The Holohoax Lie Begins To Die

The credulity of the White race in believing the far-fetched, ridiculous, and often contradictory holohoax fantasy has been an unmitigated disaster for our people. The fraud of the holohoax has been much more, and much worse, than a multi-billion dollar cash cow for the jews behind this blatant scam. It is one of the semitic Big Lies that the jews use to claim moral authority over Whites, and to manipulate the uniquely altruistic and compassionate White race into feeling undeserved guilt for alleged atrocities that, strictly speaking, never happened. The holohoax is the reason ne plus ultra that the jews use in their unjustifiable efforts to characterize themselves as victims of the most privileged, powerful, wealthy, and unaccountable sort. In typical jewish hypocrisy, they claim to be victims of the serfs over whom they rule through the corruption of our governments. Noticing any of this a thoughtcrime in our debased Weimerican failed-state, and is immediately met with jewish wailing about the holohoax coupled with aggravated, nasally bleating about anti-semitism.

Thankfully, the holohoax appears to have run its course, as common sense is purging this vile mental poison from the collective psyche of the White race. It has become increasingly difficult for sane White people to believe outlandish kosher lies about 6 million jews being killed by evil not-sees in 1919 1926 1944, spanking machines and gymnasticsdogs with poison teethjew-eating eagles, jew-eating bears, pedal-powered brain-bashing machines, well-ventilated gas chambers with lots of windows. Whites are starting to question why pictures of German typhus victims and pictures German civilian victims of Allied war crimes are being offered by two-faced, self-serving jews as supposed evidence of a fictitious holohoax. The jews are in a panic as their most reliable weapon for instigating White abasement is rapidly becoming obsolete. Predictably, the selfsame jews who are obsessed with tall tales about “camps” are preparing to use the threat of state violence to force-feed holohoax propaganda to a new generation of White children.

A recent Claims Conference study that showed Americans’ knowledge of the Holocaust was unexpectedly low, particularly among millennials, drew national attention but should come as no surprise.”

According to some jews, Americans aren’t spending enough time immersed in ridiculous holohoax pabulum. The rat-faced men won’t be satisfied unless we spend all our conscious moments in deep contemplation of the precious 6 gazillion, the irony that the “light of the world” think they were turned into lampshades, and how Whites are bad and need to hurry up and die.

The survey revealed that 66 percent of millennials could not identify what “Auschwitz” was, and 41 percent thought that 2 million or fewer Jews were murdered during the Holocaust.”

While not being able to identify “Auschwitz” is a commendable response, we certainly need more millennials responding with the truth: it was the set for a (((Soviet))) propaganda production, used to perpetrate one of the most obscene frauds throughout all of history. The fact that 41% of millennials refused to mindlessly and reverentially parrot the kosher certified “6 shoahzillion” holohoax figure is also an encouraging sign, particularly since the “2 million or fewer” response includes zero.  One can understand their skepticism given how trustworthy and consistent the jews are:

“Until 1989, it was forbidden in eastern Europe to dispute the official finding that 4 million….now down to 1,5 million”

It is not young people’s fault they don’t know these facts; the fault primarily lies with the people who decide what is important to teach them. The survey is not an indictment of a lazy millennial generation, but of an uneven educational environment.”

Oi vey! Who cares if the goyim children are functionally illiterate and can’t do basic algebra! What matters is that we further Judaize their educational environment, and ensure that the next generation of White children are unskilled ignoramuses, capable only of being slavishly beholden to the whims of their Hebraic masters! The talmud says that It’s The Right Thing To DoTM.  Let’s show them holohoax cartoons and have them read poorly-written Wiesel fiction for twelve years. Homeschooling and being taught by members of their own race might lead to the development of pride in their own people; we need to force the goyim to turn their children and their futures over to the chosenites. If they won’t do it, just screech about the holohoax and nawrtzees until they capitulate.

There are enough teaching resources for every child to know precisely what Auschwitz was, how many Jews were murdered during the Holocaust and much more.”

These jewish “teaching resources” (likely paid for by your tax dollars) cover Auschwitz, the holohoax, and so much more! In between reading about the kosher coprophagic “diamond girl” and learning how to hate themselves, the jews have plenty of resources remaining to teach White children about sodomy, pedophilia, and miscegenation. Public ed-jew-cation is child abuse. Homeschool your children.

We have two options. Either we shake our heads at the latest survey results and decry the ignorance of the younger generation, or we begin a serious and concerted effort to ensure that there is a plan for states to implement mandates as well as online Holocaust training for teachers.”

The jews just can’t get enough of the fake choice, the appearance of options. The rat-faced men will incessantly decry that “more needs to be done” until the last White person is buried in the uncaring dirt. Following the typical nation-wrecking formula, the jews plan to use ZOG power to force the unwilling, downtrodden, and increasingly resentful subjects of a subverted country to ruin the minds of their children through heavy-handed, slab-faced, bureaucratic enforcement. You will become an unperson if you do not teach your children that “g*d’s chosen people” must be worshipped as the victim-martyrs of the fraudocaust. For the children who cannot learn this lesson, there is always the prospect of a one-way field trip to Comet Ping Pong.

There are promising signs that the hold of the holohoax over the minds of our people is beginning to slip. The old adage that time heals all wounds may yet hold true for the psychological bludgeoning we have so often received in the form of undeserved shaming at the hands of the jews wielding the holohoax. As the jews become increasingly brazen and arrogant in their subversion of our nations and their attempts to exterminate the White race, the unfounded guilt-complex so adamantly accepted by Whites in the past and today will be exposed for the ridiculousness that it truly is. We must expose the jews as our racial enemies, relentlessly working to destroy the White race. Our people must awaken to the fact that jews are in control, directly or indirectly, of nearly every institution in America today; and that the commonality of this control is easily observable by the degeneracy, miscegenation, and empty hedonism promoted by these Hebraically parasitized institutions. The jews must be exposed as the treacherous, dishonest, hate-filled creatures they are. They have no place in a White nation, should that nation desire a future as something other than a deracinated collection of mongrelized slaves – a fate worse than death to any rational White man or woman. We must stop the jewish-orchestrated White genocide.


Source article: http://jewishjournal.com/opinion/233185/mandate-end-holocaust-ignorance/

Syrian Witnesses Who Speak Truth ‘Poisoned’ By Western Reporters – Zakharova

© Sputnik / Evgenya Novozhenina

WORLD

03:17 30.04.2018Get short URL

221052

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova criticized unethical behavior by western reporters toward Syrian witnesses of the staged ‘chemical attack’ in Douma. She promised to reveal the journalists’ names at a nearest press briefing.

Talking on Rossiya 1 TV Channel, Zakharova pointed at questions made by British ITV and BBC journalists during an Organization on Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) news conference on April 26, in which 17 witnesses of the staged ‘chemical attack’ at Syrian Douma were present.

© SPUTNIK / NOUR MOLHEM

The Skripal and Douma Incidents Are Parts of One Plan to Bring Russia Down – Chemist

According to Zakharova, an ITV reporter asked the witnesses how much they were paid for taking part in the press conference, while a BBC journalist claimed that a 12-year-old boy named Hasan Diab, who took part in the briefing, would suffer “psychological trauma.”

“The journalists who first exploited a thesis about democracy for many years, then images of children, for many years — they now ask whether a child suffers a psychological trauma after being brought to Hague… I’ve found names of those journalists, there are not just British, but also Dutch,” Zakharova said on TV.

“At the next briefing I will show you the names of those journalists, we will reconstruct the picture, how they ‘poisoned’ those Syrians: they said the Syrians were poisoned with chemicals, but we will show who really ‘poisoned’ them. They were ‘poisoned’ by those exact British journalists who sat before them and scoffed them,” she said.

“I would like to ask those journalists: when six, seven years ago they called for ‘Arab Spring’ at the Middle East and north of Africa, did they think about what psychological trauma that would be caused to children who were not even born yet?” the diplomat asked.

Earlier on Thursday, Russian and Syrian OPCW missions gathered for a member briefing regarding the alleged April 7 chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma. To prove that the ‘White Helmets’ video that served as basis for the April 14 missile attacks on Syria were staged, 17 witnesses were brought in. The Syrians from Douma, including medical personnel, explained what exactly happened that day and proof that the materials were forged was later presented to the media.


Syrian voices muted by Western media for 7 years – independent journo


BY JEREMY SALT
Your Enemy and Mine: The Media
90 SHARES

Douma City Coordination Committee ce220

 

Douma City Coordination Committee ce220

Fully complicit in the wars on Iraq and Libya and Syria, the media came baying out of its kennel in support of the missile attack on Syria last Saturday morning. Trump, May and Macron lied to get the attack going and then lied again to justify what they had done. Macron is stripping Bashar al Assad of his Legion d’Honneur whereas, for lying and violating international law, he should be stripped of his job. So should the tweeter-in-chief, Donald Trump, and Theresa May. The sight of British MPs standing up in the House of Commons one after the other to repeat her untruths was a truly repellent sight. The ‘mother of parliaments’ had been turned into a frowsy old tart.

These three had no proof that the Syrian government was behind the chemical weapons attack in Douma. The evidence is now pouring in is that there was no such attack. There was a set-up by the takfiris and the usual pack of terrorist enablers, rushing into the clinic screaming ‘Chemicals! Chemicals!’ and videoing the people there as they hosed them down and pretended to be treating the symptoms of a chemical weapons attack. This is the evidence of doctors and other medical staff. No-one nearby heard of a chemical weapons attack or saw it. All say it was a fake, as it was, sucked up yet again and presented as truth by an ever-accommodating media. The only gas attacks we have had have been verbal, from the White House, 10 Downing St and the Elysee Palace, smelly and disgusting to hear but fortunately not lethal.

As was the case after the alleged chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus in August, 2013, the fate of the apparently dead children shown in some of the videos shot by the takfiris and/or their supporters in Douma is not even an issue. Were they killed so they could be used for terrorist propaganda? Even the thought is monstrous but then the atrocities committed by these groups have been monstrous.

The media showed no interest in the children who appeared to have been killed by the takfiris in 2013 and it is showing no interest in the children of Douma either, who they were, what actually happened to them and where they were buried if they actually died. The use of children as terrorist props has been a running feature of this war. Has it actually gone as far as the killing of children, possibly Alawis, who are entirely disposable as far as the takfiris are concerned, men, women and children? The issue is real, it is shocking, it is appalling and the images of these children are heartbreaking. We need to know the truth but the media is not interested now that the takfiri-White Helmets propaganda has served the purpose of bringing on a missile strike. Dead children are apparently only relevant only if it can be shown the ‘regime’ killed them.

The real evidence of chemical weapon attacks or pending attacks lay in the workshops where Jaysh al Islam stored and cooked up its material. In one there were dockets for the receipt of material on Jaysh al Islam letterhead. In an underground passage a journalist found more documents, charred but still readable, referring to missile attacks in the centre of Damascus and projects for the use of chemical weapons, including white phosphorus. Enormous quantities of ammunition, especially mortar shells, were stacked in various parts of this underground city.

MORE…
THE SKRIPAL/DOUMA PROVOCATION A WESTERN “HUMANITARIAN” PROJECT
SYRIA MUST BE DEFENDED, WAR MUST BE OPPOSED, IMPERIALISM MUST BE VANQUISHED
Virtually none of this was reported in the mainstream media. On the basis of allegations by a terrorist group and its White Helmet enablers, Trump, May and Macron fired more than 100 missiles into Syria. They might have been told lies but they were lies they wanted to hear and wanted the world to believe, in order to push further their attack on Syria and Russia. Trump boasted of destroying Syria’s ‘chemical weapons arsenal.’ In fact, Syria does not have a chemical weapons arsenal. It does not have chemical weapons, period. They were all destroyed under the authority of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in 2013/14. The OPCW has continually monitored Syria and there is no evidence of a revived chemical weapons program. The alleged chemical weapons plant at Barzeh was what the Syrian government and its staff says it was, a scientific research institute, now destroyed as thoroughly as the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals factory in Khartoum, the biggest in Sudan and a central element in its health care system, hit by 14 Cruise missiles in August, 1998, on the orders of President Clinton. The motive for the attack was the same lie, that it was actually producing chemical weapons.

The media is not revealing or exposing but covering up. Through the propaganda it has been running over the past eight years it is fully complicit in the attack on Syria. Douma came so hard on the heels of the Skripal affair that one has to wonder whether they were planned in sequence. Sergei Lavrov has information showing that the agent used against the Skripals was BZ, developed in the US, incapacitating but not deadly, explaining why the Skripals did not die virtually immediately, had the active agent been Novichok as claimed. The Swiss lab which discovered the BZ in the sample it was given is refusing to confirm Lavrov’s claim, while not denying it. If true, the admission would pull down the roof on the American and British governments.

The British delegate to the OPCW has now conceded that his government did not have the evidence it claimed to have had. He said the OPCW had not determined the origin of the agent or the country where it was produced. This seems unlikely and it is not the same as saying the OPCW had not been able to determine origin and source. The scientists would almost certainly have their suspicions if not a short list of countries which could have produced the BZ agent, but unfortunately, they might not include Russia. The issue is so explosive, politically, that no-one should expect anything from the OPCW but waffle and uncertainty, tilted against Russia if the UK and the US can exert enough pressure, whatever it actually knows.

When the British government expelled Russian diplomats, and persuaded other governments to do the same, it did not know which country produced the agent that incapacitated the Skripals (unless of course MI5 set this up, with the full authority of the May government). Even as far as it goes this admission by the British OPCW delegate is damning. Britain launched a missile attack on another country on the basis of supposition, speculation and innuendo. It is truly shocking but the British media is refusing to hold the politicians to account, preferring endless attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.

The evidence coming out of Douma shows that there was no chemical weapons attack. It was yet another fabrication by the takfiris and their White Helmet terrorist enablers, another lie allowing another missile attack on Syria. Film coming out of Douma is showing an extraordinary underground network of tunnels which could not possibly have been built just with pickaxes, as Robert Fisk has suggested, but only with heavy drilling equipment under the supervision of trained engineers. Did Jaysh al Islam just happen to have such specialists on hand, and if not, where did they get them from? These tunnels were big enough in some cases for motorized transport and were used for getting people (including prisoners moved from other areas of the Ghouta) in or out as well as for the movement of weapons.

Apart from the chemical weapon workshops, complete with dockets for the receipt of material on Jaysh al Islam letterhead, there were piles of charred documents found elsewhere referring to missile attacks in the centre of Damascus and projects for the use of chemical weapons, including white phosphorus. There were cells and cages for prisoners and great piles of weaponry, including thousands of mortar shells ready to be filled and fired. Somehow great stretches of the mainstream media have found none of this newsworthy, to the point of ignoring it altogether. Only Tucker Carlson has had the guts to pull the plug on it. For his bravery, he is being called a traitor, a Putin stooge and all the rest of it.

It is the media that has run the war on Syria just as it enabled the wars on Iraq and Libya and almost any other war you can think of. There has been virtually no ‘reporting’ of Syria in the mainstream as the word used to be understood. There has been misinformation and disinformation falsely packaged as news. There has been the enabling of a dishonest government narrative, complicity, in other words, not objectivity and balance. The media is deceiving the people whose interests it should be protecting and protecting the interests of those who are deceiving them. We have seen this so many times before that no-one should be surprised but it is still disgraceful. In and over Syria the media has played up or played down, according to need, playing up anything that might damage the ‘regime’ and playing down to the point of ignoring it altogether anything that might damage the ‘rebels.’ The ‘fourth estate’ has completely lost its way and should not be surprised that it has lost the trust and confidence of its readers and viewers as well.

*(An image grab taken from a video released by the Douma City Coordination Committee shows unidentified volunteers spraying a man with water at a make-shift hospital following an alleged chemical attack on the town of Douma, Syria, April 7, 2018. Image courtesy of AFP)

Douma Chemical Attack

WRITER

JEREMY SALT
Jeremy Salt has taught at the University of Melbourne, Bosporus University (Istanbul) and Bilkent University (Ankara), specialising in the modern history of the Middle East. His most recent book is “The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.)


BY PHILIP GIRALDI
The Mainstream Media Fueled Military Action in Syria and Reprisals against Russia over the Skripals
178 SHARES

WashPost Syria 23e62

 

WashPost Syria 23e62

The complicity of America’s Fourth Estate in the evolution of the national security warfare state is often mentioned in passing but rarely analyzed in any detail. But a recent article on Lobe Log by Adam Johnson is refreshing in that it does just that, looking at the editorials in 26 leading newspapers relating to the April 13th strike against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons. All of the papers supported the attack in the belief that Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies had done something wrong and had to be punished. Some of the endorsements went well beyond the actual strike itself, urging the White House to do more. The article quotes the Toledo Blade’s assertion that:

“Make no mistake, this was a warning to Vladimir Putin as well as Bashar al-Assad. The United States and its two longtime allies redrew the red line that had been obliterated by a failure of nerve by the US and the West generally: There will be cost for your barbarities…. But in the larger sense, the West did what it should have done a long time ago. It stood up for decency and international law. It stood up for those who are defenseless. It stood up for itself, and for simple humanity, and redeemed some self-respect.”

Another recent editorial intended to stir up hysteria about perfidious Moscow appeared in the New York Times on March 12th. It was entitled Vladimir Putin’s Toxic Reach. It said in part:

“The attack on the former spy, Sergei Skripal, who worked for British intelligence, and his daughter Yulia, in which a police officer who responded was also poisoned, was no simple hit job. Like the 2006 murder of Alexander Litvinenko, another British informant, who was poisoned with radioactive polonium 210, the attack on Mr. Skripal was intended to be as horrific, frightening and public as possible. It clearly had the blessing of President Vladimir Putin, who had faced little pushback from Britain in the Litvinenko case. The blame has been made clearer this time and this attack on a NATO ally needs a powerful response both from that organization and, perhaps more important, by the United States.”

These two stories and the many others like them have something in common, which is that they were written without any evident “fact checking” and subsequently have proven to be largely incorrect in terms of their assumptions about Russian and Syrian behavior. They also share a belief that the United States and its allies can both establish and enforce standards for the rest of the world. In these cases, the stakes were very high as there was an assumption that it could be appropriate to risk going to war with a powerful nuclear armed government based on incidents that did not in any way impact upon American or British national security.

MORE…
TEL AVIV SHOOTING AND CNN’S PRO-ISRAEL PROPAGANDA
MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS CORRUPT TO THE CORE
Regarding Syria, the first wave of “reporting” on the alleged gassing came from sources linked to the terrorist group that was under attack, Jaish el-Islam. This included the so-called White Helmets, who have been outed and exposed as a virtual PR outfit for those one might call the head-choppers. More recently, with government control reestablished over the Douma neighborhood where the reported deaths took place, independent journalists including the redoubtable Robert Fisk, no friend of the al-Assad “regime”, have been entering and discovering that there appears to be no evidence that a gas attack even took place.

Skeptics examining the incident from the beginning noted that the Syrian government had every reason to avoid a provocation in its rollup of the remaining rebel pockets near Damascus while the so-called rebels would have been highly motivated to stage a false flag attack to bring in outside forces in support of their cause. If there was a chemical attack of any kind, it almost surely originated with the terrorists.

Even assuming that the United States was acting in good faith when it attacked Syrian “chemical sites” believing that the al-Assad “regime” had actually used such weapons, one should also assume, given the time frame and lack of definitive intelligence resources, that the decision was based on an assessment that relied on limited information coming from sources hostile to Damascus as well as White House perceptions of persistent bad behavior by the Syrian government.

So a poorly informed Washington clearly went to war without exactly knowing why. As the story continues to unravel, there will, however, be no apologies forthcoming either from the White House or the national media, both of which got it so wrong. The mainstream media never even questioned whether Trump should bomb the Syrian “regime” at all, instead merely debating exactly how much punishment he should inflict.

To their credit, the British public and some former senior officials are beginning to ask questions about Syria through a reluctant media filter and opposition leader in Parliament Jeremy Corbyn has refused to be silenced. Similarly, the story of the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury has also begun to come apart. Former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray has detailed how the narrative was cooked by “liars” in the government to make it look as if the poisoning had a uniquely Russian fingerprint. Meanwhile U.S. investigative reported Gareth Porter sums up the actual evidence or lack thereof, for Russian involvement, suggesting that the entire affair was “based on politically-motivated speculation rather than actual intelligence.”

Here in the United States the mainstream media, which has supported every war since 9/11, has yet to account for its deliberately slanted reporting that has fueled both military action in Syria and reprisals against Russia over the Skripals. Unfortunately, the resulting actions undertaken by the United States and Britain have not been consequence free. The attack on Syria, given the fact that Damascus in no way threated either the U.S. or U.K., was a war crime under international law. The mass expulsions of Russian officials over the Skripals affair has produced a diplomatic chill not unlike the Cold War, or perhaps even worse, with American U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley declaring that the White House is “locked and loaded” if Syria should again step out of line. One might ask Haley what is to be done when Washington steps out of line? It would be interesting to hear her answer.

*(Snapshot courtesy of the WashingtonPost)

Mainstream Media

WRITER

PHILIP GIRALDI
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests.



——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Exposing: targeted assassinations have been used countless times by the Rogue Nation of Israel

Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations

New Book exposes targeted assassinations have been used countless times by the Rogue Nation of Israel

Just finished watching Fareed Zakaria interview author Ronen Bergman about his new book “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations“.

It was a bit weird; disconnected.  Instead of being out-raged, Fareed was more giddy; a fan if you will.  Instead of outlining this out law behavior as an outlier and egregious, he seemed enamored.

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria

I could be reading that wrong but it just seemed too softballish considering that, we the American taxpayer fund these assassinations!  We expect better!  We demand better!

This assassination stuff is NOT cool by any means!  I am NOT naive and live in the real world but in our newly connected 21st century, we cannot go on being so un-evolved and stuck in 20th James Bond dogma!

Pretending Israel has rights to murder other leaders with impunity because it is what?  What right does it have?  And to get tacit support from a main stream media talking head that so many politicos watch.. well, that’s so not cool.  Come on Fareed!

Anyway, this new book, according to the NEW YORK TIMES, is the The first definitive history of the Mossad, Shin Bet, and the IDF’s targeted killing programs.  They hail it as “an exceptional work, a humane book about an incendiary subject.”

The Talmud says:

“If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.”

This instinct to take every measure, even the most aggressive, to defend the Jewish people is hardwired into Israel’s DNA.

From the very beginning of its colonial stolen statehood in 1948, protecting the rogue nation from harm has been the responsibility of its intelligence community and armed services (paid for by US taxpayers), and there is one weapon in their vast arsenal that they have relied upon to insure stolen lands can go on without rebuke;

Targeted assassinations have been used countless times, on enemies large and small, sometimes in response to attacks against the Israeli people and sometimes preemptively.

Buy on Amazon.com

In this page-turning, eye-opening book, journalist and military analyst Ronen Bergman—praised by David Remnick as “arguably [Israel’s] best investigative reporter”—offers a riveting inside account of the targeted killing programs: their successes, their failures, and the moral and political price exacted on the men and women who approved and carried out the missions.

Bergman has gained the exceedingly rare cooperation of many current and former members of the Israeli government, including Prime Ministers Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as high-level figures in the country’s military and intelligence services: the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), the Mossad (the world’s most feared intelligence agency), Caesarea (a “Mossad within the Mossad” that carries out attacks on the highest-value targets), and the Shin Bet (an internal security service that implemented the largest targeted assassination campaign ever, in order to stop what had once appeared to be unstoppable: suicide terrorism).

Including never-before-reported, behind-the-curtain accounts of key operations, and based on hundreds of on-the-record interviews and thousands of files to which Bergman has gotten exclusive access over his decades of reporting, Rise and Kill First brings us deep into the heart of Israel’s most secret activities.

Bergman traces, from stolen statehood to the present, the gripping events and thorny ethical questions underlying Israel’s targeted killing campaign, which has shaped the Israeli rogue nation, the Middle East, and the entire world.

“A remarkable feat of fearless and responsible reporting . . . important, timely, and informative.”—John le Carré


GAZA jewish fingerprint

gaza

ELECTRONIC INTIFADA


Ilan Pappe, Jacobin: No, Israel Is Not a Democracy – And Never Was

Ilan Pappe, Jacobin: No, Israel Is Not a Democracy – And Never Was

By Ilan Pappe, Jacobin, excerpted from Ten Myths About Israel, Verso Books.

Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. In fact, it’s not a democracy at all.

In the eyes of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide — even those who might criticize some of its policies — Israel is, at the end of the day, a benign democratic state, seeking peace with its neighbors, and guaranteeing equality to all its citizens.

Those who do criticize Israel assume that if anything went wrong in this democracy then it was due to the 1967 war. In this view, the war corrupted an honest and hardworking society by offering easy money in the occupied territories, allowing messianic groups to enter Israeli politics, and above all else turning Israel into an occupying and oppressive entity in the new territories.

The myth that a democratic Israel ran into trouble in 1967 but still remained a democracy is propagated even by some notable Palestinian and pro-Palestinian scholars — but it has no historical foundation.

Israel Before 1967 Was Not a Democracy

Before 1967, Israel definitely could not have been depicted as a democracy. As we have seen in previous chapters, the state subjected one-fifth of its citizenship to military rule based on draconian British Mandatory emergency regulations that denied the Palestinians any basic human or civil rights.

Local military governors were the absolute rulers of the lives of these citizens: they could devise special laws for them, destroy their houses and livelihoods, and send them to jail whenever they felt like it. Only in the late 1950s did a strong Jewish opposition to these abuses emerge, which eventually eased the pressure on the Palestinian citizens.

For the Palestinians who lived in prewar Israel and those who lived in the post-1967 West Bank and the Gaza Strip, this regime allowed even the lowest-ranking soldier in the IDF to rule, and ruin, their lives. They were helpless if such a solider, or his unit or commander, decided to demolish their homes, or hold them for hours at a checkpoint, or incarcerate them without trial. There was nothing they could do.

At every moment from 1948 until today, there had been some group of Palestinians undergoing such an experience.

The first group to suffer under such a yoke was the Palestinian minority inside Israel. It began in the first two years of statehood when they were pushed into ghettos, such as the Haifa Palestinian community living on the Carmel mountain, or expelled from the towns they had inhabited for decades, such as Safad. In the case of Isdud, the whole population was expelled to the Gaza Strip.

In the countryside, the situation was even worse. The various Kibbutz movements coveted Palestinian villages on fertile land. This included the socialist Kibbutzim, Hashomer Ha-Zair, which was allegedly committed to binational solidarity.

Long after the fighting of 1948 had subsided, villagers in Ghabsiyyeh, Iqrit, Birim, Qaidta, Zaytun, and many others, were tricked into leaving their homes for a period of two weeks, the army claiming it needed their lands for training, only to find out on their return that their villages had been wiped out or handed to someone else.

This state of military terror is exemplified by the Kafr Qasim massacre of October 1956, when, on the eve of the Sinai operation, forty-nine Palestinian citizens were killed by the Israeli army. The authorities alleged that they were late returning home from work in the fields when a curfew had been imposed on the village. This was not the real reason, however.

Later proofs show that Israel had seriously considered the expulsion of Palestinians from the whole area called the Wadi Ara and the Triangle in which the village sat. These two areas — the first a valley connecting Afula in the east and Hadera on the Mediterranean coast; the second expanding the eastern hinterland of Jerusalem — were annexed to Israel under the terms of the 1949 armistice agreement with Jordan.

As we have seen, additional territory was always welcomed by Israel, but an increase in the Palestinian population was not. Thus, at every juncture, when the state of Israel expanded, it looked for ways to restrict the Palestinian population in the recently annexed areas.

Operation “Hafarfert” (“mole”) was the code name of a set of proposals for the expulsion of Palestinians when a new war broke out with the Arab world. Many scholars today now think that the 1956 massacre was a practice run to see if the people in the area could be intimidated to leave.

The perpetrators of the massacre were brought to trial thanks to the diligence and tenacity of two members of the Knesset: Tawaq Tubi from the Communist Party and Latif Dori of the Left Zionist party Mapam. However, the commanders responsible for the area, and the unit itself that committed the crime, were let off very lightly, receiving merely small fines. This was further proof that the army was allowed to get away with murder in the occupied territories.

Systematic cruelty does not only show its face in a major event like a massacre. The worst atrocities can also be found in the regime’s daily, mundane presence.

Palestinians in Israel still do not talk much about that pre-1967 period, and the documents of that time do not reveal the full picture. Surprisingly, it is in poetry that we find an indication of what it was like to live under military rule.

Natan Alterman was one of the most famous and important poets of his generation. He had a weekly column, called “The Seventh Column,” in which he commented on events he had read or heard about. Sometimes he would omit details about the date or even the location of the event, but would give the reader just enough information to understand what he was referring to. He often expressed his attacks in poetic form:

The news appeared briefly for two days, and disappeared. And no one seems to care, and no one seems to know. In the far away village of Um al-Fahem,
Children — should I say citizens of the state — played in the mud And one of them seemed suspicious to one of our brave soldiers who
shouted at him: Stop!
An order is an order
An order is an order, but the foolish boy did not stand, He ran away
So our brave soldier shot, no wonder And hit and killed the boy.
And no one talked about it.

On one occasion he wrote a poem about two Palestinian citizens who were shot in Wadi Ara. In another instance, he told the story of a very ill Palestinian woman who was expelled with her two children, aged three and six, with no explanation, and sent across the River Jordan. When she tried to return, she and her children were arrested and put into a Nazareth jail.

Alterman hoped that his poem about the mother would move hearts and minds, or at least elicit some official response. However, he wrote a week later:

And this writer assumed wrongly
That either the story would be denied or explained But nothing, not a word.

There is further evidence that Israel was not a democracy prior to 1967. The state pursued a shoot-to-kill policy towards refugees trying to retrieve their land, crops, and husbandry, and staged a colonial war to topple Nasser’s regime in Egypt. Its security forces were also trigger happy, killing more than fifty Palestinian citizens during the period from 1948–1967.

Subjugation of Minorities in Israel Is Not Democratic

The litmus test of any democracy is the level of tolerance it is willing to extend towards the minorities living in it. In this respect, Israel falls far short of being a true democracy.

For example, after the new territorial gains several laws were passed ensuring a superior position for the majority: the laws governing citizenship, the laws concerning land ownership, and most important of all, the law of return.

The latter grants automatic citizenship to every Jew in the world, wherever he or she was born. This law in particular is a flagrantly undemocratic one, for it was accompanied by a total rejection of the Palestinian right of return — recognized internationally by the UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948. This rejection refuses to allow the Palestinian citizens of Israel to unite with their immediate families or with those who were expelled in 1948.

Denying people the right of return to their homeland, and at the same time offering this right to others who have no connection to the land, is a model of undemocratic practice.

Added to this was a further layering of denial of the rights of the Palestinian people. Almost every discrimination against the Palestinian citizens of Israel is justified by the fact that they do not serve in the army. The association between democratic rights and military duties is better understood if we revisit the formative years in which Israeli policy makers were trying to make up their minds about how to treat one-fifth of the population.

Their assumption was that Palestinian citizens did not want to join the army anyway, and that assumed refusal, in turn, justified the discriminatory policy against them. This was put to the test in 1954 when the Israeli ministry of defense decided to call up those Palestinian citizens eligible for conscription to serve in the army. The secret service assured the government that there would be a widespread rejection of the call-up.

To their great surprise, all those summoned went to the recruiting office, with the blessing of the Communist Party, the biggest and most important political force in the community at the time. The secret service later explained that the main reason was the teenagers’ boredom with life in the countryside and their desire for some action and adventure.

Notwithstanding this episode, the ministry of defense continued to peddle a narrative that depicted the Palestinian community as unwilling to serve in the military.

Inevitably, in time, the Palestinians did indeed turn against the Israeli army, who had become their perpetual oppressors, but the government’s exploitation of this as a pretext for discrimination casts huge doubt on the state’s pretense to being a democracy.

If you are a Palestinian citizen and you did not serve in the army, your rights to government assistance as a worker, student, parent, or as part of a couple, are severely restricted. This affects housing in particular, as well as employment — where 70 percent of all Israeli industry is considered to be security-sensitive and therefore closed to these citizens as a place to find work.

The underlying assumption of the ministry of defense was not only that Palestinians do not wish to serve but that they are potentially an enemy within who cannot be trusted. The problem with this argument is that in all the major wars between Israel and the Arab world the Palestinian minority did not behave as expected. They did not form a fifth column or rise up against the regime.

This, however, did not help them: to this day they are seen as a “demographic” problem that has to be solved. The only consolation is that still today most Israeli politicians do not believe that the way to solve “the problem” is by the transfer or expulsion of the Palestinians (at least not in peacetime).

Israeli Land Policy Is Not Democratic

The claim to being a democracy is also questionable when one examines the budgetary policy surrounding the land question. Since 1948, Palestinian local councils and municipalities have received far less funding than their Jewish counterparts. The shortage of land, coupled with the scarcity of employment opportunities, creates an abnormal socioeconomic reality.

For example, the most affluent Palestinian community, the village of Me’ilya in the upper Galilee, is still worse off than the poorest Jewish development town in the Negev. In 2011, the Jerusalem Post reported that “average Jewish income was 40 percent to 60 percent higher than average Arab income between the years 1997 to 2009.”

Today more than 90 percent of the land is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Landowners are not allowed to engage in transactions with non-Jewish citizens, and public land is prioritized for the use of national projects, which means that new Jewish settlements are being built while there are hardly any new Palestinian settlements. Thus, the biggest Palestinian city, Nazareth, despite the tripling of its population since 1948, has not expanded one square kilometer, whereas the development town built above it, Upper Nazareth, has tripled in size, on land expropriated from Palestinian landowners.

Further examples of this policy can be found in Palestinian villages throughout Galilee, revealing the same story: how they have been downsized by 40 percent, sometimes even 60 percent, since 1948, and how new Jewish settlements have been built on expropriated land.

Elsewhere this has initiated full-blown attempts at “Judaization.” After 1967, the Israeli government became concerned about the lack of Jews living in the north and south of the state and so planned to increase the population in those areas. Such a demographic change necessitated the confiscation of Palestinian land for the building of Jewish settlements.

Worse was the exclusion of Palestinian citizens from these settlements. This blunt violation of a citizen’s right to live wherever he or she wishes continues today, and all efforts by human rights NGOs in Israel to challenge this apartheid have so far ended in total failure.

The Supreme Court in Israel has only been able to question the legality of this policy in a few individual cases, but not in principle. Imagine if in the United Kingdom or the United States, Jewish citizens, or Catholics for that matter, were barred by law from living in certain villages, neighborhoods, or maybe whole towns? How can such a situation be reconciled with the notion of democracy?

Thus, given its attitude towards two Palestinian groups — the refugees and the community in Israel — the Jewish state cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be assumed to be a democracy.

But the most obvious challenge to that assumption is the ruthless Israeli attitude towards a third Palestinian group: those who have lived under its direct and indirect rule since 1967, in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. From the legal infrastructure put in place at the outset of the war, through the unquestioned absolute power of the military inside the West Bank and outside the Gaza Strip, to the humiliation of millions of Palestinians as a daily routine, the “only democracy” in the Middle East behaves as a dictatorship of the worst kind.

The main Israeli response, diplomatic and academic, to the latter accusation is that all these measures are temporary — they will change if the Palestinians, wherever they are, behave “better.” But if one researches, not to mention lives in, the occupied territories, one will understand how ridiculous these arguments are.

Israeli policy makers, as we have seen, are determined to keep the occupation alive for as long as the Jewish state remains intact. It is part of what the Israeli political system regards as the status quo, which is always better than any change. Israel will control most of Palestine and, since it will always include a substantial Palestinian population, this can only be done by nondemocratic means.

In addition, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Israeli state claims that the occupation is an enlightened one. The myth here is that Israel came with good intentions to conduct a benevolent occupation but was forced to take a tougher attitude because of the Palestinian violence.

In 1967, the government treated the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a natural part of “Eretz Israel,” the land of Israel, and this attitude has continued ever since. When you look at the debate between the right- and left-wing parties in Israel on this issue, their disagreements have been about how to achieve this goal, not about its validity.

Among the wider public, however, there was a genuine debate between what one might call the “redeemers” and the “custodians.” The “redeemers” believed Israel had recovered the ancient heart of its homeland and could not survive in the future without it. In contrast, the “custodians” argued that the territories should be exchanged for peace with Jordan, in the case of the West Bank, and Egypt in the case of the Gaza Strip. However, this public debate had little impact on the way the principal policy makers were figuring out how to rule the occupied territories.

The worst part of this supposed “enlightened occupation” has been the government’s methods for managing the territories. At first the area was divided into “Arab” and potential “Jewish” spaces. Those areas densely populated with Palestinians became autonomous, run by local collaborators under a military rule. This regime was only replaced with a civil administration in 1981.

The other areas, the “Jewish” spaces, were colonized with Jewish settlements and military bases. This policy was intended to leave the population both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in disconnected enclaves with neither green spaces nor any possibility for urban expansion.

Things only got worse when, very soon after the occupation, Gush Emunim started settling in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, claiming to be following a biblical map of colonization rather than the governmental one. As they penetrated the densely populated Palestinian areas, the space left for the locals was shrunk even further.

What every colonization project primarily needs is land — in the occupied territories this was achieved only through the massive expropriation of land, deporting people from where they had lived for generations, and confining them in enclaves with difficult habitats.

When you fly over the West Bank, you can see clearly the cartographic results of this policy: belts of settlements that divide the land and carve the Palestinian communities into small, isolated, and disconnected communities. The Judaization belts separate villages from villages, villages from towns, and sometime bisect a single village.

This is what scholars call a geography of disaster, not least since these policies turned out to be an ecological disaster as well: drying up water sources and ruining some of the most beautiful parts of the Palestinian landscape.

Moreover, the settlements became hotbeds in which Jewish extremism grew uncontrollably — the principal victims of which were the Palestinians. Thus, the settlement at Efrat has ruined the world heritage site of the Wallajah Valley near Bethlehem, and the village of Jafneh near Ramallah, which was famous for its freshwater canals, lost its identity as a tourist attraction. These are just two small examples out of hundreds of similar cases.

Destroying Palestinians’ Houses Is Not Democratic

House demolition is not a new phenomenon in Palestine. As with many of the more barbaric methods of collective punishment used by Israel since 1948, it was first conceived and exercised by the British Mandatory government during the Great Arab Revolt of 1936–39.

This was the first Palestinian uprising against the pro-Zionist policy of the British Mandate, and it took the British army three years to quell it. In the process, they demolished around two thousand houses during the various collective punishments meted out to the local population.

Israel demolished houses from almost the first day of its military occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The army blew up hundreds of homes every year in response to various acts undertaken by individual family members.

From minor violations of military rule to participation in violent acts against the occupation, the Israelis were quick to send in their bulldozers to wipe out not only a physical building but also a focus of life and existence. In the greater Jerusalem area (as inside Israel) demolition was also a punishment for the unlicensed extension of an existing house or the failure to pay bills.

Another form of collective punishment that has recently returned to the Israeli repertoire is that of blocking up houses. Imagine that all the doors and windows in your house are blocked by cement, mortar, and stones, so you can’t get back in or retrieve anything you failed to take out in time. I have looked hard in my history books to find another example, but found no evidence of such a callous measure being practiced elsewhere.

Crushing Palestinian Resistance Is Not Democratic

Finally, under the “enlightened occupation,” settlers have been allowed to form vigilante gangs to harass people and destroy their property. These gangs have changed their approach over the years.

During the 1980s, they used actual terror — from wounding Palestinian leaders (one of them lost his legs in such an attack), to contemplating blowing up the mosques on Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem.

In this century, they have engaged in the daily harassment of Palestinians: uprooting their trees, destroying their yields, and shooting randomly at their homes and vehicles. Since 2000, there have been at least one hundred such attacks reported per month in some areas such as Hebron, where the five hundred settlers, with the silent collaboration of the Israeli army, harassed the locals living nearby in an even more brutal way.

From the very beginning of the occupation then, the Palestinians were given two options: accept the reality of permanent incarceration in a mega-prison for a very long time, or risk the might of the strongest army in the Middle East. When the Palestinians did resist — as they did in 1987, 2000, 2006, 2012, 2014, and 2016 — they were targeted as soldiers and units of a conventional army. Thus, villages and towns were bombed as if they were military bases and the unarmed civilian population was shot at as if it was an army on the battlefield.

Today we know too much about life under occupation, before and after Oslo, to take seriously the claim that nonresistance will ensure less oppression. The arrests without trial, as experienced by so many over the years; the demolition of thousands of houses; the killing and wounding of the innocent; the drainage of water wells — these are all testimony to one of the harshest contemporary regimes of our times.

Amnesty International annually documents in a very comprehensive way the nature of the occupation. The following is from their 2015 report:

In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli forces committed unlawful killings of Palestinian civilians, including children, and detained thousands of Palestinians who protested against or otherwise opposed Israel’s continuing military occupation, holding hundreds in administrative detention. Torture and other ill-treatment remained rife and were committed with impunity.

The authorities continued to promote illegal settlements in the West Bank, and severely restricted Palestinians’ freedom of movement, further tightening restrictions amid an escalation of violence from October, which included attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians and apparent extrajudicial executions by Israeli forces. Israeli settlers in the West Bank attacked Palestinians and their property with virtual impunity. The Gaza Strip remained under an Israeli military blockade that imposed collective punishment on its inhabitants. The authorities continued to demolish Palestinian homes in the West Bank and inside Israel, particularly in Bedouin villages in the Negev/Naqab region, forcibly evicting their residents.

Let’s take this in stages. Firstly, assassinations — what Amnesty’s report calls “unlawful killings”: about fifteen thousand Palestinians have been killed “unlawfully” by Israel since 1967. Among them were two thousand children.

Imprisoning Palestinians Without Trial Is Not Democratic

Another feature of the “enlightened occupation” is imprisonment without trial. Every fifth Palestinian in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has undergone such an experience.

It is interesting to compare this Israeli practice with similar American policies in the past and the present, as critics of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement claim that US practices are far worse. In fact, the worst American example was the imprisonment without trialof one hundred thousand Japanese citizens during World War II, with thirty thousand later detained under the so-called “war on terror.”

Neither of these numbers comes even close to the number of Palestinians who have experienced such a process: including the very young, the old, as well as the long-term incarcerated.

Arrest without trial is a traumatic experience. Not knowing the charges against you, having no contact with a lawyer and hardly any contact with your family are only some of the concerns that will affect you as a prisoner. More brutally, many of these arrests are used as means to pressure people into collaboration. Spreading rumors or shaming people for their alleged or real sexual orientation are also frequently used as methods for leveraging complicity.

As for torture, the reliable website Middle East Monitor published a harrowing article describing the two hundred methods used by the Israelis to torture Palestinians. The list is based on a UN report and a report from the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. Among other methods it includes beatings, chaining prisoners to doors or chairs for hours, pouring cold and hot water on them, pulling fingers apart, and twisting testicles.

Israel Is Not a Democracy

What we must challenge here, therefore, is not only Israel’s claim to be maintaining an enlightened occupation but also its pretense to being a democracy. Such behavior towards millions of people under its rule gives the lie to such political chicanery.

However, although large sections of civil societies throughout the world deny Israel its pretense to democracy, their political elites, for a variety of reasons, still treat it as a member of the exclusive club of democratic states. In many ways, the popularity of the BDS movement reflects the frustrations of those societies with their governments’ policies towards Israel.

For most Israelis these counterarguments are irrelevant at best and malicious at worst. The Israeli state clings to the view that it is a benevolent occupier. The argument for “enlightened occupation” proposes that, according to the average Jewish citizen in Israel, the Palestinians are much better off under occupation and they have no reason in the world to resist it, let alone by force. If you are a noncritical supporter of Israel abroad, you accept these assumptions as well.

There are, however, sections of Israeli society that do recognize the validity of some of the claims made here. In the 1990s, with various degrees of conviction, a significant number of Jewish academics, journalists, and artists voiced their doubts about the definition of Israel as a democracy.

It takes some courage to challenge the foundational myths of one’s own society and state. This is why quite a few of them later retreated from this brave position and returned to toeing the general line.

Nevertheless, for a while during the last decade of the last century, they produced works that challenged the assumption of a democratic Israel. They portrayed Israel as belonging to a different community: that of the nondemocratic nations. One of them, the geographer Oren Yiftachel from Ben-Gurion University, depicted Israel as an ethnocracy, a regime governing a mixed ethnic state with a legal and formal preference for one ethnic group over all the others. Others went further, labeling Israel an apartheid state or a settler-colonial state.

In short, whatever description these critical scholars offered, “democracy” was not among them.


From Ten Myths About Israel, out now from Verso Books. Excerpt above first published by Jacobin.

Ilan Pappe is an Israeli historian and socialist activist. He is a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter, director of the university’s European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies. Most recently, he is the author of Ten Myths About Israel

Jacobin’s spring issue, “By Taking Power,” is out now. To celebrate its release, subscriptions start at just $14 by following this link


TOP PHOTO: An activist is arrested by Israeli forces during a Day Of Rage protest against the Prawer-Begin Plan in front of the Israeli settlement Beit El, Al Jalazun, West Bank, November 30, 2013. (Photo: Activestills.org)

‘Unholy’ US-Saudi partnership to lead to further war: Iran

Mon Apr 30, 2018 08:39AM
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shakes hands with his Saudi counterpart Adel al-Jubeir during a news conference, in Riyadh, Apr. 29, 2018. (Photo by Reuters)
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shakes hands with his Saudi counterpart Adel al-Jubeir during a news conference, in Riyadh, Apr. 29, 2018. (Photo by Reuters)

Iran says US partnership with Saudi Arabia which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo touted in Riyadh on Sunday will lead to further instability, war, extremism and an arms race in the Middle East. 

Pompeo met with Saudi and Israeli leaders during a whirlwind tour of the region, where he called for unity in the Persian Gulf to stop what he called Iran’s “destabilizing and malign activities” in the Middle East.

“What the US secretary of state has said about the Islamic Republic of Iran’s role and presence in some regional countries is a repetition of empty and baseless claims,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi said Monday.

In Saudi Arabia, Pompeo accused Tehran of destabilizing the Middle East through its support for Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and Houthi fighters in Yemen.

Qassemi said Iran’s presence in Iraq and Syria is in response to the “requests of their legitimate governments and in line with fighting terrorism in the region.”

“This support will continue as long as the two governments need such help to combat terror,” the spokesman said.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi addresses reporters during a news conference at Foreign Ministry in Tehran in this file photo.

In reference to Iran’s alleged support for the Houthis, he said, “What is said erroneously with regard to Yemen is false, only aimed at deflecting the attention of the international public opinion from the crimes being committed daily by Saudi Arabia in its aggression against the country.”

“It is just a raw and worthless claim in order to perpetuate Saudi Arabia’s conflagration and aggression against Yemen, and continue the destructive and destabilizing presence of foreign powers in the region,” Qassemi said.

The spokesman also hit out at Pompeo for calling Saudi Arabia a key partner and long-time friend of the US during a joint news conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir.

“What the US secretary of state describes as Washington’s partnership with Saudi Arabia is aimed at destabilization and war as well as boosting arms race and extremism based on adventurist policies of some inexperienced and bellicose Saudi politicians,” he said.

This partnership, Qassemi said, “has so far had destructive consequences such as the perpetuation of violence, animosity and distrust among regional countries and brought about many crises of attrition, insecurity and instability in the region.”

“As long as this unholy expansionist partnership persists, regional nations will barely savor the taste of security and tranquility, as well as human and economic development,” he added.

The spokesman called on the Saudi and American top diplomats to have a look at the “deplorable humanitarian situation in Yemen and the extremism and terrorism in the region to understand the meaning and outcome of their claimed partnership.”

 Comment:
NO MORE ZIONISTS

TO ALL SICK ZIONISTS – Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said that Palestinians should either accept peace proposals or “shut up,” Israeli media reported.

According to Israel’s Channel 10 news on Sunday, Salman made the remarks while on a trip to New York last month where he met with several Jewish leaders. —- GO TO THE HELL ZIONIST SICK PIG. SAUDI REGIME HAS KILLED PALESTINE FOR GREATER ISRAEL BUT YOUR REGIME WILL PAY IT VERY HARD

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Mon Jul 3, 2017 05:58AM
The file picture shows a survivor reacting during a ceremony to commemorate the victims of USS Vincennes’ downing of an Iranian passenger plane on July 3, 1988.
The file picture shows a survivor reacting during a ceremony to commemorate the victims of USS Vincennes’ downing of an Iranian passenger plane on July 3, 1988.

Iran is commemorating the 29th anniversary of the downing of its passenger plane by a US Navy guided-missile cruiser in the Persian Gulf waters in 1988.

The civilian aircraft, an Airbus A300B2, was flying in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz from the port city of Bandar Abbas to Dubai, carrying 274 passengers and 16 crew members on July 3, 1988, when USS Vincennes fired two SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles at it.

One of the missiles hit the plane, killing all the 290 onboard.

On Monday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry issued a statement to commemorate the victims and once again censure the US Navy’s “horrific crime.”

“A look at the precedence of the US inhumane behavior, which is manifested in massacring innocent people across the world, including the aggrieved people of Iran, indicates that such an attitude has been institutionalized in various US governments in pursuit of their own goals,” said the statement.

The file picture shows a survivor holding up a picture of victims of USS Vincennes’ downing of an Iranian passenger plane on July 3, 1988.

US officials claimed the warship had mistaken Iran Air Flight 655 for a warplane. This is while the warship was equipped with highly sophisticated radar systems and electronic battle gear at the time of the attack.

A year later, the captain of the USS Vincennes, William C. Rogers, was cleared of any wrongdoing in the incident, and was even awarded America’s Legion of Merit medal by then President George Bush for his “outstanding service.”

The atrocity especially stoked anti-American sentiment as it coincided with the final year of the former Iraqi regime’s eight-year war, which had been waged against Iran with Washington’s all-out political and material support.

The statement added that the Iranian people hold to account the so-called advocates of human rights for ordering and perpetrating this atrocity, and for committing crimes and inhumane acts.

The Islamic Republic wants all those behind the tragedy to be held accountable for the crime, said the statement, adding that the Iranian nation will never “forgive the perpetrators.”

 Comments:
Sand2017.07.05 04:07
This is one out of innumerable similar incidents.
What happened to the innocent native Americans?
What happened to the innocent people of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Venezuela, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, ……
SocialJustice2017.07.05 00:07
Iran should issue legal verdict to oblige any nation who did or does harm to Iran to pay for the damage caused for those victims of such an incident. I know that Canada, yesterday, issued a verdict for Iran to pay $1.5 Billions on verdict of terrorism as per international laws. I guess, Iran has the same tool at hand (i.e., International Law) to issue money verdict against nations that goes into trillions of costs to be payed by those nations imposing harm on Middle East (non-israeli nations). The key is always International Law, and this is what Israel always is exploiting and taking advantage of.
Sheikh Rahman
I was a young student when this tragedy happened. The American government never apologized despite claiming that it was an accident, which leads me to believe that it was an act of terror by the US government to terrorize a nation. That is why people of the world should not trust USA.
Alexander the Barbarian Alexander the Barbarian2017.07.03 21:11
Never forgiven!
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Tehran, Iran, skyline showing Alborz mountain range in the distance

Iran Slams US, Saudi Arabia for Destabilizing Middle East, Provoking Arms Race

en.tehran.ir handout
MIDDLE EAST

Get short URL
340

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Tehran rejects statements by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about the alleged destabilizing role of Iran in the Middle East, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi said Monday.

Late last week, Pompeo said during his visit to Saudi Arabia said that the United States was deeply concerned about Iran’s “destabilizing and malign activities,” accusing Tehran of supporting terrorists, arming the Houthis in Yemen and conducting cyber attacks.

“What the US secretary of state has said about the Islamic Republic of Iran’s role and presence in some regional countries is just a rehash of baseless claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s advisory role in the two neighbouring countries comes at the request of their legitimate governments and is in line with fighting terrorism in the region, and this support will continue as long as the two governments need such help to combat terror,” Qassemi said in a statement published on the ministry’s website.

READ MORE: Pompeo ‘Would Rather See Iran’s Nuclear Capacity Blown Up’ — Lecturer

The spokesman said that a partnership between Washington and Riyadh is bringing instability and war to the region, and also provokes arms races and extremism.

“As long as this unholy expansionist partnership exists, the regional nations will barely savour the taste of security and tranquility along with human and economic development,” Qassemi said.

The diplomat also said that Pompeo’s claims about Iran’s role in Yemen were aimed at deflecting the attention of the international community from Saudi aggression against Yemen.Yemen has been engulfed in a violent conflict between the government headed by Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi and the Houthi movement, also known as Ansar Allah. Since March 2015, the Saudi-led coalition of mostly Persian Gulf countries has been carrying out airstrikes against the Houthis at Hadi’s request. Millions of Yemenis remain in need of immediate humanitarian aid, according to the United Nations.

The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany and the global Economic Boycott of 1933

The Jewish Declaration of War
on Nazi Germany
The Economic Boycott of 1933Article from The Barnes Review, Jan./Feb. 2001, pp. 41-45.
The Barnes Review, 645 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Suite 100, Washington D.C. 20003, USA.
By M. Raphael Johnson, Ph.D., assistant editor of TBR;
published here with kind permission from TBR.
This digitized version © 2002 by The Scriptorium.
The London Daily Express, March 24, 1933
Samuel Untermyer

Few people know the facts about the singular event that helped spark what ultimately became known as World War II – the international Jewish declaration of war on Germany shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power and well before any official German government sanctions or reprisals against Jews were carried out. The March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London (shown above) described how Jewish leaders, in combination with powerful international Jewish financial interests, had launched a boycott of Germany for the express purpose of crippling her already precarious economy in the hope of bringing down the new Hitler regime. It was only then that Germany struck back in response. Thus, if truth be told, it was the worldwide Jewish leadership – not the Third Reich – that effectively fired the first shot in the Second World War. Prominent New York attorney Samuel Untermyer (above right) was one of the leading agitators in the war against Germany, describing the Jewish campaign as nothing less than a “holy war.”

Long before the Hitler government began restricting the rights of the German Jews, the leaders of the worldwide Jewish community formally declared war on the “New Germany” at a time when the U.S. government and even the Jewish leaders in Germany were urging caution in dealing with the new Hitler regime.

The war by the international Jewish leadership on Germany not only sparked definite reprisals by the German government but also set the stage for a little-known economic and political alliance between the Hitler government and the leaders of the Zionist movement who hoped that the tension between the Germans and the Jews would lead to massive emigration to Palestine. In short, the result was a tactical alliance between the Nazis and the founders of the modern-day state of Israel – a fact that many today would prefer be forgotten.

To this day, it is generally (although incorrectly) believed that when Adolf Hitler was appointed German chancellor in January of 1933, the German government began policies to suppress the Jews of Germany, including rounding up of Jews and putting them in concentration camps and launching campaigns of terror and violence against the domestic Jewish population.

While there were sporadic eruptions of violence against Jews in Germany after Hitler came to power, this was not officially sanctioned or encouraged. And the truth is that anti-Jewish sentiments in Germany (or elsewhere in Europe) were actually nothing new. As all Jewish historians attest with much fervor, anti-Semitic uprisings of various degrees had been ever-present in European history.

In any case, in early 1933, Hitler was not the undisputed leader of Germany, nor did he have full command of the armed forces. Hitler was a major figure in a coalition government, but he was far from being the government himself. That was the result of a process of consolidation which evolved later.

Even Germany’s Jewish Central Association, known as the Verein, contested the suggestion (made by some Jewish leaders outside Germany) that the new government was deliberately provoking anti-Jewish uprisings.

The Verein issued a statement that “the responsible government authorities [i.e. the Hitler regime] are unaware of the threatening situation,” saying, “we do not believe our German fellow citizens will let themselves be carried away into committing excesses against the Jews.”

Despite this, Jewish leaders in the United States and Britain determined on their own that it was necessary to launch a war against the Hitler government.

On March 12, 1933 the American Jewish Congress announced a massive protest at Madison Square Gardens for March 27. At that time the commander in chief of the Jewish War Veterans called for an American boycott of German goods. In the meantime, on March 23, 20,000 Jews protested at New York’s City Hall as rallies were staged outside the North German Lloyd and Hamburg-American shipping lines and boycotts were mounted against German goods throughout shops and businesses in New York City.

According to The Daily Express of London of March 24, 1933, the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and her elected government. The headline read “Judea Declares War on Germany – Jews of All the World Unite – Boycott of German Goods – Mass Demonstrations.” The article described a forthcoming “holy war” and went on to implore Jews everywhere to boycott German goods and engage in mass demonstrations against German economic interests. According to the Express:

The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany. The appearance of the Swastika as the symbol of the new Germany has revived the old war symbol of Judas to new life. Fourteen million Jews scattered over the entire world are tight to each other as if one man, in order to declare war against the German persecutors of their fellow believers.
The Jewish wholesaler will quit his house, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his business, and the beggar his humble hut, in order to join the holy war against Hitler’s people.

The Express said that Germany was “now confronted with an international boycott of its trade, its finances, and its industry…. In London, New York, Paris and Warsaw, Jewish businessmen are united to go on an economic crusade.”

The article said “worldwide preparations are being made to organize protest demonstrations,” and reported that “the old and reunited nation of Israel gets in formation with new and modern weapons to fight out its age old battle against its persecutors.”

This truly could be described as “the first shot fired in the Second World War.”

In a similar vein, the Jewish newspaper Natscha Retsch wrote:

The war against Germany will be waged by all Jewish communities, conferences, congresses… by every individual Jew. Thereby the war against Germany will ideologically enliven and promote our interests, which require that Germany be wholly destroyed.
The danger for us Jews lies in the whole German people, in Germany as a whole as well as individually. It must be rendered harmless for all time…. In this war we Jews have to participate, and this with all the strength and might we have at our disposal.

However, note well that the Zionist Association of Germany put out a telegram on the 26th of March rejecting many of the allegations made against the National Socialists as “propaganda,” “mendacious” and “sensational.”

In fact, the Zionist faction had every reason to ensure the permanence of National Socialist ideology in Germany. Klaus Polkehn, writing in the Journal of Palestine Studies (“The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941”; JPS v. 3/4, spring/summer 1976), claims that the moderate attitude of the Zionists was due to their vested interest in seeing the financial victory of National Socialism to force immigration to Palestine. This little-known factor would ultimately come to play a pivotal part in the relationship between Nazi Germany and the Jews.

In the meantime, though, German Foreign Minister Konstantin von Neurath complained of the “vilification campaign” and said:

As concerns Jews, I can only say that their propagandists abroad are rendering their co-religionists in Germany no service by giving the German public, through their distorted and untruthful news about persecution and torture of Jews, the impression that they actually halt at nothing, not even at lies and calumny, to fight the present German government.

The fledgling Hitler government itself was clearly trying to contain the growing tension – both within Germany and without. In the United States, even U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull wired Rabbi Stephen Wise of the American Jewish Congress and urged caution:

Whereas there was for a short time considerable physical mistreatment of Jews, this phase may be considered virtually terminated…. A stabilization appears to have been reached in the field of personal mistreatment…. I feel hopeful that the situation which has caused such widespread concern throughout this country will soon revert to normal.

The New York Daily News front page headline

This New York Daily News front page headline hailed the massive anti-German protest rally held in Madison Square Garden on March 27, 1933. Despite efforts by the German government to alleviate tensions and prevent the escalation of name-calling and threats by the international Jewish leadership, the rally was held as scheduled. Similar rallies and protest marches were also being held in other cities during the same time frame. The intensity of the Jewish campaign against Germany was such that the Hitler government vowed that if the campaign did not stop, there would be a one-day boycott in Germany of Jewish-owned stores. Despite this, the hate campaign continued, forcing Germany to take defensive measures that created a situation wherein the Jews of Germany became increasingly marginalized. The truth about the Jewish war on Germany has been suppressed by most histories of the period.

Despite all this, the leaders of the Jewish community refused to relent. On March 27 there were simultaneous protest rallies at Madison Square Garden, in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland and 70 other locations. The New York rally was broadcast worldwide. The bottom line is that “the New Germany” was declared to be an enemy of Jewish interests and thus needed to be economically strangled. This was before Hitler decided to boycott Jewish goods.

It was in direct response to this that the German government announced a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany on April 1. German Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels announced that if, after the one-day boycott, there were no further attacks on Germany, the boycott would be stopped. Hitler himself responded to the Jewish boycott and the threats in a speech on March 28 – four days after the original Jewish declaration of war – saying:

Now that the domestic enemies of the nation have been eliminated by the Volkitself, what we have long been waiting for will not come to pass.
The Communist and Marxist criminals and their Jewish-intellectual instigators, who, having made off with their capital stocks across the border in the nick of time, are now unfolding an unscrupulous, treasonous campaign of agitation against the German Volk as a whole from there….
Lies and slander of positively hair-raising perversity are being launched about Germany. Horror stories of dismembered Jewish corpses, gouged out eyes and hacked off hands are circulating for the purpose of defaming the German Volk in the world for the second time, just as they had succeeded in doing once before in 1914.

Thus, the fact – one conveniently left out of nearly all history on the subject – is that Hitler’s March 28, 1933 boycott order was in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership just four days earlier. Today, Hitler’s boycott order is described as a naked act of aggression, yet the full circumstances leading up to his order are seldom described in even the most ponderous and detailed histories of “the Holocaust”.

Not even Saul Friedlander in his otherwise comprehensive overview of German policy, Nazi Germany and the Jews, mentions the fact that the Jewish declaration of war and boycott preceded Hitler’s speech of March 28, 1933. Discerning readers would be wise to ask why Friedlander felt this item of history so irrelevant.

The simple fact is that it was organized Jewry as a political entity – and not even the German Jewish community per se – that actually initiated the first shot in the war with Germany.

Deutsche! Wehrt Euch! Kauft nicht bei Juden!

Placard text:
“Germans! Defend yourselves!
Don’t shop at Jewish stores!”

Photo not part of original TBR article –
added by The Scriptorium.

Germany’s response was a defensive – not an offensive – measure. Were that fact widely known today, it would cast new light on the subsequent events that ultimately led to the world-wide conflagration that followed.

To understand Hitler’s reaction to the Jewish declaration of war, it is vital to understand the critical state of the German economy at the time. In 1933, the German economy was in a shambles. Some 3 million Germans were on public assistance with a total of 6 million unemployed. Hyper-inflation had destroyed the economic vitality of the German nation. Furthermore, the anti-German propaganda pouring out of the global press strengthened the resolve of Germany’s enemies, especially the Poles and their hawkish military high command.

The Jewish leaders were not bluffing. The boycott was an act of war not solely in metaphor: it was a means, well crafted, to destroy Germany as a political, social and economic entity. The long term purpose of the Jewish boycott against Germany was to bankrupt her with respect to the reparation payments imposed on Germany after World War I and to keep Germany demilitarized and vulnerable.

The boycott, in fact, was quite crippling to Germany. Jewish scholars such as Edwin Black have reported that, in response to the boycott, German exports were cut by 10 percent, and that many were demanding seizing German assets in foreign countries (Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement – The Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, New York, 1984).

The attacks on Germany did not cease. The worldwide Jewish leadership became ever the more belligerent and worked itself into a frenzy. An International Jewish Boycott Conference was held in Amsterdam to coordinate the ongoing boycott campaign. It was held under the auspices of the self-styled World Jewish Economic Federation, of which famous New York City attorney and longtime political power broker, Samuel Untermyer, was elected president.

Upon returning to the United States in the wake of the conference, Untermyer delivered a speech over WABC Radio (New York), a transcript of which was printed in The New York Times on August 7, 1933.

Untermyer’s inflammatory oratory called for a “sacred war” against Germany, making the flat-out allegation that Germany was engaged in a plan to “exterminate the Jews.” He said (in part):

…Germany [has] been converted from a nation of culture into a veritable hell of cruel and savage beasts.
We owe it not only to our persecuted brethren but to the entire world to now strike in self-defense a blow that will free humanity from a repetition of this incredible outrage….
Now or never must all the nations of the earth make common cause against the… slaughter, starvation and annihilation… fiendish torture, cruelty and persecution that are being inflicted day by day upon these men, women and children….
When the tale is told… the world will confront a picture so fearful in its barbarous cruelty that the hell of war and the alleged Belgian atrocities pale into insignificance as compared to this devilishly, deliberately, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people…
The Jews are the aristocrats of the world. From time immemorial they have been persecuted and have seen their persecutors come and go. They alone have survived. And so will history repeat itself, but that furnishes no reason why we should permit this reversion of a once great nation to the Dark Ages or fail to rescue these 600,000 human souls from the tortures of hell….
…What we are proposing and have already gone far toward doing, is to prosecute a purely defensive economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.
…We propose to and are organizing world opinion to express itself in the only way Germany can be made to understand….

Untermyer then proceeded to provide his listeners with a wholly fraudulent history of the circumstances of the German boycott and how it originated. He also proclaimed that the Germans were bent on a plan to “exterminate the Jews”:

The Hitler regime originated and are fiendishly prosecuting their boycott to exterminate the Jews by placarding Jewish shops, warning Germans against dealing with them, by imprisoning Jewish shopkeepers and parading them through the streets by the hundreds under guard of Nazi troops for the sole crime of being Jews, by ejecting them from the learned professions in which many of them had attained eminence, by excluding their children from the schools, their men from the labor unions, closing against them every avenue of livelihood, locking them in vile concentration camps and starving and torturing them without cause and resorting to every other conceivable form of torture, inhuman beyond conception, until suicide has become their only means of escape, and all solely because they are or their remote ancestors were Jews, and all with the avowed object of exterminating them.

Untermyer concluded his largely fantastic and hysterical address by declaring that with the support of “Christian friends… we will drive the last nail in the coffin of bigotry and fanaticism….”

The Biggest Secret of WWII?
Why Germany Began Rounding Up Jews
and Deporting Them to the East

Chaim WeizmannWhy did the Germans begin rounding up the Jews and interning them in the concentration camps to begin with? Contrary to popular myth, the Jews remained “free” inside Germany – albeit subject to laws which did restrict certain of their privileges – prior to the outbreak of World War II.
Yet, the other little-known fact is that just before the war began, the leadership of the world Jewish community formally declared war on Germany – above and beyond the ongoing six-year-long economic boycott launched by the worldwide Jewish community when the Nazi Party came to power in 1933.
As a consequence of the formal declaration of war, the German authorities thus deemed Jews to be potential enemy agents.
Here’s the story behind the story: Chaim Weizmann (above), president of both the international “Jewish Agency” and of the World Zionist Organization (and later Israel’s first president), told British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in a letter published in The London Times on September 6, 1939 that:
      I wish to confirm, in the most explicit manner, the declarations which I and my colleagues have made during the last month, and especially in the last week, that the Jews stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies. Our urgent desire is to give effect to these declarations [against Germany].
We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the coordinating direction of His Majesty’s Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc.

[Emphasis in red added by The Scriptorium.]

That his allegations against Germany were made long before even Jewish historians today claim there were any gas chambers or even a plan to “exterminate” the Jews, displays the nature of the propaganda campaign confronting Germany.

However, during this same period there were some unusual developments at work: The spring of 1933 also witnessed the beginning of a period of private cooperation between the German government and the Zionist movement in Germany and Palestine (and actually worldwide) to increase the flow of German-Jewish immigrants and capital to Palestine.

The modern-day supporters of Zionist Israel and many historians have succeeded in keeping this Nazi-Zionist pact a secret to the general public for decades and while most Americans have no concept of the possibility that there could have been outright collaboration between the Nazi leadership and the founders of what became the state of Israel, the truth has begun to emerge.

Dissident Jewish writer Lenni Brennar’s Zionism In the Age of the Dictators,published by a small press and not given the publicity it deserves by the so-called “mainstream” media (which is otherwise obsessed with the Holocaust era), was perhaps the first major endeavor in this realm.

In response to Brennar and others, the Zionist reaction has usually consisted of declarations that their collaboration with Nazi Germany was undertaken solely to save the lives of Jews. But the collaboration was all the more remarkable because it took place at a time when many Jews and Jewish organizations demanded a boycott of Germany.

To the Zionist leaders, Hitler’s assumption of power held out the possibility of a flow of immigrants to Palestine. Previously, the majority of German Jews, who identified themselves as Germans, had little sympathy with the Zionist cause of promoting the ingathering of world Jewry to Palestine. But the Zionists saw that only the anti-Semitic Hitler was likely to push the anti-Zionist German Jews into the arms of Zionism.

For all the modern-day wailing by worldwide supporters of Israel (not to mention the Israelis themselves) about “the Holocaust”, they neglect to mention that making the situation in Germany as uncomfortable for the Jews as possible – in cooperation with German National Socialism – was part of the plan.

Note to readers of this article who can also read German: a booklet discussing the emigration of Jews from Third Reich Germany, and the Transfer Agreement that facilitated their emigration, may be found here!

This was the genesis of the so-called Transfer Agreement, the agreement between Zionist Jews and the National Socialist government to transfer German Jewry to Palestine.

According to Jewish historian Walter Laqueur and many others, German Jews were far from convinced that immigration to Palestine was the answer. Furthermore, although the majority of German Jews refused to consider the Zionists as their political leaders, it is clear that Hitler protected and cooperated with the Zionists for the purposes of implementing the final solution: the mass transfer of Jews to the Middle East.

Edwin Black, in his massive tome The Transfer Agreement (Macmillan, 1984), stated that although most Jews did not want to flee to Palestine at all, due to the Zionist movement’s influence within Nazi Germany a Jew’s best chance of getting out of Germany was by emigrating to Palestine. In other words, the Transfer Agreement itself mandated that Jewish capital could only to go Palestine.

Thus, according to the Zionists, a Jew could leave Germany only if he went to the Levant.

The primary difficulty with the Transfer Agreement (or even the idea of such an agreement) was that the English [!!!; Scriptorium] were demanding, as a condition of immigration, that each immigrant pay 1,000 pounds sterling upon arrival in Haifa or elsewhere. The difficulty was that such hard currency was nearly impossible to come by in a cash-strapped and radically inflationary Germany. This was the main idea behind the final Transfer Agreement. Laqueur writes:

A large German bank would freeze funds paid in by immigrants in blocked accounts for German exporters, while a bank in Palestine would control the sale of German goods to Palestine, thereby providing the immigrants with the necessary foreign currency on the spot. Sam Cohen, co-owner of Hanoaiah Ltd. and initiator of the transfer endeavors, was however subjected to long-lasting objections from his own people and finally had to concede that such a transfer agreement could only be concluded on a much higher level with a bank of its own rather than that of a private company. The renowned Anglo-Palestine Bank in London would be included in this transfer deal and create a trust company for [this] purpose.

Of course, this is of major historical importance in dealing with the relationship between Zionism and National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s. The relationship was not one merely of mutual interest and political favoritism on the part of Hitler, but a close financial relationship with German banking families and financial institutions as well. Black writes:

It was one thing for the Zionists to subvert the anti-Nazi boycott. Zionism needed to transfer out the capital of German Jews, and merchandise was the only available medium. But soon Zionist leaders understood that the success of the future Jewish Palestinian economy would be inextricably bound up with the survival of the Nazi economy. So the Zionist leadership was compelled to go further. The German economy would have to be safeguarded, stabilized, and if necessary reinforced. Hence, the Nazi party and the Zionist organizers shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany.

Thus one sees a radical fissure in world Jewry around 1933 and beyond. There were, first, the non-Zionist Jews (specifically the World Jewish Congress founded in 1933), who, on the one hand, demanded the boycott and eventual destruction of Germany. Black notes that many of these people were not just in New York and Amsterdam, but a major source for this also came from Palestine proper.

On the other hand, one can see the judicious use of such feelings by the Zionists for the sake of eventual resettlement in Palestine. In other words, it can be said (and Black does hint at this) that Zionism believed that, since Jews would be moving to the Levant, capital flight would be necessary for any new economy to function.

The result was the understanding that Zionism would have to ally itself with National Socialism, so that the German government would not impede the flow of Jewish capital out of the country.

It served the Zionist interests at the time that Jews be loud in their denunciations of German practices against the Jews to scare them into the Levant, but, on the other hand, Laqueur states that “The Zionists became motivated not to jeopardize the German economy or currency.” In other words, the Zionist leadership of the Jewish Diaspora was one of subterfuge and underhandedness, with only the advent of German hostility towards Jewry convincing the world’s Jews that immigration was the only escape.

The fact is that the ultimate establishment of the state of Israel was based on fraud. The Zionists did not represent anything more than a small minority of German Jews in 1933.

On the one hand, the Zionist fathers of Israel wanted loud denunciations of Germany’s “cruelties” to the world’s Jews while at the same time demanding moderation so that the National Socialist government would remain stable, financially and politically. Thus Zionism boycotted the boycott.

For all intents and purposes, the National Socialist government was the best thing to happen to Zionism in its history, for it “proved” to many Jews that Europeans were irredeemably anti-Jewish and that Palestine was the only answer: Zionism came to represent the overwhelming majority of Jews solely by trickery and cooperation with Adolf Hitler.

For the Zionists, both the denunciations of German policies towards Jews (to keep Jews frightened), plus the reinvigoration of the German economy (for the sake of final resettlement) was imperative for the Zionist movement. Ironically, today the Zionist leaders of Israel complain bitterly about the horrific and inhuman regime of the National Socialists. So the fraud continues.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
 
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

=================================  

Samuel Untermyer
Samuel Untermyer cph.3b34313.jpg

Samuel Untermyer, 1932
Born March 6, 1858
Lynchburg, Virginia
Died March 16, 1940 (aged 82)
Palm Springs, California
Nationality American
Alma mater Columbia Law School
Occupation Corporate Lawyer
Known for Civic Activism
Spouse(s) Minnie Carl

The New York Times, Monday, August 7, 1933

Text of Untermyer’s Address

   Following is the text of Samuel Untermyer’s address last night over Station WABC after his return from Europe:

My Friends:

    What a joy and relief and sense of security to be once more on American soil!  The nightmares of horrors through which I have passed in those two weeks in Europe, listening to the heartbreaking tales of refugee victims, beggar description.

     I deeply appreciate your enthusiastic greeting on my arrival today, which I quite understand is addressed not to me personally but to the holy war in the cause of humanity in which we are embarked.  Jews and non-Jews alike, for we are equally concerned that the work of centuries shall not be undone, and that civilization shall not be allowed to die.

     It is a war that must be waged unremittingly until the black clouds of bigotry, race hatred and fanaticism that have descended upon what was once Germany, but is now medieval Hitlerland, have been dispersed.   If we will but enlist to a man and persist in our purpose, the bright sun of civilization will again shine upon Germany, and the world will be a safer place in which to dwell.

     As our ship sailed up the bay today past our proud Statue of Liberty, [a gift to the U.S. from the Grand Orient – Illuminati – Lodge of France] I breathed a prayer of gratitude and thanksgiving that this fair land of freedom has escaped the curse that has descended upon benighted Germany, which has thereby been converted from a nation of culture into a veritable hell of cruel and savage beasts.

The World’s Concern

     We owe it not only to our persecuted brethren but to the entire world to now strike in self-defense a blow that will free humanity from a repetition of this incredible outrage.  This time the Jews are the victims, next time it may be the Catholics or the Protestants.  If we once admit, as is brazenly insisted by the German Government, that such fiendish persecution of the people of one race or creed is an internal domestic affair and not a world concern, how are we to know whose turn will be next?

     Now or never must all the nations of the earth make common cause against the monstrous claim that the slaughter, starvation and annihilation, by a country that has reverted to barbarism, of its own innocent and defenseless citizens without rhyme, reason or excuse is an internal affair against which the rest of the world must stand idly by and not lift a hand in defense.

    I have seen and talked with many of these terror-stricken refugees who have had the good fortune to escape over the border, though forced to leave their property behind them, and I want to say to you that nothing that has seeped through to you over the rigid censorship and lying propaganda that are at work to conceal and misrepresent the situation of the Jews in Germany begins to tell a fraction of the frightful story of fiendish torture, cruelty and persecution that are being inflicted day by day upon these men, women and children, of the terrors of worse than death in which they are living.

     When the tale is told, as it will be some day if the impotent League of Nations ever sufficiently awakens from its Rip Van Winkle slumbers to the realization of its power and duty to prosecute an investigation into the facts, the world will confront a picture so fearful in its barbarous cruelty that the hell of war and the alleged Belgian atrocities will pale into insignificance as compared to this devilishly, deliberately, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people — a people who love and have shed their blood for their Fatherland, and to whom Germany owes in large part its prosperity and its great scientists, educators, lawyers, physicians, poets, musicians, diplomats and philosophers, who are the backbone of its past cultural life.

Back to Dark Ages

     But why dwell longer upon this revolting picture of the ravages wrought by these ingrates and beasts of prey, animated by the loathsome motives of race hatred, bigotry and envy.  For the Jews are the aristocrats of the world. From time immemorial they have been persecuted and have seen their persecutors come and go. They alone have survived. And so will history repeat itself, but that furnishes no reason why we should permit this reversion of a once great nation to the Dark Ages or fail to rescue these 600,000 human souls from the tortures of hell as we can with the aid of our Christian friends, if we have the will to act.

    Protests and pleas from all corners of the earth, from the leaders of all creeds, having proven as vain and unavailing as was the idealistic dream of our martyred President of making the world safe for democracy and of protecting minorities, what then are to be the lines of our defensive campaign against these atrocities, on which we are already actively embarked?  Are we right in our plan?  If so, what steps shall now be prosecuted to attain success?

    Our campaign is twofold — defensive and constructive.  On the defensive side will be the economic boycott against all German goods, shipping and services.  On the constructive side will be an appeal to the League of Nations to construe and enforce the labor union provisions of the Versailles Treaty and the written promises made by Germany, while the treaty was under negotiation, to protect its minorities, which have been flagrantly violated by its disfranchisement and persecution of the German Jews.

What Boycott Means

   As in the boycott, strange to say a mere handful in number, but powerful in influence, of our thoughtless but doubtless well-intentioned Jews seem obsessed and frightened at the bare mention of the word “boycott”.  It signifies and conjures up to them images of force and illegality, such as have on occasions in the past characterized struggles between labor unions and their employers.  As these timid souls are capitalists and employers, the word and all that it implies are hateful to their ears.

     In point of fact, it signifies nothing of the kind. These gentlemen do not know what they are talking or thinking about.  Instead of surrendering to their vague fears and half-baked ideas, our first duty is to educate them as to what is meant by a purely defensive economic boycott, and what we are doing and proposing.  

    Admittedly, the boycott is our only really effective weapon. These gentlemen who are taking counsel of their groundless fears to the exclusion of their reason have done nothing and have no program except to attempt to arouse world opinion, which is and has been from the outset on our side, as it was bound to be because of this brutal, senseless, unprovoked assault upon civilization.

     It is not necessary to belittle or underrate that accomplishment, if their aimless, fruitless endeavors in that direction may be so dignified in recognition of their good intentions, barren of results as they have been.  

    It is sufficient that their efforts have proven unavailing and that the campaign of Schreckligheit not only goes on unabated in the face of unanimous world opinion; but that it is increasing in intensity and that the masses of the German people, misled by government propaganda and suppression of free speech and of the press, are either voluntarily, or through fear of punishment at the hands of their despotic rulers, supporting their government in this hellish campaign.

     What then have these amiable gentlemen accomplished and what do they hope or expect to accomplish in the way of stemming this conflagration of civilization by their “feather-duster” methods? You cannot put out a fire, and especially that kind of a fire, by just looking on until the mad flames, fanned by the wind of hate, have destroyed everything.

    What we are proposing and have already gone far toward doing, is to prosecute a purely defensive economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.

“Force Them to Learn”

    They have flaunted and persisted in flaunting and defying world opinion.  

   We propose to and are organizing world opinion to express itself in the only way Germany can be made to understand.  Hitler and his mob will not permit their people to know how they are regarded by the outside world.  We shall force them to learn in the only way open to us.

     Revolting as it is, it would be an interesting study in psychology to analyze the motives, other than fear and cowardice, that have prompted Jewish bankers to lend money to Germany as they are now doing.  It is in part their money that is being used by the Hitler regime in its reckless, wicked campaign of propaganda to make the world anti-Semitic; with that money they have invaded Great Britain, the United States and other countries where they have established newspapers, subsidized agents and otherwise are spending untold millions in spreading their infamous creed.

    The suggestion that they use that money toward paying the honest debts they have repudiated is answered only by contemptuous sneers and silence.   Meantime the infamous campaign goes on unabated with ever increasing intensity to the everlasting disgrace of the Jewish bankers who are helping to finance it and of the weaklings who are doing nothing effective to check it.

     The Hitler regime originated are fiendishly prosecuting their boycott to exterminate the Jews by placarding Jewish shops, warning Germans against dealing with them, by imprisoning Jewish shopkeepers and parading them through the streets by the hundreds under guard of Nazi troops for the sole crime of being Jews, by ejecting them from the learned professions in which many of them had attained eminence, by excluding their children from the schools, their men from the labor unions, closing against them every avenue of livelihood, locking them in vile concentration camps, starving and torturing them, murdering and beating them without cause and resorting to every other conceivable form of torture, inhuman beyond conception, until suicide has become their only means of escape, and all solely because they are or their remote ancestors were Jews, and all with the avowed object of exterminating them.

Appeal to Mankind

     As against this, the foulest boycott in the annals of time, we are appealing to all mankind to enforce a counter-boycott.  That appeal is meeting with the conviction that idealism and justice are still alive.

     There is nothing new in the use of the economic boycott as an instrument of justice.  The covenant of the League of Nations expressly provides in these identical words for its use to bring recalcitrant nations to terms.  President Roosevelt, whose wise statesmanship and vision are the wonder of the civilized world, is invoking it in furtherance of his noble conception for the readjustment of the relations  between capital and labor under the terms of the sweeping Industrial Recovery Act, to the end that labor shall receive a more just share of the wealth it creates.  He is about to enlist the consumers of the country in a national campaign in which they pledge themselves to boycott all manufacturers, jobbers and retailers who fail to subscribe to the codes and to buy only from those who have assented and who are thereby privileged to fly the blue eagle of NRA [National Recovery Act].  What more exalted precedent do our timid friends want?

     With this explanation of our aims, I appeal to the American Jewish Committee, whose public spirit and good intentions I do not for a moment question, but the wisdom of whose judgment I challenge, no longer to hold aloof but to rid themselves of their timid and ill-considered prejudices and join in actively pressing this boycott as our only weapon except the appeal to the League, which I shall discuss at a later time.

     I purposely refrain from including the American Jewish Congress in this appeal because I am satisfied that 95 per cent of their members are already with us and that they are being misrepresented by two or three men now abroad.  Of them I ask that, prior to the meeting to be held this month in Prague by their executive committee, they instruct these false leaders in no uncertain terms as to the stand they must take on this all-important subject and demand that they shall either openly represent their views or resign their offices.  One of them, generally recognized as the kingpin of mischief makers, is junketing around the Continent engaged in his favorite pastime of spreading discord, asserting at one time and place that he favors and supports the boycott and at another that he is opposed or indifferent to it, all dependent on the audience he is addressing; but always directly or indirectly delivering a stab in the dark.

Progress So Far Made

      There is not time now, but I hope and expect in the near future to be able to report to you the steps that have been taken and that are already under way, and the surprising and gratifying progress already made in many countries toward the success of the economic boycott in which we are engaged.  Although considerable progress in that direction has already been made in Great Britain and in the United States, you will be surprised to learn that they are the least advanced and as yet the most inadequately organized of all the countries that were represented at the Amsterdam World Economic Conference, where the boycott was unanimously and enthusiastically approved by formal resolution by a rising vote.

     With us in America the delay has been due in part to lack of funds and the vast territory to be covered, but it is hoped, and expected, that this condition will soon be corrected.  The object-lesson we are determined to teach is so priceless to all humanity that we dare not fall.

    Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here.  It is not sufficient that you buy no goods made in Germany.  You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronizes German ships or shipping.  

    To our shame be it said that there are a few Jews among us, but fortunately only a few, so wanting in dignity and self-respect that they are willing to travel on German ships where they are despised and meet with the just contempt of the servants who wait upon them and of their fellow passengers.  Their names should be heralded far and wide. They are traitors to their race.

     In conclusion, permit me again to thank you for this heartening reception and to assure you that, with your support and that of our millions of non-Jewish friends, we will drive the last nail in the coffin of bigotry and fanaticism that has dared raise its ugly head to slander, belie and disgrace twentieth century civilization.

[end of New York Times article] – Israel


Theodore Herzl, Vienna

UK – Amber Rudd resigns as home secretary

Amber Rudd resigns as home secretary

  • BBC

Related Topics

Media captionAmber Rudd faced criticism over the existence of Home Office removals targets and her knowledge of them

Amber Rudd has resigned as home secretary, saying she “inadvertently misled” MPs over targets for removing illegal immigrants.

The Windrush scandal had heaped pressure on Ms Rudd, who faced criticism over whether she knew about Home Office removals targets.

Her successor is expected to be announced within hours by Theresa May, who was “very sorry” to see Ms Rudd go.

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said Ms Rudd had “done the right thing”.

Ms Abbott added that the “architect of this crisis” – the prime minister – must come before the Commons to explain “whether she knew that Amber Rudd was misleading Parliament and the public last week”.

On Sunday, the Guardian published the full letter it had reported on a week earlier, in which Ms Rudd set out her “ambitious but deliverable” aim to deport 10% more illegal immigrants over the “next few years” to Theresa May.

Ms Rudd, who had been due to make a Commons statement, telephoned the prime minister on Sunday evening to tell her of the decision amid intensifying opposition demands for her to quit.

In her resignation letter, Ms Rudd said she takes “full responsibility” for the fact she was not aware of “information provided to (her) office which makes mention of targets”.

In response, Mrs May said she believed Ms Rudd had given her evidence to the Commons “in good faith” but that she understood her decision to resign and take “responsibility for inadvertently misleading the home affairs select committee”.

She should “take great pride” in what she achieved at the Home Office, Mrs May added.

Ms Rudd is the fourth person forced to resign from the cabinet in the last six months – following Sir Michael Fallon, Priti Patel and Damian Green. James Brokenshire also left in January because of health reasons.

Presentational grey line

Analysis

By BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg

An inevitable resignation? Certainly there has been a mismatch between what she told MPs last week and the evidence that emerged.

In a different time, and with a minister with enemies, she’d likely have been out on Friday.

This time the Tory party was fighting hard to keep her. But beyond the mess-ups, perhaps part of the issue was also that she was not necessarily in tune with her predecessor’s attitude on immigration – the Home Office’s most politically charged brief.

Read more from Laura

Presentational grey line

The Windrush row began when it emerged that some migrants from Commonwealth countries, who settled in the UK from the late 1940s to the 1970s, and their relatives, had been declared illegal immigrants.

Reacting to the resignation, Labour MP David Lammy said: “Amber Rudd resigned because she didn’t know what was going on in her own department and she had clearly lost the confidence of her own civil servants.

“The real issue is the hostile environment policy that caused this crisis in the first place.

“That policy must now be reviewed, and the Home Office must move quickly to compensate and grant citizenship to the Windush generation.”

Presentational grey line

How the ‘targets’ row unfolded:

  • On Wednesday Ms Rudd told MPs investigating Windrush that there were no removals targets
  • But an inspection report from December 2015 showed targets for voluntary removals did exist
  • Ms Rudd then admitted “local” targets for voluntary removals had been set
  • She told the Commons on Thursday she had not been aware of them
  • The Guardian then reported a June 2017 memo from an official, copied to Ms Rudd, that refers to targets
  • Ms Rudd said she had not seen this memo
  • On Sunday evening, the Guardian published the full letter from Ms Rudd to Theresa May – which it had reported on a week earlier – setting out Ms Rudd’s aims to increase enforced deportations
Presentational grey line

Conservative MPs have been paying tribute to their colleague. Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom called her “honest and principled” while Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said she was a “huge talent” who would “no doubt be back in Cabinet soon”.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said she had done “a great job during last year’s terrorist attacks and cares deeply about the people she serves”.

‘Human shield’

Former chancellor George Osborne sad it was “so sad”, adding “the government just got a bit less human”.

Meanwhile, Lib Dem leader Vince Cable told the BBC: “She’s clearly jumped before she was pushed.”

Presentational white space

Co-leader of the Green Party Caroline Lucas said Mrs May had “lost her human shield and now looks very exposed”.

And UKIP’s former leader Nigel Farage tweeted: “Now that Amber Rudd has resigned we need a Home Secretary that supports Brexit.”

Giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee last week, Ms Rudd, who has been in the post since July 2016, said there were no removals targets for illegal immigrants.

She later admitted “local” targets for voluntary removals had been set, but told the Commons on Thursday she had not been aware of them.

But the Guardian reported a June 2017 memo from an official, copied to Ms Rudd, that refers to targets.

The newspaper also published a letter, from January 2017, where Ms Rudd tells Theresa May about plans to restructure her department and increase removals “over the next few years”.

Amber Rudd leaves 10 Downing StreetImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Ms Rudd’s aim of increasing “enforced deportations” would not have affected Windrush migrants, as they were threatened with “voluntary departure”.

The term “voluntary” describes the method of departure rather than the choice of whether or not to depart – those leaving in this way are able to approach the Home Office for financial assistance with travel costs.

Presentational grey line

Job made ‘doubly difficult’

Analysis by BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw

With responsibility for immigration, counter-terrorism and policing, the job of home secretary is one of the toughest in government. During one period under Labour, there were six home secretaries in eight years.

But Amber Rudd’s job was made doubly difficult because she was following Theresa May, who’d survived in the post for more than six years and had set in train a series of plans and objectives that Ms Rudd was expected to stick to, even if she disagreed with them.

The former energy secretary was unable to put her stamp on any significant policy during her 21 months at the Home Office; much of her time was spent fire-fighting – dealing with the implications of Brexit, the rise in violent crime and last year’s terror attacks.

Presentationally, Amber Rudd was impressive. But she lacked a command of the detail, which her predecessor had mastered, and it proved to be her undoing.


Barbara Lerner Spectre – Jews behind immigration into Europe


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.”

FROM ISI LEIBER’S 2012 ESSAY:

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.


JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY

MOCKING JESUS ON ISRAELI TV

——————————————————————————

Palestinians must make peace or shut up, Saudi crown prince said to tell US Jews

ARABIA ISRAEL

TIMES OF ISRAEL – At a meeting with Jewish leaders in New York last month, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman castigated the Palestinian leadership for rejecting opportunities for peace with Israel for decades, and said they should either start accepting peace proposals or “shut up.”

Citing what it said were multiple sources, Israel’s Channel 10 News on Sunday night quoted what it said were remarks made by the crown prince at the meeting that left those who were present “staggered” by the ferocity of his criticism of the Palestinians.

“For the past 40 years, the Palestinian leadership has missed opportunities again and again, and rejected all the offers it was given,” the Saudi leader reportedly said.

“It’s about time that the Palestinians accept the offers, and agree to come to the negotiating table — or they should shut up and stop complaining,” he reportedly went on.

Prince Salman also told the US Jewish leaders that “the Palestinian issue is not at the top of the Saudi government’s agenda” and elaborated, “There are much more urgent and more important issues to deal with — such as Iran,” according to the TV report.

Nonetheless, the crown prince reportedly stressed that there would have to substantive progress toward an Israeli-Palestinian accord before the Saudis and other Arab states would deepen their relationships with Israel. “There needs to be significant progress toward an agreement with the Palestinians before it will be possible to advance negotiations between Saudi Arabia and the Arab world and Israel,” he was quoted saying.

The TV report dated the meeting to March 27, during the prince’s extensive visit to the US. It did not name those present. The Saudi Embassy said that the crown prince was to have met that week with Jewish leaders, including Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism; Rabbi Steven Wernick, head of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; and Allen Fagin, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union. That meeting, however, which also included Christian leaders, took place on March 28.

The TV report was based on a cable to the Foreign Ministry from an Israeli diplomat in the New York consulate, who was briefed on the meeting by those present, and three other sources who were familiar with the content of the meeting. One of those present told the TV channel that the group was staggered by what the prince had to say, and all but fell off their chairs.

A number of news reports, including by The New York Times and Reuters, have claimed in recent months that the Saudi crown prince has pressured Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to accept a much-anticipated Trump administration peace proposal.

After he met with Jewish and Christian leaders on March 28, the Saudi Embassy in Washington said the meeting “emphasized the common bond among all people, particularly people of faith, which stresses the importance of tolerance, coexistence, and working together for a better future for all of humanity.”

A statement from the embassy added that “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has always, and will continue to champion expanding dialogue, building a better understanding among the faiths, and focusing on the shared humanity of all peoples.”

No specific details of what the faith leaders and crown prince spoke about were released.

In an interview published a few days later,  the crown prince recognized Israel’s right to exist and extolled the prospect of future diplomatic relations between his kingdom and the Jewish state.

In an extensive interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, the prince laid out his vision for the future of the Middle East, including the possibility of cooperation with Israel.

Asked whether he believes “the Jewish people have a right to a nation-state in at least part of their ancestral homeland,” he replied: “I believe that each people, anywhere, has a right to live in their peaceful nation. I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land.”

However, in keeping with the terms of his kingdom’s regional peace proposal, the Saudi crown prince added that an agreement with the Palestinians was a prerequisite to formal relations. “But we have to have a peace agreement to assure the stability for everyone and to have normal relations,” he said.

Did he have “no religious-based objection to the existence of Israel?” he was further asked. To which the crown prince replied: “We have religious concerns about the fate of the holy mosque in Jerusalem and about the rights of the Palestinian people. This is what we have. We don’t have any objection against any other people.”

Asked about anti-Semitism in Saudi Arabia, he said: “Our country doesn’t have a problem with Jews. Our Prophet Muhammad married a Jewish woman. Not just a friend — he married her. Our prophet, his neighbors were Jewish. You will find a lot of Jews in Saudi Arabia coming from America, coming from Europe. There are no problems between Christian and Muslims and Jews. We have problems like you would find anywhere in the world, among some people. But the normal sort of problems.”

Israel and Saudi Arabia have no official relations and the kingdom does not recognize the Jewish state. Israel has hinted at clandestine ties with Saudi Arabia in recent years, stressing the two countries share an interest in countering Iran. The rumors of covert relations have been denied by Saudi officials. Still, a Saudi general visited Jerusalem in 2016 and met with Israeli lawmakers, and Saudi officials have met with Israeli officials on several occasions in public. Saudi Arabia also allowed Air India to fly to and from Tel Aviv via its airspace, last month.

Discussing whether a shared concern over Iran was bringing Israel and Saudi Arabia together, he said: “Israel is a big economy compared to their size and it’s a growing economy, and of course, there are a lot of interests we share with Israel, and if there is peace, there would be a lot of interest between Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and countries like Egypt and Jordan.”

Salman also discussed the threat to the Middle East he said was posed by Iran, even saying that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic, “makes Hitler look good.”

“Hitler didn’t do what the supreme leader is trying to do. Hitler tried to conquer Europe. This is bad,” he explained. “But the supreme leader is trying to conquer the world. He believes he owns the world. They are both evil guys. He is the Hitler of the Middle East. In the 1920s and 1930s, no one saw Hitler as a danger. Only a few people. Until it happened. We don’t want to see what happened in Europe happen in the Middle East. We want to stop this through political moves, economic moves, intelligence moves. We want to avoid war.”

Shortly afterwards, Saudi King Salman reaffirmed his nation’s support for the Palestinians in a conversation with US President Donald Trump.

The king “reaffirmed the kingdom’s steadfast position toward the Palestinian issue and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital,” the official Saudi Press Agency said.

 

Iran: On Passover, Zionist tyrants murder those marching against bondage

Foreign Ministry says Jewish state engaged in ‘savage massacre’ of demonstrators

ed note–again, the futility of the Iranian Foreign Minister’s statement–no offense to you, Mr. Zarif–is underscored by the fact that he is trying to argue a moral point by utilizing the very same Judaic narrative which condones the very behavior taking place, and by doing so, undermines, counteracts, countermands, and contradicts the direction in which he is trying to formulate his argument.

By utilizing the Judaic narrative of the Passover myth, where the angry, vindictive god of the Jews YHWH brought a healthy dose of holy hell upon the innocent people of Egypt as collective punishment for what mean ol’ Pharaoh did, resulting in plague after plague after plague and then topped off with the angel of death slaughtering the first born member of every household, Zarif is giving weight, credibility, and strength to Israel’s stated ‘right’ to engage in genocidal force against the innocent people of Gaza because of what a few ‘evil-doers’ may have happened to do in resisting the predatory actions of the Jewish state.

Furthermore, lest we forget, the Judaic narrative regarding Passover does not end with beautiful, angelic music as the poor, beleaguered, ‘chosen’ people of YHWH walk peaceably and amiably into that land that had been ‘promised’ to them by the aforementioned violent, vindictive, psychopathic entity named YHWH, but rather, begins a chapter of bloodshedding and bloodletting against the indigenous people there (along with all their livestock, olive groves, places of worship, etc, exactly as we see taking place today) that might as well have featured in a Stephen King novel.

As long as the ‘enlightened’ world continues in its millenia-old failed strategy of placing the religion of the Jews atop some mantle of respectability and of affording it some place of undeserved honor alongside other philosophies that have contributed (and indeed continue to contribute) to the betterment of mankind and in the process, assiduously avoid diagnosing it as a malignancy and a toxicity upon well being of all men, then massacres such as what is taking place now–and even worse which are to come–will continue unabated and unrestrained as the Jews laugh themselves silly whenever someone comes forth using their own bloody narrative as an inducement towards trying to shame them for their behavior.

As far as Zarif’s statement concerning Trump’s ‘support’ for Israel being the catalyst for this latest bloodbinge in which the Jewish state must periodically engage in order to get her ‘fix’, well, doubtless there is some truth to that, but let us remember all the previous bloodbaths that took place in the past, including during the 8 years of Obama, who was not considered a ‘friend’ of Israel by the present Likud leadership, and how this had no effect on anything whatsoever.

Rather

Times of Israel

Iran’s foreign minister on Saturday condemned the fatal shooting of 16 Gazan protesters by Israeli troops and mocked the fact that it happened as Israeli Jews prepared to mark Passover.

The protesters were among thousands who marched along the Gaza-Israel border on Friday and set up protest camps at the start of a six-week campaign for the return of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who fled or were expelled during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence.

The week-long Passover festival, which began at sundown on Friday, commemorates God’s liberation of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt as told in the Book of Exodus in the Hebrew Bible.

“On the eve of Passover [of all days], which commemorates God liberating the Prophet Moses and his people from tyranny, Zionist tyrants murder peaceful Palestinian protesters — whose land they have stolen — as they march to escape their cruel and inhuman apartheid bondage. Shameful,” Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted.

Iran has long been a supporter of the Hamas terror group which controls the Gaza Strip.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Ghassemi condemned the “savage massacre of a large number of Palestinians by the armed forces of the Zionist regime.”

He said Israel had felt it could act with impunity because of the backing of US President Donald Trump and the covert ties being established by some regional leaders — an allusion to Saudi Arabia’s 32-year-old de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, an arch-foe of Iran.

“Unfortunately, the unconditional support of Mr. Trump and his administration, and the shameful efforts of some ignorant novice leaders to establish disgraceful secret relations with this regime, have made the leaders of the Zionist regime more presumptuous,” Ghassemi said.

The Trump administration has called repeatedly for an alliance against Iran between Israel and the Gulf Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia.

Riyadh has made no public comment although earlier this month it allowed the first commercial Israel-bound flights to cross its airspace, an Air India service between New Delhi and Tel Aviv.

Friday was the bloodiest single day in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since a 2014 war in Gaza. UN chief Antonio Guterres called for an “independent and transparent investigation.”

Israeli troops used live ammunition, rubber bullets and tear gas to keep thousands of Gazans from trying to approach the border fence. The military said protesters threw firebombs and rocks at soldiers, rolled burning tires at them and in one incident opened fire.

IDF spokesman Ronen Manelis said the army faced “a violent, terrorist demonstration at six points” along the fence. He said the IDF used “pinpoint fire” wherever there were attempts to breach or damage the security fence. “All the fatalities were aged 18-30, several of the fatalities were known to us, and at least two of them were members of Hamas commando forces,” he said.

Israel Is Losing The Propaganda War In Gaza………

IDF ISRAEL PALESTINE

YNET – Op-ed: There is no need for hundreds or tens of thousands of protestors to take to the Israel-Gaza border. The shooting of one 15-year-old boy, whose death is now being investigated by Israel, is excellent fuel for the anti-Israel propaganda and a great opportunity for MK Tibi and others to turn IDF soldiers into murderers.

The good news from the south is that the number of protestors in the “March of Return” is decreasing. Hamas is encouraging, calling, shouting, broadcasting, publishing—but the masses are staying away. From one Friday to the next, the numbers are dropping. Tens of thousands in the first protest; only several thousand last Friday. In this sense, at least in the current stage, it’s a failure.

The bad news is that there is no need for hundreds or tens of thousands of protestors to succeed. Just one 15-year-old boy, whose death is being investigated, is excellent fuel for the anti-Israel propaganda. And if the moment he was hit was caught on camera, it’s double trouble. It’s a great opportunity for Knesset Member Ahmad Tibi, and not just him, to turn IDF soldiers into murderers, and it’s an opportunity for the UN envoy and other functionaries and “rights activists” to use their arsenal of propaganda rockets against Israel.

The events on the Gaza border have stopped occupying a lot of space in the global press. But Natalie Portman’s announcement, unintentionally, put Gaza back in the headlines, as did the UN envoy’s statement and the European Union’s demand for an investigation into the incident. The IDF, in any event, intends on investigating.

Let’s put things in order. First of all, any killing of an innocent person is unfortunate. Hamas gains, Israel’s enemies celebrate, and Israel is the only one that loses from the situation. No one has placed cameras on the US-Mexico border, although 412 infiltrators or work migrants were killed there in 2017, and 498 in 2016, including children. But the border between Israel and Gaza, as well as the points of friction in Hebron, seem to have the highest number of cameras in the world.

Something else was caught on camera: Many of the kites flown towards Israel were marked with a swastika, in addition to carrying explosives. The mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was an ardent fan of the Nazis. He seems to have followers. It’s not just the Hamas Covenant or the calls for Israel’s destruction, chanted by some of the protestors. It’s also the kites carrying the Nazi symbol. And when these impassioned young people approach the fence, in an intentional provocation, with explosive kites—accidents can happen, and it’s a pity that they happen.

We shouldn’t make generalizations. It’s not that all of the strip’s residents identify with the Nazi ideology. But Hamas and its supporters, and likely many of the protestors as well, carry a message of annihilation and anti-Semitism.

The moderate ones settle for spreading the message of Israel’s destruction. That’s what Gaza resident Rana Shubair did, for example, in an article published in Hebrew in the “Sikha Mekomit” (Local Call) website. She wrote there about the “the Great Return March by the border with occupied Palestine,” to show us that when they talk about an “occupation” and about “Palestine,” they’re talking about Israel.

The thing is that the global media, almost without exception, ignored the protestors’ message. The swastikas didn’t appear in the New York Times or in Le Monde. But the Guardian published a letter by three members of the Breaking the Silence organization, accusing the IDF of instructing snipers to shoot to kill unarmed demonstrators.

They’re lying. There are no such orders. They didn’t bother, of course, to write a single word about the responsibility of Hamas and its supporters. On the contrary, they wrote that “harming innocent people in Gaza is part of what is needed to maintain the regime of occupation.” And if former soldiers publish a letter which leads to the conclusion that IDF soldiers are murderers, how can we complain about those newspapers’ editorials?

The lies produced by Breaking the Silence and the blind eye the global media has been turning to the protestors’ horrific messages don’t reduce Israel’s responsibility. We could have done things differently. It was clear in advance that Hamas wanted casualties, and that its propagandists would—intentionally and unintentionally—point an accusing finger at Israel. It was clear that the battle wouldn’t take place only in the border area, but also in the global media.

The damage could have been decreased by conveying a message of reaching out to the strip’s residents, who are suffering because of Hamas and not because of Israel. But nothing was done. Hamas may have failed, and the masses aren’t going out to protest, but Israel—as expected—is being defeated once again.

PALESTINE

‘Hamas is your Pharaoh’, Israeli military liaison tells Gazans

  • JUDEO MINDSET

COGAT head Yoav Mordechai says terror group funding a ‘march of chaos’ instead of investing in its own people

ed note–as we say often here, the only way to defeat the monster that threatens the destruction of everything is to study it–not just at the surface level, not even at merely the molecular level, but rather at the atomic and even sub-atomic level, and this means analyzing CAREFULLY exactly what kind of language is being used by those working for Jewish interests and what kind of outcome that the language they are using is likely to create.

Out of the 365 days in the year, Israel didn’t just pick this past weekend to surround Gaza with feral, bloodthirsty IDF pitbulls and murder Palestinian men, women and children en masse just because the weather happened to be nice. She chose this weekend for the simple reason that it is the very weekend on which Jews around the world–as they have for thousands of years–congregated to celebrate the destruction of Egypt and the moment in which the Zionist project as first elucidated in the pages of the Torah (specifically the book of Genesis) made its very first tangible steps forward, where it is said that Moses–convicted murderer of an Egyptian official–led the Jews out of Egypt and organized them into an invading, marauding, rapacious army of land thieves whose mission was to murder/drive out the indigenous inhabitants of Canaan as recounted in the Torah.

Anyone with a keen eye to studying the Jewish question as it has applied to the murder of today’s Canaanites, Midianites, Jebusites, etc will note a very curious and interesting fact–all the infamous massacres that have taken place since even before 1948 coincided with Jewish religious festivals where the previous mass-slaughter of Gentiles is said to have taken place within the demented and deranged calendar of Judaic religious lore.

Again, this is by no means mere happenstance or accident, as those who maintain an iron-grip over the collective mind of Jewry understand that the best way to mobilize and marshal cooperation, solidarity, and public support for murdering Gentiles en masse (such as what just took place in Gaza) is to do it when the Jews as a group are in the midst of celebrating the mass murder of Gentiles as attributed to the actions of their ancestors in previous centuries.

Furthermore, the deliberate and carefully calculated use of the image of ‘Pharaoh’ by this feral, deranged, violent, inbred Hebrew carries other implications with it as well, in that according to Judaic lore (as recounted in the book of Exodus and which was just celebrated with Passover) after a prolonged period of pestilence, starvation, and suffering inflicted upon the people of Egypt by ‘yhwh,’ the violent and vindictive god of the Hebrews, the angel of death was given free license to go and slay at will the first-born of every household as collective punishment for one man’s refusal to bow at the feet of Jewry and worship them as ‘God’s chosen people’.

And for those who may have missed the significance/importance/preferred use of armed drones by the Jewish state in massacring innocent men, women, and children in Gaza, let us spell it out for you–it is the modern day equivalent in the Judaic mind of Azrael, the Judaic angel of death sent to murder the first born of Egypt as recounted in the book of Exodus and celebrated yearly at Passover.

Again, we stress the importance of studying/understanding the Judaic mind not merely at the surface level, but indeed at that level where the virus breeds, mutates, invades and destroys everything with which it comes into contact.

Times of Israel

The head of the Israeli defense body for Palestinian civilian affairs, Maj. Gen. Yoav “Poli” Mordechai, on Saturday likened Palestinian terror group Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, to Pharaoh, the biblical figure who stubbornly refused to liberate the enslaved Israelites until their exodus from ancient Egypt led by Hebrew prophet Moses.

In a Facebook post published on the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories’ (COGAT) profile for Arabic speakers, Mordechai slammed Hamas for supporting the “march of chaos” on Friday, in which at least 16 Palestinians were said to have been killed by Israeli fire, including five members of the ruling Palestinian terror group’s military wing.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians marched to Gaza’s border with Israel on Friday in the largest such demonstration in recent memory, calling for Palestinians to be allowed to return to land that their ancestors fled from in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence.

The Israeli military said the protesters threw firebombs and rocks at soldiers, rolled burning tires at them, sought to breach or damage the border fence, and in one incident opened fire.

In his Facebook post Saturday, Mordechai included a video of Gazan students being prevented from accessing the al-Azhar University to take their exams and being hit by guards. The students, according to the post, had failed to pay tuition.

“Hamas hits students who don’t have money and instead invests tens of millions in the march of chaos… This is the priority of Hamas…to send its security forces to hit [students] with clubs,” he wrote.

“Hamas’s priorities are clear: instead of investing [in] students and their future, they invest money in empty actions to divert public criticism from their failures. Hamas uses this ‘march’ to hide its crimes and practices,” he wrote.

Mordechai said that as Israeli Jews (and Jews all over the world) celebrate the Passover holiday, which began Friday, and recount the story of Pharaoh and the Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt, Gazans must endure their own cruel ruler.

“Your Pharaoh in Gaza is the Hamas movement,” he said.

Hamas is an Islamist terror group that seeks to destroy Israel. It seized control of Gaza from Abbas’s Fatah in a violent coup in 2007.

The Hamas-run Gaza health ministry said 16 Palestinians were killed and over 1,400 injured by Israel during the mass protests on Friday. It said more than 750 people were hurt by live rounds.

IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis said on Saturday that all those killed were engaged in violence, adding that Gaza health officials exaggerated the number of those wounded and that several dozen at most were injured by live fire while the rest were merely shaken up by tear gas and other riot dispersal means.

Manelis said Friday evening that the army faced “a violent, terrorist demonstration at six points” along the fence. He said the IDF used “pinpoint fire” wherever there were attempts to breach or damage the security fence. “All the fatalities were aged 18-30, several of the fatalities were known to us, and at least two of them were members of Hamas commando forces,” he said.

Manelis warned that if violence drags on along the Gaza border, Israel will expand its reaction to strike the terrorists behind it. The military has thus far restricted its response to those trying to breach its border, but if attacks continue it will go after terrorists “in other places, too,” he said.

On Saturday, hundreds participated in a number of protests along the security fence. Palestinian media reported that 13 Gazans were injured over the course of the day Saturday.

The Israeli military warned that if violence drags on along the Gaza border, Israel will expand its reaction to strike the terrorists behind it.

Friday’s clashes were the deadliest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 2014 Gaza War. Israeli troops used live ammunition, rubber bullets, and tear gas to keep thousands of Gazans from trying to approach the border fence.

On Friday evening, Gaza’s Hamas leaders called on protesters to retreat from the border area until Saturday.

Protest organizers have said mass marches would continue until May 15, the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel. Palestinians mark that date as their “nakba,” or catastrophe, when hundreds of thousands left or were forced to leave during the 1948 War of Independence. The vast majority of Gaza’s two million people are their descendants.

The Palestinian Authority declared Saturday a day of mourning for those killed.

Hamas praised the march and the planned 6-week camp demonstration, with Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh saying on Friday that the protests marked the beginning of the Palestinians’ return to “all of Palestine.”

“We are here to declare today that our people will not agree to keep the ‘right of return’ only as a slogan,” he said.

Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, said in a speech to protesters Friday that “The March of Return… will not stop until we remove this transient border. Friday’s protests, he said, “mark the beginning of a new phase in the Palestinian national struggle on the road to liberation and return [of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to their former homes inside Israel].”

The “March of Return,” Sinwar added, “affirms that our people can’t give up one inch of the land of Palestine.

At previous peace talks, the Palestinians have always demanded, along with sovereignty in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Old City, a “right of return” to Israel for Palestinian refugees who left or were forced out of Israel when it was established. The Palestinians demand this right not only for those of the hundreds of thousands of refugees who are still alive — a figure estimated in the low tens of thousands — but also for their descendants, who number in the millions.

No Israeli government would ever be likely to accept this demand, since it would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state. Israel’s position is that Palestinian refugees and their descendants would become citizens of a Palestinian state at the culmination of the peace process, just as Jews who fled or were forced out of Middle Eastern countries by hostile governments became citizens of Israel.

Ex-MI5 Annie Machon on 9-11 Truth

Ex-MI5 Annie Machon on 9-11 Truth

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Lawyers for 9/11 families launch petition for new inquiry, citing “conclusive” evidence for explosives in WTC dust

OffGuardian

ON APRIL 10 THIS YEAR, THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR 9-11 INQUIRY, A GROUP REPRESENTING FAMILIES OF THE 9/11 VICTIMS, FILED A PETITION WITH THE US ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TO DEMAND A FRESH INVESTIGATION INTO 9/11. THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE CLAIMS TO HAVE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE EXPLOSIVES WERE USED TO BRING DOWN ALL THREE OF THE WTC BUILDINGS THAT COLLAPSED THAT DAY (WTC1,2 & 7).

flags at the 9/11 Memorial during ceremonies marking the 12th anniversary of the attacks – UPI/Chris Pedota /POOL

The petition cites many sources of hard evidence, beginning with two scientific papers claiming thermite (an incendiary) and nano-thermite (an explosive) have been found in the WTC dust. According to Activist Post the evidence cited is as follows:

  • Independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries in the form of thermite or thermate.
  • Expert analysis of seismic…

View original post 397 more words

Macron Begs Russia Not to Retaliate Against French Syria Strikes

Wants Moscow to know strikes would “not be intended to harm Damascus allies”

MORE: POLITICS

Marko Marjanović has been a Russia Insider deputy editor since Nov’ 2014 and a major force in the creation of its product for that entire time. You may want to check out his after hours project Checkpoint Asia or follow it on Facebook.


What is Macron doing pleading for understanding and restraint from allies of “animal” Assad?

The French boy-president says he is discussing bombing Syria with Washington and London. Actually last year Macron drew a red line saying any use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government side (which in practice means any allegation with enough media oomph) would automatically trigger a direct French military intervention.

Even so the visibly nervous Macron is now begging Moscow to please understand that any French strikes would not be aimed at Russians but would have the sole aim of allowing Macron to stand by Trump:

The French leader added that any action would not be intended to harm government allies, who include Russia:

“In no case will the decision we take be intended to harm the regime’s allies, or anyone else, but to attack the chemical capacity of the regime, if the decision is taken.”

The obvious question is if Macron is so unsure of the strikes he is deliberating on why even order them? The best guarantee that Syria’s allies won’t respond is not to attack Syria.But of course if Assad is such a monster then so are his allies for standing by him so why is Macron reassuring them and asking for their restraint?


Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, suit

Emmanuel Macron and his mother, Francoise Noguès, a Jewess of Portuguese origin.

‘French’ President Emmanuel Macron has said that President Bashar al-Assad needs to be ‘overthrown’ in order to build a “new Syria” that will fit into the new world order. The Rothschild sponsored President spoke to Fox News on Sunday saying that France and its allies “would have to build a new Syria after the war,” adding that the US role would be “very important” in the process. Macron went on to say that foreign states should “remain in Syria” because of the “threat” of Iran and Syrian President Bashar Assad.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

A Jewish Messianic Guide to the Current Conflict in Syria

anti christ

BREAKING ISRAEL NEWS – As the tensions in Syria have escalated into a US-led missile attack on Friday, several end-of-days experts weigh in on the situation, explaining who are the good guys, who are the bad guys, what are the real causes and what do Biblical sources say will happen.

The rising multinational tensions in Syria burst into flames on Friday when US President Trump led a coalition with the United Kingdom and France in a missile attack  against Syrian President Assad’s chemical weapons laboratories. This was in response to a chlorine attack Assad allegedly perpetrated last Saturday against the Syrian town of Dhouma, in which dozens of civilians were killed.

Military forces from many nations are currently deployed in Syria with Russia maintaining air-bases in support of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. A US led coalition has all but eliminated the Islamic State from the region. However, a myriad of rebel groups battling Assad in a seven-year civil war that has killed almost half-a-million Syrian helped create a Gordian Knot of mixed alliances.

With the situation to the north of Israel spiralling out of control and the tensions rising, several end-of-days experts explain their geula (redemption) perspectives which may give more insight than political commentaries.

The Jerusalem Connection

Rabbi Yosef Dayan is a member of the nascent Sanhedrin, created to re-establish the Biblically mandated court of 71 elders. He also claims to be able to trace his lineage back to the Davidic dynasty. Rabbi Dayan sees the current situation on the Temple Mount as the source for what is happening in Syria and in many other parts of the world.

“The Arabs have no connection with Jerusalem but they took it over the Temple Mount in order to turn it into a place of war,” Rabbi Dayan told Breaking Israel News. “They succeeded and now, because of the significance of the Temple Mount, that power of war is going out into the world. So much so that in Syria, Assad is killing his own people, which doesn’t make sense. Why would a ruler do that? It lessens his rule.

“And the world reaction doesn’t make sense,” Rabbi Dayan noted. “No one said a word about all the death in Syria or other places in the world until now.”

Rabbi Dayan noted another evil that was set loose on the world by the Muslim world’s dominance on the Temple Mount.

“The Muslims lost the Temple Mount in a battle, but they managed to steal it anyway,” Rabbi Dayan said. “This is giving them the power to go out and steal other countries. There are sections of Syria which really belong to Biblical Israel but are now under the rule of Assad.  The Muslims are taking over sections of Europe in the same way; without a single battle. Soon this will happen in America.”

The rabbi sees the battle lines as being very clearly defined in terms of Jerusalem.

“There are so many who use twisted logic to justify a Muslim presence on the Temple Mount, even over Jerusalem itself,” Rabbi Dayan said. “The people who are against stopping the murder in Syria are the same ones who do not want Jews to pray for peace on the Temple Mount.”

Torah Codes: Assad is Amalek

Rabbi Matityahu Glazerson is an expert in Torah Codes. Rabbi Glazerson uses a special computer program to search for series of letters in the Bible in order to extract hidden messages. He released a video on Sunday explaining hidden aspects of the events in Syria.

Rabbi Glazerson did a search and found the words “אסד רוצח” (Assad the murderer) in the book of Exodus. Connected to these words is the word “עמלק” (Amalek). He noted that just like the nation of Amalek attacked the weaker elements of the Children of Israel in the Exodus, the elderly and the very young, Assad’s chemical attack also targeted the weak. It was for this reason that Israel was commanded to battle Amalek forever.

He said, “It means, ‘Hand upon the throne of Hashem!’ Hashem will be at war with Amalek throughout the ages.” Exodus 17:16

“When [Assad] kills half-a-million of his people in the conventional way, nothing is done,” Rabbi Glazerson said in the video. “But when he attacks his people with chemical weapons, the United States and others attack. It is difficult to understand. Really, there should have been some reaction before. This is because people are beginning to realize the importance of Torah. This mean the Messiah will be coming soon to redeem us from these very cruel leaders.”

Rabbi Glazerson also found that in this code, the word ‘Amalek’ shares the letter “ע” (Ayin) which is included in the numerical letters of the current year on the Hebrew calendar, תשעח or   5778. This indicates, according to Glazerson that this murderous Amalek aspect of Assad would become even more apparent this year.

Syria Being Punished for Yom Kippur War

Rabbi Nir Ben Artzi is a prominent Israeli mystic whose predictions have frequently come true. In his weekly sermon published online on Sunday, Rabbi Ben Artzi assured his many followers that the recent American missile attack would not result in an escalation of hostilities.

“The United States and Russia both love Israel very much,” Rabbi Ben Artzi said. “Neither Russia nor the US want a third world war or an atomic war, nor do they want to destroy the world. Neither government is in a hurry to start a war.”

Rabbi Ben Artzi emphasized the divine aid afforded the US president in these events. The rabbi also offered a small bit of advice.

“Trump is a smart man, guided from Heaven. The Creator of the World sends an angel to speak through Trump. All of the fighting in Syria is a war for honor. Issues of honor should be put aside so a solution can be found to dismantle the factories for chemical warfare in Syria.”

Rabbi Ben Artzi blamed Syria’s misfortune on its sins against Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Syria played a leading role, coming dangerously close to annihilating Israel while inflicting massive casualties on the much smaller Jewish State.

“Even until now, Hashem (God, literally ‘the name’) has not forgiven Syria for the pain and suffering it brought to Israel in the Yom Kippur War,” Rabbi Ben Artzi said. “More than any Arab nation, they killed Israelis and tried to destroy the covenant, exactly like the Amalekites. The Holy One, Blessed be He, sees everything and never forgets.”

“No one understands but isn’t it clear?” the rabbi asks rhetorically. “The entire world was brought to fight in Syria. Isn’t it clear that this could only be the Hand of God?”

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Trump’s Tweet on Syrian Military Strike–‘Mission Accomplished’

“The strikes were not about regime change, but were a limited, targeted, effective strike with clear boundaries.”

ed note–in other words, ‘that’s all there is folks…’

So much for all the ‘experts’ and geniuses who were s***ing their pants in glee last night over their assumption Trump had just started WWIII in order to ‘please his masters in Tel Aviv’

thestreet.com

The U.S., U.K. and France in the early hours of Saturday, April 14, conducted a coordinated missile attack described as a “limited, targeted, effective strike” on targets in Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack by the forces of President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian city of Douma last week.

President Donald Trump said Friday night that he authorized missile launches against Syrian targets.

Trump said the chemical attack was a significant escalation of the use of chemical weapons and he called it “evil and despicable.” Speaking from the Diplomatic Room in the White House, the president said, “These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster, instead.”

The president said the U.S. is “prepared to sustain” its response until Syria stops using chemical weapons against its citizens.

Pentagon officials said the missile strikes, two in Damascus and one in Homs, targeted a scientific research center, chemical weapons storage facilities and a command center.

Defense Secretary James Mattis, in a Pentagon briefing an hour after the president’s announcement, said “the Syrian people have suffered terribly.”

“We and our allies find the atrocities inexcusable,” he said.

The object of the operations, Mattis said, is to destroy the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons infrastructure. The secretary added the U.S., British and French forces have “gone to great lengths to avoid civilian and foreign casualties.”

U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May on Saturday in a televised address said that full assessments of the airstrikes are taking place but the government is confident of its success.

“The strikes were not about regime change,” May said. “It was a limited, targeted, effective strike with clear boundaries.”

The strikes will degrade Syria’s ability to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons, May said. “Last night’s strikes by U.S., U.K. and France were significantly larger than the U.S. action a year ago, and designed to have greater impact on regime’s capability and willingness to use chemical weapons,” she said. “The use of a nerve agent in the U.K. in recent weeks is part of a pattern of disregard for these norms.”

French President Emmanuel Macron added in his own statement, “Our response has been limited to the capacities of the Syrian regime allowing the production and use of chemical weapons.”

The strikes were not coordinated with the Russians, an official said, and the Russians were not pre-notified. Russian President Vladimir Putin in a Saturday statement called the U.S.-led airstrikes against Syria an “act of aggression.”

Russia in “the most serious way condemns the attack on Syria, where Russian servicemen are helping the legitimate government in its fight with terrorism,” the statement said, according to reports from Russian news agencies.

A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences.

All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an ally of Bashar al-Assad, also condemned the attacks. “I clearly declare that the US president, the French president and the UK prime minister are criminals and have committed a crime,” he said on Saturday, state agencies reported.

Trump had threatened military action against Syria for days. The White House said Friday he would consult further with allies. The PBS News Hour reported on Friday that a joint military operation could send a message of international unity about enforcing the prohibitions on chemical weapons.

Fabricated: Bana shows – Syria’s Propaganda Princess

JULY 06 ,2017

BY SARAH ABED

245 SHARES

  • Bana Alabed Twitter 79d72

    Bana show

 

“Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.” Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916, Ch.9

War propaganda is a tried and true mechanism with which wars have been fueled throughout history. Government’s, the media, opposition parties, war mongers, etc. have all been known to use exaggeration and psychological warfare to sway popular opinion. They might change their tactics and methods slightly but their purpose remains singular. Garnering emotional support for one side while demonizing the other side by using emotional extortion from gullible members of society. One of the cutest propaganda tools will be the focus of this article.

Soon after her debut on Twitter in September of 2016, a little brown-eyed girl from war-torn Eastern Aleppo, Syria shot to fame for her tweets documenting the war. She quickly became the face of the fake “Syrian Revolution” and a fervent anti-government voice calling for a “no fly zone” and the toppling of democratically elected President Dr. Bashar Al Assad. Little 7-year-old Bana Alabed reached paramount levels of exposure in a very short period of time. Bana became a household name shortly after her first tweet, mainly thanks to her many celebrity friends and fans who flocked to her account for what they believed were “factual political commentary and groundbreaking informative tweets” from the youngest geo-political analyst on the planet. Who according to Wikipedia is a Syrian Journalist as well.

RT wrote an article stating there was skepticism regarding the legitimacy of her account, “Within two days of setting up the account, she had used #HolocaustAleppo, #MassacreInAleppo, #StopAleppoMassacre and tweeted at Russian President Vladimir Putin, US President Barack Obama and Syrian President Bashar Assad.”

Her accelerated rise to fame came via one of social media’s most popular platforms among politicians and public figures. In 140 characters or less a tweet can make waves around the world. Her tweets did just that. It is mind boggling how quickly she gained hundreds of thousands of followers. Unless of course many of those followers were bought which is a feature that is available on Twitter to help accounts go from total obscurity to profound popularity in a very short span of time. Also, worth noting Celebrities, Western journalists and popular opposition bloggers contribute to the viral dissemination of Bana’s posts. It took just three hours to collect more than 3,700 likes and more than 5,000 retweets after the publication of one of the first tweets of Bana.

According to Social Rank website, the request “Who was your first follower?” shows the first subscriber of Bana was an Al-Jazeera journalist Abdul Aziz Ahmed.

Less than a year later, little Bana has accomplished what many people would only dream of. Most recently she has written a book thanks to J.K. Rowling which is available now on pre-order on amazon.com. It will officially hit the shelves on October 3rd, 2017.  If all of this seems a bit unrealistic and staged, that is because it simply is just that. Is it simply a coincidence that well known left-wing advocate, JK Rowling, and Miss Bana Alabed share a talent and marketing agency?

When seven-year-old Bana Alabed took to Twitter to describe the horrors she and her family were experiencing in war-torn Syria, her heartrending messages touched the world and gave a voice to millions of innocent children.” written on her amazon book description.

View image on Twitter

Bana Alabed@AlabedBana

Hello my friends, I am very happy to share with you the cover of my book #DearWorld. @simonbooks

7:30 PM – Jun 30, 2017

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Tweets featured on her Amazon book description.

“I’m very afraid I will die tonight.” —Bana Alabed, Twitter, October 2, 2016

“Stop killing us.” —Bana Alabed, Twitter, October 6, 2016

“I just want to live without fear.” —Bana Alabed, Twitter, October 12, 2016

It should come as no surprise that Bana’s account which has an ip address that was tracked back the U.K. is a front. Little Bana at 7 years old would not possibly be able to tweet in English and use words such as “besieged” due to the simple fact that in Syria English is not even taught until middle school. According to her she was not in school during the war. At 7 years old that would have put her at second grade but having not been in school for the two previous years it’s out of the realm of possibility that Bana’s english would be proficient to the degree that it is. Also, her tweets had a clear agenda to anyone that was a fan of using critical thinking and logic.

When anyone questions the legitimacy of her account Bana and her mother are quick to block them. I experienced this myself earlier this year.

@AlabedBana Dear banana , why is your twitter account registered in the UK and why are you banning ppl for asking this?

— Staatenlos.info (@kommission_146) December 4, 2016

@Pinsnowes11@AlabedBana Some dude read out the metadata of her account, asked the same question and got banned pic.twitter.com/ci8Pjio3Hp

— Staatenlos.info (@kommission_146) December 4, 2016

Her mother Fatemah Alabed  a self proclaimed “Global peace activist” also created her own twitter account has many followers as well.

On January 20th Fatemah tweeted “I am really sad to see Obama & Michelle go. But be happy, the Obamas could return 2020 as Mrs. Michelle president”. Ironically enough, in his two term presidency there was not a single day that the US was not at war. Eight whole years of war under Obama the “Nobel peace prize recipient” who brought this war to Syria and supported the armed “moderate rebels” who have been outed as being anything but moderate. She doesn’t seem fazed by the fact that he was supporting full blown terrorists who can not be distinguished from their fellow Daesh and Al Qaeda counterparts. Fatemah must have missed the fact that he dropped more bombs than his predecessors on many countries including her own.

On January 27th Bana supposedly wrote a lengthy letter to President Trump asking him to “save the children and people of Syria”. In her open letter to U.S. President Donald Trump, Bana was asking Trump to help Syrian children. Bana and her family were evacuated from Aleppo in December and have relocated to Turkey. In the letter, she wrote, “I know you will be the president of America, so can you please save the children and people of Syria? You must do something for the children of Syria because they are like your children and deserve peace like you.

In a tweet on February 5th she said “Let me tell you the truth today. East Aleppo suffer so so so so so so so so much. Never listen to an Assad supporter, never, never”. This is months after Aleppo was liberated and children are now back at school and Aleppo is free of the filthy terrorists that were raping and killing innocent civilians and were enforcing Sharia law on everyone in the area. How is it suffering exactly Ms. Alabed?

On February 27th she wrote another letter this time addressed to Bashar Al Assad and Putin. This “peace preacher” said “My name is Bana Alabed from Syria. Stop bombing now, save the children of Syria and go to jail for killing my friends”.

 

In the above tweet Bana’s mother Fatemah is giving the impression that Bana died.. but then she later recanted her statement in the below tweet.

These last pieces of evidence need to be addressed. Both photos have Ghassan Alabed’s head circled. The photo on the left is of Ghassan with his armed terrorist friends, the one on the right is a family photo taken when the family moved to Turkey and met with President Erdogan. If this was the only link he had to a terrorist group one might think to overlook it but there are numerous accounts of this affiliation.

Finally, As well as her strong ties to the Al Qaeda White Helmets who were created in the UK.

The “unbiased, unarmed humanitarians also known as The White Helmets“.  This group of “heroes” as the media presented them to the world were also ones that recently won an Oscar for their documentary. These actors were also nominated for the Nobel peace prize. Who are the White Helmets you might ask? Well, when they are not faking rescues on camera for donations they can be seen with their weapons waving the Al Qaeda flag. These men are Al Qaeda’s civil defence and are not the real Syrian Civil Defense. They act in order to get donations and have received over $100 million dollars from many nations and private donors.

Every single armed group that is against the legitimate Syrian government and against the Syrian Arab Army is affiliated with Al Qaeda or another terrorist organisation.

Even with the surplus of information that negates or at the bare minimum raises questions about the legitimacy of Bana’s twitter account, her followers and supporters are growing and multiplying in number by the day. War propaganda and using children to tug at heart strings is not a new invention. It is a tried and true emotional fallacy that helps promote wars, and in this case calls for foreign intervention on a sovereign nation, and demonizing the leader of a country who has made strides in trying to protect the people of Syria from imported terrorists that have ravished the country for over six years.

Therefore, it is imperative that we raise awareness and expose those who push for further aggression in this dirty war. There are those who have an agenda that calls for prolonging the war rather than ending it. Under the fake guise of promoting peace they are using social media as well as their accessibility to mainstream media to divide the country. It’s simply heartbreaking that they would prefer to see Syria become a pile of rubble rather than help to unite it and bring about stability. Looking past the cute front of this particular propaganda campaign tool we can see a very carefully-calculated destructive method used to fuel the war in Syria.

 

Carla Ortiz@CarlaOrtizO

29 Jun

#FalseFlag ready in 15 days? #aljazeera #WhiteHelmets again visit pre #ChemicalAttack location & 23 childbodies disappear from morgue READ pic.twitter.com/CjtkXWb4kL

Enrique @garoukike

White Helmets in action

Syrian Rebels (US+NATO+KSA+ISRAEL) pic.twitter.com/0c0oowNpMy


MARCH 04 ,2018BY JEREMY SALT
The ‘Human Rights’ War on Syria
1.2K SHARES

Claire Mallinson 225b0

Human rights’ organizations

Claire Mallinson 225b0

The perfidious role of ‘human rights’ organizations in the war on Syria has been exposed again with the Amnesty International report on Syria for 2017/18, followed by an equally tendentious article in the Melbourne ‘Age’ newspaper by Claire Mallinson, Amnesty’s national director for Australia.

In the name of human rights these organizations have actually worsened the crisis in Syria. They have never dealt honestly with its primary cause, the determination of the US and its allies seven years ago to destroy the government in Damascus, as part of a bigger plan to destroy the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah strategic axis across the Middle East. Democracy, human rights and the best interests of the Syrian people were never on the agenda of these governments. They were cold-blooded and remorseless in what they wanted and the means by which they sought to get it.

By calling violent armed groups ‘rebels’ and ‘the opposition’, these ‘human rights’ organizations conceal their true nature. By calling the Syrian government a ‘regime’, instead of the legitimate government of Syria, representing Syria at the UN and representing the interests of the Syrian people, they seek to demean it. By accusing it of carrying out indiscriminate attacks on its own civilian population, on the basis of what they are being told by their tainted sources, they seek to demonize it. By accusing it of carrying out chemical weapons attacks, without having any proof, they perpetuate the lies and fabrications of the armed groups and the governments that support them.

Behind the mask of ‘human rights’ these organizations are promoting the war agenda of western and regional governments. Some are worse than others. Human Rights Watch might as well be a formal annex of the US State Department, but they all play the same duplicitous game.

East Aleppo is the template for what we are seeing now in the outrage over East Ghouta, the district on the outskirts of Damascus in which hundreds of thousands of people are being held hostage by takfiri armed groups. Aleppo was infiltrated by these groups in 2012 and the eastern sector of the city gradually taken over, as the army was already too hard-pressed on other fronts to stop this happening. Until then Aleppo, a commercial, multi-religious and multi-ethnic city, had managed to stay out of the war but now it was sucked right in. There was nil support in Aleppo for the takfiris but they had the guns and they were ready to kill to get their way. Advancing on government held positions, they devastated the old centre of the city with their attacks. Digging tunnels, they blew up some of its most famous buildings. Art architecture, history, meant nothing to them. They destroyed the square minaret of the Umayyad mosque and their attacks led to the destruction of the ancient library in the mosque and the massive destruction of the Aleppo souk, one of the oldest and most colourful markets in the world.

MORE…
EXPERT: TRUMP AND ALLIES CANNOT ACCEPT DEFEAT IN SYRIA
TAKING THE WORLD TO THE BRINK OF ANNIHILATION
BBC BETRAYS THE MOST BASIC JOURNALISTIC PRINCIPLES WHEN IT COMES TO SYRIA
SWAPPING SUFFERING: MEDICAL EVACUATIONS IN SYRIA
In the districts they controlled they ruled by terror, massacre and murder and the institution of the most repressive sharia laws. Under the secular Syrian government, women and men have the same rights before the law, under the takfiris women have no rights that are not granted to them by men. They sought the extirpation of all those they did not regard as true Muslims (Shia and Alawi amongst others): one of their earliest acts was the kidnapping of two orthodox Christian prelates, never seen alive again. It was these armed groups and the foreign governments behind them that were responsible for the dire situation in #East Aleppo, yet it was the Syrian government, the ‘regime’ as they chose to call it, that was blamed by the media and ‘human rights’ organizations. The White Helmets, embedded with these groups, and funded by the same governments which had armed and financed them, were used as the main propaganda prop. Their staged rescues filled the pages of the corporate media. They were effectively canonised by George Clooney, the documentary on their bogus bravery and sham rescues winning an Oscar award, unfortunately not for bad acting, which should have been the prize.

As the Syrian military, with Russian air support, began to squeeze these groups in East Aleppo, the propaganda was turned up accordingly. The ‘siege’ of East Aleppo was no more a siege than the ‘siege’ of East Ghouta. The people trapped in East Aleppo were being held hostage, as are the people in East Ghouta, by some of the most violent groups on the face of the earth. These trapped civilians were their trump card. Those who tried to leave, they killed, just as the takfiris are killing civilians trying to get out of East Ghouta. Having negotiated the peaceful removal of the takfiris from East Aleppo, along with their families and camp followers, the fall-back position of the media and the ‘human rights’ organizations was to accuse the Syrian government of their forcible displacement. They made no mention of the captive Syrian soldiers whom the takfiris paused to massacre before they left. They made no mention of the civilians killed by the takfiris as they were trying to escape and no mention of the dancing in the streets, literally, by the people of Aleppo, and the honking of car horns in jubilation, as these killers were sent on their way. This just didn’t fit in with the narrative the media and these organizations had been spinning.

The takfiris fight among themselves over territory, power and money but their ideology is the same, based on the destruction of the secular state and society and the imposition of a harsh pseudo-Islamic regime in which women would be reduced to the status of cattle and all Shia and Alawi extirpated. It is they who target civilians deliberately. In Adra, at the Northern end of Ghouta, they slaughtered dozens of men, women and children in 2013, beheading some and pushing others into a bread oven. In 2015, in Douma, they put men and women into cages as hostages, to deter possible advances by the Syrian army. They are shelling the centre of Damascus every day, killing civilians, including many children, including some recently mortared in their classroom.

In its report on Syria for 2017/18 Amnesty International (AI) continues its misleading narrative on the fate of East Aleppo and east Ghouta. Those who support it financially should perhaps be considering where they could put their money and their good intentions to better use. AI refers to districts in east Ghouta controlled or ‘contested’ by unspecified ‘armed opposition groups’ and repeats the canard that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack on Khan Shaikhun in April last year. (Bear in mind the recent statement of US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis that the US had no evidence of the Syrian government using sarin, the agent allegedly fired into Khan Shaikhun.) AI has no proof of this, so why would it state this as fact, except to do more propaganda damage to the Syrian government?

AI refers to 400,000 people ‘besieged’ in East Ghouta by the Syrian military, when the true state of affairs is that their districts have been infiltrated and that they are being held hostage by extremely violent armed groups. They are besieged from within by these groups, penned in and unable to leave except at the risk of being killed by their captors. The Syrian army is not imposing a siege, it is trying to break it. The Syrian government is accused of depriving these people of access to medical care and basic necessities, when it is one or another of these armed groups, over the years, that has caused the breakdown of efforts to set up humanitarian corridors. Even now the Syrian government is waiting with medical care, buses and accommodation but those civilians who try to leave are being shot at and killed, as they were in East Aleppo.

AI’s references to ‘forced displacement’ from East Aleppo, and the way the ‘armed groups’ there were ‘compelled’ to surrender and negotiate a deal that ended the ‘unlawful siege’ are a grotesque distortion of reality. What was unlawful about the situation in East Aleppo was the presence of the armed groups, what was unlawful was the money and weapons being provided to them by outside governments, in breach of international law, what was unlawful was their killing of civilians and the restriction of their free movement (out of East Aleppo), what was lawful was the finally successful attempt of the government of Syria to break the hold of these groups.

The Age 52238

Following the release of the AI report on Syria, Claire Mallinson, the national director of AI for Australia, charged into print under the heading of ‘Australians Need to Act on Syrian Monstrosities’ (the Melbourne Age, March 1, 2018). Her reading audience would already have been won over as the Australian media has not reported the war in Syria at all but simply pumped out the same propaganda appearing in the US or British press. Others watching Syria closely over the years know what these ‘monstrosities’ are, and they are not the same as Ms Mallinson’s.

These monstrosities begin with the conspiracy, of the US, Britain, France and their regional Middle Eastern allies, to destroy the Syrian government, and thus strike a deadly blow at the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah strategic alliance, whatever the cost to the Syrian people and whatever their aspirations. They move on to the use by these governments of takfiri proxies to do their dirty work in Syria, following the refusal of Russia and China to allow the UN Security Council to be used as the fig leaf for an air war. These governments armed and financed these groups. They did not care who they were, where they came from and what they believed as long as they were prepared to pick up a gun and bring Syria to its knees. These are the master criminals in Syria.

The monstrosities include a media picking up where it had left off in Iraq. It had peddled the lies there, it had peddled them in Libya, it peddled them again in Syria and it is still peddling them. They include the illegal presence of the US in Syria, its killing of Syrian civilians and its attacks on the legitimate armed forces of the Syrian government and people, attacks in which Australian aircraft have shamefully taken part and which have taken scores of lives of Syrian soldiers.

All of this has led to the grand monstrosity, the large-scale destruction of Syria, involving the loss of life of perhaps 400,000 people and the flight of millions of others beyond Syria’s borders. But now the same governments and the same media that brought you this war, and the same ‘human rights’ organizations that have supported it with their one-sided moralising and unbalanced reports, are expressing their outrage at the suffering in East Ghouta, as if this had nothing to do with them.

The monstrosities in the eyes of the Syrian people, if not in the eyes of Ms Mallinson, are on a par with, if not worse than, the genocidal decade of sanctions which preceded the attack on Iraq in 2003 and the crimes which followed this attack, committed by the same governments that are responsible for the onslaught on Syria. The suffering in East Ghouta is terrible and outrage is justified, but it is the causes that need to be identified and they do not include the efforts of the Syrian government and army to defend the country against attack fomented from without.

Ms Mallinson’s monstrosities are of a different order. They include the chemical weapons ‘reportedly’ being used ‘again’ by the Syrian government against its own people. This smear has been played out time and time again by ‘activists’ knowing that the media and ‘human rights’ organizations will snap it up. There is no proof of any chemical weapon attack ever being carried out by the Syrian military, as against abundant evidence of such attacks planned and carried out by the takfiris over the years, including the attack around Damascus in August, 2013.

Ms Mallinson refers to a UN report that Syria is developing chemical weapons ‘with the help of North Korea’, neatly tying in the two demonized targets of the US government. This is another canard, originating in Washington and designed again to smear the Syrian government and to set it up for whatever might come next.

What she does not say is that this ‘report’ remains unpublished, that the authors are unknown, that what we know of it comes from an account in the New York Times, which sold the lies on Iraq and has promoted the war on Syria from the beginning. The detail it gives of the material allegedly coming from North Korea indicates that it could have no possible connection with chemical weapons, which Syria does not have anyway, having given them all up under international supervision. Given the completely tendentious nature of this account, why would Ms Mallinson want to raise it except to further blacken the name of the Syrian government?

She refers to the ‘warring sides’ in East Ghouta as if both are legitimate when only one is, the government of Syria. The other is a collective of extremely violent armed groups sponsored by outside governments, in breach of international law. The presence of US and ‘coalition’ forces in Syria is a standing violation of international law and their killing of Syrian soldiers and civilians a gross aggravated violation of that law. The only legitimate armed forces in Syria are the Syrian army, which has lost tens of thousands of young men defending the country, and those forces the government has invited in, from Russian air power to Iranian and Hezbollah ground forces.

Ms Mallinson’s monstrosities include the hundreds of thousands of ‘ordinary men, women and children’ she says are at risk of annihilation by the Syrian army’s ‘siege’ of East Ghouta. In fact, the central source of the risk to the people of East Ghouta is not the Syrian government but the armed groups holding them hostage. The ‘siege’ is not of the people but of these groups. The Syrian military is trying to break their grip, as any army would in any comparable situation. Ms Mallinson accuses ‘the Russian-backed Syrian regime’ of breaking the ceasefire, ignoring the evidence that the takfiris are breaking it and killing civilians attempting to escape their grip. Only in the past few days they shot at a family trying to leave, killing the parents and shooting at the children even after they reached a Syrian army checkpoint. They are pouring shells into the centre of Damascus every day. There are no references in her account to the ‘American-backed’ or ‘Saudi-backed’ armed groups that have created this hell on earth, as she refers to it.

Finally, she appeals to the Australian government, as it assumes its seat on the UN Human Rights Council, to ‘show leadership’ in bringing these ‘abominations’ to an end. The problem here is that the Australian government is part of the problem. It fully supports US policy in Syria and has taken part in armed action in Syria, in violation of international law. In September, 2016, its aircraft joined a US-led air attack near Deir al Zor which killed perhaps 100 Syrian soldiers and allowed the Islamic State to regain lost positions. Australia did not apologise for its participation in this outrage, only repeating the US line that the attack was a mistake, which clearly it was not. When the Australian delegate did take his seat on the UN Human Rights Council, he merely echoed US policy, by attacking the Syrian ‘regime’ and its Russian backer.

If Australia does have a role in Syria, a moral role, a legal role, an independent role, it should not be as a sounding chamber for the US. It should distance itself from the illegal actions of the US and the violence of the takfiris against the Syrian people, their government and their army. It should be supporting the attempts of the government in Damascus to restore its authority over the whole of Syria and not supporting the attempts of the US and behind it, Israel, to break it up. It should support the Syrian people, not the actions of governments which have devastated their country.

It should define policy on the basis of the causes of the situation in Syria, not how they are being misrepresented in the media, by ‘activists’ embedded with the takfiri groups, by the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, by the White Helmets and by deluded or wilfully dishonest ‘human rights’ organizations playing politics, not serving truth, justice and the interests of humanity. This would be a credible role for Australia, an independent role, but it is not one the government is going to adopt.

Everyone should be concerned at the loss of life in East Ghouta. Ms Mallinson does not have a mortgage on morality and empathy with human suffering. How does anyone think Syrians feel about this, Syrians shelled in the heart of Damascus every day, Syrians who have lost fathers, brothers and sons in this conflict, Syrians whose relatives are trapped in East Ghouta or have been killed by the armed gangs holding the whole region with a knife to its throat? Does anyone outside seriously think Syrians want to live under their rule? Syrians know what they want, without equivocation, the purging of these gangs from their midst, whatever it takes. They fully support their army and their government. It is their interests Australians, or anyone else of good faith, should be supporting, not the highly politicized interests of Amnesty International.

Outrage is going to solve nothing: it only serves as the pretext for taking the war to a new level of destruction. The roots of this violence are clear: the decision of outside powers to destroy the Syrian government, their support for violent armed groups committed to an ideology destructive of every value these governments are supposed to represent and their refusal to allow the war to end. For the violence to end these are the roots that need to be acknowledged and torn out.

*(Claire Mallinson, national director of Amnesty International Australia. Image courtesy of News Limited)

Syria Crisis

WRITER

JEREMY SALT
Jeremy Salt has taught at the University of Melbourne, Bosporus University (Istanbul) and Bilkent University (Ankara), specialising in the modern history of the Middle East. His most recent book is “The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.)


Lest We Forget – Hillary Clinton: We Must Destroy Syria For Israel

A leaked Hillary Clinton email confirms that the Obama administration, with Hillary at the helm,  orchestrated a civil war in Syria to benefit Israel.

A leaked Hillary Clinton statement

————————————————————————————————————

‘Bombing proves there’s no solid case’ – analyst on alleged Douma “chemical attack”

‘Bombing proves there’s no solid case’ – analyst on alleged Douma chemical attack


FEBRUARY 06 ,2018BY JOHN WIGHT
Who Is James Le Mesurier? – The Former British Army Officer Who Founded The White Helmets
1.9K SHARES

James Le Mesurier 44432

Who is James Le Mesurier, the former British army officer and military contractor who founded the White Helmets,

James Le Mesurier 44432

Who is James Le Mesurier, the former British army officer and military contractor who founded the White Helmets, the civil defence organisation which operates exclusively in opposition-held parts of Syria? It is a question more and more people are asking as their role and function comes under increasing scrutiny.

Le Mesurier carries about him the inescapable whiff of Britain’s malign legacy and history of dirty wars, waged in Kenya, Aden, Ireland, Iraq, Libya, in other words wherever London’s blood-soaked imperialist foot has tread around the world. A product of Britain’s prestigious Royal Military Academy of officer training at Sandhurst, he served in various UK military/NATO military deployments over the past three decades, specifically Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Lebanon.

In a short bio describing Le Mesurier’s work with the White Helmets, we are informed, “In addition to the White Helmets in Syria, Mayday is active in Mogadishu, developing the city’s emergency services network, and exploring the development of similar community-based resilience initiatives in other fragile and failing states (my emphasis).”

The question of why a given state becomes fragile and failing is of course neither asked nor explored, for doing so would dredge up the subject of imperialism, which for Western ideologues such as Mr Le Mesurier would be akin to a vampire being exposed to daylight.

In a wide ranging 2016 article, former US marine and UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, provides a forensic account of Le Mesurier’s background, including the time he spent in and around the murky world of private military contractors, who exist in the cracks of Western military deployments, able to operate beyond the inconvenient glare of public scrutiny and accountability.

Ritter writes:

“the organizational underpinnings of the White Helmets can be sourced to a March 2013 meeting in Istanbul between a retired British military officer, James Le Mesurier—who had experience in the murky world of private security companies and the shadowy confluence between national security and intelligence operations and international organizations—and representatives of the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the Qatari Red Crescent Society. Earlier that month, the SNC was given Syria’s seat in the Arab League at a meeting of the league held in Qatar.”

So here we have a civil defence organisation being established in Syria by an ex-British army officer, a man with a background in the shadowy world of private security, in conjunction with a Syrian opposition group in exile. This civil defence organization, the White Helmets, receives funding from an array of states with a clear agenda of regime change in Syria, evidenced in the material, financial and political support they have given various armed opposition groups involved in the conflict.

In a 2015 speech Le Mesurier provides a précis of the roots of the conflict in Syria, starting with in 2011 a “volunteer uprising against the ruthless dictator, Bashar al-Assad,” before going on the assert that in 2012 the Syrian state turned its weapons on its “own people.”

Glaringly absent from this Manichean narrative is the fact that by 2012 various Salafi-jihadi groups, their ranks filled by thousands of extremists from outwith Syria, were rampaging across the country slaughtering and raping and terrorizing the very “own people” the Syrian army and its allies have been fighting to protect, save and liberate from the clutches of this latter day Khmer Rouge. And lest anyone has forgotten, the Syrian Arab Army is indistinguishable from the Syrian people, considering that its soldiers are drawn from the non-sectarian and multi-religious mosaic that makes up Syrian society.

Returning to Scott Ritter: “In this day of social media, it didn’t take long for photographs and video clips of known White Helmet members, in their distinctive uniform, openly celebrating with Al Nusra fighters in the aftermath of Syrian government defeats, and even carrying weapons, something their status as neutral first responders strictly prohibits.”

From the White Helmets’ own website, the lack of neutrality Ritter asserts is unambiguously expressed with the statement posted on its front page by Raed Saleh, the operational head of the organisation and himself a figure of some controversy. Saleh writes, “the UN Security Council must follow on its demand to stop the barrel bombs, by introducing a ‘no-fly zone’ if necessary.”

The barrel bombs referred to by Saleh, and emphasised by Le Mesurier as emblematic of the brutality of the ‘Assad regime,’ are inarguably indiscriminate and illegal under international law. But if we are judging the merits or demerits of a given side in a given conflict based on the use of indiscriminate weapons alone then regime change in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh is long overdue.

The brutality of the conflict in Syria is a reflection of the monumental stakes involved in the outcome. The conflict is in itself is a crime, but are we seriously suggesting that Libya is better, safer and more stable seven years on from the toppling and murder of its leader Muammar Gaddafi, courtesy of NATO aligning with various Libyan opposition factions, prime among them Islamists, in 2011? And are we seriously arguing that Syria’s fate would not be Libya’s fate in the event of the toppling of Bashar al-Assad? And, too, is anybody able to maintain with a straight face that Bashar al-Assad does not enjoy the solid support of the majority of the Syrian people, who understand that the conflict is not about saving their government but saving their country?

Scott Ritter again:

“the White Helmets function as an effective propaganda arm of the anti-Assad movement…With their training, equipment and logistical sustainment underwritten exclusively by donations from Western governments (primarily the U.S. and U.K.), the White Helmets serve as a virtual echo chamber for American and British politicians and officials.”

Given Le Mesurier’s background, along with the evidence of how the White Helmets operate, it is reasonable to assume that what we have is the cultivation of the very Third Force Washington and London have been extending themselves in trying to locate and sell as the ‘good guys’ since the conflict began, doing so with the objective of enlisting domestic public support for intervention and regime change in Damascus.

Of course, there is always the possibility that Mr Le Mesurier is sincere in his desire to alleviate the undoubted suffering of the Syrian people – though in his case clearly not all the Syrian people, what with White Helmets only functioning and operating in opposition controlled territory, places where neither he nor any Western supporter of the White Helmets would dare set foot, knowing the moment they did they would be abducted, tortured, and brutally murdered.

But if so, if Mr Le Mesurier is sincere, then he is Britain’s answer to Pyle, the idealistic and naïve American interventionist in French-occupied Vietnam created by Graham Greene in his classic novel The Quiet American. To wit:

“He was young and ignorant and silly and he got involved. He had no more of a notion than any of you what the whole affair’s about, and you gave him money and York Harding’s books on the East and said, ‘Go ahead. Win the East for democracy.’ He never saw anything he hadn’t heard in a lecture hall, and his writers and his lecturers made a fool of him.”

James Le Mesurier

WRITER

JOHN WIGHT
John’s work appears regularly at RT, Counterpunch, the Morning Star, and he is a regular commentator on BBC Radio Scotland.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Former CIA director James Woolsey admitted the US interfered in other countries’ elections and domestic affairs…….lesson not learned!

 

 

————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

‘Rothschild Sponsored’ Macron: “We Must Remove Assad And Rebuild Syria”

France and its allies “would have to build a new Syria after the war

By: Daniel Newton  |@NeonNettle on 23rd April 2018 @ 12.55pm ©

Press foreign states should French President Emmanuel Macron has said that President Bashar al-Assad needs to be ‘overthrown’ in order to build a “new Syria” that will fit into the new world order. The Rothschild sponsored President spoke to Fox News on Sunday saying that France and its allies “would have to build a new Syria after the war,” adding that the US role would be “very important” in the process.Macron went on to say that foreign states should “remain in Syria” because of the “threat” of Iran and Syrian President Bashar Assad.”The day we’ll have finished this war against ISIS [Islamic State, IS]; if we leave definitely and totally – even from [the] political point of view – we will leave the floor to the Iranian regime, Bashar Assad, and these guys and they will prepare [a] new war.

They will fuel the new terrorists.” Macron said. © pressRT reports: Macron has recently been one of the strongest advocates for a prolonged American stay in Syria.He also ordered French forces to join the US-led missile strike on targets in Syria on April 14.The bombardment, which was described as retaliation for an alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government, did not receive approval from the UN Security Council and was conducted without the consent of the French parliament.While stressing that Paris and allies should be involved in post-war Syria, the French leader still gave some credit to Russia and Turkey, saying that “even” these states will have an “important role.”Washington and its allies, including France, launched their campaign against Islamic State in Syria in 2014. Apart from airstrikes, it involved support for the so-called “moderate opposition” on the ground with training and weapons. Later, Washington and Paris dispatched limited contingents of troops to Syria, triggering protests from Damascus.While the US and its allies simply notified Syria before their counter-terrorism campaign kicked off, Russia and Iran have been acting in the country on the request of President Assad. © pressMoscow and Tehran have also accused Washington of doing nothing to fulfill the declared task of fighting Islamic State, instead of working hand in hand with terrorist groups to topple the Syrian government.Notably, the rise of ISIS in Iraq and its further spread to war-torn Syria was enabled by the chaos left after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

While Russia has indeed assisted the Syrian forces with airstrikes against terrorists, it also launched a large-scale humanitarian operation, delivering food and essential supplies to thousands of Syrians. Moscow has repeatedly invited its Western partners to join the efforts, but US coalition members have been reluctant to provide aid to the regions liberated by Syrian government forces.The diplomatic efforts of Russia, Turkey, and Iran as part of the Astana peace process provided for the creation of several de-escalation zones in Syria, which led last year to the cessation of hostilities in vast parts of the country.In late March, Donald Trump said the US would be “coming out of Syria very soon” and letting “other people take care of it now.”

However, the White House spokesman later corrected the president, saying that Islamic State should be crushed before the 2,000 US troops return home.Other US officials, including Defense Secretary James Mattis and UN Envoy Nikki Haley, announced an even broader set of US goals in Syria.According to Haley, it wasn’t only about defeating the terrorists, but also making sure chemical weapons aren’t used again and monitoring the actions of Iran – which could well have an indefinite time frame.In early April, there were also reports that the US military is considering the establishment of new military bases in northern Syria, with the American presence in the area to be funded by Saudi Arabia.

Read more at: http://www.neonnettle.com/news/4090–rothschild-sponsored-macron-we-must-remove-assad-and-rebuild-syria-
© Neon Nettle

FRANCE – Rothschild Sponsored Macron: ‘We Must Remove Assad And Rebuild Syria’

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, suit

Emmanuel Macron and his mother, Francoise Noguès, a Jewess of Portuguese origin.

‘French’ President Emmanuel Macron has said that President Bashar al-Assad needs to be ‘overthrown’ in order to build a “new Syria” that will fit into the new world order. The Rothschild sponsored President spoke to Fox News on Sunday saying that France and its allies “would have to build a new Syria after the war,” adding that the US role would be “very important” in the process. Macron went on to say that foreign states should “remain in Syria” because of the “threat” of Iran and Syrian President Bashar Assad.


Emmanuel Macron

Excerpt from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Emmanuel Macron
Emmanuel Macron in Tallinn Digital Summit. Welcome dinner hosted by HE Donald Tusk. Handshake (36669381364) (cropped 2).jpg
President of France
Personal details
Born Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron
21 December 1977 (age 40)
AmiensFrance
Political party La République En Marche!(2016–present)
Other political
affiliations
Socialist Party (2006–2009)
Independent (2009–2016)
Spouse(s) Brigitte Trogneux (m. 2007)
Parents Jean-Michel Macron
Françoise Noguès
Residence Élysée Palace
Education Lycée Henri-IV
Alma mater Paris X Nanterre
Sciences Po
École nationale d’administration
Signature

Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron (French pronunciation: ​[ɛmanɥɛl makʁɔ̃]; born 21 December 1977) is a French politician serving as President of France and ex officio Co-Prince of Andorra since 14 May 2017.

Before entering politics, he was a senior civil servant and investment banker. Macron studied philosophy at Paris Nanterre University, completed a Master’s of Public Affairs at Sciences Po, and graduated from the École nationale d’administration (ÉNA) in 2004. He worked at the Inspectorate General of Finances, and later became an investment banker at Rothschild & Cie Banque.[1]

Macron was appointed Deputy Secretary General in François Hollande‘s first government in May 2012, having been a member of the Socialist Party from 2006 to 2009. He was appointed Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs in 2014 under the Second Valls government, where he pushed through business-friendly reforms. He resigned in August 2016 to launch a bid in the 2017 presidential election. In November 2016, Macron declared that he would run in the election under the banner of En Marche!, a centrist political movement he founded in April 2016, and won the election on 7 May 2017.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

At the age of 39, Macron became the youngest President in the history of France[8][9][10] and appointed Le Havre Mayor Édouard Philippe to be Prime Minister. In the June 2017 legislative elections, Macron’s party, renamed “La République En Marche!”, together with its ally the Democratic Movement (MoDem), secured a comfortable majority in the National Assembly, winning 350 seats out of 577, with his party alone winning an outright majority of 308 seats.

As President, Macron has focused on reforming the public sector and the labour code. He replaced a wealth tax with a real estate levy and loosened employment laws, making it easier for companies to fire and hire employees. Macron passed stricter anti-terror laws and has made fighting Islamist terror his top foreign policy priority.

Early life

Born in Amiens, Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron is the son of Françoise (née Noguès), a physician, and Jean-Michel Macron, professor of neurology at the University of Picardy.[11][12] The couple were divorced in 2010. Macron had two siblings, Laurent, born in 1979 and Estelle, born in 1982. Françoise and Jean-Michel’s first child was born stillborn.[13] Raised in a non-religious family, he was baptized a Roman Catholic at his own request at age 12.[14]

The Macron family legacy is traced back to the village of Authie in Hauts-de-France.[15] Macron’s paternal grandmother (née Robertson) was born in BristolUnited Kingdom.[16] His maternal grandparents, Jean and Germaine Noguès (née Arribet), are from Pyreneantown of Bagnères-de-BigorreGascony.[17] Macron commonly visited Bagnères-de-Bigorre to visit his grandmother Germaine, whom he called “Manette”.[18] Macron associates his enjoyment of reading[19] and his left-ward political leanings to Germaine, who, after coming from a modest upbringing of a stationmaster father and a housekeeping mother, became a teacher then a principal, and died in 2013.[20]

Macron was educated mostly at the Jesuit Lycée la Providence[21] in Amiens[22] before his parents sent him to finish his last year of school[23] at the elite Lycée Henri-IV in Paris, where he completed the high school curriculum and the undergraduate program with a “Bac S, Mention Très bien”. At the same time he was nominated for the “Concours Général” (most selective national level high school competition) in French literature and received his diploma for his piano studies at Amiens Conservatory.[24] His parents sent him off to Paris due to their alarm at the bond he had formed with Brigitte Auzière, a married teacher with three children at Jésuites de la Providence, who later became his wife.[25]

In Paris, he failed to gain entry to the École Normale Supérieure twice.[26][27][28] He instead studied Philosophy at the University of Paris-Ouest Nanterre La Défense, obtaining a DEA degree (a master level degree, with a thesis on Machiavelli and Hegel).[21][29] Around 1999 Macron worked as an editorial assistant to Paul Ricoeur, the French Protestant philosopher who was then writing his last major work, La Mémoire, l’Histoire, l’Oubli. Macron worked mainly on the notes and bibliography.[30][31] Macron became a member of the editorial board of the literary magazine Esprit.[32]

Macron did not perform national service because he was pursuing his graduate studies. Born in December 1977, he belonged to the last year when service was mandatory.[33]

Macron obtained a master’s degree in public affairs at the Sciences Po, majoring in “Public Guidance and Economy” before training for a senior civil service career at the selective École nationale d’administration (ENA), training at an embassy in Nigeria[34] and in an office in Oise before graduating in 2004.[35]


MEPs protest Syria strikes during Macron’s call for EU unity (PHOTOS)

A group of MEPs held placards reading “Hands off Syria!” during Emmanuel Macron’s address before the European parliament on Tuesday, overshadowing the French president’s call for greater European unity on security issues.

In his speech, Macron laid out his vision for a “profound transformation” within the EU, by which member states would abandon their “selfishness and negativity” for “what brings us together.” He characterized the current political climate in the EU as a “civil war,” and called for greater unity in the face of emerging “authoritarian powers,” which seek to undermine the bloc.

However, Macron’s impassioned appeal for unity was coldly received by more than a dozen MEPs, who displayed signs that read “Hands off Syria!” and “Stop the War in Syria” in protest at joint missile strikes carried out by the US, Britain and France against Damascus on Saturday.

“Where was the democracy you talk about when you undemocratically attacked Syria President Macron?” Liadh Ni Riada, an MEP from Ireland’s Sinn Fein party, tweeted during Macron’s speech. Fellow Sinn Fein members Lynn Boylan, Martina Anderson and Matt Carthy were also seen holding the anti-war placards in defiance of Macron’s melodramatic call for European solidarity.

Matt Carthy MEP

@mattcarthy

A fairly simple message for @EmmanuelMacron

View image on Twitter

Sinn Féin

@sinnfeinireland

. @M_AndersonSF Macron speaking at EU Parliament talks about the need for democratic values days after bombing Syria.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

GUE/NGL in the EP

@GUENGL

Military violence does not solve problems, @EmmanuelMacron, it continues to turn the spiral of conflict. Dialogue & diplomatic negotiations are the only way out of conflict!

In a debate held on Monday, France’s National Assembly roundly criticized Macron’s decision to launch the strikes without first obtaining a UN mandate. Assembly members denounced the strikes as illegal and carried out at the behest of Washington.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!


Macron = Rothschild Puppet

——————————————————————–

Who Is James Le Mesurier? – The Former British Army Officer Who Founded The White Helmets

FEBRUARY 06 ,2018BY JOHN WIGHT
Who Is James Le Mesurier? – The Former British Army Officer Who Founded The White Helmets
1.9K SHARES

James Le Mesurier 44432

Who is James Le Mesurier, the former British army officer and military contractor who founded the White Helmets,

James Le Mesurier 44432

Who is James Le Mesurier, the former British army officer and military contractor who founded the White Helmets, the civil defence organisation which operates exclusively in opposition-held parts of Syria? It is a question more and more people are asking as their role and function comes under increasing scrutiny.

Le Mesurier carries about him the inescapable whiff of Britain’s malign legacy and history of dirty wars, waged in Kenya, Aden, Ireland, Iraq, Libya, in other words wherever London’s blood-soaked imperialist foot has tread around the world. A product of Britain’s prestigious Royal Military Academy of officer training at Sandhurst, he served in various UK military/NATO military deployments over the past three decades, specifically Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Lebanon.

In a short bio describing Le Mesurier’s work with the White Helmets, we are informed, “In addition to the White Helmets in Syria, Mayday is active in Mogadishu, developing the city’s emergency services network, and exploring the development of similar community-based resilience initiatives in other fragile and failing states (my emphasis).”

The question of why a given state becomes fragile and failing is of course neither asked nor explored, for doing so would dredge up the subject of imperialism, which for Western ideologues such as Mr Le Mesurier would be akin to a vampire being exposed to daylight.

In a wide ranging 2016 article, former US marine and UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, provides a forensic account of Le Mesurier’s background, including the time he spent in and around the murky world of private military contractors, who exist in the cracks of Western military deployments, able to operate beyond the inconvenient glare of public scrutiny and accountability.

Ritter writes:

“the organizational underpinnings of the White Helmets can be sourced to a March 2013 meeting in Istanbul between a retired British military officer, James Le Mesurier—who had experience in the murky world of private security companies and the shadowy confluence between national security and intelligence operations and international organizations—and representatives of the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the Qatari Red Crescent Society. Earlier that month, the SNC was given Syria’s seat in the Arab League at a meeting of the league held in Qatar.”

So here we have a civil defence organisation being established in Syria by an ex-British army officer, a man with a background in the shadowy world of private security, in conjunction with a Syrian opposition group in exile. This civil defence organization, the White Helmets, receives funding from an array of states with a clear agenda of regime change in Syria, evidenced in the material, financial and political support they have given various armed opposition groups involved in the conflict.

In a 2015 speech Le Mesurier provides a précis of the roots of the conflict in Syria, starting with in 2011 a “volunteer uprising against the ruthless dictator, Bashar al-Assad,” before going on the assert that in 2012 the Syrian state turned its weapons on its “own people.”

Glaringly absent from this Manichean narrative is the fact that by 2012 various Salafi-jihadi groups, their ranks filled by thousands of extremists from outwith Syria, were rampaging across the country slaughtering and raping and terrorizing the very “own people” the Syrian army and its allies have been fighting to protect, save and liberate from the clutches of this latter day Khmer Rouge. And lest anyone has forgotten, the Syrian Arab Army is indistinguishable from the Syrian people, considering that its soldiers are drawn from the non-sectarian and multi-religious mosaic that makes up Syrian society.

Returning to Scott Ritter: “In this day of social media, it didn’t take long for photographs and video clips of known White Helmet members, in their distinctive uniform, openly celebrating with Al Nusra fighters in the aftermath of Syrian government defeats, and even carrying weapons, something their status as neutral first responders strictly prohibits.”

From the White Helmets’ own website, the lack of neutrality Ritter asserts is unambiguously expressed with the statement posted on its front page by Raed Saleh, the operational head of the organisation and himself a figure of some controversy. Saleh writes, “the UN Security Council must follow on its demand to stop the barrel bombs, by introducing a ‘no-fly zone’ if necessary.”

The barrel bombs referred to by Saleh, and emphasised by Le Mesurier as emblematic of the brutality of the ‘Assad regime,’ are inarguably indiscriminate and illegal under international law. But if we are judging the merits or demerits of a given side in a given conflict based on the use of indiscriminate weapons alone then regime change in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh is long overdue.

The brutality of the conflict in Syria is a reflection of the monumental stakes involved in the outcome. The conflict is in itself is a crime, but are we seriously suggesting that Libya is better, safer and more stable seven years on from the toppling and murder of its leader Muammar Gaddafi, courtesy of NATO aligning with various Libyan opposition factions, prime among them Islamists, in 2011? And are we seriously arguing that Syria’s fate would not be Libya’s fate in the event of the toppling of Bashar al-Assad? And, too, is anybody able to maintain with a straight face that Bashar al-Assad does not enjoy the solid support of the majority of the Syrian people, who understand that the conflict is not about saving their government but saving their country?

Scott Ritter again:

“the White Helmets function as an effective propaganda arm of the anti-Assad movement…With their training, equipment and logistical sustainment underwritten exclusively by donations from Western governments (primarily the U.S. and U.K.), the White Helmets serve as a virtual echo chamber for American and British politicians and officials.”

Given Le Mesurier’s background, along with the evidence of how the White Helmets operate, it is reasonable to assume that what we have is the cultivation of the very Third Force Washington and London have been extending themselves in trying to locate and sell as the ‘good guys’ since the conflict began, doing so with the objective of enlisting domestic public support for intervention and regime change in Damascus.

Of course, there is always the possibility that Mr Le Mesurier is sincere in his desire to alleviate the undoubted suffering of the Syrian people – though in his case clearly not all the Syrian people, what with White Helmets only functioning and operating in opposition controlled territory, places where neither he nor any Western supporter of the White Helmets would dare set foot, knowing the moment they did they would be abducted, tortured, and brutally murdered.

But if so, if Mr Le Mesurier is sincere, then he is Britain’s answer to Pyle, the idealistic and naïve American interventionist in French-occupied Vietnam created by Graham Greene in his classic novel The Quiet American. To wit:

“He was young and ignorant and silly and he got involved. He had no more of a notion than any of you what the whole affair’s about, and you gave him money and York Harding’s books on the East and said, ‘Go ahead. Win the East for democracy.’ He never saw anything he hadn’t heard in a lecture hall, and his writers and his lecturers made a fool of him.”

James Le Mesurier

WRITER

JOHN WIGHT
John’s work appears regularly at RT, Counterpunch, the Morning Star, and he is a regular commentator on BBC Radio Scotland.


APRIL 19 ,2018BY JEREMY SALT
Your Enemy and Mine: The Media
82 SHARES

Douma City Coordination Committee ce220

Fully complicit in the wars on Iraq and Libya and Syria

Douma City Coordination Committee ce220

Fully complicit in the wars on Iraq and Libya and Syria, the media came baying out of its kennel in support of the missile attack on Syria last Saturday morning. Trump, May and Macron lied to get the attack going and then lied again to justify what they had done. Macron is stripping Bashar al Assad of his Legion d’Honneur whereas, for lying and violating international law, he should be stripped of his job. So should the tweeter-in-chief, Donald Trump, and Theresa May. The sight of British MPs standing up in the House of Commons one after the other to repeat her untruths was a truly repellent sight. The ‘mother of parliaments’ had been turned into a frowsy old tart.

These three had no proof that the Syrian government was behind the chemical weapons attack in Douma. The evidence is now pouring in is that there was no such attack. There was a set-up by the takfiris and the usual pack of terrorist enablers, rushing into the clinic screaming ‘Chemicals! Chemicals!’ and videoing the people there as they hosed them down and pretended to be treating the symptoms of a chemical weapons attack. This is the evidence of doctors and other medical staff. No-one nearby heard of a chemical weapons attack or saw it. All say it was a fake, as it was, sucked up yet again and presented as truth by an ever-accommodating media. The only gas attacks we have had have been verbal, from the White House, 10 Downing St and the Elysee Palace, smelly and disgusting to hear but fortunately not lethal.

As was the case after the alleged chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus in August, 2013, the fate of the apparently dead children shown in some of the videos shot by the takfiris and/or their supporters in Douma is not even an issue. Were they killed so they could be used for terrorist propaganda? Even the thought is monstrous but then the atrocities committed by these groups have been monstrous.

The media showed no interest in the children who appeared to have been killed by the takfiris in 2013 and it is showing no interest in the children of Douma either, who they were, what actually happened to them and where they were buried if they actually died. The use of children as terrorist props has been a running feature of this war. Has it actually gone as far as the killing of children, possibly Alawis, who are entirely disposable as far as the takfiris are concerned, men, women and children? The issue is real, it is shocking, it is appalling and the images of these children are heartbreaking. We need to know the truth but the media is not interested now that the takfiri-White Helmets propaganda has served the purpose of bringing on a missile strike. Dead children are apparently only relevant only if it can be shown the ‘regime’ killed them.

The real evidence of chemical weapon attacks or pending attacks lay in the workshops where Jaysh al Islam stored and cooked up its material. In one there were dockets for the receipt of material on Jaysh al Islam letterhead. In an underground passage a journalist found more documents, charred but still readable, referring to missile attacks in the centre of Damascus and projects for the use of chemical weapons, including white phosphorus. Enormous quantities of ammunition, especially mortar shells, were stacked in various parts of this underground city.

MORE…
THE SKRIPAL/DOUMA PROVOCATION A WESTERN “HUMANITARIAN” PROJECT
SYRIA MUST BE DEFENDED, WAR MUST BE OPPOSED, IMPERIALISM MUST BE VANQUISHED
Virtually none of this was reported in the mainstream media. On the basis of allegations by a terrorist group and its White Helmet enablers, Trump, May and Macron fired more than 100 missiles into Syria. They might have been told lies but they were lies they wanted to hear and wanted the world to believe, in order to push further their attack on Syria and Russia. Trump boasted of destroying Syria’s ‘chemical weapons arsenal.’ In fact, Syria does not have a chemical weapons arsenal. It does not have chemical weapons, period. They were all destroyed under the authority of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in 2013/14. The OPCW has continually monitored Syria and there is no evidence of a revived chemical weapons program. The alleged chemical weapons plant at Barzeh was what the Syrian government and its staff says it was, a scientific research institute, now destroyed as thoroughly as the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals factory in Khartoum, the biggest in Sudan and a central element in its health care system, hit by 14 Cruise missiles in August, 1998, on the orders of President Clinton. The motive for the attack was the same lie, that it was actually producing chemical weapons.

The media is not revealing or exposing but covering up. Through the propaganda it has been running over the past eight years it is fully complicit in the attack on Syria. Douma came so hard on the heels of the Skripal affair that one has to wonder whether they were planned in sequence. Sergei Lavrov has information showing that the agent used against the Skripals was BZ, developed in the US, incapacitating but not deadly, explaining why the Skripals did not die virtually immediately, had the active agent been Novichok as claimed. The Swiss lab which discovered the BZ in the sample it was given is refusing to confirm Lavrov’s claim, while not denying it. If true, the admission would pull down the roof on the American and British governments.

The British delegate to the OPCW has now conceded that his government did not have the evidence it claimed to have had. He said the OPCW had not determined the origin of the agent or the country where it was produced. This seems unlikely and it is not the same as saying the OPCW had not been able to determine origin and source. The scientists would almost certainly have their suspicions if not a short list of countries which could have produced the BZ agent, but unfortunately, they might not include Russia. The issue is so explosive, politically, that no-one should expect anything from the OPCW but waffle and uncertainty, tilted against Russia if the UK and the US can exert enough pressure, whatever it actually knows.

When the British government expelled Russian diplomats, and persuaded other governments to do the same, it did not know which country produced the agent that incapacitated the Skripals (unless of course MI5 set this up, with the full authority of the May government). Even as far as it goes this admission by the British OPCW delegate is damning. Britain launched a missile attack on another country on the basis of supposition, speculation and innuendo. It is truly shocking but the British media is refusing to hold the politicians to account, preferring endless attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.

The evidence coming out of Douma shows that there was no chemical weapons attack. It was yet another fabrication by the takfiris and their White Helmet terrorist enablers, another lie allowing another missile attack on Syria. Film coming out of Douma is showing an extraordinary underground network of tunnels which could not possibly have been built just with pickaxes, as Robert Fisk has suggested, but only with heavy drilling equipment under the supervision of trained engineers. Did Jaysh al Islam just happen to have such specialists on hand, and if not, where did they get them from? These tunnels were big enough in some cases for motorized transport and were used for getting people (including prisoners moved from other areas of the Ghouta) in or out as well as for the movement of weapons.

Apart from the chemical weapon workshops, complete with dockets for the receipt of material on Jaysh al Islam letterhead, there were piles of charred documents found elsewhere referring to missile attacks in the centre of Damascus and projects for the use of chemical weapons, including white phosphorus. There were cells and cages for prisoners and great piles of weaponry, including thousands of mortar shells ready to be filled and fired. Somehow great stretches of the mainstream media have found none of this newsworthy, to the point of ignoring it altogether. Only Tucker Carlson has had the guts to pull the plug on it. For his bravery, he is being called a traitor, a Putin stooge and all the rest of it.

It is the media that has run the war on Syria just as it enabled the wars on Iraq and Libya and almost any other war you can think of. There has been virtually no ‘reporting’ of Syria in the mainstream as the word used to be understood. There has been misinformation and disinformation falsely packaged as news. There has been the enabling of a dishonest government narrative, complicity, in other words, not objectivity and balance. The media is deceiving the people whose interests it should be protecting and protecting the interests of those who are deceiving them. We have seen this so many times before that no-one should be surprised but it is still disgraceful. In and over Syria the media has played up or played down, according to need, playing up anything that might damage the ‘regime’ and playing down to the point of ignoring it altogether anything that might damage the ‘rebels.’ The ‘fourth estate’ has completely lost its way and should not be surprised that it has lost the trust and confidence of its readers and viewers as well.

*(An image grab taken from a video released by the Douma City Coordination Committee shows unidentified volunteers spraying a man with water at a make-shift hospital following an alleged chemical attack on the town of Douma, Syria, April 7, 2018. Image courtesy of AFP)

Douma Chemical Attack

WRITER

JEREMY SALT
Jeremy Salt has taught at the University of Melbourne, Bosporus University (Istanbul) and Bilkent University (Ankara), specialising in the modern history of the Middle East. His most recent book is “The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.)


“God is With The People of Syria”, Condemnation of U.S. -U.K. -France Bombing of Syria by Patriarchates of Antioch for the Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, and Greek-Melkite Catholic

God is with us; Understand all ye nations and submit yourselves!

We, the Patriarchs: John X, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, Ignatius Aphrem II, Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, and Joseph Absi, Melkite-Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, condemn and denounce the brutal aggression that took place this morning against our precious country Syria by the USA, France and the UK, under the allegations that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. We raise our voices to affirm the following:

  1. This brutal aggression is a clear violation of the international laws and the UN Charter, because it is an unjustified assault on a sovereign country, member of the UN.
  2. It causes us great pain that this assault comes from powerful countries to which Syria did not cause any harm in any way.
  3. The allegations of the USA and other countries that the Syrian army is using chemical weapons and that Syria is a country that owns and uses this kind of weapon, is a claim that is unjustified and unsupported by sufficient and clear evidence.
  4. The timing of this unjustified aggression against Syria, when the independent International Commission for Inquiry was about to start its work in Syria, undermines of the work of this commission.
  5. This brutal aggression destroys the chances for a peaceful political solution and leads to escalation and more complications.
  6. This unjust aggression encourages the terrorist organizations and gives them momentum to continue in their terrorism.
  7. We call upon the Security Council of the United Nations to play its natural role in bringing peace rather than contribute to escalation of wars.
  8. We call upon all churches in the countries that participated in the aggression, to fulfill their Christian duties, according to the teachings of the Gospel, and condemn this aggression and to call their governments to commit to the protection of international peace.
  9. We salute the courage, heroism and sacrifices of the Syrian Arab Army which courageously protects Syria and provide security for its people. We pray for the souls of the martyrs and the recovery of the wounded. We are confident that the army will not bow before the external or internal terrorist aggressions; they will continue to fight courageously against terrorism until every inch of the Syrian land is cleansed from terrorism. We, likewise, commend the brave stand of countries which are friendly to the Syria and its people.

We offer our prayers for the safety, victory, and deliverance of Syria from all kinds of wars and terrorism. We also pray for peace in Syria and throughout the world, and call for strengthening the efforts of the national reconciliation for the sake of protecting the country and preserving the dignity of all Syrians.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Israeli Defense Minister: “The Iranian Regime Is In Its Final Days”

Israel’s Defense Minister says Iran is on the brink of economic and military collapse, and that Israel will attack Tehran “and destroy every Iranian military outpost in Syria threatening Israel,” according to Arab-language publication Elaph and reported by Israeli media Thursday.

They know that the Iranian regime is in its final days and will soon collapse,” said Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, adding “If they attack Tel Aviv, we will attack Tehran.”

Liberman suggested Iran is vulnerable on two fronts, economic and military – and that an American withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal would significantly damage the regime’s economy during a period in which the Islamic Republic is devoting resources to a military build-up in Syria against the West.

Iran is trying to establish bases in Syria and arm them with advanced weapons,” Lieberman said. “Every military outpost in Syria in which Iran seems to be trying to dig in militarily, we will destroy.”

Lieberman says that Israel must prevent an Iranian military build-up on their border. “We won’t allow it, whatever the cost,” he said.

Iran has repeatedly hit back against similar rhetoric, threatening to attack Israel directly.

“If you provide an excuse for Iran, Tel Aviv and Haifa will be razed to the ground,” Ali Shirazi, an adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in mid-April according to the Washington Times.

Meanwhile, Axios reports that Israel has approached Russia several times over the last few weeks with demands that the Kremlin adhere to a cease fire arrangement signed with the U.S. last November, which includes preventing pro-Iranian militias from entering a buffer zone on the Syrian-Israeli border.

The protests show Israel’s growing nervousness over the Iranian buildup in Syria. Recent flashpoints between Israel and Russia in Syria are also making it harder for the countries to maintain close coordination.

Israeli officials told me the message has been passed to the Russians by the Israeli ambassador to Moscow, by Israeli defense officials and at a senior political level. –Axios

Axios puts the cease fire deal in context:

  • Last November, Russia the U.S. and Jordan signed a cease fire deal in southern Syria which established de-escalation zones on the Syrian-Israeli border and on the Syrian-Jordanian border. As part of the deal, a buffer zone was to be established which Pro-Iranian forces would be excluded from.
  • According to the deal, the Russians were the responsible for enforcing the zone. But Israeli officials told me that’s not happening at all. They claim pro-Iranian Shiite militias and Hezbollah elements are inside the buffer zone in violation of the deal.

Will Russia rein-in Iranian rabble-rousers in Syria? Will the United States pull out of the Iran oil deal? Find out on the next episode of “not our problem.”

IRAN ISRAEL

ZERO HEDGE

—————————————————————————————————

Romanian President Demands Prime Minister’s Resignation Over Betrayal of Palestine

Image result for romanian president

EURASIA FUTURE

When Romania’s Prime Minister Viorica Dancila announced that her country would move its “Israeli” Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem/Al-Quds in line with the United States, she did not consult her President as Romanian law demands. The move which is considered a grave insult to millions of Arabs, Muslims and Christians throughout the world was apparently taken in a unilateral move that Romania’s President has said violates both national and possibly international law.

President Klaus Iohannis has stated that the Premier’s decision “does not cope with her position of the prime minister of Romania and thus it turns the government into a vulnerability for Romania….That is why I call publicly for her resignation“.

The rift comes after Prime Minister Dancila recently took a trip to “Israel” which the President said was not cleared with the head of state and therefore cannot be described as an official state visit even though Dancila acted as though it was.

The political turmoil within Romania is a clear sign that even among the few European nations that have been inching towards a US position of moving their embassies in “Israel” to Jerusalem/Al-Quds, such moves are highly domestically divisive.

Today in Palestine, demonstrators continue their Great March of Return protests which are set to continue through Nakba Day on the 15th of May. Thus far, “Israeli” aggression against peaceful demonstrators has resulted in over 40 deaths and the wounding over over 5,500 Palestinians.

Donald Trump is a Hoax, and Only a Bit Gay and Jewish as Well

Playboy Billionaire? That makes me laugh.

…by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

The real “ring of truth.” Let’s say you are a testosterone-charged “man’s man,” visiting Moscow with two of the best of the best of Russia’s call girl community in your hotel room. Every drug imaginable is available and your history is exactly that, or is claimed to be, drug and sex orgies with supermodels, prostitutes, porn queens and even “not so willing” hotel maids.

Instead, you pay them to urinate on a bed. Some might call it a waste. Others might call it something else, a minor “in the closet” secret for some, but a “huuge” secret for the former “Queen” of New York’s underground club scene of the 70’s and 80’s.

Christopher Steele’s “dossier” is, in fact, the only real information we have on Donald Trump’s sexual proclivities that can be verified and sourced as fact. There is nothing else that isn’t paid for with cash or threats.

This is all we know about the guy other than his history in New York in the 70s and 80s, the “party years,” a history that places “Donald” in the midst of Jewish New York, but also “Gay Jewish New York.”

Trump’s companion, Roy Cohn, one of the most frightening characters out of American history, mob boss, phony commie hunter and someone who described himself as “straight” but who loved having sex with attractive young men.

Was Donald an attractive young man during the 70’s and 80’s or, as some say, one of the most personally unpleasant and insulting people on earth. We start with April 2018. It is Trump’s America, and he has done a complete reversal, filling his cabinet with swamp dwellers, con men and the leftovers of Bush 43’s “gay mafia” of Neocon war mongers.

The “gay mafia” thing isn’t a guess. VT had people in the White House and Pentagon. The entire Jewish lobby is gay, AIPAC, the ADL/JDL, all of it. When the FBI took a look at them circa 2004-7, all they picked up on their wiretaps was bragging about bathroom trysts and “glory holes.”

The agents investigating theft of nuclear secrets from the Department of Energy, thefts that traced directly to not just the Israeli Embassy in Washington and AIPAC, but to the “highest of the highest” himself in Israel, found themselves sickened.

When their investigation reached into the White House itself, cabinet members, presidential advisors, even a counter-terrorism czar, the whole thing was shut down and the Houston based grand jury issued gag orders that expire next month. Book deals are being shopped as we speak and the secrets that can now be told await book deals, silencing payoffs or mysterious “Boston Brakes” car accidents. Then the Macron visit, the hand holding, how sickening.

The French president loves Trump yet both Koreas are willing to reunite in order to get 30,000 Americans and a few dozen missiles “gone” and forgotten. Trump may end up uniting the planet in one cause, “hating Trump” and despising the United States.

Trump, who spent his life in New York, son of a notorious slumlord, a life of utter self-indulgence, unpaid bills, cheated partners, mob enforcers running interference for him every step of the way, is now in the only place worse than New York.

He is now in Washington, at least occasionally, poor Melania in tow having left her mobster roost now protected by Secret Service as well, playing “the Great Dictator” among his admitted lesser’s, the thieves, liars and lunkheads of America’s phony capital.

 

Here are the two questions:

Is Trump gay? Is Trump Jewish?

Analysis of press coverage and the wall built around Trump brings his sexuality into question. This is a man totally immune to accusations of sex crimes against women, even those under 13. He brags about them. In fact, controlled press assets we know to be working for Trump lead the attacks against him, painting him as a sexual predator.

As for the “Jewish” charge, we are told that Trump converted to Judaism decades ago. It is one thing being a convert, another in keeping it secret. Now we are faced with a man who outwardly brags of a life of rape and debauchery who hauls a bible around under his arm but lives a Talmudic existence.

The real issue, however, isn’t the “hidden Jew,” but rather the “closet gay neocon.” Jews make great food, good films and can even be fun. Neocons kill people.

Analysis by experts in counter-intelligence and “cover and deception” methodologies say there can be only one answer, Trump hides behind his “man’s man” front, hiding a highly insecure gay “fatboy” with impulse control issues. This is where Jimmie and I spent the late 1960s:

Captain Jim Hanke, USA SF, South Vietnam 1967
Lance Corporal Gordon Duff, A Company, 2nd Platoon, BLT 1/26 Marines, Vietnam 1969 at LZ Rockcrusher

30 million Americans have served in the armed forces, 2.9 million of them in Vietnam though only 250,000 of those survive into their mid 60’s and beyond. +

This is not intended to disparage gays in the military. Those who have served in combat are more than aware not everyone around them seeks the same interests during “off time.”

The issue here is not gays or if Bush43, where evidence is preponderate, and Trump where clarification has taken a long and bumpy, careful as well, road. This might well account for a life spent ducking shirtless basketball games, military service and a visible athletic personal life.

Obama actually has a bathing suit and wears it. He also is seen shooting hoops without a shirt. He ain’t Putin but he sure ain’t Trump neither…

From there, assuming both are true, we then ask; “Why should anyone care?” Was the relationship between Trump and Cohn “more than friends” and did Trump convert to Judaism, as we are now starting to learn from source after source.

Beyond this, is the Trump smokescreen as a serial philanderer and whoremonger, as the Israeli controlled and totally Trump loving press is pushing a rerun of the Larry Flynt attack on Bush 43. For those who don’t remember, Flynt accused Bush of getting 5 women pregnant and forcing them to have abortions.

Flynt got suckered on that one, bought it all, hook line and sinker just like those who think “pissboy” is going to “go down for the count” for his “womanizing.” In the intelligence world, this is called “creating a legend” or false persona.

Additional context comes into focus every day as Trump, a reality TV star with a “massive fortune” nobody has ever seen, cloaked in bankruptcies and invisible backers, recreates the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bolton disaster, replacing the obviously gay and moronic Bush with the ramblings of a psychopathic narcissist.

Both appear to be puppets, with Bush 43 playing on his father’s standing as a heavy-hitter while Trump, well we know nothing of Trump, not really. Endless hours on Howard Stern, bragging about having sex with supermodels while in gay nightclubs; none of it adds up to those who really know New York of the 1980s, the real players.

Ugly and deformed as he is, Trump as we see him is most probably a “Dorian Gray” figure, a toupee, photoshopping on a massive scale across the internet and continual lipo.

Our sources tell us that Bush 43 and White House correspondent Jeff Gannon were a “couple” for some time and that those surrounding Bush, and this is from sources in the FBI and National Security Council, were “gay mafia.”

With Clinton it was Monica and her “knee pads;” with Bush it was rooms in the White House for “quickies” or “nooners” with male interns and evening parties with gay escorts delivered by Secret Service. But how does this impact policy and national security? So what if Trump is gay, protected by the Mossad and given a “beard” by Israeli-controlled press?

The answer to that is what is frightening, the story of two young men who entered the White House is elections rigged by Israeli intelligence, in 2000 and 2016, both protégées of Roy Cohn, de facto head of America’s real Mafia, the man who controlled J. Edgar Hoover’s blackmail empire and the real impetus behind the cult of “neo-conservatism.”

The doctor who said Trump weighs 200 pounds wants to run the VA?

In fact, according to our sources in the White House and later the Pentagon at the time, including Africa bureau chief Alex Powers, a longtime Bush insider, the entire Neocon gang is not only gay, but predators with a proclivity for young, sometimes very very young males.

Thus, when Trump began filling the White House with Bush 43 gay protégées, and the list is growing each day, all arch-Zionists, all war mongers, all with ties to the Kosher Nostra, the debacle of 9/11 and the wars that the Bush “swamp” drowned the world in have become more than a reality.

Cohn, former “Red-Baiter” for “Tail Gunner Joe” McCarthy and the witch-hunt of the 50s, Cohn ruled the New York bathhouse world and inherited the mantle of Meyer Lansky’s “Murder Incorporated,” the enforcement arm of the Jewish mob and its Italian underlings.

Cohn took both Trump and Bush 43 under his “wing,” introducing them into the circles of the old Jewish mob that founded and ran Las Vegas under Bugsy Siegel.

Lansky’s relationships reached into the Bush family and its drug relationships in South Florida. From Webster Tarpley’s “BushBook,” Chapter XX. First I might add this from the Washington Post. Tarpley had plenty of sources on Cohn, Bush and Trump and had to be silenced:

“First lady Melania Trump settled her defamation lawsuit against a Maryland blogger, who agreed to apologize to the Trump family and pay her a “substantial sum,” her attorneys said Tuesday.

“I posted an article on August 2, 2016 about Melania Trump that was replete with false and defamatory statements about her,” the blogger, Webster Tarpley, said in the statement provided by Trump’s attorneys.

Tarpley, 71, could not be reached for comment by phone or email. His attorneys, Danielle Giroux and John Owen, confirmed that a settlement had been reached.

The blogger’s article in August reported about unfounded rumors that Melania Trump once worked as a high-end escort and stated that Trump may have suffered a nervous breakdown after her speech at the Republican National Convention.”

The real assertion, we believe, is that Melania was bought into the US as a “beard” for gay Trump. This is why Tarpley had to be silenced. Those who don’t think erasing Melania’s life history in Slovenia, a job reputedly done by Israeli intelligence, didn’t involve killing dozens, isn’t paying attention. Back to Tarpley:

“The drug plague is an area in which the national interest requires results. Illegal narcotics are one of the most important causes of the dissolution of American society at the present time. To interdict the drug flows and to prosecute the drug money launderers at the top of the banking community would have represented a real public service. But Bush had no intention of seriously pursuing such goals.

For him, the war on drugs was a cruel hoax, a cynical exercise in demagogic self-promotion, designed in large part to camouflage activities by himself and his networks that promoted drug trafficking. A further shocking episode that has come to light in this regard involves Bush’s 14-year friendship with a member of Meyer Lansky’s Miami circles who sold Bush his prized trophy, the Cigarette boat Fidelity…

Documents found by Burdick in the Dade County land records office show that USA Racing, the company operated by Aronow which built the Blue Thunder catamarans for the Customs service was not owned by Aronow, but rather by a one Jack J. Kramer in his capacity of president of Super Chief South Corporation. Jack Kramer had married a niece of Meyer Lansky. Jack Kramer’s son Ben Kramer was thus the great nephew and one of the putative heirs of the top boss of the US crime syndicate, Meyer Lansky.

Ben Kramer was also a notorious organized crime figure in his own right. On March 28, 1990 Jack Kramer and Ben Kramer were both found guilty of 23 and 28 counts (respectively) of federal money laundering charges. In the previous year, Ben Kramer had also been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for having imported half a million pounds of marijuana. Bush had thus given a prime contract in waging the war on drugs to one of the leading drug-smuggling and money-laundering crime families in the US.”

Tarpley connected the Bush family, known for their ties dating to 1927 to the Rothschilds’ banking empire (Brown Brothers/Harriman) along with endless rumors, ties to the Kennedys’ murders, the Colombian cartels, more than rumors, so much more than rumors.

We all know by now that Trump is no genius, certainly not an adult and without a doubt, a sociopath. There is no controversy in any of this.

This is another “mystery man,” a great leader, great athlete, a human “sex-machine” who hides behind the most comprehensive press management empire imaginable, one traced entirely to the Israel lobby and one that uses “muscle,” not just from crackpot lawyers but mobsters who all are known Israeli intelligence assets.

They exist around Trump because he is a brand, a pure facade, and absolutely everything about him is not only false, but intended to be false from the beginning.

Trump’s wasn’t born, he was “scripted.”

It has been long enough that it has to be clear now, Trump simply isn’t who he says he is. This is a man, and I am using the term most carelessly, “man,” that lives inside a lifelong bubble of managed press and false persona.

The results are in. Some will be surprised, others, not so much. Data is private sources, including a careful analysis of Christopher Steele’s “pee tape” and an extensive study on how Israeli assets have managed the press around Trump.

At times it seems CNN entirely exists, as does Saturday Night Live, to keep focus on “Trump the Clown.” As long as those who remain standing are mollified by petty mudslinging at a modern day T-Rex who, from his Palm Beach County brothel, oversees half a dozen wars and ethnic cleansings….

Then again, time to hit publish on this and hope nobody reads it.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..



US president

————————————————————————————————

Quinnipiac University – CNN POLL: America’s most popular politician is…Nikki Haley

America’s number one warmonger is also one of America’s most popular politicians.

The United States envoy to the United Nations has spent her first year plus as UN Ambassador calling for war with Syria, based on unverified social media evidence provided by Al Qaeda’s PR arm, known as The White Helmets.

Haley has also conveniently covered up Saudi Arabia’s crimes against Yemen, Israel’s crimes against Palestinians, and Ukraine’s neo-nazi military build up against the Donbass.

The Duran has been documenting Haley’s disgusting and deliberate, Deep State misinformation campaign from the very beginning.

See here: US Ambassador to UN Nikki Haley says “Assad must go”, chances are Haley will go first

Here: Russia outsmarts Nikki Haley in UN Security Council debate

Here: Here’s why Nikki Haley’s Syrian threats should not be taken seriously

And here: Nikki Haley lays down foundation for war with Russia, says chemical weapons “could be used here in New York” (Video)

Haley has her eyes set on the US Presidency come 2024, which makes the results of this latest Quinnipiac University, CNN poll so encouraging for Haley, and so very frightening for the rest of the world.

Via Middle East Monitor

Haley is viewed positively by some 63 per cent of US voters, while only 39 per cent gave their approval of US President Donald Trump. Haley’s popularity also stretched to both sides of the political spectrum, with 75 per cent of Republicans, 55 per cent of Democrats and 63 per cent of Independents supporting the former South Carolina governor. She was only exceeded by former president Barack Obama, who was still held in high regard by some 66 per cent of voters.

The UN envoy has taken strong stands in favour of Israel, particularly in the aftermath of the US’ recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital in December. When the UN General Assembly voted to condemn the Trump administration’s decision, Haley slammed the global forum as ungrateful for US contributions to the organisation.

“No vote in the UN will make any difference to that [the decision]. But this vote will make a difference to how the Americans see the UN. This vote will be remembered,” she concluded, echoing her previous comments that the delegation would be taking names of those who voted against the recognition.

Last month, Haley gave another unrestrained speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference, where she again condemned the UN for its alleged anti-Israel bias.

“In the real world, Israel is a strong country with a strong military,” she said. “But at the UN, it’s a different story. Israel does get bullied there.”

Haley was met with thunderous applause as she argued that the UN had “long undermined peace by encouraging an illusion that Israel will simply go away.” But Israel, she stressed, “is not going away. When the world recognises that, then peace becomes possible.”

She also responded to the criticism that the US shows favouritism for Israel: “There’s nothing wrong with showing favouritism towards an ally, that’s what being an ally is all about.”

The UN envoy’s speech was noted as the most enthusiastically received by the thousands of attendees at the event, as she received multiple standing ovations during her speech and shouts of “we love you” from the crowd.

Haley has also taken a strong stance over the conflict in Syria, threatening to strike the Assad regime during the bombardment of Eastern Ghouta last month. The Russian delegation condemned her comments, stating that “such thunderous and irresponsible statements by the American envoy cause resentment and great anxiety.”

Thr Duran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbigljiGkMA

Incompetence
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

 Johan Galtung: US Empire Will Collapse and Become a Dictatorship


Falk & Tilley: Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Our Report on Apartheid in Israel

Falk & Tilley: Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Our Report on Apartheid in Israel

[PHOTO: Ambassador Nikki Haley speaking at AIPAC convention, March 27, 2017. When she was Governor of South Carolina, Haley had been the first to sign into law anti-BDS legislation. See excerpts from her AIPAC speech below*]

By Richard Falk and Virginia TilleyThe Nation:

 Dear Madam Ambassador:

 We were deeply disappointed by your response to our report, Israeli Practices Toward the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid, and particularly your dismissal of it as “anti-Israeli propaganda” within hours of its release. The UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA) invited us to undertake a fully researched scholarly study. Its principal purpose was to ascertain whether Israeli policies and practices imposed on the Palestinian people fall within the scope of the international-law definition of apartheid. We did our best to conduct the study with the care and rigor that is morally incumbent in such an important undertaking, and of course we welcome constructive criticism of the report’s method or analysis (which we also sought from several eminent scholars before its release). So far we have not received any information identifying the flaws you have found in the report or how it may have failed to comply with scholarly standards of rigor.

Instead, you have felt free to castigate the UN for commissioning the report and us for authoring it. You have launched defamatory attacks on all involved, designed to discredit and malign the messengers rather than clarify your criticisms of the message. Ad hominem attacks are usually the tactics of those so seized with political fervor as to abhor rational discussion. We suppose that you would not normally wish to give this impression of yourself and your staff, or to represent US diplomacy in such a light to the world. Yet your statements about our study, as reported in the media, certainly give this impression.

[The report is available here.]

We were especially troubled by the extraordinary pressure your office exerted on the UN secretary general, António Guterres, apparently inducing him first to order the report’s removal from the ESCWA website and then to accept the resignation of ESCWA’s distinguished and highly respected executive secretary, Rima Khalaf, which she submitted on principle rather than repudiate a report that she believed fulfilled scholarly standards, upheld the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, and produced findings and recommendations vital for UN proceedings.

Instead of using this global forum to call for the critical debate about the report, you used the weight of your office to quash it. These strident denunciations convey a strong appearance of upholding an uncritical posture by the US government toward Israel, automatically and unconditionally sheltering Israel’s government from any criticism at the UN, whether deserved or not, from the perspective of international law. Such a posture diminishes the US’s reputation as a nation that upholds the values of truth, freedom, law, and justice, and that serves the world community as a regional and global leader. It also shifts the conversation away from crucial substantive concerns.

You fail to consider that Israeli leaders have themselves warned of the apartheid features of their policies. It may have been that the word “apartheid” alone was enough to trigger your response, a reaction undoubtedly abetted by Israel’s instantaneous denunciation of our report. In following Israel’s public lead, however, you fail to consider that Israeli leaders have themselves grasped and warned of the apartheid features of their policies for decades. The widely admired Yitzhak Rabin, twice Israel’s prime minister, once confided to a TV journalist, “I don’t think it’s possible to contain over a long term, if we don’t want to get to apartheid, a million and a half [more] Arabs inside a Jewish state.” Prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak both warned publicly that Israel was at risk of becoming an apartheid state and cautioned their constituencies about what would happen to Israel if the Palestinians realized this and launched an anti-apartheid struggle. Former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair has stated flatly, “we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories.” These prominent Israelis were clear-headed observers of their own country’s policies as well as patriots, and it was their cautions, as much as any other source, that inspired ESCWA member states to consider that the possibility of an apartheid regime existing in this setting must be taken seriously and so commissioned the report now under attack.

It is therefore wholly inappropriate and wrong for you to charge that, simply by accepting this commission, we as authors were motivated by anti-Semitism. The reverse is true. To clarify this claim, we call your attention to two features of the report that we hope will lead you to reconsider your response.

It is wrong for you to charge that, simply by accepting this commission, we were motivated by anti-Semitism.

Firstly, the report carefully confines its working definition of apartheid to those provided in the 1973 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the International Crime of Apartheid and the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It does not rely on definitions developed in polemics about the conflict or taken casually from online sources. As the 1973 Convention and the Rome Statute are part of the same body of law that protects Jews, as well as all people in the world, from discrimination, this authoritative definition should not be set aside. Any responsible critique must therefore engage with these legal definitions, and the larger body of international human-rights jurisprudence in which they are situated, so as to address the report for what it actually says rather than concocting a straw man that can be easily dismissed. We hope you will reconsider the report in this light.

Secondly, the member states of ESCWA requested that a study be commissioned to examine whether Israel’s apartheid policies encompassed the Palestinian people as a whole. This meant that, as authors, we were asked to consider Palestinians living in four geographic regions within four legal categories or “domains”: those living in the occupied territories, those resident in Jerusalem, those living as citizens within Israel, and those living in refugee camps or involuntary exile. For each domain, we found that Israeli policies and practices are, by law, internally discriminatory. But more importantly, we found that all four operate as one comprehensive system that is designed to dominate and oppress Palestinians in order to preserve Israel as a Jewish state. It is this whole system of domination, too long misinterpreted by treating Palestinians as situated in unrelated categories, that generates the regime of domination that conforms to the definition of apartheid in international law. Moreover, it is this system that has undermined, and will continue to undermine, the two-state solution to which the United States has committed its diplomatic prestige over the course of several prior presidencies. Appraising the viability of this diplomatic posture in light of findings in this report would, we propose, be crucial for the credibility of US foreign policy and should not be blocked by political considerations.

We hoped our report would give rise to discussion of all these issues. Especially, we hope that its findings will inspire a review of this question by authoritative legal bodies such as the International Court of Justice. We did not seek a shouting match. We therefore now respectfully ask, against this background, that our report be read in the spirit in which it was written, aiming for the safety, security, and peace of everyone who lives in territory currently under Israel’s control. As the report’s authors, this was our moral framework all along, and we still retain the hope that the serious questions at stake will not be buried beneath an avalanche of diversionary abuse of our motives and character. Charges of crimes against humanity should not be swept to one side out of deference to political bonds that tie the United States and Israel closely together, or for reasons of political expediency. Such machinations can only weaken international law and endanger us all.

Sincerely,

Richard Falk,
Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University

Virginia Tilley,
Professor of Political Science, Southern Illinois University

*Excerpts from Haley’s speech March 27, 2017 at the AIPAC convention, as reported by the Times of Israel

“And this ridiculous report, the Falk report, came out. I don’t know who the guy is, or what he’s about, but he’s got serious problems,” said Haley, lightly horrified. “Goes and compares Israel to an apartheid state?”

“So for anyone that says you can’t get anything done at the UN, they need to know there’s a new sheriff in town.”

“The first thing we do is we call the secretary general, and say, ‘This [report] is absolutely ridiculous. You have to pull it.’ The secretary general immediately pulled the report, and then the director has now resigned.”

Related Articles:

THE INSIDE STORY ON OUR UN REPORT CALLING ISRAEL AN APARTHEID STATE – By Richard Falk

Golan Massacre: Austria probes whether its UN peacekeepers on purpose let Syrian police drive into Israeli ambush

Deadly trap: Austria probes whether its UN peacekeepers let Syrian police drive into ambush (VIDEO)

Deadly trap: Austria probes whether its UN peacekeepers let Syrian police drive into ambush (VIDEO)
Austria probes reports that its peacekeepers knowingly allowed Syrian police to enter a deadly trap in the Golan Heights in 2012. Austrian media was told by an ex-peacekeeper that troops in general had orders to not interfere.

The probe was opened after a video of the incident was published by the Austrian weekly Der Falter. The outlet says it received the video along with photos from “a whistleblower.” 

WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO

The footage is said to show Syrian smugglers setting up an ambush behind rocks. One hour later, officers from what is described by the outlet as Syrian “secret police” arrive and the UN peacekeepers have a chat with them.

A little while later, the Syrians are let through without being warned about the trap. One Austrian peacekeeper can even be heard telling the other: “You should really tell them.”

“Just wave while you still can,” one says. The incident then turns fatal, with nine policemen being shot and killed by the smugglers with no chance to escape on the open terrain.

“One has already fallen over,” one of the peacekeepers says. “Nobody survived that.”

Responding to that, one says he believes an officer is still alive. “Yes, but that one will not survive,” another says.

The Austrian Defense Ministry has launched an investigation into the matter, starting on Saturday. “As a first step all reports, orders, laws, and regulations that could be relevant for the inquiry are being collected, examined, and evaluated,” ministry spokesman Michael Bauer tweeted, adding that the UN is invited to work alongside Vienna.

A UN spokesperson called the video “disturbing,” saying that the organization will be following up on the incident and cooperating with Austrian authorities, the Austrian Press Agency reported. He also said the incident was reported to the UN Security Council and included in a UN report.

Meanwhile, an Austrian soldier who served as a UN peacekeeper in the Golan Heights told the Salzburger Nachrichten that the behavior seen in the video was “100 percent correct according to our mandate.”

“The order is: don’t get involved,” said the soldier, identified by the newspaper as Markus H.

The incident occurred at a time of increased instability along the armistice line in the Golan Heights, an area seized by Israel from Syria in 1967. It was largely quiet for decades until the Syrian civil war broke out in 2011. Austria withdrew its peacekeepers from the area in 2013, citing worsening security.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!



Lebanon army says Israel ‘abducted’ citizen on border

Image of Israeli soldiers on 31 May 2015 [Nedal Eshtayah/Apaimages]

Israeli soldiers wrestle down a Palestinian on 31 May 2015 [Nedal Eshtayah/Apaimages]
2
SHARES

Lebanon’s army said late on Saturday that an Israel border patrol had seized a Lebanese woman in the Shebaa area and taken her across the frontier.

“On April 28 at 8.30pm an Israeli enemy patrol carried out the abduction of Nohad Dali from the town of Shebaa and took her into occupied Palestinian territory,” said a Lebanese army command statement carried on Lebanon’s state news agency NNA.

Israel’s army confirmed on Sunday that it had ‘briefly’ held a Lebanese woman who crossed the border and then repatriated her, a detention Beirut denounced as an abduction.

Shebaa is a small disputed area that Israel regards as part of the Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria in 1967, but which Beirut says is Lebanese territory. The Israeli military said two shepherds had crossed the UN-demarcated border with Lebanon and that one of them was taken into custody by its troops.

“She was returned today,” a military spokesman said.

There was no immediate Lebanese confirmation of Dali’s repatriation.

A UN peacekeeping force is based on the Lebanon-Israel border. The last outright conflict there was a short war in 2006 between Israel and Lebanon’s heavily armed, Iranian-backed Hezbollah group.

Tensions between Israel and Hezbollah have heightened over the group’s role in the Syrian civil war, where it has gained more experience and an increased arsenal fighting alongside President Bashar al-Assad as part of an Iran-backed alliance.

Lebanon raised Dali’s case with the UN peacekeepers, the Lebanese army statement said.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

The United Nations Defends Saudi Arabian Head of Human Rights Panel, with Good Reason

I repeat: Someone from a country known for its human rights abuses would now head up a panel for the Human Rights Council.

Faisal bin Hassan Trad (left) and Michael Møller, the Acting Director-General of the United Nations Office (Pierre Albouy/Flickr)

The panel Trad would head up has a lot of power when it comes to choosing human rights appointees anywhere in the world where the UN has a mandate.

The outrage was quick and harsh. You can understand why. After all, we’re talking about a nation that has killed more than 100 people this year alone, most by beheading. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr is also set to be beheaded and crucified very soon.

The wife of Raif Badawi, who is currently awaiting his 1,000-lashes punishment for insulting Islam, even said that the appointment was “a green light to start flogging [him] again.”

But in the past couple of days, we’ve received more information on what the United Nations was thinking. First of all, the appointment was made back in June; it only caught the media’s eye this week. More importantly, the panel that Trad now heads up has five people and he has as much power as any of them. It’s not like he could single-handedly damage human rights around the world.

My friend Michael De Dora, who works for the Center for Inquiry and is their representative to the UN, explained to me that this group doesn’t have as much power as people think. They mostly look at applicants for independent experts in various areas, rank their top three with justification, and give their recommendations to the President of the HRC, who accepts or rejects the recommendation. The HRC then votes on the nominee.

If that’s confusing, De Dora looked at what this panel has done since being headed up by a Saudi and saw no reason to be worried:

I have looked through the nominated independent experts and see no evidence that they are weaker on human rights due to Saudi involvement in the Consultative Group. In fact, one of the most recent recommendations by the group, for the position of Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights, is the US-based academic Karima Bennoune. Take a look at her bio, or her most recent book, or her articles on Open Democracy, or this piece in the Guardian; she’s a fantastic nominee for the position.

Tonight, in a rare move, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement clarifying all the misinformation that’s out there:

Over the past few days, a highly distorted narrative has been spreading on the role of Saudi Arabia in the Consultative Group.

Clearly, it is patently untrue to suggest that any one ambassador has the authority to decide upon a candidate unilaterally. The Ambassador of Saudi Arabia was nominated by the Asian Group to serve on the Consultative Group from 1 January to 31 December this year, and assumed the chair on a rotating basis during part of this year. The chairmanship does not entail any powers over and above the four other members, who this year come from Lithuania, Greece, Chile and Algeria. The composition of this year’s Consultative Group was made public at the beginning of this year and the Group has already submitted all of its three reports for 2015. It is not expected to meet again until next year.

The appointment of mandate-holders is conducted in a transparent manner following well-established rules and procedures taking into account views from various actors including those from States and civil society. Any candidate not happy with the way the process was conducted may appeal to the President of the Human Rights Council.

In short, there’s nothing to be concerned about. Even if Trad represented everything we despise about Saudi Arabia, he’s has no ability to push those views on anyone else. What he does is transparent and his opinions could easily be overridden by other members of his panel.

It’s still disturbing that Saudi Arabia and the United Nations appear together in anycontext, but at least in this situation, there’s nothing to worry about.



…..it worked!

——————————————————-

America’s post-9/11 wars: Why is there no accurate account of the millions killed?

Iraq war child scream

© Chris Hondros/Getty Images
Samar Hassan screamed after her parents were killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq in 2005.

Part One: Iraq

The numbers of casualties of U.S. wars since Sept. 11, 2001 have largely gone uncounted, but coming to terms with the true scale of the crimes committed remains an urgent moral, political and legal imperative.

How many people have been killed in America’s post-9/11 wars? I have been researching and writing about that question since soon after the U.S. launched these wars, which it has tried to justify as a response to terrorist crimes that killed 2,996 people in the U.S. on September 11th 2001.

But no crime, however horrific, can justify wars on countries and people who were not responsible for the crime committed, as former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz patiently explained to NPR at the time.

“The Iraq Death Toll 15 Years After the U.S. Invasion” which I co-wrote with Medea Benjamin, estimates the death toll in Iraq as accurately and as honestly as we can in March 2018. Our estimate is that about 2.4 million people have probably been killed in Iraq as a result of the historic act of aggression committed by the U.S. and U.K. in 2003. In this report, I will explain in greater detail how we arrived at that estimate and provide some historical context. In Part 2 of this report, I will make a similar up-to-date estimate of how many people have been killed in America’s other post-9/11 wars.

Mortality Studies vs Passive Reporting

I explored these same questions in Chapter 7 of my book, Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq, and in previous articles, from “Burying the Lancet Report… and the Children” in 2005 to “Playing Games With War Deaths” in 2016.

In each of those accounts, I explained that estimates of war deaths regularly published by UN agencies, monitoring groups and the media are nearly all based on fragmentary “passive reporting,” not on comprehensive mortality studies.

Of the countries where the U.S. and its allies have been waging war since 2001, Iraq is the only country where epidemiologists have conducted mortality studies based on the best practices that they have developed and used in other war zones (like Angola, Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kosovo, Rwanda, Sudan and Uganda). In all these countries, as in Iraq, the results of comprehensive epidemiological studies revealed between 5 and 20 times more deaths than previously published figures based on passive reporting.

Body Count: Casualty Figures After 10 Years of the ‘War on Terror’, a report published by Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) in 2015 found that the 2006 Lancet study was the most comprehensive and reliable mortality study conducted in Iraq, based on its study design, the experience and independence of the research team, the short time elapsed since the deaths it documented and its consistency with other measures of violence in occupied Iraq. That study estimated that about 601,000 Iraqis were killed in the first 39 months of war and occupation in Iraq, while the war had also caused about 54,000 non-violent deaths. 

In the other countries affected by America’s post-9/11 wars, the only reports of how many people have been killed are either compiled by the UN based on investigations of incidents reported to local UN Assistance Missions (as in Iraq and Afghanistan), or by the UN or independent monitoring groups like the Syrian Observatory for Human RightsIraq Body Count (IBC) and Airwars based on passive reports from government agencies, health facilities or local or foreign media.

These passive reports are regularly cited by UN and government agencies, media and even by activists as “estimates” of how many people have been killed, but that is not what they are. By definition, no compilation of fragmentary reports can possibly be a realistic estimate of all the people killed in a country ravaged by war.

At best, passive reports can reveal a minimum number of war deaths. But that is often such a small fraction of actual deaths that it is highly misleading to cite it as an “estimate” of the total number of people killed. This is why epidemiologists have instead developed scientific sampling methods that they can use to produce accurate estimates of war deaths through statistically valid mortality studies.

The huge disparities epidemiologists have found between the results of mortality studies and passive reporting (between 5:1 and 20:1) have been consistent across many different war zones all over the world. In countries where Western governments are not responsible for the state of war, there has been no political controversy over these results, and they are regularly cited by Western officials and media.

But Western politicians and media have dismissed and marginalized the results of mortality studies in Iraq for political reasons. The U.S. and U.K.’s responsibility for the state of war in Iraq means that the scale of the slaughter is a serious matter of political and criminal responsibility for senior officials who chose to ignore legal advice that the invading Iraq would be “a crime of aggression”.

bush read my lips bombs Iraq

© Robbie Conal (robbieconal.com)
President George W. Bush

In 2006, British officials were advised by Sir Roy Anderson, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense, that “The (Lancet) study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to ‘best practice’ in this area…”

The BBC obtained copies of emails in which British officials admitted that the study was “likely to be right,” and “the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones.” But the same officials immediately launched a campaign to discredit the study. President George W. Bush publicly declared, “I don’t consider it a credible report,” and the subservient U.S. corporate media quickly dismissed it.

In “Playing Games With War Deaths” in 2016, I concluded, “As with climate change and other issues, UN officials and journalists must overcome political pressures, come to grips with the basic science involved, and stop sweeping the vast majority of the victims of our wars down this Orwellian “memory hole.”

Some have argued that it is not important to know whether our wars have killed tens of thousands of people or millions, since all deaths in war are a tragic loss of life and we should just mourn them, instead of quibbling over numbers. But as the authors of Body Count noted,

“The numbers relayed by the media should in themselves be terrifying enough… But apparently they are still perceived as tolerable and, moreover, easy to explain given the picture of excessive religiously motivated violence. The figure of 655,000 deaths in the first three war years alone, however, clearly points to a crime against humanity approaching genocide.”

I agree with the authors of Body Count that it makes a difference whether our wars kill millions of people or only ten thousand, as most people in the U.K. and the U.S. seem to believe according to opinion polls.

Most Americans would say that it matters whether Germany’s role in the Second World War led to millions of violent deaths or only ten thousand. Suggesting the latter is actually a crime in Germany and several other countries.

So American politicians, journalists and members of the public who say it doesn’t matter how many Iraqis have been killed are consciously or unconsciously applying a morally untenable double standard to the consequences of our country’s wars precisely because they are our country’s wars.

A War That Keeps Killing

While the 2006 Lancet study of post-invasion mortality in Iraq is recognized by independent experts like the authors of PSR’s Body Count report as the most accurate and reliable estimate of war deaths in any of our post-9/11 wars, it was conducted nearly 12 years ago, after only 39 months of war and occupation in Iraq. Tragically, that was nowhere near the end of the deadly and catastrophic results of the U.S. and U.K.”s historic act of aggression.

The 2006 Lancet study documented ever-increasing violence in occupied Iraq between 2003 and 2006, and many other metrics indicate that the escalation of violence in Iraq continued at least until the end of the U.S. “surge” in 2007. The tide of mutilated bodies of death squad victims overwhelming morgues in Baghdad did not peak until late 2006 with 1,800 bodies in July and 1,600 in October. Then there was a five-fold increasein the U.S. aerial bombardment of Iraq in 2007, and January 2008 was the heaviest month of U.S. bombing since the invasion in 2003.

This pattern gives credibility to a survey conducted by a respected British polling firm, Opinion Research Business (ORB), in June 2007, one year after the Lancet study, which estimated that 1,033,000 Iraqis had been killed by that time.

The Lancet study estimated that 328,000, or more than half of the violent deaths it counted, had occurred between May 2005 and May/June 2006. So, if the ORB’s estimate was accurate, it would mean that about another 430,000 Iraqis were killed in the year after the 2006 Lancet studywas conducted. 

While the figure of a million people killed was shocking, the continuing increase in deaths revealed by the ORB survey was consistent with other measures of the violence of the occupation, which continued to increase in late 2006 and 2007.

Violence in Iraq decreased in 2008 and for several years after that. But the Special Police death squads recruited, trained and unleashed in Iraq by the Iraqi Interior Ministry, U.S. occupation forces and the CIA between 2004 and 2006 (rebranded as National Police after the exposure of their Al-Jadiriyah torture center in 2005, then as Federal Police in 2009) continued their reign of terror against Sunni Arabs in the North and West of the country. This generated a resurgence of armed resistance and led to large swathes of Iraq accepting the rule of Islamic State in 2014 as an alternative to the relentless abuses of the corrupt, sectarian Iraqi government and its murderous death squads.

U.K.-based Iraq Body Count (IBC) has compiled passive reports of civilian deaths in Iraq since the invasion, but it had only counted 43,394 deaths by June 2006 when the Lancet study found an estimated 601,000 violent deaths, a ratio of almost 14:1. Just Foreign Policy (JFP) in the U.S. created an “Iraqi Death Estimator” that updated the Lancet study’s estimate by tracking deaths passively reported by Iraq Body Count and multiplying them by the ratio between the mortality study and IBC’s passive reporting in 2006.

Since IBC is based mainly on reports in English-language media, it may have undercounted deaths even more after 2007 as the the Western media’s interest in Iraq declined. On the other hand, as it became safer for government officials and journalists to travel around Iraq, its reporting may have improved. Or perhaps these and other factors balanced each other out, making JFP’s Iraqi Death Estimator quite accurate. It may have become less accurate over time, and it was discontinued in September 2011. By that point, its estimate of Iraqi deaths stood at 1.46 million.

Another mortality study was published in the PLOS medical journal in 2013, covering the period up to 2011. Its lead author told National Geographic its estimate of about 500,000 dead in Iraq was “likely a low estimate.” The study had a wider margin of error than the 2006 Lancetstudy, and the survey teams decided it was too dangerous to work in two of the 100 clusters that that were randomly chosen to survey.

The most serious problem with the PLOS study seems to be that so many houses were destroyed or abandoned and so many families wiped out or just disappeared, that nobody was left to report deaths in those families to the survey teams. At the extreme, houses or entire blocks where everyone had been killed or had fled were recorded as suffering no deaths at all.

After the extreme violence of 2006 and 2007 and several more years of lower level conflict, the effect of destruction and displacement on the PLOSstudy must have been much greater than in 2006. One in six households in Iraq was forced to move at least once between 2005 and 2010. The UNHCR registered 3 million refugees within or outside the country, but acknowledged that many more were unregistered. The authors added 55,000 deaths to their total to allow for 15% of 2 million refugee households losing one family member each, but they acknowledged that this was very conservative.

kurdish areas iraq

Map of Iraq. Kurdish territory is in the northeast.

The authors of Body Count calculated that, if only 1% of houses surveyed were empty or destroyed and each of these households had lost two family members, this would have increased the PLOS study’s overall mortality estimate by more than 50%. Ignoring the two clusters that in effect represented the most devastated parts of Iraq must have had a similar effect. The cluster sample survey method relies on the effect of surveying a cross-section of different areas, from the worst affected to many that are relatively unscathed and report few or no deaths. Most violent deaths are often concentrated in a small number of clusters, making clusters like the two that were skipped disproportionately important to the accuracy of the final estimate.

Since 2011, a whole new phase of the war has taken place. There was an Arab Spring in Iraq in 2011, but it was ruthlessly suppressed, driving Fallujah and other cities once more into open rebellion. Several major cities fell to Islamic State in 2014, were besieged by Iraqi government forces and then largely destroyed by U.S.-led aerial bombardment and U.S., Iraqi and allied rocket and artillery fire. Iraq Body Count and the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq have collected passive reports of tens of thousands of civilians killed in this phase of the war.

Former Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari told Patrick Cockburn of the U.K.’s Independent newspaper that Iraqi Kurdish intelligence reports estimated that at least 40,000 civilians were killed in the bombardment of Mosul alone. Zebari said that there were probably many more bodies buried in the rubble, implying that the reports he saw were of actual bodies found and buried up to that point.

A recent project to remove rubble and recover bodies in just one neighborhood of Mosul yielded another 3,353 bodies, of whom 20% appeared to be IS fighters and 80% were civilians. Another 11,000 people are still reported as missing by their families in Mosul.

IBC has now updated its death count for the period up to June 2006 to 52,209, reducing its ratio to violent deaths in the 2006 Lancet study to 11.5:1. If we apply the method of JFP’s Iraqi Death Estimator from July 2007 to the present using that updated ratio, and add it to ORB’s estimate of 1.03 million killed by June 2007, we can arrive at a current estimate of the total number of Iraqis killed since 2003. This cannot possibly be as accurate as a comprehensive new mortality study. But, in my judgment, this is the most accurate estimate we can make based on what we do know.

That gives us an estimate of 2.38 million Iraqis killed since 2003, as a result of the criminal American and British invasion of Iraq.

Minimum and Maximum Range

With significant uncertainty underlying this estimate, it is also important to calculate a minimum and a maximum number based on possible variations in the numbers involved.

To arrive at a minimum and maximum number of people that may have been killed in Iraq, we can start with the minimum and maximum numbers of violent deaths that were each established with 97.5% probability by the 2006 Lancet study, which were 426,000 and 794,000. ORB in 2007 gave a narrower range for its minimum and maximum based on its larger sample size, but ORB was not considered as rigorous as the Lancet study in other ways. If we apply the same margins as in the Lancet study to the ORB study‘s main estimate, that gives us a minimum of 730,000 and a maximum of 1.36 million people killed by June 2007.

To update those minimum and maximum figures to the present time using a variation of Just Foreign Policy‘s method, we must also allow for changes in the ratio between IBC’s tally of deaths and the actual number of people killed. The ratios of the Lancet study’s minimum and maximum figures to IBC’s revised count for June 2006 are about 8:1 and 15:1 respectively.

These ratios are well within the ratios between comprehensive mortality studies and passive reporting found in other war zones around the world, which have varied from 5:1 to 20:1, as I noted earlier. But maybe IBC has counted more or less of the actual deaths since 2006 than than it did before. It must surely have tried to keep improving the scope of its data collection. On the other hand, in the most recent phase of the war, many people were killed by U.S.-led bombing and shelling in areas ruled by Islamic State, where people were punished or even executed for trying to communicate with the outside world. So IBC’s data for this period may be more fragmentary than ever.

To arrive at a realistic minimum and maximum, we must allow for both these possibilities. IBC’s 8:1 ratio to the Lancet study’s minimum number killed by 2006 may have fallen closer to the historic minimum ratio of 5:1, or its 15:1 ratio to the Lancet study’s maximum number in 2006 may have risen closer to the historic maximum of 20:1. Using a ratio of 6.5:1 to arrive at the minimum number of deaths and 17.5:1 for the maximum allows for a lower minimum and a higher maximum than in 2006, without equaling the most extreme ratios ever seen in other conflicts. That gives us a minimum of 760,000 Iraqis killed since July 2007, and a maximum of 2.04 million.

Adding these figures to the minimums and maximums we calculated for the period up to June 2007 gives us total minimum and maximum figures for the entire period since the U.S.-U.K. invasion of Iraq in 2003. We can estimate that the number of Iraqis killed as a consequence of the illegal invasion of their country must be somewhere between 1.5 million and 3.4 million. As is generally the case with such statistical ranges, the actual number of people killed is likely to be closer to our main estimate of 2.38 million than to either the minimum or maximum end of this range.

Call for a New Mortality Study in Iraq

It is very important that the public health community provide the world with accurate and up-to-date mortality surveys of Iraq and other post-9/11 war zones.

A new mortality study for Iraq must find a way to survey even the most dangerous areas, and it must finally develop realistic procedures to estimate deaths in cases where entire families have been killed, or where houses or apartments have been destroyed or abandoned. This factor has been identified as a potential flaw in every mortality study in Iraq since 2004, and it is one that only becomes more significant as time passes. This cannot be ignored, and neither should compensating for it be left to guesswork.

Survey teams could compile records of empty and destroyed homes within the clusters they are surveying, and they could ask neighbors about empty or destroyed houses where large numbers of people or entire families may have been killed. They could also survey refugees and internally displaced people to estimate deaths among these populations.

Epidemiologists have overcome very serious dangers and difficulties to develop techniques to accurately measure the human cost of war. Their work must continue, and it must keep developing and improving. They must overcome powerful political pressures, including from the guilty parties responsible for the carnage in the first place, to politicize and discredit their incredibly difficult but noble and vital work.

On the 15th anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq, the Center for Constitutional Rights in the U.S. renewed its call for the U.S. to pay war reparations to the people of Iraq. This is one way countries that are guilty of aggression and other war crimes have traditionally fulfilled their collective responsibility for the death and destruction they have caused.

In Blood On Our Hands, I concluded my account of the U.S. war in Iraq with a similar call for war reparations, and for war crimes prosecutions of the senior U.S. and U.K. civilian and military officials responsible for the “supreme international crime” of aggression and other systematic war crimes in Iraq.

Coming to terms with the true scale of the crimes committed remains an urgent moral, political and legal imperative for the people of Iraq, the United States, the United Kingdom, and for the whole world. The world will never hold major American and British war criminals accountable for their crimes as long as the public does not understand the full scale and horror of what they have done. And the world will not know peace as long as the most powerful aggressors can count on impunity for “the supreme international crime.”

Part 2: Afghanistan and Pakistan

The numbers of casualties of U.S. wars since Sept. 11, 2001 have largely gone uncounted, but coming to terms with the true scale of the crimes committed remains an urgent moral, political and legal imperative.

marines afghanistan

© U.S. Marine Corps photo by Staff Sgt. Robert Storm
U.S. Marines patrol street in Shah Karez in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, on Feb. 10.

In the first part of this series, I estimated that about 2.4 million Iraqis have been killed as a result of the illegal invasion of their country by the United States and the United Kingdom in 2003. I turn now to Afghan and Pakistani deaths in the ongoing 2001 U.S. intervention in Afghanistan. In part three, I will examine U.S.-caused war deaths in Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. According to Ret. U.S. General Tommy Franks, who led the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan in reaction to 9/11, the U.S. government does not keep track of civilian casualties that it causes. “You know, we don’t do body counts,” Franks once said. Whether that’s true or a count is covered up is difficult to know.

As I explained in part one, the U.S. has attempted to justify its invasions of Afghanistan and several other countries as a legitimate response to the terrorist crimes of 9/11. But the U.S. was not attacked by another country on that day, and no crime, however horrific, can justify 16 years of war – and counting – against a series of countries that did not attack the U.S.

As former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz told NPR a week after the terrorist attacks, they were crimes against humanity, but not “war crimes,” because the U.S. was not at war. “It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for the wrong done.” Ferencz explained. “We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and punishing others. If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don’t believe in what has happened, who don’t approve of what has happened.”

As Ferencz predicted, we have killed “many people” who had nothing to do with the crimes of September 11. How many people? That is the subject of this report.

Afghanistan

In 2011, award-winning investigative journalist Gareth Porter was researching night raids by U.S. special operations forces in Afghanistan for his article, “How McChrystal and Petraeus Built an Indiscriminate Killing Machine.” The expansion of night raids from 2009 to 2011 was a central element in Barack Obama’s escalation of the U.S. War in Afghanistan. Porter documented a gradual 50-fold ramping up from 20 raids per month in May 2009 to over 1,000 raids per month by April 2011.

But strangely, the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported a decrease in the numbers of civilians killed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2010, including a decrease in the numbers of civilians killed in night raids from 135 in 2009 to only 80 in 2010.

UNAMA’s reports of civilian deaths are based on investigations by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), so Noori Shah Noori, an Afghan journalist working with Porter on the article, interviewed Nader Nadery, a Commissioner of the AIHRC, to find out what was going on.

Nadery explained to Noori,

“…that that figure represented only the number of civilian deaths from 13 incidents that had been fully investigated. It excluded the deaths from 60 other incidents in which complaints had been received, but had not yet been thoroughly investigated.”

“Nadery has since estimated that the total civilian deaths for all 73 night raids about which it had complaints was 420,” Porter continued. “But the AIHRC admits that it does not have access to most of the districts dominated by the Taliban and that people in those districts are not aware of the possibility of complaining to the Commission about night raids. So, neither the AIHRC nor the United Nations learns about a significant proportion – and very likely the majority – of night raids that end in civilian deaths.”

UNAMA has since updated its count of civilians killed in U.S. night raids in 2010 from 80 to 103, still nowhere close to Nadery’s estimate of 420. But as Nadery explained, even that estimate must have been a small fraction of the number of civilian deaths in about 5,000 night raids that year, most of which were probably conducted in areas where people have no contact with UNAMA or the AIHRC.

As senior U.S. military officers admitted to Dana Priest and William Arkin of The Washington Postmore than half the raids conducted by U.S. special operations forces target the wrong person or house, so a large increase in civilian deaths was a predictable and expected result of such a massive expansion of these deadly “kill or capture” raids.

The massive escalation of U.S. night raids in 2010 probably made it an exceptional year, so it is unlikely that UNAMA’s reports regularly exclude as many uninvestigated reports of civilian deaths as in 2010. But on the other hand, UNAMA’s annual reports never mention that their figures for civilian deaths are based only on investigations completed by the AIHRC, so it is unclear how unusual it was to omit 82 percent of reported incidents of civilian deaths in U.S. night raids from that year’s report.

We can only guess how many reported incidents have been omitted from UNAMA’s other annual reports since 2007, and, in any case, that would still tell us nothing about civilians killed in areas that have no contact with UNAMA or the AIHRC.

In fact, for the AIHRC, counting the dead is only a by-product of its main function, which is to investigate reports of human rights violations in Afghanistan. But Porter and Noori’s research revealed that UNAMA’s reliance on investigations completed by the AIHRC as the basis for definitive statements about the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan in its reports has the effect of sweeping an unknown number of incomplete investigations and unreported civilian deaths down a kind of “memory hole,” writing them out of virtually all published accounts of the human cost of the war in Afghanistan.

UNAMA’s annual reports even include colorful pie-charts to bolster the false impression that these are realistic estimates of the number of civilians killed in a given year, and that pro-government forces and foreign occupation forces are only responsible for a small portion of them.

UNAMA’s systematic undercounts and meaningless pie-charts become the basis for headlines and news stories all over the world. But they are all based on numbers that UNAMA and the AIHRC know very well to be a small fraction of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. It is only a rare story like Porter’s in 2011 that gives any hint of this shocking reality.

In fact, UNAMA’s reports reflect only how many deaths the AIHRC staff have investigated in a given year, and may bear little or no relation to how many people have actually been killed. Seen in this light, the relatively small fluctuations in UNAMA’s reports of civilian deaths from year to year in Afghanistan seem just as likely to represent fluctuations in resources and staffing at the AIHRC as actual increases or decreases in the numbers of people killed.

If only one thing is clear about UNAMA’s reports of civilian deaths, it is that nobody should ever cite them as estimates of total numbers of civilians killed in Afghanistan – least of all UN and government officials and mainstream journalists who, knowingly or not, mislead millions of people when they repeat them.

Estimating Afghan Deaths Through the Fog of Official Deception

So the most widely cited figures for civilian deaths in Afghanistan are based, not just on “passive reporting,” but on misleading reports that knowingly ignore many or most of the deaths reported by bereaved families and local officials, while many or most civilian deaths are never reported to UNAMA or the AIHCR in the first place. So how can we come up with an intelligent or remotely accurate estimate of how many civilians have really been killed in Afghanistan?

Body Count: Casualty Figures After 10 Years of the “War On Terror”, published in 2015 by Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), a co-winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, estimated deaths of combatants and civilians in Afghanistan based on UNAMA’s reports and other sources. Body Count‘s figures for numbers of Afghan combatants killed seem more reliable than UNAMA’s undercounts of civilian deaths.

The Afghan government reported that 15,000 of its soldiers and police were killed through 2013. The authors of Body Count took estimates of Taliban and other anti-government forces killed in 2001, 2007 and 2010 from other sources and extrapolated to years for which no estimates were available, based on other measures of the intensity of the conflict (numbers of air strikes, night raids etc,). They estimated that 55,000 “insurgents” were killed by the end of 2013.

In Afghanistan, U.S. Army Pfc. Sean Serritelli provides security outside Combat Outpost Charkh on Aug. 23, 2012. (Photo credit: Spc. Alexandra Campo)

The years since 2013 have been increasingly violent for the people of Afghanistan. With reductions in U.S. and NATO occupation forces, Afghan pro-government forces now bear the brunt of combat against their fiercely independent countrymen, and another 25,000 soldiers and police have been killed since 2013, according to my own calculations from news reports and this study by the Watson Institute at Brown University.

If the same number of anti-government fighters have been killed, that would mean that at least 120,000 Afghan combatants have been killed since 2001. But, since pro-government forces are armed with heavier weapons and are still backed by U.S. air support, anti-government losses are likely to be greater than those of government troops. So a more realistic estimate would be that between 130,000 and 150,000 Afghan combatants have been killed.

The more difficult task is to estimate how many civilians have been killed in Afghanistan through the fog of UNAMA’s misinformation. UNAMA’s passive reporting has been deeply flawed, based on completed investigations of as few as 18 percent of reported incidents, as in the case of night raid deaths in 2010, with no reports at all from large parts of the country where the Taliban are most active and most U.S. air strikes and night raids take place. The Taliban appear to have never published any numbers of civilian deaths in areas under its control, but it has challenged UNAMA’s figures.

There has been no attempt to conduct a serious mortality study in Afghanistan like the 2006 Lancet study in Iraq. The world owes the people of Afghanistan that kind of serious accounting for the human cost of the war it has allowed to engulf them. But it seems unlikely that that will happen before the world fulfills the more urgent task of ending the now 16-year-old war.

Body Count took estimates by Neta Crawford and the Costs of War project at Boston University for 2001-6, plus the UN’s flawed count since 2007, and multiplied them by a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 8, to produce a range of 106,000 to 170,000 civilians killed from 2001 to 2013. The authors seem to have been unaware of the flaws in UNAMA’s reports revealed to Porter and Noori by Nadery in 2011.

But Body Count did acknowledge the very conservative nature of its estimate, noting that, “compared to Iraq, where urbanization is more pronounced, and monitoring by local and foreign press is more pronounced than in Afghanistan, the registration of civilian deaths has been much more fragmentary.”

In my 2016 article, “Playing Games With War Deaths,” I suggested that the ratio of passive reporting to actual civilian deaths in Afghanistan was therefore more likely to fall between the ratios found in Iraq in 2006 (12:1) and Guatemala at the end of its Civil War in 1996 (20:1).

Mortality in Guatemala and Afghanistan

In fact, the geographical and military situation in Afghanistan is more analogous to Guatemala, with many years of war in remote, mountainous areas against an indigenous civilian population who have taken up arms against a corrupt, foreign-backed central government.

The Guatemalan Civil War lasted from 1960 to 1996. The deadliest phase of the war was unleashed when the Reagan administration restored U.S. military aid to Guatemala in 1981,after a meeting between former Deputy CIA Director Vernon Walters and President Romeo Lucas García, in Guatemala.

U.S. military adviser Lieutenant Colonel George Maynes and President Lucas’s brother, General Benedicto Lucas, planned a campaign called Operation Ash, in which 15,000 Guatemalan troops swept through the Ixil region massacring indigenous communities and burning hundreds of villages.

Montt reagan

President Ronald Reagan meeting with Guatemalan dictator Efrain Rios Montt.

CIA documents that Robert Parry unearthed at the Reagan library and in other U.S. archives specifically defined the targets of this campaign to include “the civilian support mechanism” of the guerrillas, in effect the entire rural indigenous population. A CIA report from February 1982 described how this worked in practice in Ixil:

“The commanding officers of the units involved have been instructed to destroy all towns and villages which are cooperating with the Guerrilla Army of the Poor [the EGP] and eliminate all sources of resistance,” the report said. “Since the operation began, several villages have been burned to the ground, and a large number of guerrillas and collaborators have been killed.”

Guatemalan President Rios Montt, who died on Sunday, seized power in a coup in 1983 and continued the campaign in Ixil. He was prosecuted for genocide, but neither Walters, Mayne nor any other American official have been charged for helping to plan and support the mass killings in Guatemala.

At the time, many villages in Ixil were not even marked on official maps and there were no paved roads in this remote region (there are still very few today). As in Afghanistan, the outside world had no idea of the scale and brutality of the killing and destruction.

One of the demands of the Guerrilla Army of the Poor (EGP), the Revolutionary Organization of Armed People (ORPA) and other revolutionary groups in the negotiations that led to the 1996 peace agreement in Guatemala was for a genuine accounting of the reality of the war, including how many people were killed and who killed them.

The UN-sponsored Historical Clarification Commission documented 626 massacres, and found that about 200,000 people had been killed in Guatemala’s civil war. At least 93 percent were killed by U.S.-backed military forces and death squads and only 3 percent by the guerrillas, with 4 percent unknown. The total number of people killed was 20 times previous estimates based on passive reporting.

Mortality studies in other countries (like Angola, Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Kosovo, Rwanda, Sudan and Uganda) have never found a larger discrepancy between passive reporting and mortality studies than in Guatemala.

Based on the discrepancy between passive reporting in Guatemala and what the U.N. ultimately found there, UNAMA appears to have reported less than 5 percent of actual civilian deaths in Afghanistan, which would be unprecedented.

Costs of War and UNAMA have counted 36,754 civilian deaths up to the end of 2017. If these (extremely) passive reports represent 5 percent of total civilian deaths, as in Guatemala, the actual death toll would be about 735,000. If UNAMA has in fact eclipsed Guatemala’s previously unsurpassed record of undercounting civilian deaths and only counted 3 or 4 percent of actual deaths, then the real total could be as high as 1.23 million. If the ratio were only the same as originally found in Iraq in 2006 (14:1 – before Iraq Body Count revised its figures), it would be only 515,000.

Adding these figures to my estimate of Afghan combatants killed on both sides, we can make a rough estimate that about 875,000 Afghans have been killed since 2001, with a minimum of 640,000 and a maximum of 1.4 million.

Pakistan

The U.S. expanded its war in Afghanistan into Pakistan in 2004. The CIA began launching drone strikes, and the Pakistani military, under U.S. pressure, launched a military campaign against militants in South Waziristan suspected of links to Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban. Since then, the U.S. has conducted at least 430 drone strikes in Pakistan, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and the Pakistani military has conducted several operations in areas bordering Afghanistan.

pakistan map

© Wikipedia
Map of Pakistan and Afghanistan

The beautiful Swat valley(once called “the Switzerland of the East” by the visiting Queen Elizabeth of the U.K.) and three neighboring districts were taken over by the Pakistani Taliban between 2007 and 2009. They were retaken by the Pakistani Army in 2009 in a devastating military campaignthat left 3.4 million people as refugees.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that 2,515 to 4,026 people have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, but that is a small fraction of total war deaths in Pakistan. Crawford and the Costs of War program at Boston University estimated the number of Pakistanis killed at about 61,300 through August 2016, based mainly on reports by the Pakistani Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS) in Islamabad and the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) in New Delhi. That included 8,200 soldiers and police, 31,000 rebel fighters and 22,100 civilians.

Costs of War’s estimate for rebel fighters killed was an average of 29,000 reported by PIPS and 33,000 reported by SATP, which SATP has since updated to 33,950. SATP has updated its count of civilian deaths to 22,230.

If we accept the higher of these passively reported figures for the numbers of combatants killed on both sides and use historically typical 5:1 to 20:1 ratios to passive reports to generate a minimum and maximum number of civilian deaths, that would mean that between 150,000 and 500,000 Pakistanis have been killed.

A reasonable mid-point estimate would be that about 325,000 people have been killed in Pakistan as a result of the U.S. War in Afghanistan spilling across its borders.

Combining my estimates for Afghanistan and Pakistan, I estimate that about 1.2 million Afghans and Pakistanis have been killed as a result of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

Nicolas J.S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. He also wrote the chapter on “Obama at War” in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
————————————————————–

Fallujah Iraq – US used depleted Uranium and white phosphorus

Unexploded IEDs & white phosphorus: 15 years after US troops came, war still everywhere in Fallujah

Unexploded IEDs & white phosphorus: 15 years after US troops came, war still everywhere in Fallujah
Ruptly traveled to Fallujah, a city that has become synonymous with every upheaval that has struck Iraq since 2003, to find a populace psychologically and physically scarred by the fallout from the ill-judged Western intervention.

Spared during the initial offensive that toppled Saddam Hussein, the city, 65 kilometers west of Baghdad, became the focal point of the subsequent anti-American insurgency, and was bombarded and captured in the bloodiest battles for US troops since Vietnam. It later became a hothouse of radical Islamism, and was one of the first major cities captured by Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) in January 2014. It was won back by the Iraqi Army two years later in yet another devastating assault on a city that was once home to 300,000 but now houses about half that number.

“The real Fallujah was taken from its people, it was taken many times. It was given a bad name in the media. It was presented as a place that was creating terrorism, and even exporting terrorism,” Sheikh Mohamed Nouri, a leading local cleric from the Rabat al-Mohammadi council, told Ruptly, RT’s sister video news agency.

READ MORE: Igniting Fallujah: US killings of protesters in 2003 that signaled start of insurgency

“But the real Fallujah is not like that, the real Fallujah is known through its libraries, it is known through the generosity of its people, their kindness, and their good roots. Fallujah in its truth loves peace, it doesn’t love war.”

But the thought of peace seems utopian in a city where major infrastructure, including the main hospital, remains in ruins, and where every incoming vehicle has to crawl through military checkpoints even for the most routine delivery.

While the central government has nominally taken control and restored order, carcasses of houses still conceal un-erased Islamic State slogans, human remains, and most dangerously, unexploded IEDs planted by militants who themselves died years ago.

“We came back from the camp to Fallujah, they told us that Fallujah and its suburbs are all clean from IEDs [Improvised explosive devices]. We came back on the road and came back to clean. As we were cleaning the house, an IED went off and killed my sister and my sister-in-law,” Faisal Ibrahim, a local resident, tells the crew.

“The area is destroyed, it is not a place anyone would want to come back to, and we are the only ones with this house. We haven’t see anyone in charge pass by here and ask about us or offer condolences… Soldiers come here, explode two, three bombs and they leave.”

Many of the victims are too young to even remember most of the fighting where they now live, but are not free from its impact.

Locals believe that the skyrocketing rate of birth deformities is connected to the contentious use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium shells by American troops, though the Pentagon continues to deny a direct link.

One child born in the aftermath of the invasion is seven-year-old Fatima Shehab, after her mother had several miscarriages. She has severe limb deformities, including fingerless, stump-like arms that make her fully reliant on her relatives.

“I have made a study based on a sample. We analyzed them in certified German labs, which are unbiased and have nothing to do with any political party. They found uranium, mercury and other pollutants,” says Dr. Samira al-Ani, the head of the specially-assembled local Council of Birth Defects.

There is some solace for Fatima, that in a city where many suffered pain, loss, or disfigurement, others understand her, and the straight-A student meets understanding from her teachers, who give her a chance to dream.

“My wish is to do well enough in my studies to become a doctor, so I can fix my hands,” she says.

Residents of Fallujah recounted the consequences that the US invasion and the subsequent emergence of Islamic groups have brought upon the city, including a spike in birth defects, regular deadly mine explosions, as well as entrenched checkpoints. April 28 marks the 15th anniversary of what has become known as the Fallujah killings. On the same day in 2003, at least 20 civilians were killed when US soldiers opened fire during a protest march that civilians went ahead with despite a curfew imposed by the US military. The event marked a turning point in the history of the city, located 65 kilometers west of Baghdad. In the following months, Fallujah saw two massive US-led operations against insurgents. In the aftermath of the war, the city saw a significant rise in cases of cancer and birth defects. Research, including the epidemiological study ‘Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005 – 2009’ by Busby, Hamdan and Ariabi, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, has linked this increase to the bombardments during which chemical weapons could have been used. The Second Battle of Fallujah, code named ‘Operation Phantom Fury’ was launched by the US and its allies in November 2004. Later, US forces admitted that they used white phosphorus during the operation, but US Central Command (CENTCOM) has denied using depleted uranium munitions in the same operation.

In 2014, US organisations Center for Constitutional Rights and Iraq Veterans Against the War, which counts veterans who fought in Fallujah among its members, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Defence. The purpose was to get more information about the use of depleted uranium in Iraq to better assess possible consequences for their own health as well as that of Iraqi civilians. Seven-year-old Fatima Shehab was born with her hands and feet severely deformed. “At first I had a few miscarriages, then I had Fatima,” said the girl’s mother. “When she was born we found that she had defects in her extremities, in the hands and feet. The doctors discovered that it was a result of the phosphorus which was used by the Americans,” she explained. Dr. Samira al-Ani, a pediatrician who heads the local council studying birth defects following the battles of Fallujah, explained that certified German labs “found uranium, mercury and other pollutants” in analysed samples. Following the 2011 withdrawal of the last US troops from Iraq, the insurgency intensified and Fallujah became the first city to fall to the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and affiliated groups. A full-blown civil war ensued.

It wasn’t until June 2016 that Fallujah was finally recaptured by the Iraqi Army. Almost two years later, Iraqi soldiers still control traffic into and out of Fallujah through the al-Suqoor checkpoint. Residents including local merchants express frustration at the delays caused by the strict controls which are still in place. Security forces “go into the trucks, turn all the boxes over, they walk all over the fruit,” said fruit seller Abu Seif. “It’s easier to come through with drugs.” Checkpoints leading to delays and financial losses are not the only daily reminder of the bloody battles which scarred Fallujah. The city has still not been fully cleared of the mines and explosives that IS planted at the height of its battles with the Iraqi security forces and there are often reports of injuries or even deaths. “We came back from the [IDP] camp to Fallujah, they told us that Fallujah and its suburbs are all clean from IEDs, we came back on the road, and came back to clean. As we were cleaning the house an IED went of and killed my sister and my sister-in-law,” said Fallujah resident Fouad Khalaf.

Others complain that authorities do not pay enough attention to the issue. As Fallujah residents struggle to rebuild their lives after 15 years of bloodshed, a council of Imams called Ribat al-Mohammadi, are doing their part to bridge the sectarian divide and bring society back together. Ribat al-Mohammadi started their work in 2007, spreading the message of moderate Islam. Under IS, their mosques were attacked and the scholars had to leave Fallujah for Haditha, where they took up weapons and then fought against IS militants under the umbrella of the Popular Mobilisation Forces.


Related image

Depleted Uranium use

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-