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.