approved previously by the Congress and the President. The Government Accountability Office explains: “The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred.”[9] The apparent redundancy of the debt ceiling has led to suggestions that it should be abolished altogether.[10][11]

The US has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly report on the amount of the debt ($75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791). Every president since Harry Truman has added to the national debt. The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962,[12] including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, eight times under Bill Clinton, seven times under George W. Bush and three times (as of August 2011) under Barack Obama.

As of May 2011, approximately 40 percent of US government spending relied on borrowed money.[13] That is, without borrowing, the federal government would have had to cut spending immediately by 40 percent, affecting many daily operations of the government,[13] besides the impact on the domestic and international economies. It is unclear if the Treasury has the technological capability to disperse funds to some individuals it owes money.[14] The Government Accountability Office reported in February 2011 that managing debt when delays in raising the debt limit occur diverts Treasury’s resources away from other cash and debt management responsibilities and that Treasury’s borrowing costs modestly increased during debt limit debates in 2002, 2003, 2010 and 2011. If the interest payments on the national debt are not made, the US would be in default, potentially causing catastrophic economic consequences for the US and the wider world as well. (Effects outside the US would be likely because the United States is a major trading partner with many countries. Other major world powers who hold its debt could demand repayment.)

According to the Treasury, “failing to increase the debt limit would . . . cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history”.[15] These legal obligations include paying Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the debt, and many other items. Making the promised payments of the principal and interest of US treasury securities on time ensures that the nation does not default on its sovereign debt.[16][17]

Critics have argued that the debt ceiling crisis is “self-inflicted,”[18] as treasury bond interest rates were at historical lows, and the US had no market restrictions on its ability to obtain additional credit.[citation needed] The debt ceiling has been raised 68 times since 1960. Sometimes the increase was treated as routine; many times it was used to score political points for the minority party by criticizing the out-of-control spending of the majority.[19] The only other country with a debt limit is Denmark, which has set its debt ceiling so high that it is unlikely to be reached.[18] If raising the limit ceases to be routine, this may create uncertainty for global markets each time a debt ceiling increase is debated.[18] The debt-ceiling crisis of 2011 has shown how a party in control of only one chamber of Congress (in this case, Republicans in control of the House of Representatives but not the Senate or the Presidency) can have significant influence if it chooses to block the routine raising of the debt limit.[20]

Recent concern about budget deficits and long-term debt

Underlying the contentious debate over raising the debt ceiling has been an anxiety, growing since 2008, about the large United States federal budget deficits and the increasing federal debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO): “At the end of 2008, that debt equaled 40 percent of the nation’s annual economic output (a little above the 40-year average of 37 percent). Since then, the figure has shot upward: By the end of fiscal year 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) — the highest percentage since shortly after World War II.” The sharp rise in debt after 2008 stems largely from lower tax revenues and higher federal spending related to the severe recession and persistently high unemployment in 2008–11.[21][22] Though a balanced budget is ideal, allowing down payment on debt and more flexibility within government budgeting, limiting deficits to within 1% to 2% of GDP is sufficient to stabilize the debt.[why?] Deficits in 2009 and 2010 were 10.0 percent and 8.9 percent respectively, and the largest as a share of gross domestic product since 1945.[23]

In 2009, the Tea Party movement emerged with a focus on reducing government spending and regulation.[24][25] The Tea Party movement helped usher in a wave of new Republican office-holders in the 2010 mid-term elections[26] whose major planks during the campaign included cutting federal spending[27] and stopping any tax increases.[28] These new Republicans and the new Republican House majority greatly affected the 2011 debt ceiling political debate.[29]

In early 2010, President Obama established the Bowles-Simpson Commission to propose recommendations to balance the budget by 2015.[30] The commission issued a report in December 2010, but the recommendations failed to receive enough votes to allow the report to be passed on to Congress.

Throughout 2011, Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s credit rating services issued warnings that US debt could be downgraded because of the continued large deficits and increasing debt.[31][32][33][34] According to the CBO’s 2011 long-term budget outlook, without major policy changes the large budget deficits and growing debt would continue, which “would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment – which in turn would lower income growth in the United States.”[21] The European sovereign debt crisis was occurring throughout 2010–2011, and there were concerns that the US was on the same trajectory.[35]

Negative real interest rates

Since 2010, the U.S. Treasury has been obtaining negative real interest rates on government debt.[36] Such low rates, outpaced by the inflation rate, occur when the market believes that there are no alternatives with sufficiently low risk, or when popular institutional investments such as insurance companies, pensions, or bond, money market, and balanced mutual funds are required or choose to invest sufficiently large sums in Treasury securities to hedge against risk.[37][38] Lawrence SummersMatthew Yglesias and other economists state that at such low rates, government debt borrowing saves taxpayer money, and improves creditworthiness.[39][40] In the late 1940s and then again in the early 1970s, the US and UK both reduced their debt burden by about 30% to 40% of GDP per decade by taking advantage of negative real interest rates, but there is no guarantee that government debt rates will continue to stay so low.[37] In January 2012, the U.S. Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association unanimously recommended that government debt be allowed to auction even lower, at negative absolute interest rates.[41]

This method of negative real interest rates has been claimed to be a form of Financial repression by governments as it is “a transfer from creditors (savers) to borrowers (in the historical episode under study here–the government)” and “Given that deficit reduction usually involves highly unpopular expenditure reductions and (or) tax increases of one form or another, the relatively “stealthier” financial repression tax may be a more politically palatable alternative to authorities faced with the need to reduce outstanding debts. ” [37]

Resort to extraordinary measures

Prior to the debt ceiling crisis of 2011, the debt ceiling was last raised on February 12, 2010 to $14.294 trillion.[42][43]

On April 15, 2011, Congress passed the last part of the 2011 United States federal budget in the beginning 2012, authorizing federal government spending for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, which ended on September 30, 2011.[citation needed] For the 2011 fiscal year, expenditure was estimated at $3.82 trillion, with expected revenues of $2.17 trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.48 trillion. This includes, public and federal debt, as well as the GDP. Leaving a budget deficit of 38.7%, the world’s highest.

However, soon after the 2011 budget was passed, the debt ceiling set in February 2010 was reached. In a letter to Congress of April 4, 2011, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner explained that when the debt ceiling is reached, the US Treasury can declare a debt issuance suspension period and utilize “extraordinary measures” to acquire funds to meet federal obligations but which do not require the issue of new debt,[44] such as the sale of assets from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the G Fund of the Thrift Savings Plan. These measures were implemented on May 16, 2011, when Geithner declared a “debt issuance suspension period”. According to his letter to Congress, this period could “last until August 2, 2011, when the Department of the Treasury projects that the borrowing authority of the United States will be exhausted”.[45] These methods have been used on several previous occasions in which federal debt neared its statutory limit.[46]

The August 2, 2011 deadline

The U.S. Treasury stated on multiple occasions that the US government would exhaust its borrowing authority around August 2, 2011. That date appeared to serve as an effective deadline for Congress to vote to increase the debt ceiling.[45][47]

While the U.S. Treasury’s borrowing authority may have been exhausted on August 2, 2011, it retained cash balances that would have enabled it to meet federal obligations for a short time. According to Barclays Capital, Treasury would run out of cash around August 10, when $8.5 billion in Social Security payments were due. According to Wall Street analysts, Treasury would not be able borrow from the capital markets after August 2, but still would have enough incoming cash to meet its obligations until August 15. Analysts also predicted that Treasury would be able to roll over the $90 billion in US debt that matured on August 4, and gain additional time to avert the crisis.[48]

Projections required for debt and cash management can be volatile. Outside experts that track Treasury finances had said that announced Treasury estimates were within the range of uncertainty for their analyses. Delaying an increase in the debt limit past August 2 could have risked a delay in Social Security and other benefit checks, and could have led to disruptions in scheduled Treasury auctions.

Implications of not raising the debt ceiling

Experts were divided on how bad the effects of not raising the debt ceiling for a short period would be on the economy. While some leading economists, including Republican adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, suggested even a brief failure to meet US obligations could have devastating long-term consequences, others argued that the market would write it off as a Congressional dispute and return to normal once the immediate crisis was resolved.[49] Some argued that the worst outcome would be if the US failed to pay interest and/or principal on the national debt to bondholders, thereby defaulting on its sovereign debt.[50] Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned in July 2011 that the consequences of such a default would be higher borrowing costs for the US government (as much as one percent or $150 billion/year in additional interest costs) and the equivalent of bank runs on the money markets and other financial markets, potentially as severe as those of September 2008.[51]

In January 2011 Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned that “failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States. Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on all Americans and all American businesses and could lead to the loss of millions of American jobs. Even a very short-term or limited default would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades.”[52]

Senators Pat Toomey and Jim DeMint expressed deep concern that administration officials were stating or implying that failure to raise the nation’s debt limit would constitute a default on US debt and precipitate a financial crisis:[53] “We believe it is irresponsible and harmful for you to sow the seeds of doubt in the market regarding the full faith and credit of the United States and ask that you set the record straight – that you will use all available Treasury funds necessary to prevent default while Congress addresses the looming debt crisis.”[54]

Geithner responded that prioritizing debt would require “cutting roughly 40 percent of all government payments”, which could only be achieved by “selectively defaulting on obligations previously approved by Congress”. He argued that this would harm the reputation of the United States so severely that there is “no guarantee that investors would continue to re-invest in new Treasury securities”, forcing the government to repay the principal on existing debt as it matured, which it would be unable to do under any conceivable circumstance. He concluded: “There is no alternative to enactment of a timely increase in the debt limit.”[55] On January 25, 2011, Senator Toomey introduced The Full Faith And Credit Act bill [S.163[56]] that would require the Treasury to prioritize payments to service the national debt over other obligations.[57] (The bill was cleared by its committee for consideration the next day and added to the Senate “calendar of business”, but no further action had occurred by mid-August 2011.[58])

Even if the Treasury were to prioritize payments on the debt above other spending and avoid formal default on its bonds, failure to raise the debt ceiling would force the government to reduce its spending by as much as ten percent of GDP overnight, leading to a corresponding fall in aggregate demand. Economists believe that such a significant shock, if sustained, would reverse the economic recovery and send the country into a recesson


CIA Whistleblower Speaks Out About Climate Engineering, Vaccination Dangers, and 911

CIA Whistleblower Speaks Out About Climate Engineering, Vaccination Dangers, and 911
Our hope and goal is for this video to be shared far and wide, DO NOT RE-UPLOAD this copyrighted video without prior written permission and conditions from

Kevin Shipp was a decorated CIA officer who refused to look the other way in regard to government criminality and cover-up. At a very important public awareness event that was recently held in Northern California, Mr. Shipp gave an extremely informative and compelling presentation on numerous horrific ongoing government crimes. The subjects Kevin Shipp addressed included climate engineering, the 911 false flag inside job, vaccination dangers/cover-up, and the governments total persecution of anyone who dares to tell the truth about rampant government tyranny.
The paradigm we have all known has been built on deception and the dark agendas of the global power structure. The courage Kevin Shipp has shown by doing his best to expose government criminality and tyranny serves as a stellar example to all of us. We desperately need other individuals in government agencies and the US military to follow Kevin’s lead . If we have any chance of stopping the completely out of control criminal cabal that currently runs our country and much of the world, we must all make our voices heard, we must all join the battle for the greater good.
Dane Wigington


Benjamin Fulford 2017 – August 31, 2017

Brother Nathanael – Why Can’t Anyone Stop Israel – HD 1080p



Jared Kushner: Why did Trump make this clueless Jew his senior adviser and Middle East peace negotiator?

(12-minute video)

LD:  In choosing his Jewish son-in-law as chief broker of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, Trump couldn’t have made a worse choice or a more vindictively evil one. He must have known that Kushner was as fanatically determined as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu to screw the last drop of blood out of the Palestinians and make sure they never got a viable state of their own.



Jewish columnist Dana Milbank writes in the Chicago Tribune:

When he [Donald Trump] needed somebody to negotiate peace in the Middle East, he asked Kushner. When he needed somebody to be his point man with China and with Mexico, he asked Kushner. When he needed somebody to solve the opioid epidemic, reform veterans’ care, overhaul the criminal justice system and reinvent the entire federal government, Trump again turned to Kushner. Even when he just needed somebody to strap a flak jacket over his navy blazer and fly off to Baghdad, Kushner was the one he asked.

She concludes her article with these mysterious words: “One big question [is] unanswered: Why is a man of such inexperience in charge of so much? Don’t ask.”

On the very day Kushner arrived in Israel, we learn from the video below, Netanyahu announced the beginning of construction work on the first major settlement in Israel for 25 years. So theft of Palestinian land was to continue unabated under Kushner’s watch, with Kushner’s full approval it would seem. In addition, no reporters or cameramen were allowed to film the Jewish real estate tycoon as he went his rounds and noted, doubtless with insouciance, how shamefully the Palestinians were treated by the Israelis.

It was while Kushner was still in Israel on official business that he learned that Netanyahu had just given the order to destroy a Palestinian classroom, razing it to the ground. The classroom had recently been donated to the Palestinians by the international community and it was the first day of school for the Palestinian children. How did Kushner react when news of this spiteful act of vandalism reached his ears? Naturally, we are not told.

This is Donald Trump’s “peace broker” between Israel and the dispossessed Palestinians. He was deliberately chosen, it seems, to rub salt into an old festering wound. [LD]   

VIDEO  :  11.50 mins

Like this? Share it now.

If Americans Knew Blog

The Palestine Chronicle: The Antisemitism Fallacy; Let’s Focus on Palestinians

The Palestine Chronicle: The Antisemitism Fallacy; Let’s Focus on Palestinians

A Rabbi holds a sign in Jerusalem that says ‘Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians.’ (Photo: File)

By Blake AlcottThe Palestine Chronicle

Speaking to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on July 16, 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron repeated the popular formula that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. According to Macron, anti-Zionist and anti-Israel expressions are “a new type of anti- Semitism.” We hear this almost daily, and pretty soon one of us anti-Zionists will land in jail for arguing that only a democratic, Palestinian state in Palestine has a right to exist there.

Only a few decades ago, and only for a few decades, Zionism was racist, but now, according to the head of Security Council member France, the allegation is that it is anti-Zionism that is racist.

There is however a large logical flaw in this argument that believing Israel should be replaced by a democracy is antisemitic: The anti-Zionist position denies only the right of a Jewish state to exist in Palestineat the expense of the indigenous Palestinians. It does not deny the right of Jews, or ‘the Jews’, to a state of their own somewhere, at nobody’s expense. Nor does it necessarily affirm it. This pro-Palestinian position simply denies the right of any state, whether Jewish or anything else, to impose itself on Palestine against the will of the indigenous Palestinians.

The issue, that is, has never been Yes or No to the question of Jewish self-determination as such, embodied in a state. Even if the answer is Yes, a Yes to Israel does not follow: the claim of some Jews, or Zionist Jews, or European Jews, or Christian Zionists, that ‘the Jews’ own Palestine does not stand up. The land belonged and still belongs to the flesh-and-blood twentieth-century inhabitants whose ancestors had lived there for centuries or millennia.

Instead, the issue has always been on whose land and at whose cost a Jewish state could justly be established. Palestine could always be ruled out because on any rational moral standard the property rights and political rights of the Palestinians – be they Moslem, Christian, Jewish or atheist – had precedence.

These are the problems that make it impossible for Zionism – which insists its state must be in Palestine – to have any ethical justification. That the imposed state is Jewish is not relevant. Relevant is only that it imposed, necessarily through military force.

Anti-Zionism – better, pro-Palestinianism – thus takes no stand at all on the general question of Jewish self-determination. It can even, in spite of strong arguments in principle against ethno-religiously defined states, hold great sympathy for the wish of many Jews for a haven where they are safe from European persecution. But not at others’ existential expense.

For this discussion, it is not even necessary to define what one means by ‘Jewish state’. Whether it is something cuddly, with a flag showing the Star of David and Hanukkah instead of Christmas, or the real Zionist entity which legally privileges Jews and refuses ethnically-cleansed Palestinians their right of return, is of no relevance. Either state, if rejected by a majority of Palestine’s indigenous people, is illegitimate.

This is in fact what it means to reject Israel’s legitimacy: it is a British-enabled, European colony. A necessary condition of the Zionist state was and is the eradication of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. The case for Israel’s illegitimacy thus has nothing to do intrinsically with Judaism or Jews, but only with the fact that Zionism threw the first stone of aggressive colonialism. The rightful polity never wanted Israel, period.

That is to say, that from a moral point of view Zionism’s problem is that Israel is in the wrong place. Any place would be wrong if the state’s existence presupposed military conquest and ethnic cleansing. That the antisemitism that gave rise to Zionism in the first place was European, having nothing to do with Palestinians, merely rubs salt in the wounds of Palestinians and of justice.

Thus, we can say that Israel has no right to exist (it is not right that it exists), where it is and in the manner that it maintains itself, without saying a single word about Jews, a Jewish collective, Jewish statehood or Jewish self-determination. We are talking about Palestine and Palestinians.

We should in fact start any discussion of Palestine and Israel with Palestine, not with philo- or antisemitism or with the ins and outs of the Zionist endeavor or with the historical claims of some long-ago residents. In the beginning of modern political Zionism were indigenous Palestinians, and their enduring and inalienable rights should be our focus, a positive focus in no need of defense against far-fetched accusations concerning one or the other attitude towards Jews and their national aspirations.

Our arguments for the sole legitimacy of a state determined by the majority of the Palestinians – wherever they now live – do in fact entail the negatively-expressed conclusion that Israel is illegitimate. But the argument for Palestinian self-determination, in Palestine, makes no necessary mention of the particular non-indigenous ethnic or religious group in terms of which Israel defines itself. Thus, the claim that the anti-Zionism entailed by full recognition of Palestinian rights is antisemitic simply falls flat for lack of an object.

The IHRA Definition

The conflation of opposition to Israel with opposition to Jews is thus embarrassingly illogical. Yet we see the President of France doing exactly that, and likewise the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), but before looking at that organization’s definition, what is antisemitism? It is not all that complicated. It is antipathy or violence towards Jews, or any other abuse of them, because of their descent or religion. (Without this motive, violence and abuse remain crimes, but not racist ones.) Nobody can help who their ancestors are, so such attitudes and actions are criminal and racist.

The definition of antisemitism now being used to shift the term away from Jews as such over on to Zionism and Israel has a long history, but here it is, black-on-white, in its influential IHRA version: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Although the formulation “hatred toward Jews” leaves out the decisive phrase ‘because they are Jews’, let’s accept this so-called “non-legally binding working definition” adopted by the IHRA on May 26, 2016.

Then come the illogical parts: “Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. … Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life… include… denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

But of course, anti-Zionism doesn’t target Israel because it is a “Jewish collectivity” (whatever that means) and it doesn’t deny the abstract right of any ethnic or religious group to try to peacefully set up its own state. It does identify Zionism as racist against the non-Jews of Palestine.

Again, you can shout from the rooftops for the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in the form of a sovereign state – if done without violence on land purchased fair and square – and still reject Zionism and Israel. Saying that the wrong of European persecution of Jews does not justify the wrong of Palestinian dispossession is an ethical stand independent of the ethnicities or religions involved. Where is the antisemitism?

Baffling, at first sight, is the IHRA’s use of the phrase “a state of Israel” in place of “the state of Israel”. My guess is that the authors of the definition know very well that there are sufficient non-anti-Semitic reasons to reject Israel – mainly that it is in Palestine, paid for by the Palestinians. Through this elision I think they are trying to pin on us anti-Zionists opposition to any Jewish state, anywhere. But we have seen that this isn’t true. With full sympathy for any ethnic or religious groups under persecution, we are agnostic on this point.

Freedland Weighs in

Next we have the same conflation committed by J. Freedland, the Guardian’s house apologist for the violent colonial entity in Palestine and who, to the discredit of that paper’s editors-in-chief, was and perhaps still is entrusted with overseeing the paper’s foreign-affairs editorial policy.

On April 29, 2016 Freedland explained in an elaborate, if not baroque, piece in his newspaper why returning Palestine to its rightful owners – why affirming the Palestinians’ right to self-determination – is racist against Jews.

He sets the stage for the conflation by drawing an analogy with a theoretical black state, rather than a Jewish one – “the only place in the world where the majority of the population… were black.” He then imagines there are a lot of people who reject this state, want it replaced. Disingenuously omitting mention of any reasons for this rejection (for instance the state’s discrimination against non-blacks), he then asserts that such an attitude would obviously be anti-black racism, parallel to antisemitism: All good people “on the left… would be suspicious of this insistence that loathing of the world’s only black country was separate from attitudes to black people in general, especially because most black people had a strong affinity with this country, seeing it as a constitutive part of their own identity.”

The non-sequitur is obvious. To oppose Jewish or Aryan or Muslim or Hindu or Martian country X because it eliminates, expels and discriminates against other ethnic groups is not to oppose Jews, Aryans, Muslims, Hindus or Martians, respectively.

The argument is empty enough, but arguing from black people’s “strong affinity with this country” reduces it to a mere point about the subjective feelings of some ethnic or religious group. And in fact, Freedland then leaves his analogy with the hypothetical black state to attest that Jews have “this connection to – this need for – Israel. … 93% [of British Jews] told a 2015 survey that Israel forms some part of their identity as Jews. … Though Israel’s creation came at a desperately high price for Palestinians… it is impossible for most Jews to see it as a mistake that should be undone.”

One can only ask, since when do the feelings of any group override ethical principles and historical context? Using the obvious analogy, since when would the “affinity” of southern U.S. whites for a slave-owning polity override the rights of blacks in that territory? Surely such whites were heartbroken upon the demise of the Confederate States of America.

Freedland next detaches the discussion from fact or ethics altogether by claiming, with a straight face, that “when Jews call out something to be antisemitic”, it is antisemitic. This is Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

He then three times says that that “something” which “Jews” subjectively declare to be antisemitic is opposition to Israel’s “right to exist”. “Most Jews will defend Israel’s existence”, although it was “forged in bloodshed”. Yes, this is chilling right-wing stuff, but the general problem is that if such group feelings are the only compass, disagreements can only be settled by violence.

Freedland also rides hard the fact that Israel is “the world’s only Jewish country” – implying I suppose that were there several Jewish states, it would not be antisemitic to fundamentally oppose one or the other of them. But whether there is one ethnocracy of type X, or many, is irrelevant to the point that it is the racist violation of others’ rights in any one of them that motivates fundamental opposition.

Finally, Freedland graciously allows us to criticize Israel “for this or that policy”, but if we feel it is “better that this one black [Jewish] country had never been created”, we are OK with the “periodic persecution and slaughter” of a black/Jewish “minority”. Opposing British imposition of Zionism in the 1930s, as we oppose it now, we “would have denied those 6 million [Jewish victims] the one lifeline that might have saved them.” And if that isn’t antisemitic, what is?

This seems to be the ‘lifeboat ethics’ argument of soft Zionism – it was either us or them. But Freedland is making the further claim that taking the side of the Palestinians in the lifeboat necessarily entails racial prejudice towards the Jews in the lifeboat. Again, a non-sequitur. But what is noteworthy is that since all Palestinians, ever since Zionism was put to paper, opposed the politicide it entailed, all Palestinians are, according to J. Freedland, anti-Jewish racists. A more slanderous, historically ignorant and generalized assertion, more devoid of empathy for the dispossessed and cleansed Palestinians, is not imaginable.

Go to Jail

Macron, Freedland and the IHRA don’t get the point because they don’t take Palestinians seriously. Palestinians are simply not relevant to their stories, which begin and end with the Jewish experience. Because the indigenous Palestinians are the monkey wrench ruining their conflationary arguments, they don’t count. Orientalism is alive.

Our immediate cause of concern however, due to the power of these Zionists, is now to stay out of jail. The IHRA, which has equated anti-Zionism and antisemitism, is not nobody. It is made up of countries, namely all EU countries except Bulgaria and Portugal plus Argentina, Israel, Switzerland and the US. The European Parliament Working Group On Antisemitism has adopted the IHRA definition word for word, as has the Austrian Government and the UK Government, albeit not as law but only as policy guidance.

We have seen that the President of France has a solo part in the IHRA choir, and it so happens that France has a recent history of trying to criminalize fundamental opposition to Israel and even to the rights-based Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Concerns about freedom of expression aside, the attempt is to criminalize as Jew-hatred the well-argued identification of Israel as a racist and usurpatory state.

In the US as well, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act passed the Senate unanimously on December 1, 2016. The Act’s Section 3 defines antisemitism by reference to the US State Department’s Fact Sheet of 8 June 2010, which in turn, you guessed it, adopts as its definition of antisemitism the IHRA definition. Under the Fact Sheet’s heading “What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?” we find our old chestnut: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist.” Don’t forget, antisemitism is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The IHRA definition has, to be sure, recently been rejected in an essay in the London Review of Books and by a legal opinion refuting the definition’s allegation that “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” is antisemitic: “Unless such a claim was informed by hatred to Jews, it would not be antisemitic to assert that as Israel defines itself as a Jewish state and thereby by race, and that because non-Jewish Israelis and non-Jews under its jurisdiction are discriminated against, the State of Israel is currently a racist endeavor.” To date, fortunately, the Macrons and Freedlands do not openly assert that racist states have a right to exist.

In light of such refutations of the definition, a bill was unanimously passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on 17 May 2017 seeking implicitly to unite all concerned behind the IHRA’s absurd definition.

My point about the definition’s basic fallacy is not new. Already forty-two years ago Palestinian liberationist Shafiq al-Hout gave a lecture in Ottawa soon after the General Assembly had passed its resolution condemning Zionism as racist: “There was an intense discussion after my speech, with one rabbi asking: ‘You have talked about the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, but don’t the people of Israel also have the right to live by themselves in their own state?’ I answered: ‘Yes, they do – as long as it is on land that legitimately belongs to them, and not over land that they have annexed.’ He then metaphorically cut his own throat by saying: ‘But that means less than 10 percent of the land.’ I smiled, as I fine-tuned his answer: ‘Yes, 6.4 percent, to be precise.’” (Al-Hout, My Life in the PLO, p 136)

Clear Language

I’m suggesting it is a good defensive argument to explain that denying Israel in no way implies denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. Israel is a particular way in which (some) Jews can self-determine, and it is of necessity in a particular place, Palestine. There might be other places, and other ways of self-determining that do not require murder, dispossession and humiliation of another ‘self’. However, how and where the real Israel was ‘done’, and is still done, is immoral.

However, such defensive work is necessary only because Zionism has succeeded in setting the agenda of the debate. It has started with the Jewish, rather than the Palestinian, experience, and ridden on Western sympathy for persecuted Jews, enabling libelous accusations of antisemitism to seem legitimate. Anti-Zionists end up in the dock.

In reality, though, the burden of proof is on the person who accuses another person of something as horrible as racism. Supporters of all the rights of all the Palestinians are innocent until proven guilty. Proof of guilt requires demonstration of a necessary connection between wanting the removal of the state of Israel in favor of a Palestinian state comprised of all Palestinians, and ill-will towards Jews as Jews. This necessary connection cannot of course be found because it is not there.

I think we should simply say that when we are talking about who should rule the land of Palestine, we are first and foremost talking about just that – not about Jews, or Muslims, or Christians. Yes, it was Zionism which entered the picture through British power, uninvited, but it could have been anybody of any ethnicity. On the other hand, it wasn’t just anybody who got expelled and degraded, but by necessity the Palestinians who were living there.

In other words, I think we should shift the focus onto the rights of Palestinians. The end of the state presently occupying (all of) Palestine is not the point. It is only a consequence of justice. The entire argument which leads to a Palestinian successor state to Israel can and should be made without having to mention the specific ethnicity or religion by which Israel defines itself. If justice for Palestine leaves no choice but rejecting Israel, so be it. It has nothing to do with Israel’s being a Jewish state.

It might be a blessing in disguise that the Zionists have gone out on such an illogical limb, because it opens space for re-framing the debate from negative to positive: What? Anti-Jewishness? We only want to redress injustices to the population of a colonized country. We are looking for a state to function in a de-partitioned Palestinian homeland which achieves redress. There is no room for any state entity not chosen by the colonized and expelled, whatever its ethno-religious self-definition.

Macron’s statements to Netanyahu with which this article began have drawn a reply from Israeli writer Shlomo Sand, who balks when Macron says that “Anti-Zionism… is the reinvented form of anti-Semitism.” After first pointing out that Zionism is not Judaism and that many Jews were and are anti-Zionists, he fingers the ethical problem, namely the fact of the overwhelming anti-Zionist majority of indigenous Palestinians, and incisively wonders of Macron “if [he] seriously expect[s] of the Palestinians that they should not be anti-Zionists!” He says of himself, not as an anti-Semite, but “as a democrat and a republican… I cannot support a Jewish State.”

There is no need to beat around the bush any longer over Israel’s ‘right to exist’. Anti-Zionism is not just criticism of this or that Israeli policy but of the very idea of an ethno-religious state in violation of the wishes of Palestine’s rightful citizenry. It is a no-brainer that the Zionist state should give way to a democracy in Palestine. Yet many supporters of Palestinian rights often fudge this issue, claiming that a state in Palestine that is somehow ‘Jewish’ is somehow tolerable.

This includes supporters of the two-state solution such as Barack Obama or Jeremy Corbyn, a Zionist solution tautologically, because one of the two advocated states is, alas, an intruded Jewish state in Palestine. But there is no reason to fear charges of racism when rejecting Israel. That rejection follows logically from the positive rights of the Palestinians, absent all connection to the antisemitic type of racism.

We can thus confidently dissociate anti-Zionism from antisemitism. To do this we need only stress that what must be corrected – the usurpation of Palestine, against the will of the people of Palestine – has nothing to do necessarily with Israel’s Jewishness, only with its colonialism and racism. But we can go one better by retaining a Palestinian orientation. That is, the whole discussion is first and foremost a question of justice for the dispossessed, from which the illegitimacy of Israel simply follows. It is a question of Palestine, not of Israel.

Blake Alcott is an ecological economist and the director of One Democratic State in Palestine (England) Limited. He contributed this article to

The Ethnic Origin Of Communism, Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution

The Ethnic Origin Of Communism, Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution (Documentary)


The Communist Jews of Soviet Russia & Eastern Europe

“We can’t state that all Jews are Bolsheviks, but without Jews there would’ve never been Bolshevism…” — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

History is so important to understanding why the world is the way it is today, along with really grasping how the JWO established power and why.
This video a compiles a list of Tribal Communists who served within the Communist structures of Soviet Russia and post-WW2 Eastern Europe. Research their pasts and their crimes – you will be appalled.

Stalin’s Jews


Excerpted from a 3-part article on the Occidental Observer

For full details on the dominant Jewish role in the Russian Revolution during the Stalin era, see Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR, by Kevin MacDonald. For a shorter introduction to the same subject, see Mark Weber’s The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime.

ANDREW JOYCE :  One Jewish-authored text which merits close attention is Benjamin Ginsberg’s How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism (2013). Ginsberg is Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Center for Advanced Governmental Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and had previously written Do Jews Have a Future in America? (2010) in which he argued that Jews were a very powerful group that nonetheless possessed a remarkable unease quite contrary to their material circumstances.

In his brief but powerful 2013 book, Ginsberg rejects the almost universal idea that Jews were passive victims during World War II. He instead argues that Jews were extremely active participants in the conflict at all levels, and that they “played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.”

Jewish power and influence manifested itself in several ways during the war. Jewish action was international and, although at times lacking co-ordination, was driven globally by a desire to defend Jewish interests and use all avenues of influence available to them. Ginsberg offers chapters on Jewish action within the Soviet Union, Jewish activism within the United States, Jewish involvement in wartime intelligence agencies, and Jewish involvement in directing and participating in the worst of partisan warfare — a form of fighting that had a devastating impact on German supply lines, and in turn led to a justified German military paranoia about Jewish communities in general.

In the intelligence agencies, Jews were everywhere, and there were even Jewish agents (the most famous being the group known as the ‘Red Orchestra’) operating within the Third Reich itself. In partisan warfare, Jews comprised around 25 per cent of all resistance fighters in Western Europe. In the Soviet Union, almost all early partisan groups were led by Jewish Communists and soldiers. Increasingly harsh German treatment of civilian populations in the East, argues Ginsberg, was directly linked to the impact of Jewish partisan activity. A further measure of Jewish domination of partisan warfare was the occasional execution of non-Jewish partisans for actions perceived to be anti-Semitic.

Some of the revelations are stunning, and Ginsberg is quote forthright in his assessment of the extent of Jewish power. In the Soviet Union, Jews played major roles in the ruling Communist party and the Soviet state, and quickly assumed every position of influence — “foreign affairs, propaganda, finance, administration, and industrial production.”

Half of Lenin’s first Politburo were Jewish.

Trotsky organized and commanded the Red Army during the civil war.

The Jews Kamanev and Zinoviev ruled the Soviet Union along with Stalin after the death of Lenin.

The President of the Communist Party Central Committee during this period was the Jew Yakov Sverdlov.

The commissar for foreign affairs was the Jew Maxim Litvinov.

The press commissar was the Jew Karl Radek.

One of Stalin’s top aides was the Jewish mass murderer Lazar Kaganovich.

The head of the secret police was Genrikh Yagoda, another Jew, while the orchestrators of the police state in the Soviet Union were the Jews M.T. Gay, A.A. Slutsky, and Boris German who developed the gulag system.

Jews like Mikhail Koltsov dominated Soviet journalism and the film industry.

Jews enjoyed massive over-representation in the universities, were under-represented as workers, and lived in a state in which anti-Semitism had been made illegal.

During the war, Soviet Jews worked with their American counter-parts to secure vital lend-lease deals on weaponry. Meanwhile, on the front lines, Jews were almost entirely absent from fighting. Jewish involvement at the ‘raw end’ of the conflict was limited mainly to over-representation at officer level, while Jews absolutely dominated the realm of popular mobilization, in the sense that they developed propaganda to persuade the wider population to fight even though they hated the Soviet regime; and they were deeply involved in meting out punishments for those who didn’t respond.

Although comprising only 2% of the Russian population, more than 15% of Soviet war propagandists were Jews. Publications like the official army newspaper Red Star were the mouthpieces of the Jews David Ortenberg and Ilya Ehrenberg, the latter being responsible for the line: “If you have killed one German, kill another. There is nothing jollier than German corpses.”

Like this? Share it now.

Gaza: A Place Closer to Hell Than to Heaven

The recent confessional “I Like Gaza”, written by Uri Avnery –Peace Activist, Journalist, founding member of the peace bloc Gush Shalom, former publisher and editor-in-chief of the news magazine Haolam Hazeh, founding member of the Knesset, founding member of the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, and columnist for Internet – will break the heart of anyone who has ever anguished over the plight of the Palestinian peoples; especially  over the ensuing long decades since the Zionists first invaded Palestine in 1948, with the blessings of the world, and Israel ever since has continued its heinous, incessant racist, apartheid persecution of the Palestinian people, again with the continued blessings of the world.

Sadly, this persecution now includes the Palestinian peoples themselves, caught in the grip, as they are, of a fatal death spiral as they viciously fight and squabble; as oppressed peoples predictably often do amongst themselves once their forced to ‘circle the wagons’ and then begin shooting each other over what few scraps of power and hegemony remain. What is now occurring in Gaza could spell the final chapter in this ugly saga of what human beings everywhere, since time immemorial, seem hopelessly destined to do to one another in whatever contentious theatre of human endeavor.

Meanwhile, the world – in the body of the United Nations and all its affiliate nations, organizations and bodies – either intentionally fosters or helplessly and hopelessly looks on and, as it has done on so many previous occasions of mayhem in recent human history, makes what few anguished, obligatory, hollow gestures and responses, like it has done for nearly 70 years in the case of the Palestinians, while nothing appreciably changes for the better but only the worse.

Uri Avnery poignantly writes,

Uri Avnery (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

“I HAVE a unique confession to make: I like Gaza! Yes, I like this far-away corner of Palestine, the narrow strip on the way to Egypt, in which two million human beings are crowded, and which is closer to hell than to heaven.

My heart goes out to them. I HAVE spent quite a lot of time in the Strip. Once or twice I stayed there with Rachel for a couple of days. I became friendly with some people whom I admired, people like Dr. Haidar Abd-al-Shafi, the leftist doctor who set up the Gazan health system, and Rashad al-Shawa, the former Mayor, an aristocrat from birth.

After the Oslo agreement, when Yasser Arafat came back to the country and set up his office in Gaza, I met him there many times. I brought to him groups of Israelis. On his first day there he sat me on the dais next to him. A photo of that occasion now looks like science fiction.

I even came to know the Hamas people. Before Oslo, when Yitzhak Rabin deported 415 Islamic activists from the country, I took part in setting up protest tents opposite his office. We lived there together, Jews, Christians and Muslims, and there Gush Shalom was born.

After a year, when the deportees were allowed back, I was invited to a public reception for them in Gaza and found myself speaking to hundreds of bearded faces. Among them were some of today’s Hamas leaders. Therefore I cannot treat the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip as a faceless gray mass of people. I couldn’t stop thinking about them during last week’s terrible heat wave, about all the people – the men and women, the old, the children, the toddlers, the babies – languishing in awful conditions without electricity and air conditioning, without clean water, without medicines for the sick. I thought about those living in the houses severely damaged in the last wars and not repaired since. My heart was bleeding, and asking, “Who was to blame?”

Yes, WHO IS to blame for this ongoing atrocity? ACCORDING TO the Israelis, “the Palestinians themselves are to blame”. Fact: the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah has decided to reduce the electricity supply to Gaza from three hours a day to two. (The electricity is supplied by Israel and paid for by the Palestinian Authority). This seems to be true. The conflict between the Palestinian Authority, ruled by Fatah, and the Palestinian leadership in Gaza, ruled by Hamas, has come to an ugly climax.

The uninvolved bystander wonders: how can that be? After all, the entire Palestinian people are in existential danger. The Israeli government tyrannizes all Palestinians, both in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. It keeps the Strip under a strangling blockade, on land, in the sea and in the air, and is setting up settlements all over the West Bank, to drive the population out. In this desperate situation, how can the Palestinians fight each other, to the obvious delight of the occupation authorities?

That is terrible, but, sadly, not unique. On the contrary, in almost all liberation struggles, something similar has happened. During the Irish struggle for independence, the freedom fighters fought against each other and even shot each other. During our own struggle for statehood, the Haganah underground turned Irgun fighters over to the British police, who tortured them, and later shot up a ship bringing recruits and arms to the Irgun. But these and many other examples do not justify what is happening now in Gaza. The struggle between Fatah and Hamas on the backs of two million people condemns these to inhuman living conditions. As an old friend of the Palestinian people in their fight for liberation, I am deeply saddened.

BUT THERE are more partners to the atrocious blockade on Gaza. Israel can blockade the Strip only on three sides. The fourth side is the Egyptian border. Egypt, which has in the past fought four major wars against Israel on behalf of the Palestinian brothers (in one of which I was wounded by an Egyptian machine-gunner) is now participating in the cruel blockade on the Strip.

What has happened? How did it happen? Everyone who knows the Egyptian people knows that it is one of the most attractive peoples on earth; a very proud people; a people full of Humor, even in the most trying circumstances! Several times I have heard in Egypt phrases like: “We do not like the Palestinians very much, but they are our poor cousins, and we cannot abandon them under any circumstances!” And yet here they are, not only abandoning, but cooperating with the cruel occupation.”

This writer, like so many others who feel compassion for the Palestinians and anguish what can be done to alleviate their situation, is deeply moved by Uri Avnery’s commentary. And now, unfortunately, we must continue to turn to yet another raw, gaping wound of the human spirit, and as yet unresolved debacle of the human condition, called Syria!

OMG! Will Things Never Be Otherwise Until the Human Race Finally Expunges Itself?

Jerome Irwin is a freelance writer and author of “The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey” (, a three volume account of his travels as a spiritual sojourner, during the 1960’s, 70’s & 80’s, among Native Americans & First Nations in North America. It encompasses the Spiritual Renaissance & Liberation Movements among native peoples throughout North America during the civil rights era. In 2014, Irwin authored a series of articles on Israel, Gaza, Palestine and Syria (“Gaza & World’s Collective Soul Besieged”; “Gaza at Christmas”, “The Battle For Pqlestine”, “Israeli Zionism” and “Syria’s Civil War & Human Folly”). Irwin also is the publisher of The Wild Gentle Press

Featured image from Countercurrents


Israel’s Holocaust Memorial Located at Zionist Massacre Site

In an act of “chutzpah,” Israel’s formal holocaust memorial museum, Yad Vashem, is located at the site of a brutal mass murder massacre carried out against Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassin, a holocaust scholar has pointed out.

Bodies after the massacre at Deir Yassin, April 10, 1948.

Peter Winter, the author of the best-selling The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, said that it was “worthwhile, on yet another ‘International Holocaust Remembrance Day,’ to consider perhaps one of the greatest acts of chutzpah: siting Israel’s official “holocaust memorial” on a site directly overlooking Deir Yassin—a Palestinian village whose population was murdered out of existence in exactly the way that the Holocaust Storytellers claim happened to Jews in World War II.”

Winter went on to describe the events at Deir Yassin, and the circumstances which led up to Yad Vashem being located at the site:

The massacre at Deir Yassin took place on April 9, 1948, when around 120 Jewish terrorists from the Zionist terrorist groups, the Irgun Zevai Leumi and Lohamei Herut, attacked the village without warning.

The attack was carried out not as part of some ongoing “war,” but merely because the Zionists were then currently busy with an ethnic cleansing program to drive the Palestinians out of all land which had been earmarked to become Israel.

As described on the official Deir Yassin remembrance site, the village of Deir Yassin lay outside of the area to be assigned by the United Nations to the Jewish State, and it had a peaceful reputation.
But, Deir Yassin’s “sin” was that it was located on high ground in the corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Deir Yassin had been slated for occupation under the infamous “Plan D,”—a formal plan drawn up by the Zionist movement by Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, in 1947.

Plan D, or “Plan Dalet”—named after the fourth letter in the Hebrew alphabet—was launched six weeks prior to the end of the British Mandate in Palestine. It was called Plan D because it had been preceded by Plan A (February 1945), Plan B (May 1947) and Plan C (November 1947), all of which had been designed to expedite the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to make way for Jewish settlement.

Plan D consisted of at least 13 separate military underground operations which were carried out by the “Palmach”—the elite fighting force of the Haganah, the underground Jewish army—which were set to be put into action before Arab forces entered the areas allotted to the Palestinians by the United Nations Partition Plan.

For this purpose, the Haganah created a “Committee for Arab Properties in Villages,” the purpose of which was to register and take possession of all Palestinian properties in the villages the Zionist forces had conquered. Similar committees were established in major Palestinian cities like Haifa, Safad, Yafa and Tabariyah.

Early in the morning of Friday, April 9, 1948, commandos of the Irgun, headed by Menachem Begin, and the Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin, a village with about 750 Palestinian residents.

Most sources put the number of dead at 254, including 25 pregnant women who were bayoneted and 52 children who were maimed in front of their mothers before being beheaded and the mothers slain.

Rape, mutilation and humiliation were the norm, according to survivors. Mahmoud Kassem El-Yassini, who was 5 at the time, said in his testimony that “there were [corpses of] women lying in houses with their skirts torn up to their waists and their legs wide apart; children with their throats cut open, rows of young men shot in the back after being lined up at an execution wall. There were even bodies of babies.”

El-Yassini recalls, “I remember hearing a Jewish terrorist who was touring the village and reporting the massacre, saying, ‘Minus 15 Arabs. Minus 60 Arabs.’ After a while his message on the radio to headquarters became: ‘It’s difficult to count.’”

According to eye-witness Abu Yousef, who was 21, “after the battle, the Jews took elderly men and women and youths, including four of my cousins and a nephew. They took them all. Women who had on them gold and money were stripped of their gold. After the Jews had removed their dead and wounded, they took the men to the quarry and sprayed them all with bullets… One woman saw her son taken some 40 to 60 meters away from where she and the rest of the women stood, and shot dead. Then they brought Jewish kids to throw stones at his body. Then, they poured kerosene over his body and set it ablaze, while the women watched from a distance.”

Twenty-five male villagers were loaded into trucks, paraded through the Zakhron Yosef quarter in Jerusalem in front of cheering Jewish crowds, and then taken to a stone quarry along the road between Givat Shaul and Deir Yassin and shot to death. The remaining residents were driven to Arab East Jerusalem.

A final body count of 254 was reported by The New York Times on April 13, a day after the dead were buried.

At least ten houses were dynamited, and the local cemetery bulldozed. Within months, the area was resettled with Jews from Poland, Rumania, and Slovakia—who had all “miraculously” escaped the “gas chambers”—and the village was renamed Givat Shaul Bet.

Deir Yassin was wiped off the map. As Jerusalem expanded, the land of Deir Yassin became part of the city and is now known simply as the area between Givat Shaul and the settlement of Har Nof on the western slopes of the mountain.

Today, the site of the massacre of Deir Yassin is contained within the grounds of the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center, a mental asylum—for Jews only, of course—in Givat Shaul.

Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center, which incorporates the remaining buildings from the village of Deir Yassin.

What makes the site even more poignant is that it is located just 2,000 feet away from the front of Israel’s holocaust museum, Yad Vashem.

Visitors to Yad Vashem will look out directly at the massacre site from the front of the “Holocaust Memorial.”

Deir Yassin as seen from Yad Vashem; the village lies in the green trees to the right of the water tower.

It has to be the ultimate act of Chutzpah: to locate a memorial to an alleged Jewish holocaust at the site of a very real holocaust carried out by Zionist terrorists against Palestinians.

“The siting of Yad Vashem at this spot reveals much about the psychology behind the Holocaust Storytellers, and how they view the world,” Winter concluded.

Privatization of Water as an Owned Commodity Rather Than a Universal Human Right


First published in April 2014

There is no greater natural resource on this earth than water. As the sustenance of all life, water keeps every living and breathing organism, every plant, every animal and every human being on this planet alive. In the same way that without air to breathe, without water we humans cannot sustain life for more than a few days.

Due to global warming, widespread drought and increasingly polluted water systems, the projected availability of clean freshwater in years to come to meet the rising demands of a growing global population is among the most daunting human challenges of this century. By 2015 a 17% increase in global water demand is projected just for increasing agriculturally produced food. By the same year 2025, the growing global population will increase water consumption needs by a whopping 40%. While oil played the keenly critical role during the twentieth century, water is being deemed the most valued precious natural resource of the twenty-first century.

As such, several years ago the United Nations declared access to clean drinking water a universal human right. Conversely, willfully denying it is considered a serious human rights violation that denies life itself. And any calculated decision denying people their universal right to life is nothing short of a murderous, shameful crime against humanity.

Despite the human air pollution that has long been dirtying our lungs, while also causing global warming, climate change and increasing catastrophic natural disasters, not to mention the growing global health hazard for us humans, the very thought of making clean air a precious commodity that can opportunistically be packaged and sold by the same corporations that have been ruining our air, that very notion would instantly be criticized, scorned and ridiculed.

Yet that is exactly what has been happening for the last thirty years now all over this planet with the earth’s preciously dwindling freshwater drinking supply. The World Bank has been financing global privatization of the earth’s water supply making clean water that is so necessary for survival an unaffordable private commodity for the poorest people on earth to even access. They are literally dying of thirst and disease because of greedy psychopathic corporate profiteers once again placing theft and greed over human welfare and life itself.

But then that is the globalist agenda – thinning the human herd down from near seven billion currently to as low as just half a billion. That means 13 out of 14 of us alive today according to their diabolical oligarch plan simply must die within the next few years. And what better way to rapidly kill off the human population than taking full ownership and control over the earth’s limited diminishing water supply.

More people on this planet are dying presently from waterborne disease from dirty water than are dying from all wars and violence worldwide combined. Every hour 240 babies die from unsafe water. 1.5 million children under five years of age die every year from cholera and typhoid fever due to unsanitary water conditions. These incredibly sad, alarming facts illustrate just how significant and critical a clean freshwater supply is to staying alive on this planet. Taking control over the earth’s clean water supply is achieved by turning water into a privately owned commodity that only the largest corporations and banks control. Simply making water unaffordable and thereby inaccessible to the poorest people on the planet is one extremely effective, albeit most sinister way to reduce the so called overpopulation problem.

Three primary ways that the human population decreases significantly every year is death caused by starvation and malnutrition (including lack of drinkable water) at between seven to eight millionpeople, diseases that kill between two to three million (with mounting threats of infectious diseases becoming pandemics) and upwards of near a half million dying each year from war.

Behind closed doors oligarchic globalists periodically meet and discuss what is best for humanity and the planet according to them and their megalomaniacal self-interests. For many years now this all important topic of water privatization and control as a convenient and most effective means of addressing the overpopulation problem has been regularly tabled for discussion… along with related topics like geo-engineering, GMO’s, vaccines, overuse of antibiotics, planned wars over oil and water, devising global policies designed to increase political destabilization, poverty and undermine economies, nuclear radiation and a host of other means for culling the human population.

Time Magazine reported how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been financing research at the University of North Carolina among 78 others to develop ultrasound infertility contraception techniques to sterilize male sperm. At a 2010 TED conference Bill Gates spoke openly of depopulating the total of 6.8 billion people living on earth by up to “10 to 15%” using both of his heavily funded vaccine and contraception programs that will render much of the global population infertile. Meanwhile, billionaire Ted Turner went even further, offering his public opinion to decrease the world population by 70% down to “two billion.” It too is on tape.

Calls to begin sterilizing the human population began surfacing back in the mid-1970’s with Henry Kissinger as former Secretary of State and high ranking Bilderberg member in his declassified National Security Council document (1974) entitled “The Implications of World-wide PopulationGrowth on the Security and External Interests of the United States.” This document emphasized highest priority given to implementing birth control programs targeting thirteen Third World nations mostly in South America. Extraordinary resources were allocated through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) pushing the carrot stick of additional financial aid to countries willing to enact sterilization and depopulation programs.

More overt evidence of the callous contempt that globalist oligarchs have toward us 99%-ers is captured in a statement written by Prince Phillip, Queen Elizabeth II’s husband in the forward of his book, “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus” to reduce the human population. It seems readily discernable that an explicit globalist agenda for a New World Order openly propagated with repeated references by President Goerge Bush senior includes depopulation through various means, water control through privatization just one of many in the power elite’s arsenal.

Humans have been dying from lack of clean water for a long time now and will only continue dying at an even greater frequency if the plan to privatize water continues to unfold unchecked and without opposition. Fortunately forces have been mobilizing to combat water privatization. Just last week on the heels of the World Bank annual convening in Washington DC for several days ofconferencing, an international coalition of anti-privatization water rights groups from India and America sent a formal message calling on the World Bank to end its destructive practice of privatizing water around the world under the guise of developmental progress. The Bank’s DC meetings had been touting lies and disinformation in an attempt to paint a glowing report showcasing the so called efficacy and successes that turning water rights over to the private sector have accomplished in recent years. The World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) as the planet’s largest funding source for water privatization provides loans and financing to Third World nations for private water management companies to take charge of municipal, regional and national water rights.

The director of a global advocacy group called Corporate Accountability International, Shayda Naficy, pointed out that 75% of expenses for running a water utility company should go to infrastructure. In nation after nation private companies have placed the priority of making a profit over the need to invest in necessary infrastructure to connect and adequately service water customers. In efforts to maximize cost efficiency as well as profits, water prices invariably go up and fast become out of reach for poorest customers. Cutting off the water supply to thousands of low income families unable to pay for their rising costs has become the all too frequent inevitable result. The World Bank’s 34 percent failure rate for all private water and sewerage contracts between 2000 and 2010 far surpasses its single digit failure rates in the telecommunications, energy and transportation industries.

Critics maintain that the public sector is far more accountable to its public constituents than private sector businesses that only answer to its board of directors to show sufficient profits. Corruption becomes commonplace. Additionally, a conflict of interest exists when the IFC acts as both a money lender and consultant to foreign municipalities in assigning no bid contracts to favored private water utility companies.

To best illustrate typical scenarios where water privatization is either not working or already proved a failure deserve close examination. The good news is that in recent years people in various parts of the world have been mobilizing successful efforts and campaigns to stop water privatization in their own backyards. Presently in a number of regions in India, citizens are banding together to confront and fight the myriad of problems with water privatization in their country.

Recently in Nagpur, central India’s largest city where the country’s first municipal partnership with a private utility company is being played out, major tensions have erupted. Three years ago the city signed a 25-year contract with Veolia Water to supply the city of 2.7 million residents with 24 hour-7-days a week water service. Instead unforeseen delays driving up prices manyfold along with unfair water distribution and frequent service breakdowns have led to widespread angry protests in the streets and charges of corruption. City officials point to a series of serious contract violations. Again cutting corners by refusing to invest in the needed infrastructure appears to be the primary cause for this failed project. The Corporate Accountability International’s 2012 report called “Shutting the Spigot on Private Water: The Case for the World Bank to Divest” cites a number of similar cases where privatization has proven ineffective.

Bold and empowered citizens in Bolivia in the year 2000 made headlines around the globe when they were victorious in kicking out privatized water there in the form of the Bechtel, the fifth largest private corporation on the planet. Impassioned protestors in Bolivia’s third-largest city managed to oppose Bechtel’s increasing prices and demanded that the company abandon its hold on their city’s municipal water supply, eventually driving the powerful scandalous giant out of the country. Though big business efforts to buy and control water rights in many Latin American nations have each had their turn in nations like Equator and Brazil, only Chile water services are privatized. Ultimately local residents virtually everywhere privatization has attempted to take hold has been met with such strong resistance from consumers who realize their private utility company has failed miserably in delivering quality service at affordable prices.

The story is always the same. That is why advocacy groups like Corporate Accountability International is proactively working toward educating governments and citizens worldwide to ensure water remains under the public domain. The exhaustive and expensive legal process of ending long term contracts and successfully removing privatized foreign corporations once established in a city, state or country is formidable. It is obviously in the best interests of people around the world to ensure privatization of their water supply never gets a local foothold in the first place.

Nestlé corporation’s marketing campaign targeted wealthy Pakistanis in Lahore, and its brand of bottled water ‘Pure Life’ became a status symbol for the rich. To bottle its product, Nestlé busily dried up local underground springs that subsequently caused the village poor unable to buy the bottled water stolen from their springs to end up consuming contaminated water. Nestlé went on to extracting water from two deep wells in Bhati Dilwan village, forcing them to turn to bottled water. A similar story emerged from Nigeria where a single bottled water exceeds the average daily income of a Nigerian citizen. Nestlé is notorious for draining local water supplies used to bottle its water brands, then charge unaffordable prices to the local population whose clean water supply was stolen from them.

Corporate Watch released a report exposing some of the unethical and illegal practices that Nestlé has long been committing around the globe, completely disregarding public health concerns while destroying natural environments to ensure huge annual profits of $35 billion just from water bottle sales alone. In Brazil’s Serra da Mantiqueira region where the groundwater is rich in mineral content containing medicinal properties, over-pumping has depleted its valuable water resources and caused permanent damage to the natural environment. and long-term damage.

Nestlé has also allegedly been involved in human trafficking of child slave labor. A BBC investigative report claimed that “hundreds of thousands of children in Mali, Burkina Faso and Togo were being purchased from their destitute parents and shipped to the Ivory Coast to be sold as slaves to cocoa farms.” Yet Nestlé likely bought the cocoa from the Ivory Coast and Ghana knowing it was produced using child slaves.

Finally, Nestlé owns or leases fifty spring sites throughout America. Nestlé controls a third of the domestic market for bottled water in the US. The company is notorious for unlawful extraction of spring water while engaging in price-gouging and reeking havoc in numerous communities. An example of the trouble Nestlé typically causes is Colorado where 80% of the citizens of Aurora were opposed to Nestlé’s presence, fully aware of the company’s terrible reputation for damaging communities and natural environments. Yet the city council voted in favor 7 to 4 to let the devastation begin and over the next decade Nestlé extracted 650 million gallons of precious Arkansas River valley water that went into its Arrowhead Springs brand of bottled water. For years the embattled townspeople of Aurora fought to rid the company predator from destroying their precious aquifers. Additionally, the plastic non-biodegradable bottles are major pollutants that stay toxically intact for a full millennium.

The cumulative grave effects of privatizing water as a global commodity are appalling. The underprivileged residents of Jakarta, Manila and Nairobi pay 5 to 10 times more for water than those living in high-income areas of those same cities. People living in the Third World slums even pay more for water than upscale New Yorkers and Londoners. This kind of unfairness and inequity is obscene. Women in places in Africa where privatized water is beyond their limit walk miles to obtain dirty water from rivers and then too often die along with their children from contamination and disease. Asian farmers are losing their livelihoods if they are unable to receive state funded irrigation. The human suffering caused globally by wealthy private corporations from North America and Europe exploiting people from Third World nations for pure profit is nothing less than pure psychopathic evil.

Taking on global privatization of water for the well being and greater good of the people is but an example of the monumental work that needs to be done. Only if informed, caring and committed human beings collectively come together worldwide to take a global stand against this gravest of life and death issues facing humanity can this oligarch agenda be stopped dead in its tracks. As global human rights activists it is up to us to end the global corporate malevolence and malfeasance from further damaging and afflicting our planet like never before. With the recent formal finding that Americans no longer live in a democracy but an oligarchy, as if we did not already painfully know, it becomes even more “formally” imperative now that we as ordinary citizens of the world take the vested interest in preserving life on our only planet before it becomes too late. It is high time we take back our planet once and for all from the oligarchic corporatocracy bent on insidiously making our earthly home increasingly uninhabitable for all life forms.

Mass extinction of plant and animal species that have thrived on this planet for millions of years is silently, invisibly taking place every single day right before our eyes. At ever-perilous stake now is our own human species as well as all living species inhabiting this earth, suffering at the hands of national governments that have corruptly co-opted with the banking cabal-owned transnational corporations and for too many decades been systematically destroying the richly diverse natural ecosystems of all earthly life forms on an unprecedented scale.

Since governmental co-opting with global fortune 500 corporations has been polluting and poisoning the earth’s skies, its waters, food sources and seeds for so long, global theft and destruction has us humans and all life forms teetering now on the brink of complete self-annihilation and extinction, human-induced for the first time on a massive never before seen scale. It is time to hold the oligarchy in the form of corporations responsible for all the damage they have reeked on this earth. No more grotesque “Abama-nations” of bank and Wall Street bailouts at taxpayer expense. Since the 99% in debt to the hilt have been squeezed dry, while the 1% have made this planet nearly unlivable as the only ones filthily richly profiting from their plundering this earth, the transnationals are the sole entities with the financial capital and means to clean up the very mess they created. It is only fair then that after an entire century of mucking the planet up at our expense, that they now need to finally be held accountable for repairing the destruction they directly caused and obscenely profited from.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former Army officer. His written manuscript based on his military experience examines leadership and national security issues and can be consulted at the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in psychology and became a licensed therapist working in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now focuses on writing. 


Life on Earth is Dying. Thousands of Species Cease to Exist. Homo Sapiens is the Cause



On the day that you read this article, 200 species of life on Earth (plants, birds, animals, fish, amphibians, insects, reptiles) will cease to exist. Tomorrow, another 200 species will vanish forever.

The human onslaught to destroy life on Earth is unprecedented in Earth’s history. Planet Earth is now experiencing its sixth mass extinction event and Homo sapiens is the cause. Moreover, this mass extinction event is accelerating and is so comprehensive in its impact that the piecemeal measures being taken by the United Nations, international agencies and governments constitute a tokenism that is breathtaking in the extreme.

And it is no longer the case that mainly ‘invisible’ species are vanishing: those insects, amphibians and small animals about which you had never even heard, assuming they have been identified and given a name by humans.

You and I are on the brink of driving to extinction some of the most iconic species alive today. For a photo gallery of threatened species, some of which are ‘critically endangered’, see ‘World’s wildlife being pushed to the edge by humans – in pictures’.

If you want to read more about some aspects of the extinction threat, you can do so in these recent reports: ‘World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in protected species’ and ‘2016 Living Planet Report’  which includes these words: ‘The main statistic from the report … shows a 58% decline between 1970 and 2012. This means that, on average, animal populations are roughly half the size they were 42 years ago.’

And if you want to read just one aspect of what is happening in the world’s oceans, this recent UN report will give you something to ponder: ‘New UN report finds marine debris harming more than 800 species, costing countries millions’. 

Of course, some of what is happening is related to the ongoing climate catastrophe and there isn’t any good news on that front. See ‘What’s Happening in the Arctic is Astonishing’.

But not everything that is going badly wrong is well known either. Did you know that we are destroying the Earth’s soil? See ‘Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues’.

And did you realise that even nitrogen is now a huge problem too? See ‘Scientists shine a spotlight on the overlooked menace of nitrogen’.

Of course, military violence has devastating consequences on the Earth’s ecosystems too, destroying land, water and atmosphere (not to mention killing human beings) in the fight over resources. You will get no joy from the article ‘Iraq’s oil inferno – government inaction in the face of eco-terrorism’ or the website of the Toxic Remnants of War Project. 

But every single aspect of military spending is ultimately used to destroy. It has no other function.

While 2.5 billion human beings do not have enough to eat. See ‘One in three people suffers malnutrition at global cost of $3.5 trillion a year’

As you read all this, you might say ‘Not me’! But you are wrong. You don’t have to be an impoverished African driven to killing elephants for their tusks so that you can survive yourself. You don’t have to be a farmer who is destroying the soil with synthetic poisons. You don’t have to be a soldier who kills and destroys or a person who works for a corporation that, one way to another, forces peasants off their land.

You just have to be an ‘ordinary’ person who pays your military taxes and consumes more than your share of world resources while participating without challenge in the global system of violence and exploitation managed by the global elite.

‘Why is this?’ you might ask.

This is because the primary driver of the human-induced mass extinction is not such things as some people hunting a particular lifeform to extinction, horrendous though this is. In fact, just two things drive most species over the edge: our systematic destruction of land habitat – forests, grasslands, wetlands, peatlands, mangroves… – in our endless effort to capture more of the Earth’s wild places for human use (whether it be residential, commercial, mining, farming or military) and our destruction of waterways and the ocean habitat by dumping into them radioactive contaminants, carbon dioxide, a multitude of poisons and chemical pollutants, and even plastic.

And do you know what drives this destruction of land and water habitats? Your demand for consumer products, all of which are produced by using land and water habitats, and the resources derived from them, often far from where you live. The most basic products, such as food and clothing, are produced on agricultural land, sometimes created by destroying rainforests, or taken from the ocean (where overfishing has savagely depleted global fish stocks). But in using these resources, we have ignored the needs of the land, oceans and the waterways for adequate regenerative inputs and recovery time.

We also participate, almost invariably without question or challenge, in the inequitable distribution of resources that compels some impoverished people to take desperate measures to survive through such means as farming marginal land or killing endangered wildlife.

So don’t sit back waiting for some miracle by the United Nations, international agencies or governments to solve this problem. It cannot happen for the simple reason that these organizations are all taking action within the existing paradigm that prioritizes corporate profit and military violence over human equity and ecological sustainability.

Despite any rhetoric to the contrary, they are encouraging overconsumption by industrialized populations and facilitating the inequitable distribution of income and wealth precisely because this benefits those who control these organizations, agencies and governments: the insane corporate elites who are devoid of the capacity to see any value beyond the ‘bottom line’. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane’. 

If you want action on the greatest challenge human beings have ever faced – to avert our own extinction by learning to live in harmony with our biosphere and equity with our fellow humans – then I encourage you to take personal responsibility.

If you do, you need to act. At the simplest level, you can make some difficult but valuable personal choices. Like becoming a vegan or vegetarian, buying/growing organic/biodynamic food, and resolutely refusing to use any form of poison or to drive a car or take an airline flight.

But if you want to take an integrated approach, the most powerful way you can do this is to systematically reduce your own personal consumption while increasing your self-reliance. Anita McKone and I have mapped out a fifteen-year strategy for doing this in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.

You might also consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ which obviously includes nonviolence towards our fellow species.

One of the hidden tragedies of modern human existence is that we have been terrorized into believing that we are not personally responsible. See ‘The Delusion “I Am Not Responsible”‘.

For a fuller explanation, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’. 

It isn’t true but few people feel powerful enough to make a difference.

And every time you decide to do nothing and to leave it to someone else, you demonstrate why no-one else should do anything either.

Extinction beckons. What will you do?

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?‘ His email address is and his website is at


Zionism at its Best: ‘So sad our school is destroyed’: Israel razes EU-funded schools for Palestinian children

‘So sad our school is destroyed’: Israel razes EU-funded schools for Palestinian children (VIDEO)

Israeli authorities have bulldozed several EU-funded structures in the West Bank, set up to provide local Palestinian children with an opportunity to get an education near home. While Israel claims the buildings were illegal, Belgium slammed Israel’s actions as “unacceptable.”

The night before the new school year started, Israeli bulldozers arrived on the outskirts of the Palestinian city of Bethlehem to demolish several caravans only recently erected as a school for some 100 students from the area, RT’s Paula Slier reported from the scene.

The makeshift school in the village of Jubbet Ad-Dib, as well as all the necessary educational equipment, were financed by various international donors, including Belgium, so that young learners need not walk miles to the nearest education center.

Israeli authorities declared the facilities illegal. They say the school was allegedly built without the required planning permits.

Illegal construction that took place without obtaining the necessary permits from the authorized authorities occurred,” said Israel’s Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT).

Lately, over 50 such school demolition orders have been given. However, in the case with this particular school in Jubbet Ad-Dib, the order came the same night that the structures were destroyed, Slier reported.

Israeli forces reportedly fired sound bombs and tear gas at some locals protesting the school’s demolition.

The soldiers came and started shooting in the air, throwing grenades at people and then started destroying the school,” a local girl told RT.

I’m so upset that they destroyed our school. I love studying so much. I want to become an engineer,” a boy shared.

READ MORE: Israeli settlers suspected of destroying 45 olive trees in act of ‘revenge’ against Palestinians

Belgium, one of the countries funding the educational project, has condemned the destruction and is demanding compensation from Israel.

These new demolitions and seizures of essential infrastructure are unacceptable,” an official statement from two senior Belgian ministers said, adding that “Belgium’s projects aim to meet humanitarian needs and are carried out in strict respect of international humanitarian law.”

By undermining such humanitarian projects, Israel contravenes its international obligations as an occupying power,” the joint statement from Didier Reynders, Belgium’s foreign affairs minister and Alexander De Croo, minister of development cooperation said.

Explanations as well as compensation will be demanded from the Israeli Government,” it added, saying that “these latest incidents result directly in children being denied access to education, just before the start of the school year.”

Israel treated unfairly,  complains to visiting UN chief 

Photo published for Netanyahu complains to UN chief Israel is being treated unfairly — RT News

Netanyahu complains to UN chief Israel is being treated unfairly — RT News

The UN is treating Israel unfairly by diminishing its ties to Jerusalem and not doing enough to curb arms deliveries to Hezbollah, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, complained to visiting…

Meanwhile, tents have been put up to accommodate at least some of the children. Those are extremely crammed, with several classes happening simultaneously.

The kids from our village were so happy when they had a school. When it got destroyed, they were very upset. The kids used to love going to school, they were so enthusiastic about it. Now they are asking all the time: ‘Why do I have to study in a tent?’ The children need water, bathrooms, and there’s nothing like this in this so-called school,” a local woman told RT.

But it appears that tents seem to be the only option for dozens of Palestinian children in the area.

Speaking about how at times they have to study outside, a girl said that “when we have classes in direct sunlight, some of us might get sunstroke and get sick. And when it gets colder, people get ill too.”

I feel so sad that our school is destroyed, now I’m sitting in a tent in the sun,” a boy said.

The closest school is about 6 miles (10 kilometers) away, a big distance for children of this age to walk. Many of them say they are often accosted by Jewish settlers along the way.

These are not the first schools [to be demolished]… Israel has by international law the responsibility of building schools, but they do not build schools, and they don’t give permits… At the same time they are building freely on our land schools for Israeli settlers,” Dimitri Diliani, a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council told RT.

Israeli settlements an obstacle to two-state solution, says UN Secretary General


Israel’s settlement activity is illegal and represents a “major obstacle” to the implementation of the two-state solution, United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, António Guterres, warned today.

Speaking at a press conference with the Palestinian Prime Minister, Rami Hamdallah, held in Ramallah, Guterres stressed that the UN is committed to exert every effort to achieve the two-state solution.

“I want to express very strongly the total commitment of the United Nations, and my personal total commitment, to do everything for a two-state solution to materialise,” he said, adding that “there is no plan B to the two-state solution.”

“A two-state solution that will end the occupation and, with the creation of conditions, also the suffering even to the Palestinian people, is in my opinion the only way to guarantee that peace is established and, at the same time, that two states can live together in security and in mutual recognition,”  the UN chief reiterated.

Read More: On his first visit to Israel, Guterres cast aside any possibility of decolonisation

Guterres underlined that it is important to remove the obstacles for that solution to be implemented.

“We recognize that the settlement activity that, as I’ve said several times, is illegal under international law, that the settlement activity is an obstacle that needs to be removed in relation to the possibility of two-state solution to be adequately implemented,” he noted.

He urged the Israeli and Palestinian sides to avoid forms of incitement. “It’s important to create the conditions for leaders on both sides to appeal for calm, to avoid forms of incitement, for violence to settle down,” he demanded.

The UN chief also expressed his concern over the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, pointing to the UN’s continued commitment to support the enclave’s reconstruction process. “We are totally committed to support UNRWA’s activity as well as the activities of reconstruction that are taking place in Gaza,” he noted.

Guterres also pledged to support the efforts towards creating conditions for a unified Palestinian leadership both in West Bank and the Strip. ”We will do also everything possible to support the effort that President Abbas is making in order to create conditions for a unified leadership both in West Bank and Gaza, with the dialogue for peace behind it.”

On his part, Hamdallah called on the UN to provide international protection for the Palestinian people, compel Israel to implement the resolutions of international legitimacy, and to take serious and effective steps to protect Muslim and Christian holy sites, especially those in Jerusalem.

“Today, we discussed with the UN Secretary-General the latest political, economic and humanitarian developments in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza,” the Palestinian leader said,

He stressed that “the chances of a two-state solution and the achievement of peace would be eroded by Israeli settlements,” warning that the Palestinians would not “remain silent for long.”

Israeli impunity and accountability, Hamdallah added, reflects “double standards.”

He stressed that the Palestinian Authority (PA) “believes that the achievement of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital will be through peaceful resistance and movement at the international level, especially in the United Nations.”

Read More: UN chief arrives for first Israel-Palestine visit

“The Israeli government is responsible for any deterioration in the security situation because of its insistence on settlement, land confiscation, demolitions, incursions into towns and cities, daily arrests and campaigns against prisoners,” the Prime Minister noted.

Guterres also met with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and is due to visit the Gaza on Wednesday.


International OrganisationsMiddle EastNewsPalestineUNVideos & Photo Stories

LOL!!! ‘Iran, operating from Syria, will destroy Europe and North America

There is a long term plan at work here aimed at destroying the West and it can work.

ed note–in the event that the name ‘Dr. Mordechai Kedar’ rings a bell, it should. He is the infamous ‘scholar’ who once penned an article where he claimed that raping the mothers, sisters and other womenfolk of terrorists was a legitimate form of warfare in Judea, Inc’s aim at cleansing that land between the Nile and Euphrates of Gentile contaminants/pollutants in creating the Jewish state. All can imagine the noise that would erupt if any other person of the non-Hebraic persuasion were to issue a similar opinion but in the reverse, but in the case involving the infamous ‘Dr. Mordechai Kedar’, barely a peep from the JMSM and what noises of discomfort were made were very subtle and evaporated within a day of their being published.

As far as the premise of the article itself, keep in mind as well that the ‘mood’ within which ‘Dr. Mordechai Kedar’ wrote this was not one of dread, but rather one of anticipation and longing. Yes, it is couched in the lecturing, moralizing, warning tone which the High Priests of Hypocrisy utilize in all their finger wagging and their ‘tsk, tsk, tsk-ing’, but in the end, remember that as  ‘good Jew’, he wants to see the West destroyed given the events surrounding not only the Maccabean war against Hellenism, but more than that, Rome’s destruction of Judea in 70 AD.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar, Israel National News

Iran and Russia plan to destroy Western Europe, the US and Canada by means of a new wave of millions of Syrian Sunnis fleeing to the West to escape the Shiite takeover of Syria.

In my weekly column two months ago, I claimed that Iran is the real victor in the Syrian civil war. Using the war against ISIS as a smokescreen, it is taking over large swathes of Syrian territory, mainly in the scarcely populated middle and eastern parts of the country. In the more fertile and densely populated west of Syria, there are Iraqi, Afghan, and Iranian Shiite militias augmenting Lebanese Hezbollah fighters who were given carte blanche to do whatever Hassan Nasrallah decides to do there.

Assad’s strength continues to increase as ISIS and the other rebel forces lose ground. The brutality of Russian involvement and the cruelty of Shiite militias overcame the anti-Assad forces, the turning point occurring when in 2015, Turkey’ s Erdogan was forced by Russia to cease his aid to the rebels and ISIS. Today, although Erdogan is an unwilling ally of Russia, Alawite Assad still sees him, justifiably, as an Islamist enemy.

The Kurds of northeast Syria, treated as below third class citizens until 2011, will never agree to live under Arab mercy once again and it is reasonable to assume that should Syria remain an undivided country under Assad’s rule, the Kurds will preserve relative autonomy in their region – or fight the regime for their rights.

That is certainly a problem, but the main issue facing a united Syria is going to be the drastic demographic changes the country is going to face.

First of all, about half of Syria’s citizens – close to 10 million – are refugees, half located in Syria and the other half in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, other Arab countries, Europe, North and South America, Australia and even Israel. Syrian refugees who reached points outside the Arab world will in all probability stay put, benefitting from the secure and orderly lives they can now lead. On the other hand, the 3.5 million now in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are awaiting the end of hostilities in order to return to their homes.

Those expectations may be dashed, however, because Syrian reality is totally changed, and large parts of its cities are in ruins after six and a half years of a cruel and bloody war. Countless bombs dropped from planes and helicopters, artillery and tank barrages, mines and explosives planted by both sides have made much of urban Syria, where most of the fighting took place, unsafe to live in. In Homs, Aleppo, Adlib, Hamat and many other cities, entire neighborhoods will have to be razed and their infrastructure rebuilt from scratch. Decades and billions of dollars are needed to rebuild the country and I, for one, do not see the world’s nations standing on line to donate the necessary funds. Refugees will not agree to switch their tents in Jordan for ruined buildings lacking basic infrastructure in a desolate and destroyed Syria.

The other reason the refugees will not return is their justified fear of the new lords of the land – the Shiites. Iran has been moving Shiites from Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan to Syria for a long time in a clear attempt to change the demographic makeup of the country from the Sunni majority it had before the civil war broke out in 2011. The issue could not be more clear because it is no secret that the pre-civil war Sunni majority considered the Alawite rulers heretic idol worshippers who had no right to live in Syria, much less rule over it.

The Alawites know well that the Sunnis rebelled against them twice: The first time was from 1976 to 1982, a rebellion that took the lives of 50,000 citizens. The second time, slowly drawing to an end, has cost the lives of half a million men, women, children and aged citizens of Syria. The Alawites intend to prevent a third rebellion and the best way to do that is to change the majority of the population to Shiites instead of Sunnis. They will not allow the Sunni refugees to return to their homes, leaving them eternal refugees whose lands have been taken over by the enemy. Iran, meanwhile, will populate Syria with Shiites from Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Instead of refugees returning to their birthplace, expect the mass flight of Sunni refugees from the region, and expect a heightened incidence of Islamist terror in the countries that allow them in.

This ethnic cleansing is the Ayatollah’s dream come true, the dream that sees a Shiite crescent drawn from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea. This will cover the eastern Arab world from the north, while the war in Yemen is being fought in order to create a parallel southern crescent, entrapping Saudi Arabia and Jordan between the two. With the help of Allah, both those countries and Israel, the Small Satan, will soon fall into the hands of the Shiites, while Europe and America do nothing because who cares when Muslims fight other Muslims?

The Shiite majority in Syria will play along with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, their natural allies, and it is possible that some form of federation might be created between the two in order to push the Lebanese Christians out of the picture, “persuading” them to flee to other countries, leaving Lebanon to its “rightful” Shiite masters. This explains Nasrallah’s eager willingness to fight on Syrian soil as well as the opposition of those against Nasrallah to his involvement there.

The new demographic situation in Syria will convince the Sunni refugees that they have no place to which to return. They will try their best to be allowed to leave Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey for any country, preferably North America and Europe, willing to allow them entry. I predict a process that is the exact opposite of the one the world expects to take place when “peace” breaks out in Syria: Instead of refugees returning to their birthplace, expect the mass flight of Sunni refugees from the region, and expect a heightened incidence of Islamist terror in the countries that allow them in.

The reasons are obvious:

1. Former ISIS and rebel forces will infiltrate along with the refugees, because they, too, are Sunni. They are filled with fury and hatred for the Western countries who were part of the coalition that fought ISIS or stood by without aiding the rebels. Some of them will continue their Jihad on European and North American soil. Expect shootings, explosives and ramming attacks against citizens of these countries.

2. Some of the refugees will not find work and live on the economic and social fringes of society, in poverty-stricken Islamist neighborhoods which have already existed for years in many European cities, and where the local police fear to tread. Poverty and life on the fringe of society will turn some of the Muslim young people into easy prey for terrorist organization recruiters who arouse the desire for Jihad by describing the accepting host countries as decadent societies infected with permissiveness, prostitution, alcohol, drugs, materialism and corruption. They present the countries that allowed the immigrants entry as having done so to take advantage of them as industrial slaves, garage hands, cashiers and other degrading occupations, while the privileged citizens are lawyers, accountant, businessmen and homeowners w ho take advantage of the migrants in humiliating ways. It is only a matter of time until young Muslims, especially those who were taught that “everyone is equal” in Western schools, enlist in terrorist organizations.

3. Countries which allow in refugees will suffer a higher crime rate as a result, including violence in public places, sexual attacks and harassment, housebreaking, car theft, substance abuse, unreported work to avoid paying taxes and illegal construction. This will all occur at the same time these countries expend a larger part of their budgets on social services for the refugees, from child allowances to unemployment, health and old age benefits. At this point in time, the percentage of second and third generation immigrants populating the prisons in Western Europe is significantly larger than their percentage in the general population.

4. Increased economic, social and security problems in Europe and North America as a result of the rise in the number of migrants will lead to a rise in the strength of the right and the extreme right. This will in turn lead to more social tensions in the West. Members of Parliament whose only wish is to be re-elected will adapt their parliamentary activity – especially the laws they promote – to the expectations of the rapidly Islamizing constituencies, sacrificing their own people’s interests on the altar of their political careers. Many Europeans, aware of their elected leaders’ betrayal, will despair and leave those socially and economically deteriorating countries. This will increase the rate at which Europe turns into an Islamic region..

And that is how the agreements Iran and Russia will soon coerce Syria into accepting are going to start a chain reaction increasing the number of refugees and pulling Europe down to a point of no return, without the world understanding what is going on. The Atlantic Ocean is not wide enough to protect North America from this debacle crossing the sea.

This is how the Iranian Ayatollahs intend to destroy the heretic, permissive, drunk and materialistic West. More of the unfortunate Syrian millions will find themselves exiled to the heretic countries hated by the Ayatollahs, and Iran will operate from Syrian soil to vanquish Europe and America.

Must Read–The Possible Education of Donald Trump

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is ratcheting up war tensions in Syria again, but President Trump reportedly is not happy with the threats as he shifts again toward resisting the neocons.

By Robert Parry,

Despite the chaos and ugliness of the past seven months, President Trump has finally begun to turn U.S. foreign policy away from the neoconservative approach of endless war against an ever-expanding roster of enemies.

This change has occurred largely behind the scenes and has been obscured by Trump’s own bellicose language, such as his vow to “win” in Afghanistan, and his occasional lashing out with violence, such as his lethal Tomahawk missile strike on a Syrian airfield.

Some Trump advisers also have downplayed the current shift because it may fuel the Democrats’ obsession with Russia-gate as a much-desired excuse to impeach Trump. Every peaceful move that Trump makes is called a sop to Russia and thus an excuse to reprise the dubious allegations about Russia somehow helping to elect him.

Yet, despite these external obstacles and Trump’s own erratic behavior, he has remained open to unconventional alternatives to what President Obama once criticized as the Washington “playbook,” i.e. favoring military solutions to international problems.

In this sense, Trump’s shallow understanding of the world has been a partial benefit in that he is not locked into the usual Washington groupthink – and he personally despises the prominent politicians and news executives who have sought to neuter him since his election. But his ignorance also prevents him from seeing how global crises often intersect and thus stops him from developing a cohesive or coherent doctrine.

Though little noted, arguably the most important foreign policy decision of Trump’s presidency was his termination of the CIA’s covert support for Syrian rebels and his cooperation with Russian President Vladimir Putin to expand partial ceasefire zones in Syria.

By these actions, Trump has contributed to a sharp drop-off in the Syrian bloodshed. It now appears that the relatively secular Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad is regaining control and that some Syrian refugees are returning to their homes. Syria is starting the difficult job of rebuilding shattered cities, such as Aleppo.

But Trump’s aversion to any new military adventures in Syria is being tested again by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is threatening to attack Iranian and Hezbollah forces inside Syria.

Last week, according to Israeli press reports, a high-level delegation led by Mossad chief Yossi Cohen carried Netanyahu’s threat to the U.S. government. The Israeli leader surely has raised the same point directly in phone calls with Trump.

Tiring of Bibi

I was told that Trump, who appears to be growing weary of Netanyahu’s frequent demands and threats, flatly objected to an Israeli attack and brushed aside Israel’s alarm by noting that Netanyahu’s policies in supporting the rebels in Syria contributed to Israel’s current predicament by drawing in Iran and Hezbollah.

This week, Netanyahu personally traveled to Sochi, Russia, to confront Putin with the same blunt warning about Israel’s intention to attack targets inside Syria if Iran does not remove its forces.

A source familiar with the meeting told me that Putin responded with a sarcastic “good luck!” and that the Russians thought the swaggering Netanyahu appeared “unhinged.”

Still, a major Israeli attack on Iranian positions inside Syria would test Trump’s political toughness, since he would come under enormous pressure from Congress and the mainstream news media to intervene on Israel’s behalf. Indeed, realistically, Netanyahu must be counting on his ability to drag Trump into the conflict since Israel could not alone handle a potential Russian counterstrike.

But Netanyahu may be on somewhat thin ice since Trump apparently blames Israel’s top American supporters, the neocons, for much of his political troubles. They opposed him in the Republican primaries, tilted toward Hillary Clinton in the general election, and have pushed the Russia-gate affair to weaken him.

President Obama faced similar political pressures to fall in line behind Israel’s regional interests. That’s why Obama authorized the covert CIA program in Syria and other aid to the rebels though he was never an enthusiastic supporter – and also grew sick and tired of Netanyahu’s endless hectoring.

Obama acquiesced to the demands of Official Washington’s neocons and his own administration’s hawks – the likes of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CIA Director David Petraeus, his successor John Brennan, and United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power.

The Syrian conflict was part of a broader strategy favored by Washington’s neocons to overthrow or cripple regimes that were deemed troublesome to Israel. Originally, the neocons had envisioned removing the Assad dynasty soon after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with Iran also on the “regime change” menu. But the disastrous Iraq War threw off the neocons’ timetable.

‘Regime Change’ Chaos

The Democratic Party’s liberal interventionists, who are closely allied with the Republican neocons, also tossed in Libya with the overthrow and murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Then, weapons from Gaddafi’s stockpiles were shipped to Syria where they strengthened rebel fighters allied with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and other Islamist groups.

Faced with this troubling reality – that the U.S.-backed “moderate rebels” were operating side by side with Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate and its allies – Washington’s neocons/liberal-hawks responded with sophisticated propaganda and devised clever talking points to justify what amounted to indirect assistance to terrorists.

The “regime change” advocates portrayed a black-and-white situation in Syria with Assad’s side wearing the black hats and various anti-Assad “activists” wearing the white hats (or literally White Helmets). The State Department and a complicit mainstream media disseminated horror stories about Assad and – when the reality about Al Qaeda’s role could no longer be hidden – that was spun in the rebels’ favor, too, by labeling Assad “a magnet for terrorists” (or later in cahoots with the Islamic State). For years, such arguments were much beloved in Official Washington.

But the human consequences of the Syrian conflict and other U.S.-driven “regime change” wars were horrific, spreading death and destruction across the already volatile Middle East and driving desperate refugees into Europe, where their presence provoked political instability.

By fall 2015, rebel advances in Syria – aided by a supply of powerful U.S. anti-tank missiles – forced Russia’s hand with Putin accepting Assad’s invitation to deploy Russian air power in support of the Syrian army and Iranian and Hezbollah militias. The course of the war soon turned to Assad’s advantage.

It’s unclear what Hillary Clinton might have done if she had won the White House in November 2016. Along with much of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, she called repeatedly for imposing a “no-fly zone” in Syria to stop operations by the Syrian air force and Russia, a move that could have escalated the conflict into World War III.

But Trump – lacking Official Washington’s “sophistication” – couldn’t understand how eliminating Assad, who was leading the fight against the terrorist groups, would contribute to their eventual defeat. Trump also looked at the failure of similar arguments in Iraq and Libya, where “regime change” produced more chaos and generated more terrorism.

Pandering to Saudis/Israelis

However, in the early days of his presidency, the unsophisticated Trump lurched from one Middle East approach to another, initially following his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s grandiose thinking about recruiting Saudi Arabia to an “outside-in” strategy to settle the Israel-Palestine conflict, i.e., enlisting the Saudis to pressure the Palestinians into, more or less, letting Israel dictate a solution.

Kushner’s “outside-in” scheme was symbolically acted out with Trump making his first overseas visit to Saudi Arabia and then to Israel in May. But I’m told that Trump eventually cooled to Kushner’s thinking and has come to see the Israeli-Saudi tandem as part of the region’s troubles, especially what he views as Saudi Arabia’s longstanding support for Al Qaeda and other terror groups.

Perhaps most significantly in that regard, Trump in July quietly abandoned the CIA’s covert war in Syria. In the U.S., some “regime change” advocates have complained about this “betrayal” of the rebel cause and some Democrats have tried to link Trump’s decision to their faltering Russia-gate “scandal,” i.e., by claiming that Trump was rewarding Putin for alleged election help.

But the bottom line is that Trump’s policy has contributed to the abatement of the slaughter in Syria and to the dashing of any victory on the part of Al Qaeda and/or its Islamic State spinoff.

So, there has been a gradual education of Donald Trump, interrupted occasionally by his volatile temper and his succumbing to political pressure, such as when he rushed to judgment on April 4 and blamed the Syrian government for a chemical incident in the remote Al Qaeda-controlled village of Khan Sheikhoun.

Despite strong doubts in the U.S. intelligence community about Syria’s guilt – some evidence suggested one more staged “atrocity” by the rebels and their supporters – Trump on April 6 ordered 59 Tomahawk missiles fired at a Syrian air base, reportedly killing several soldiers and some civilians, including four children.

Trump boasted about his decision, contrasting it with Obama’s alleged wimpiness. And, naturally, Official Washington and the U.S. mainstream media not only accepted the claim of Syrian government guilt but praised Trump for pulling the trigger. Later, Hillary Clinton said if she were president, she would have been inclined to go further militarily by intervening with her “no-fly zone.”

As reckless as Trump’s missile strike was, it did provide him some cover for his July 7 meeting with Putin at the G-20 summit in Germany, which focused heavily on Syria, and also for his decision to pull the plug on the CIA’s covert war.

Saudi-backed Terror

I’m told Trump also has returned to his pre-election attitude about Saudi Arabia as a leading supporter of terror groups and a key provocateur in the region’s disorders, particularly because of its rivalry with Iran, a factor in both the Syrian and Yemeni wars.

Though Trump has recited Washington’s bipartisan (and benighted) mantra about Iran being the principal sponsor of terrorism, he appears to be moving toward a more honest view, recognizing the falsity of the neocon-driven propaganda about Iran.

Trump’s new coolness toward Saudi Arabia may have contributed to the recent warming of relations between the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia and the Shiites of Iran, a sectarian conflict dating back 1,400 years. In a surprising move announced this week, the two countries plan an exchange of diplomatic visits.

Even in areas where Trump has engaged in reckless rhetoric, such as his “fire and fury” warning to North Korea, his behind-the-scenes policy appears more open to compromise and even accommodation. In the past week or so, the tensions with North Korea have eased amid backchannel outreach that may include the provision of food as an incentive for Pyongyang to halt its missile development and even open political talks with South Korea, according to a source close to these developments.

On Afghanistan, too, Trump may be playing a double game, giving a hawkish speech on Monday seeming to endorse an open-ended commitment to the near-16-year-old conflict, while quietly signaling a willingness to negotiate a political settlement with the Taliban.

One alternative might be to accept a coalition government, involving the Taliban, with a U.S. withdrawal to a military base near enough to launch counterterrorism strikes if Al Qaeda or other international terror groups again locate in Afghanistan.

Many of Trump’s latest foreign policy initiatives reflect former White House strategist Steve Bannon’s hostility toward neoconservative interventionism. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon-Mobil chief executive, also shares a more pragmatic approach to foreign affairs than some of his more ideological predecessors.

Albeit still in their infancy, these policies represent a new realism in U.S. foreign policy that, in many ways, paralleled what President Obama favored but was often unwilling or unable to see through to its logical conclusions, given his fear of Netanyahu and the power of the neocons and their liberal-hawk allies.

Still, some of Obama’s most important decisions – not to launch a major military strike against Syria in August 2013 and to negotiate an agreement with Iran to constrain its nuclear program in 2013-15 – followed a similar path away from war, thus drawing condemnation from the Israeli-Saudi tandem and American neocons.

As a Republican who rose politically by pandering to the GOP “base” and its hatred of Obama, Trump rhetorically attacked Obama on both Syria and Iran, but may now be shifting toward similar positions. Gradually, Trump has come to recognize that the neocons and his other political enemies are trying to hobble and humiliate him – and ultimately to remove him from office.

The question is whether Trump’s instinct for survival finally will lead him to policies that blunt his enemies’ strategies or will cause him to succumb to their demands.

Israeli Soldiers Abduct Fourteen Palestinians In The West Bank

 August 29, 2017 11:24 AM  IMEMC News BethlehemIsraeli attacksJeninJerusalemNablusNews ReportQalqiliaWest Bank 0

29 AUG
11:24 AM

Israeli soldiers abducted, on Tuesday at dawn, fourteen Palestinians, including children, from their homes in different parts of the occupied West Bank.

The Palestinian Prisoners’ Society (PPS) has reported that the soldiers invaded and ransacked several homes in occupied East Jerusalem, and abducted six Palestinians, identified as Mohammad Totanji, Ahmad Mteir, Faisal Shabana, Odai al-Hadra, and Adnan al-Hadra, in addition to Anas Shatara, 18, who was taken prisoner from his home on al-‘Ezariyya town, southeast of Jerusalem.

In Bethlehem, the soldiers invaded several homes and abducted Mohammad Rezeq Najajra, 16, Mahmoud Taleb Najajra, 16, and Khalaf Shadi Najajra, 14.

In Jenin, in northern West Bank, the soldiers abducted Mohammad al-Atrash, and his brother Yousef, from Kafr Ra’ey town, in addition to Ahmad Qottein Mousa, from Arraba town.

Furthermore, the soldiers invaded Jayyous town, northeast of the northern West Bank city of Qalqilia, and abducted Mohammad al-Qaddoumi, 22, while resident Mousa Sami Sa’ada, was abducted in Nablus, also in northern West Bank.

|Soldiers Injure Two Palestinians, Abduct One, In Nablus|

Settlers threaten to sexually assault Palestinian woman

Settlers used a loudspeaker to hurl insults at Palestinians

Israeli rights group B’Tselem released a video today showing a group of settlers from Israel’s illegal Kiryat Arba settlement in the southern occupied West Bank district of Hebron hurling abuse through a loudspeaker at Palestinians in the area.

In the presence of Israeli soldiers and police, settlers used a loudspeaker to hurl insults at Palestinians in the Al-Hariqah neighbourhood on Thursday, insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), whom they called a dog.

According to B’Tselem’s statement, once the settlers noticed a Palestinian woman – a local volunteer for the group – filming them, their scathing language was directed at her and they began to threaten her with sexual violence. B’Tselem noted that the incident continued for hours.

Despite the disturbing threats, Israeli forces did not intervene. Occupation forces have been known to standby idly as Palestinians are abused by Israeli settlers.

Read: Israeli settlers burn two vehicles, vow revenge in Ramallah

The unidentified volunteer provided testimony to B’Tselem, in which she said that the Israeli settlers were having a party on a hilltop nearby and turned their music up when the Muslim call to prayer was sounded from the mosque. This is when they began insulting Islam.

When she started filming “the settlers began to use foul language and call out obscenities concerning me, Islam, and especially the Prophet Muhammad,” adding that it was not the first time that she has documented Israeli settlers insulting Islam in the presence of Israeli forces.

Life in Al-Hariqah has become intolerable. The military repeatedly raids the neighbourhood and the settlers assault and harass us.

She told B’Tselem that as a Muslim, she was “extremely offended by the insults” against the Prophet Muhammad. “As a woman, I felt terrible hearing the foul language directed personally at me for filming them,” she said.

Over recent weeks, there have been routine reports of Israeli settler attacks on Palestinians and their homes in the Hebron district, particularly in the Old City.