Terrorism: How the israeli State Was Won

Terrorism: How the Israeli State Was Won


On December 14, Tom Suárez spoke at The House of Lords, London, at the invitation of Baroness Jenny Tonge. Drawing from his recently published book State of Terror, he addressed the centennial of the Balfour Declaration and his views on the way toward ending today’s Israel-Palestine “conflict”. The following are Suárez’s remarks. The book was reviewed here by David Gerald Fincham.

Good evening, thank you so much for taking time out of what I know are your busy schedules to be here now. My thanks to Jenny Tonge for making this meeting possible; and I would like to thank three people without whom the book would not exist: Karl Sabbagh, my publisher; Ghada Karmi, who inspired the book; and my partner, Nancy Elan, who was my constant alter-ego during my research and without whom I surely would have given up.

My work is based principally on declassified source documents in the National Archives in Kew. When I have had to rely on published works, I have trusted established historians who cite first-hand sources. Everything I will say here tonight is based on such source material.

Our topic is of course the so-called “conflict” in Israel-Palestine, a tragedy that has dragged on for so long that it feels static, indeed almost normalised. But unlike other deadly conflicts, this one is wholly in our power to stop—“our” meaning the United States and Europe. It is in our power to stop it, because we are the ones empowering it.

We are now approaching the centennial of the British Original Sin in this tragedy, the Balfour Declaration. The British role in Palestine was a case of ‘hit & run’: The Balfour Declaration, in which the British gave away other people’s land, was the hit; and thirty years later, Resolution 181—Partition—was the run, leaving the Palestinians abandoned in a ditch.

Zionism was of course among the incarnations of racial-nationalism that evolved in the late nineteenth century. Bigots were Zionism’s avid fans—it was the anti-Semites who championed the Zionists. Gertrude Bell, the famous English writer, traveler, archaeologist, and spy, reported, based on her personal experience, that those who supported Zionism did so because it provided a way to get rid of Jews.

The London Standard’s correspondent to the first Zionist Conference in 1897 I think described Zionism perfectly. He reported that

…the degeneration which calls itself Anti-Semitism [bear in mind that ‘anti-Semitism’ was then a very new term] has begotten the degeneration which adorns itself with the name of Zionism.

Indeed, most Jews and Jewish leaders dismissed Zionism as the latest anti-Semitic cult. They had fought for equality, and resented being told that they should now make a new ghetto—and worse yet, to do so on other people’s land. They resented being cast as a separate race of people as Zionism demanded.

They had had quite enough of that from non-Jewish bigots.

For others, the idea of going to a place where one could act out racial superiority was seductive. As the political theorist Eduard Bernstein put it at about the time the Balfour Declaration was being finessed, Zionism is “a kind of intoxication which acts like an epidemic”.

An Israeli soldier clears out of the way as a specially-built IDF vehicle begins to douse Bethlehem in “skunk spray”, chemical warfare intended to make life miserable for the civilian population. Photo: T Suárez

An Israeli soldier clears out of the way as a specially-built IDF vehicle begins to douse Bethlehem in “skunk spray”, chemical warfare intended to make life miserable for the civilian population. Photo: T Suárez

By the time the Balfour Declaration was finalised, thirty-plus years of Zionist settlement had made clear that the Zionists intended to ethnically cleanse the land for a settler state based on racial superiority; and it was the behind-the-scenes demands of the principal Zionist leaders, notably Chaim Weizmann and Baron Rothschild.

First-hand accounts of Zionist settlement in Palestine had already painted a picture of violent racial displacement. I will cite one of the lesser known reports, by Dr. Paul Nathan, a prominent Jewish leader in Berlin, who went to Palestine on behalf of the German Jewish National Relief Association. He was so horrified by what he found that he published a pamphlet in January, 1914, in which he described the Zionist settlers as carrying on

a campaign of terror modelled almost on Russian pogrom models.

A few years later, the Balfour Declaration’s deliberately ambiguous wording was being finalized. Sceptics—and the British Cabinet—were assured that it did not mean a Zionist state. Yet simultaneously, Weizmann was pushing to create that very state immediately. He demanded that his state extend all the way to the Jordan River within three or four years of the Declaration—that is, by 1921—and then expand beyond it.

In their behind-the-scenes meetings, Weizmann and Rothschild treated the ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Palestinians as indispensable to their plans, and they repeatedly complained to the British that the settlers were not being treated preferentially enough over the Palestinians. And they insisted that the British must lie about the scheme until it is too late for anyone to do anything about it.

In correspondence with Balfour, Weizmann justified his lies by slandering the Palestinians and Jews—that is, the Middle East’s indigenous Jews, who were overwhelmingly opposed to Zionism and whom Weizmann smeared with classic anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Palestinians he dismissed as, in so many words, a lower type of human, and this was among the reasons he and other Zionist leaders used for refusing democracy in Palestine—if the “Arabs” had the vote, he said, it would lower the Jew down to the level of a “native”.

With the establishment of the British Mandate, four decades of peaceful Palestinian resistance had proved futile, and armed Palestinian resistance—which included terrorism—began. Zionist terror became the domain of formal organizations that attacked anyone in the way of its messianic goals—Palestinian, Jew, or British. These terror organizations operated from within the Zionist settlements and were actively empowered and shielded by the settlements and the Jewish Agency, the recognized semi-autonomous government of the Zionist settlements, what would become the Israeli government.

TomSuarezIsrael There was no substantive difference between the acknowledged terror organizations—most famously, the Irgun, and Lehi, the so-called Stern Gang—and the Jewish Agency, and its terror gang, the Hagana. The Agency cooperated, collaborated, and even helped finance the Irgun.

The relationship between the Jewish Agency, and the Irgun and Lehi, was symbiotic. The Irgun in particular would act on behalf of the Hagana so that the Jewish Agency could feign innocence. The Agency would then tell the British that they condemn the terror, while steadfastly refusing any cooperation against it, indeed doing what they could to shield it.

The fascist nature of the Zionist enterprise was apparent both to US and British intelligence. The Jewish Agency tolerated no dissent and sought to dictate the fates of all Jews. Children were radicalised as part of the methodology of all three major organizations, and by extension, the Jewish Agency.

Britain’s wake-up call regarding the Zionists’ indoctrination of children came on the 8th of July, 1938. That day, the Irgun blew up a bus filled with Palestinian villagers. Now, this was not the first time the Irgun had done something of this sort, but this time the British caught the bomber. She was a twelve year old schoolgirl.

Teenagers, both boys and girls, were commonly used to plant bombs in Palestinian markets and conduct other terror attacks. Teachers were threatened or removed if they tried to intervene in the indoctrination of their students, and the students themselves were blocked from advancement if they resisted, even being taught to betray their own parents if those parents tried to instill some moderation. Jews who opposed and tried to warn of the emerging fascism were assassinated, and indeed most victims of Zionist assassinations—that is, targeted, rather than indiscriminate—were Jews.

From the beginning of World War II through to the summer of 1947, there were virtually no Palestinian attacks, even though Zionist terror against Palestinians continued. A British explanation for the Palestinians’ failure to respond in kind was that they understood that the attacks were a trap, intended to elicit a response that the Zionists would frame as an attack against which they would have to ‘defend’ themselves. This was a Zionist tactic noted by the British as early as 1918, and it remains Israel’s default strategy today, most blatantly in Gaza, but also in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As late as the fall of 1947, the Jewish Agency was concerned by the Palestinians’ failure to respond to its provocation, but when the end of 1947 came and the Jewish Agency could wait no longer for the civil war it needed, it was simply a matter of ratcheting up the terror.

Throughout the Mandate period, the takeover and ethnic cleansing of Palestine remained Zionism’s unwavering goal. As but one illustration, I will summarize a key meeting of twenty people held in London on the 9th of September, 1941.

“To be treated as most secret” is the red ink heading of the transcript. Present were Weizmann, who had called the meeting, David Ben-Gurion, and other Zionist leaders such as Simon Marks (of Marks & Spencer); and the prominent non-Zionist industrialist, Robert Waley Cohen. Discussing the path to the proposed Jewish State, the conversation ran along the lines of George Orwell’s still-to-be-published Animal Farm, in which all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Anthony de Rothschild began by stressing that there would be no “discrimination … against any group of its citizens” in the Jewish state, not even “to meet immediate needs”. Weizmann and Ben-Gurion also assured the sceptics: “Arabs”—Palestinians—would have equal rights. However, they clarified that within that absolute equality, Jewish settlers would have to have special privileges. Weizmann’s ‘absolute equality’ included the transfer of most non-Jews out of Palestine while permitting “a certain percentage of Arab and other elements” to remain in his Jewish state, the insinuation being as a pool of cheap labour.

Anthony de Rothschild’s vision of equality and non-discrimination was equally compelling: it “depended on turning an Arab majority into a minority”, and to achieve this, there would be “no equal rights” for non-Jews.

Cohen found the scheme dangerous, submitting that the Zionists were “starting with the kind of aims with which Hitler had started”. Cohen did not stop there: he suggested that if a state with equality for everyone were indeed intended, the state should be named with a neutral geographic term. He suggested … ‘Palestine’. The others were horrified at this idea, arguing that if the state had a non-Jewish name, “they would never get a Jewish majority”, in effect acknowledging the use of messianic fundamentalism as a calculated political strategy.

In another obvious but rarely spoken admission, Ben-Gurion clarified that the ‘Jewish state’ was not based on Judaism; it was, rather, based on being a ‘Jew’, that is, by the Zionists’ racial definition.

Asked about borders of his settler state, Weizmann continued in the same surreal manner. He replied that he would consider the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission four years earlier, in 1937, but that “the line” (the Partition) “would be the Jordan”. This was nonsensical: the Jordan was the Commission’s eastern border for the two states, and so Weizmann’s ‘partition’ meant 100% for his state, 0% for the Palestinians. He went further still: he would “very much” like to “cross the Jordan”, that is, take Transjordan along with Palestine.

At the end of the meeting Weizmann sought to put his proposals into effect officially in the name of all Jews worldwide. Those against his proposals were, in his word, “antisemites”.

Meanwhile, World War II was raging. What was the Jewish Agency’s reaction to the most terrible enemy Jewry has ever known? From the beginning, it was to lobby the Yishuv, the Jewish settlers, not to enlist in the Allied struggle against the Nazis, because doing so would not serve Zionism—even taking advantage of May Day 1940 to lecture the Yishuv to stay in Palestine rather than join the war effort. Another reaction was to conduct a massive theft ring of Allied weapons and munitions, “as if”, as one British military record put it, “paid by Hitler himself”.

1952: The IDF militarily commandeers the UN office dedicated to peace-keeping along the Armistice Line in order to block the exposing of its violations. (See Suárez, State of Terror, 301-303.) Photo: John Scofield

1952: The IDF militarily commandeers the UN office dedicated to peace-keeping along the Armistice Line in order to block the exposing of its violations. (See Suárez, State of Terror, 301-303.) Photo: John Scofield

Much has been written on the collaboration between the Zionists and fascists during the war, the best known of course being the Haavara Transfer agreement that broke the anti-Nazi boycott. One of the least known was Lehi’s attempted collaboration with the Italian fascists. In its nearly concluded ‘Jerusalem Agreement’ of late 1940, Lehi would help the fascists win the war, and in return the fascists would uproot any Jewish communities not in Palestine and force their populations to Palestine.

If this sounds like a scheme so extreme that only fanatical Lehi could have conjured it, it is essentially what the Israeli state ultimately succeeded at in the early 1950s—most catastrophically, when it conducted a false-flag terror campaign against Jews in Iraq to destroy that ancient community and move its population to Israel as ethnic fodder.

Violence targeting Jews was, and I would argue remains, a core tactic of Zionism. In fact, the single most deadly terror attack of the entire Mandate period was not the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 as is commonly thought. Even some of the Irgun’s bombings of Palestinian markets killed more people than the King David attack. But the most deadly single terror attack was the Jewish Agency’s bombing of the immigrant ship Patria in 1940, killing an estimated 267 people, of whom more than 200 were Jews fleeing the Nazis.

The Jewish Agency bombed the Patria because it was bringing the DPs to Mauritius, where the British had facilities for them. The Agency needed the DPs to be settlers in Palestine without delay, and was willing to risk the lives of all aboard in order to get the survivors to remain—which, indeed, they did.

In further violence against its Jewish victims, the Agency framed the dead for the bombing. It spread the lie that the DPs themselves blew up the vessel, that they committed mass suicide rather than not go directly to Palestine, posthumously conscripting the dead to serve the Zionist myth.

This was no aberration, but the driving principle of the Zionist project: Persecuted Jews served the political project, not the other way around.

Another major tactic of violence against Jews by the Jewish Agency and American Zionist leadership was the sabotaging of safe haven in order to force them to Palestine. As but one example, in 1944 US Zionist leaders sabotaged President Roosevelt’s provisional success in establishing a half million new homes for European DPs, most of these homes in the United States and Britain. When Roosevelt’s aide Morris Ernst visited the Zionist leaders in an attempt to save the program, he was, in his words, “thrown out of parlours and accused of treason”— ‘treason’, because he was Jewish, and the Zionists owned Jews.

Nor were those already settled safe. In 1946, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Yitzhak Herzog, conducted a massive kidnapping operation of Jewish orphans that had been adopted by European families when their parents perished years earlier. Removing ten thousand children from their homes was the number he cited to the NY Times as his goal. In the National Archives, I found a copy of his own record of the trip.

Herzog railed against the fierce resistance he met in every country by horrified local Jewish leaders who tried to protect the children. But Herzog used his political clout to circumvent them. In France, for example, facing the steadfast refusal of the Jewish leaders to betray the children,

Herzog met the Prime Minister of France from whom I demanded promulgation of a law which would oblige every family to declare the particulars of the children it houses, so that those of Jewish background could be exposed and put back in orphanages until they can be shipped to Palestine—quite a Kafkaesque twist on Passover for these children who had just been spared the Nazis.

Herzog’s justification for the kidnappings was that for a Jew to be raised in a non-Jewish home is “much worse than physical murder”. Yet even this ghastly justification fails to explain what was actually taking place, because at the same time Herzog was ‘rescuing’ Jewish orphans from this fate “much worse than physical murder”, his Jewish Agency colleagues were sabotaging Jewish adoptive homes in England for young survivors still in the camps. The real reason for all of it, of course, was that the children were needed to serve the settler project as demographic fodder.

To that end, the Jewish Agency had coerced President Truman to segregate Jewish DPs into Zionist indoctrination camps, despite objections that it echoed Nazi behaviour. For these people who had just survived the unthinkable, then severed from the rest of humanity into these brainwashing camps, there was no such thing as free thought.

The camps nurtured such fanaticism that it shocked a joint US-UK committee that visited in 1946. Before these camps, few DPs wanted to go to Palestine. But now the Committee found them in a delirious state, threatening mass suicide if they did not go to Palestine. Suggestions of new homes in the United States, which had always been the favored destination, were again met with threats of mass suicide.

DPs were also groomed to bring Zionist terrorism to Europe, bombing Allied trains and Allied facilities. The bombing of the British embassy in Rome in 1946, for example, was by DPs brainwashed in these camps, as was a near-catastrophe in the Austrian Alps in 1947 when DPs nearly blew a train off a steep trestle into a deep abyss, which would almost certainly have sent its two hundred civilians and Allied troops to their deaths.

German Jewish immigrants to Palestine during war were outraged by the Zionists’ exploitation of the Nazi horrors they had just fled. This outrage given voice by, among others, the prominent journalist Robert Weltsch, editor of Berlin newspaper until banned by the Nazis in 1938.

Weltsch warned that Zionist leaders

have not yet understood that the enemy seeks the destruction of the Jews … We who have been here only a few years, we know what Nazism is.

Zionists, rather, are “taking part in the crash of European Jewry only as spectators”, fighting the British and keeping Jews from joining the Allied struggle while getting comfortable and rich from their political project in Palestine. Recent immigrants from Germany and Central Europe, he said, have no representation among the Zionist ruling establishment. If they did,

we would have demanded that the Yishuv should put itself at the disposal of Britain for the fight against Hitler and Nazism.

But—and I am still quoting Weltsch—

They do not want to fight against Hitler because his fascist methods are also theirs … They do not want our young men to join the [Allied] Forces … day after day they are sabotaging the English War Effort.

These German Jewish immigrants were shunned by the Zionists, their publications and presses bombed. Even Kiosks were bombed for selling non-Hebrew papers to German Jewish immigrants.

In 1943, a man whom British records describe as “a Jew whose integrity is not open to question” risked his life to warn the British about the threat of Zionism. For his safety, he was referred to only by the code-name ‘Z’.

Z described Zionism as a parallel movement to Nazism. He warned that the Zionist indoctrination of Jewish youth was producing a society of extremists who will use any method necessary to achieve Zionist goals; and he pointed out that, as fascism in Europe has demonstrated, such a society is very difficult to undo once it has taken root. The result, I’m afraid, is what we, or more accurately the Palestinians, are facing today in the so-called ‘conflict’.

How trustworthy is this anonymous testimony? I found at the National Archives a private letter in which Z is identified — he was J.S. Bentwich, the Senior Inspector of Jewish Schools in Palestine.

Zionists would have got further towards rescuing the unfortunates in Axis Europe, had they not complicated the question by always dragging Palestine into the picture

—so judged a report by US Intelligence in the Middle East, dated the 4th of June, 1943, entitled “Latest Aspects of the Palestine Zionist-Arab Problem”. It described “Zionism in Palestine” as

a type of nationalism which in any other country would be stigmatised as retrograde Nazism,

and stated that anti-Semitism was essential to it. Whereas

assimilated Jews in Europe and America are noted for being … stout opponents of racialism and discrimination,

Zionism has bred the opposite mentality in Palestine,

a spirit closely akin to Nazism, namely, an attempt to regiment the community, even by force, and to resort to force to get what they want.

US intelligence assailed “the crude conception” being spread of the Palestinian people as “a nomad tent-dweller … with a little seasonal agriculture”, as being “too absurd to need refutation”. The report noted the irony that it was from them that Zionist settlers learned the cultivation of Jaffa oranges. Whereas the Palestinians were self-sufficient, the Zionist settlements exist on massive external financing, and should Jews overseas ever tire of supporting the settlers, “the venture will collapse like a pricked balloon”. The conclusion of this early US intelligence report was however naïve, or at least premature: now that the world “has seen the lengths to which the Nazi creed has carried the nations”, it reasoned that the Zionists “are due to find themselves an anachronism”.

After the war, the Jewish Agency discussed its enemies. They were democracy; the Atlantic Charter, which of course became the basis for the United Nations; Reconstruction; and the fall in anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism having always been Zionism’s drug, without which it would be irrelevant. The Agency sought to exploit anti-Semitism and blamed declining anti-Semitism in the United States on America’s so-called “democratic attitude”.

Nor was this merely a post-war abuse. Even as Jews were still being carted off to the death camps, the New Zionist Organization’s Arieh Altman was typical in arguing that anti-Semitism must “form the foundation of Zionist propaganda”, and the Defence Security Officer in Palestine, Henry Hunloke, reported that it was important for the Jewish Agency to “stir up anti-Semitism … in order to force Jews … to come to Palestine”.

Now, today, when anything approaching this topic is raised, it is twisted by some into the pejorative misstatement that the speaker—in this case, me—is blaming Jews for anti-Semitism.

NO. Rather, it is the simple fact that Zionism requires anti-Semitism, is addicted to it, and seeks to insure that it, or at least the appearance of it, never ends. One need look no further than the satisfaction among many Zionists today at the true anti-Semitism of the incoming US administration of Donald Trump, with Israeli journalists like Yaron London openly applauding this anti-Semitism as welcome news. More about that in a few minutes.

I also mentioned Reconstruction. As one former settlement member, a man named Newton, explained, Zionist leaders were afraid that with the improvement of conditions in Europe the pressure on Palestine would subside. Any improvement in Europe was an anathema to their plans.

The ethnic cleansing of Jaffa, 1948, as survivors are rescued by boats. Photographer unknown.

The ethnic cleansing of Jaffa, 1948, as survivors are rescued by boats. Photographer unknown.

What was the Jewish Agency’s reaction to Britain’s role in defeating the worst enemy Jewry has ever known? It saw an opportunity for extortion. The war had devastated Britain’s economy; but when Britain turned to the US for a long term loan to recuperate from its battle against the Nazis, the Agency tried to pressure Washington to deny the loan unless Britain acceded to Zionist demands. The loan was of course ultimately approved, but still in 1948 Zionists assailed US Congressmen for being pro- Marshall Plan, and the Truman administration itself dangled the loan in front of British officials when they tried to bring attention to Zionist atrocities.

By 1946, Zionist terrorism had become the defining daily challenge of life in Palestine, and one hundred thousand British troops proved unable to contain it. Anyone or anything that kept Palestine a functioning society was a target of the Zionists. Trains, roads, bridges, communications, oil facilities, and Coast Guard stations were constantly being bombed. Utility workers, telephone repairmen, railway workers, bomb disposal personnel were murdered. Police were long a favoured target and were gunned down by the dozens.

Among the smaller terror organizations that popped up was one specifically dedicated to Zionists’ long-running fear of Jews befriending non-Jews, the ultimate fear of course being polluting what for the Zionists was the pure Jewish race. As a sample of its methods, the terror group doused a disobedient Jewish girl with acid, severely injuring her and blinding her in one eye.

Zionist terror was aided by the Jewish Agency’s phenomenal intelligence network. The Agency had informers all the way to high-placed sympathetic US officials that fed them intelligence, such that the British learned not even to trust direct messages to US President Truman.

When the UN’s Palestine committee, UNSCOP, visited Palestine in the summer of 1947, the Agency had replaced the committee members’ drivers with spies; had replaced the waiters at the main restaurant they frequented with spies; and most productively, sent five young women to serve at what was called a “theatre network” of house attendants at the building where the members, all men, were being housed. The young women were required to be smart and educated, but above all, in the Agency’s word, to be “daring”. Whatever ‘daring’ meant, they extracted a wealth of information from the key people who were deliberating Palestine’s future.


Extract from Airborne Field Security, Report No. 54, week ending 19 November 47, regarding Jewish sex workers forced to be Zionist spies. National Archives, Kew, FCO 141/14286.

Jewish sex workers were involuntarily recruited as spies. They were told that upon the Zionist victory they would be executed for ‘sleeping with the enemy’, but might be spared if they cooperated now. The practice was so widespread that a standard questionnaire was printed up that the women were to fill out after each British customer. [note: see document detail, above]

To demonstrate the degree to which Jewish Agency plants infiltrated the government and everyday life, a couple of months after one coast guard station was attacked and bombed by the Hagana, it blew up again … but the British were baffled, because this time there had been no attack. They discovered that the construction crew that had rebuilt the station after the previous attack were Hagana, and had simply embedded explosives in the reconstruction, to be detonated when desired.

But the worst problem of infiltration was in the military service, where deadly sabotage by Zionist plants who had joined the forces led, tragically, to orders to remove all Jews from service in Palestine, because there was no way to tell the Zionists from the Jews.

By 1948, this problem spread to key medical personnel. After the Jewish Agency poisoned the water supply of Acre with typhoid in order to expedite the ethnic cleansing of this city that lies on the Palestinian side of Partition, the bacteriologist hired by the British proved to be a Hagana plant or sympathizer, an obstacle to the availability of the vaccine. [Note: see document detail, below. For the injection of typhoid into the aqueduct at Acre, see e.g., Ilan Pappé, Ethnic Cleansing, pp 100-101, and Naeim Giladi, Ben Gurion’s Scandals, pp 10-11]

Hagana biological warfare and the "obstructionist" attitude of the bacteriologist. Extract from telegram No. 1293, from High Commissioner Cunningham, "dispatched 1900 hrs. 8.5.48", and marked "IMMEDIATE. SECRET".

Hagana biological warfare and the “obstructionist” attitude of the bacteriologist. Extract from telegram No. 1293, from High Commissioner Cunningham, “dispatched 1900 hrs. 8.5.48″, and marked “IMMEDIATE. SECRET”. National Archives, Kew, WO 275/79.

Selling terror required effective marketing, and for that the Agency harnessed the plight of European Jews at the same time it was exploiting them. A very brief look at the iconic Zionist immigrant story is illustrative—that is of course the USS Warfield, renamed the Exodus for the obvious Biblical iconography.

The Exodus was sold to the world as the desperate attempt of 4,515 Holocaust survivors to reach their last hope of safety and a new life, their promised land. The British, instead, forced them back, not just to Europe, but to their ultimate nightmare: Germany.

That was the story the US and European public got.

In truth, the Exodus was a monstrous propaganda event, grand theatre, not for benefit but at the expense of Jewish survivors. The Jewish Agency knew that Exodus passengers would be turned back, for, among other reasons, their flooding of Palestine with settlers was a tactic to force its political goals. And remember that the entire Exodus cargo of immigrants equalled less than one percent of President Roosevelt’s resettlement plan that the Zionists sabotaged. The DPs themselves were products of the Zionist camps and had been rehearsed to repeat, as one witness described it, whatever Zionist mumbo-jumbo was demanded of them.

As for the return to Germany, it was the Jewish Agency, not the British, that forced the DPs back to Germany. Attempts were being made to find new homes for the Exodus passengers elsewhere—Denmark was one possibility—but this was sabotaged by Ben-Gurion, because it would spoil the Exodus plot.

There was in fact already an alternative to Germany. All the Exodus DPs had the right to disembark in Southern France rather than Germany, but the Agency used violence to prevent them from leaving. The Exodus show required the pathetic spectacle of their forced return to Germany.

The British decided to call the Agency’s bluff. They visited Golda Meir (then Meyerson), and spoke as though it went without saying that the Agency would do anything to spare the DPs the horrific return to Germany. They said that perhaps the DPs do not realize that they are free to disembark in southern France if they wish, or do not believe the British, and suggested that the Agency send a representative to tell them. Meir refused. To paraphrase Israeli Professor Idith Zertal, the greater the suffering of these survivors of the Holocaust, the greater their political and media effectiveness for the Zionists.

A few months after the Exodus affair, the UN recommended partition, with the assumption that a Zionist state would follow. This decision was directly influenced by the certainty of continuing Zionist terror if they did not, as was the disproportionately large land area the UN gave the Zionists.

According to British Cabinet papers, giving the Zionists so much land up front was an attempt to delay the Zionists’ expansionist wars. They knew they couldn’t stop Israeli expansionism, but they hoped to delay it. This appeasement of course failed: within a few months of Resolution 181, the Zionist armies were already waging their first expansionist war, confiscating more than half of the Palestinian side of Partition.

But in a consummately Orwellian irony, the fact that the British were occupying Palestine enabled Zionist leaders to juxtapose their settler project as a liberation movement against British colonizers, and thus for their 1948 terror campaign of expropriation and ethnic cleansing to be spun instead as a war of ‘independence’ or ‘emancipation’.

This so-called war of independence was in truth, to quote the British High Commissioner at the time, “operations based on the mortaring of terrified women and children”. Its broadcasts boasting of their successes, “both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany”. The Zionists were “jubilant” he reported, with “their campaign of calculated aggression coupled with brutality”.

British intelligence, meanwhile, reported that “the internal machinery of the Jewish State and all the equipment of a totalitarian regime is complete, including a Custodian of Enemy Property to handle Arab lands”.

In the Yishuv itself, “persecution of Christian Jews”, by which I assume they meant converts, “and others who offend against national discipline has shown a marked increase and in some cases has reached mediaeval standards”.

All this, to be sure, was before any Arab resistance.

Finally, on the 15th of May, 1948, Britain fled the scene of its crime, for which the Palestinians have been paying ever since. The post-statehood period continued full throttle with the same violent messianic goals, evolving with the new dynamics.

Now, there is no point in my having taken up your time here, no point any tree wasting its paper on this book, unless I thought that it had some value in the collective effort toward ending the conflict. So … How do I think that this book, how do I think my approach, might be constructive?

The historical record makes plain what should already have been obvious from the present reality—that Israel’s and Zionism’s pretenses regarding Jews and Judaism, and in particular its pretense of being a response to anti-Semitism and Jewish persecution, is a fraud. Indeed quite the opposite, it thrives by exacerbating and capitalizing on these, and has turned them into a cynical, deadly business.

Exposing this, in my opinion, is Israel’s—and the conflict’s—Achilles Heel. And this should be a simple case of the Emperor’s New Clothes—except that every time the child points out that the Emperor is naked, he or she is labelled an anti-Semite and silenced.

The IDF attacks the area between the 'Azza and Aida refugee camps, Bethlehem, as an ambulance tries to rescue victims. December, 2015. Photo: T Suárez

The IDF attacks the area between the ‘Azza and Aida refugee camps, Bethlehem, as an ambulance tries to rescue victims. December, 2015. Photo: T Suárez

The US and other governments empower the conflict for their own geopolitical reasons, but why do the publics of those allegedly democratic countries give their tacit acquiescence?

Israel has one of the world’s largest militaries, but its most powerful weapon, the one without which all its others would be impotent, is its Narrative, its creation myth, its auto-biography.

Under the Twilight Zone of this Narrative, Israel is not merely a political entity like any other nation-state, but is transformed into the Old Testament kingdom whose name it adopted for that strategic purpose, striking a powerful chord in the collective Western sub-conscious.

We all know the Narrative more or less, but in order for that Narrative to be ever-present, Israel has crammed it into a 3-word mantra: ‘The Jewish State’.

This phrase—Israel’s self-identity—is a unique construct in the modern world. It is qualitatively distinct from any other country’s relationship with any other religion or cultural group. Judaism is not Israel’s state religion in the sense of a national faith that any nation might adopt. Rather, it presents itself as THE Jewish state, the metaphysical embodiment of Jewry itself, of Judaism, Jewish history, culture, persecution, and most cynical and exploitative of all, the Holocaust.

No country claims it is the Catholic state. Costa Rica, for example, is a Catholic state; it does not suggest that it owns Catholicism, Catholics, or historic Christian martyrdom. We do not have the British government issuing guidelines as to when criticism of the Costa Rican government becomes anti-Catholic hate speech. Norway is a Lutheran state; Tunisia is one of several nations that maintains Islam as a national faith; Cambodia is a Buddhist state. Israel, in contrast, would never acknowledge even the possibility of another Jewish state because it has body-snatched everything Jewish, and holds it hostage to empower its crimes.

Criticise Israeli terror, you will instead hit this three-word human shield—‘The Jewish State’— that Israel hides behind.
What other country on this earth is permitted this perverse tribal claim over a religious or cultural group? This self-proclaimed exceptionalism should strike us as bizarre—even weird—yet we continue to be party to it.

We hear a lot about anti-Semitism these days, and there is of course anti-Semitism in the world, as there are all varieties of bigotry. But let’s just blurt out the obvious: Virtually all of the alleged anti-Semitism we hear about from the Zionists is a lie, smears calculated to silence anyone who seeks to end the horror.

TomSuarezIsrael This smear campaign has been compared to the McCarthy witch hunt of the 1950s, but it is in truth much worse, because whereas Communism is merely a political and economic theory that one can argue for or against, anti-Semitism is inherently evil. In other words, with McCarthyism, one could ultimately respond by saying, Well, let’s say I am a communist, so what?

Zionism’s abuse of anti-Semitism, its exploitation of Judaism and historic Jewish persecution for immoral ends, is profoundly anti-Semitic. Zionism, taken at its word, makes Judaism complicit in its crimes, and thus—taken at its word—succeeds where all the conventional bigots throughout the centuries were powerless.

Meanwhile, as we are seeing more bluntly than ever in the United States, true anti-Semitism is embraced by Zionists because it is invariably pro-Israel.

One hundred years ago, MP Edwin Montagu accused the British government of anti-Semitism for colluding with the Zionists. History has proven him correct. If Israel is forced to stop this anti-Semitic abuse, if it is forced to come out from hiding behind its human shield, the conflict will be seen for what it is and so could not continue. Israel-Palestine will become a democratic, secular country of equals.

And what more poetic year than the Balfour centennial for that to happen.

Thank you.

(Reprinted from MondoWeiss

Conservative anger grows at israel’s UK plot

Conservative anger grows at Israel’s UK plot

An influential parliamentary committee will investigate an Israeli embassy plot to “take down” a UK government minister.

The chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said on Sunday that disgraced Israeli embassy senior political officer Shai Masot’s discussion of a “hit list” of MPs was “interference in British politics of the murkiest kind.”

Crispin Blunt, a lawmaker from Prime Minister Theresa May’s ruling Conservative Party, told the Mail on Sunday that “I hope to include this matter in the committee’s wider inquiry into the Middle East peace process.”

After undercover footage revealed the plot, Masot was swiftly thrown under the bus. He was sent back to Israel and fired from his government position.

The affair has been deeply embarrassing for Israel, with ambassador Mark Regev making a grovelling apology to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

The footage also shows Masot calling Johnson an “idiot.”

“Outrageous behavior”

Speaking to UK civil servant Maria Strizzolo, Masot said he wanted to “take down” Johnson’s number two in the Foreign Office, Alan Duncan.

Duncan has been critical of Israel’s illegal West Bank settlements, which are colonizing Palestinian land.

Blunt too was named on the “hit list” of MPs Masot said he wanted to discredit. Strizzolo suggested arranging “a little scandal.”

The undercover footage was taken by a reporter working for Al Jazeera, and features in part four of the ground-breaking film The Lobby.

The film is airing all week on Al Jazeera and can be watched in the video above.

Former Conservative minister Nicholas Soames vowed on Sunday that “Israel has not heard the last of this.”

Soames told the Mail that the UK should “make it very clear indeed to Mr. Netanyahu and his government that we will not tolerate this kind of outrageous behavior.”

He said that Netanyahu would not have tolerated a British diplomat doing this in Israel and “has to be made to understand he cannot do it here either.”

Israel’s “useful idiots”

Although the Conservative government strongly supports Israel, and most Tory MPs are part of Conservative Friends of Israel, the Shai Masot scandal has led to growing discontent in the party.

Conservative lawmaker Hugo Swire criticized Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson last week for too easily accepting the ambassador’s apology as having “closed” the matter.

Speaking in Parliament, Swire accused Masot of “conspiring with a British civil servant to take down a senior minister.”

A minister who served under previous prime minister David Cameron, wrote in last week’s Mail on Sunday that “people in the Conservative and Labour Parties have been working with the Israeli embassy which has used them to demonize and trash MPs who criticize Israel; an army of Israel’s useful idiots in Parliament.”

On Friday, Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour Party, wrote to Prime Minister May to demand an investigation.

“Many members of Parliament and the public will be extremely concerned at this evidence of attempts to undermine the integrity of our democracy,” Corbyn wrote.

“This is clearly a national security issue,” Corbyn added. “I would therefore ask that you treat the matter as such and launch an inquiry into the extent of this improper interference.”

Much of The Lobby focuses on the Israeli government’s efforts to shore up its significant but waning influence in the Labour Party.

This is often done via front organizations such as Labour Friends of Israel.

Stop glossing over the siege in Gaza and call it what it is: Genocide

Stop glossing over the siege in Gaza and call it what it is: Genocide

Nada Elia — Middle East Eye

Whole families were wiped out when Israeli bombs targeted homes. Many of these families are the rightful owners of homes and land in what is today Israel. Click to enlarge

Whole families were wiped out when Israeli bombs targeted homes. Many of these families are the rightful owners of homes and land in what is today Israel. Click to enlarge

As accustomed as I am to the offensiveness of the mainstream media coverage of Palestine’s suffering, I still have to stop and do a double take every now and then.

An article in Haaretz this past weekend, with its headline “No Water, No Electricity, and Children Dying Unnecessarily”, was one such moment.

When is it ever necessary for children to die, I wondered? I could not help but be horrified at just how expendable people must be before someone can come up with a cavalier headline about the necessity, or lack thereof, of its children dying.

But the article itself, an interview by Ayelet Shani with Salah Haj Yahya, a Palestinian doctor who leads a Physicians for Human Rights monthly delegation from Israel into the Gaza Strip, was problematic in other ways.

The journalist persisted in asking about Hamas, suggesting that the political party was to blame for Gaza’s misery, rather than actually naming Israel and its sub-contractor, Egypt, as the powers responsible for enforcing a siege that penalises the predominantly refugee population for its political choice.

What is missing, in what otherwise presented itself as “concerned” journalism – oh dear, children are dying “unnecessarily” – is worth review.

We can’t blame Hamas

Specifically, Shani so totally normalises Israel’s illegal siege that it is not presented as the primary cause of the critical situation in the Gaza Strip. Instead, she focuses on the crumbling infrastructure, the lack of equipment, while always, always pointing an accusing finger at Hamas.

Haj Yahya redirects her attention to Israel’s responsibility, but she is undeterred, as she persists in criticising the violence inflicted by Hamas on the population of Gaza.

For example, in response to Yahya saying he does not coordinate with Hamas, Shani asks: “You have no contact with Hamas, not even an informal one? Don’t you need their permission? Don’t they supervise your work?”

Haj Yahya: “There’s no contact. We coordinate our entry with the Israeli side, we don’t work with Hamas or its representatives. We only work with hospital directors and the Palestinian health ministry, with the health minister in Ramallah and his deputy in Gaza. They are the ones who approach us.”

Can we just remember that it is indeed Israel that controls the borders, or should I say, that maintains the siege?

Palestinian children play at the rubble of buildings a year after the 2014 Gaza war on 6 July 2015 (AFP)  Click to enlarge

Palestinian children play at the rubble of buildings a year after the 2014 Gaza war on 6 July 2015 (AFP) Click to enlarge

Yet the focus on Hamas suggests that Hamas has the greater say. Or worse yet, that it may deny a Palestinian medical delegation permission to treat patients in Gaza.

Further, Haj Yahya says: “The water is unfit to drink, unfit for any use. There is hardly any electricity. Gaza is on the brink of a humanitarian disaster. There’s hardly any international aid and the Arab states aren’t succeeding in providing any assistance.”

The Arab states? Why would it be the responsibility of the Arab states to ensure that Gaza has electricity and clean water?

Why couldn’t Shani, if she were a responsible journalist, have made it clear that it is Israel that controls Gaza’s infrastructure, its electricity and necessary equipment for its water treatment facilities, not “the Arab states”?

Perhaps most damning is this part, where Haj Yahya brings up an egregious matter he and others have documented before, namely that patients in need of life-saving treatment are blackmailed into collaborating with Israeli intelligence in order to obtain a permit to enter Israel, for treatment that is not available in the Strip:

Haj Yahya: There is also the issue of blackmail.

Shani: Meaning what?

Haj Yahya: Their travel permit is granted only on condition that they collaborate – information in exchange for an entry permit.

Shani: You’re saying that the Shin Bet blackmails these patients? Can you prove that?

Haj Yahya: We have filmed documentation of patients being threatened or blackmailed in exchange for a permit. We’ve written a report on this. The questioning often deteriorates into unpleasant and humiliating situations. Violence is sometimes resorted to.

And Shani continues, blaming Hamas for urging Palestinians not to collaborate with Israeli intelligence, even as Haj Yahya persists in explaining that it is not Hamas that is denying his patients exit permits.

The Palestinian narrative is as besieged as the people in Gaza.

The crime of crimes

But I want to go back to the title of this article, to children dying “unnecessarily”.  As early as 2010, Nadia Hijab, a Palestinian political analyst and author who now heads Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network, asked: “When does it become genocide?”

“Israel would not directly kill tens of thousands of Palestinians,” she wrote, “but it would create the conditions for tens of thousands to die. Any epidemic could finish the job.”

Four years later, in an article published in the aftermath of Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza, Richard Falk asked: “Is Israel guilty of genocide?”

A professor emeritus of international law and former UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, Falk is exceedingly cautious with terminology about what is considered the “crime of crimes,” and writes, cautiously, about a “genocidal” context.

“There was a genocidal atmosphere in Israel, in which high-level officials made statements supporting the destruction or elimination of the Gazans as a people. Furthermore, the sustained bombardment of Gaza, under circumstances where the population had no opportunity to leave or to seek sanctuary within the Gaza Strip, lent further credibility to the charge.

“The fact that Operation Protective Edge was the third large-scale, sustained military assault on this unlawfully blockaded, impoverished and endangered population, also formed part of the larger genocidal context.”

Israeli soldiers stand guard with their tank along the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip near the southern Israeli Kibbutz of Nahal Oz on May 4, 2016. Click to enlarge

Israeli soldiers stand guard with their tank along the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip near the southern Israeli Kibbutz of Nahal Oz on May 4, 2016. Click to enlarge

The circumstances that constituted a “genocidal context” in 2014 have not improved, and it is now commonplace knowledge that if the siege is not lifted, Gaza will no longer be livable by 2020.

Finally, last week, Mondoweiss courageously posted an opinion piece entitled “Mainstreaming Genocide.”

Reporting on the light sentence given to an Israeli soldier who shot a young Palestinian lying injured in the street dead, writer and doctor of psychology and behavioural science Yoav Litvin wrote: “Israeli politicians have declared an open season on Palestinians. The precedent set by this case will further solidify the complete dehumanisation of Palestinians and pave the way for further ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

The stakes are high. Cold-blooded murder is condoned in the West Bank while in the Gaza Strip, the situation is, literally, a matter of life and death for two million people.

That crisis is not a natural disaster, but politically manufactured, as Israel and Egypt enforce a “genocidal context” soon to enter its tenth year.

Racists everywhere are emboldened, proudly carrying banners that proclaim Kill Them All.”

We, too, must be courageous. We have recently seen the once-taboo word “apartheid” gain wider circulation, and the discursive change has indeed changed many millions of people’s perspective on the question of Palestine.

Can we also name the “unnecessary” deaths of children for what they constitute, namely, unfettered, state-sanctioned genocidal intent?

And no, no matter how much Zionists attempt to manipulate our stories, we must not, cannot, let them blame Hamas for that.

– Nada Elia is a Diaspora Palestinian writer and political commentator, currently working on her second book, Who You Callin’ “Demographic Threat?” Notes from the Global Intifada. A professor of Gender and Global Studies (retired), she is a member of the steering collective of the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI)


Obama’s Farewell Tears Are an Insult, His Record is Soaked in Blood

Obama’s Farewell Tears Are an Insult, His Record is Soaked in Blood By John Wight

Do not be fooled by the tears and gushing words of Obama and his supporters as he counts down to his departure from the White House. They are an insult when measured against the tears of the countless Libyans, Syrians, Afghans and others who have suffered as a result of a foreign policy that brought his administration into disrepute.

Barack Obama goes down in history as a president who more than any other in living memory entered the White House on a wave of hope and expectation, only to depart eight years and two terms later under a cloud of crushing disappointment and bitterness.
In speech after speech, America’s first black president outlined a vision of his country’s place in the world that would embrace multilateralism, place a premium on diplomacy, and embrace a foreign policy underpinned by justice. He also pledged to close the controversial US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Eight years later it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that he lied.



When it comes to the Middle East, although Obama certainly cannot be blamed for creating the disaster in Iraq — for this we have the war unleashed on the country by his predecessor, George W. Bush, in 2003 to thank — his actions upon entering the White House in 2009 made the situation worse.


The military surge, begun in 2007 under the Bush administration with the deployment of thousands of additional US troops to the country’s Anbar province (Sunni Triangle), had been designed to end the brutal sectarian control of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) over the province. Within a year it had succeeded in reducing the terrorist group to the point of near extinction. In partnership with Anbar’s Sunni tribes, who’d suffered under the iron heel of the terrorist group, US forces had embarked on an aggressive policy of seek and destroy. It was an innovative and successful operation that not only succeeded militarily but also in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the country’s Sunni minority.
Unconscionably, Obama ended the surge while continuing to support the Maliki government in Baghdad, whose sectarian policies favouring of the countries Shia majority at the expense of the Sunni minority led to the revival of AQI’s fortune. In 2013 the group changed its name to Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) and at the beginning of 2014 succeeded in taking control of Fallujah, just 57km from Baghdad, where its notorious black flag first came to international attention. In attempting to underplay the significance of the growing strength of ISI in Iraq, Obama infamously compared the terrorist group to a junior varsity (jayvee) team — in other words a threat of no great consequence. How wrong he was. In June 2014, ISI launched offensives against Tikrit and Mosul, taking both cities, before moving across the border into Syria. There it morphed into Daesh (also known as ISIS/ISIL), establishing a reign of barbarism, terror, and cruelty such as the world hasn’t seen since the Khmer Rouge ravaged Cambodia in the 1970s.

It was a disaster that had arrived in the Middle East on the coattails of a so-called Arab Spring that saw the Obama administration throw former US and Western-supported dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt under the bus. It did so at the same time as opportunistically throwing its weight behind the mass protests that had erupted throughout the region, doing so with the objective of ensuring that the outcome was favourable to US and Western strategic, geopolitical, and economic interests.
The destruction of Libya, wrought by Washington and its NATO allies in 2011, along with US support for sectarian terrorist groups in Syria, almost pushed the region into the abyss. When Russia entered the fray at the end of 2015, at the request of a Syrian government whose forces were overstretched and struggling to beat back a Western supported onslaught, Obama refused to accept Russia’s request to join forces to defeat terrorism. Instead his administration did its utmost to impede Russian efforts.

The result has been the unnecessary prolongation of the conflict in Syria and the suffering if its people. Along with the turning of Libya into a failed state, it produced a refugee crisis of biblical dimension, leading to thousands of people drowning in the Mediterranean in the act of fleeing a region plunged into chaos.
In Eastern Europe, meanwhile, the US under Obama’s watch supported a fascist driven coup in Ukraine in 2014 that toppled the country’s democratically elected government. The result was a civil conflict on Russia’s southwestern border.

The attempt to paint Russia as the cause of the ensuing instability exposed Obama’s mendacity and his blithe disregard for Russia’s security and legitimate rights. With the arrogance of a Roman emperor, the president attempted to bully the largest and most populous country in Europe into submission over Ukraine and its role in Syria fighting terrorism reduced relations between East and West to the point of full-blown crisis, where they currently remain.
Add to his legacy a drone war that has killed hundreds of innocent civilians, and nobody should be fooled by the happy-clappy emotional farewell speeches he is currently giving in advance of his departure from the political stage. His record in office leaves both him and his presidency disgraced.

USA has been Hacking Elections For More Than a Century

We’ve Been Hacking Elections For More Than a Century By Stephen Kinzer

Boston Globe” – Outrage is shaking Washington as members of Congress compete to demonize Russia for its alleged interference in America’s recent presidential election. “Any foreign intervention in our elections is entirely unacceptable,” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has asserted. Russian actions, according to other legislators, are “attacks on our very fundamentals of democracy” that “should alarm every American” because they “cut to the heart of our free society.” This burst of righteous indignation would be easier to swallow if the United States had not itself made a chronic habit of interfering in foreign elections.

One of our first operations to shape the outcome of a foreign election came in Cuba. After the United States helped Cuban rebels overthrow Spanish rule in 1898, we organized a presidential election, recruited a pro-American candidate, and forbade others to run against him. Two years later, after the United States annexed Hawaii, we established an electoral system that denied suffrage to most native Hawaiians, assuring that only pro-American candidates would be elected to public office.

During the Cold War, influencing foreign elections was a top priority for the CIA. One of its first major operations was aimed at assuring that a party we favored won the 1948 election in Italy. This was a multipronged effort that included projects like encouraging Italian-Americans to write letters to their relatives warning that American aid to Italy would end if the wrong party won. Encouraged by its success in Italy, the CIA quickly moved to other countries.

In 1953, the United States found a former Vietnamese official who had lived at Catholic seminaries in the United States, and maneuvered him into the presidency of newly formed South Vietnam. He was supposed to stay on the job for two years until national elections could be held, but when it became clear that he would lose, he canceled the election. “I think we should support him on this,” the US secretary of state said. The CIA then stage-managed a plebiscite on our man’s rule. Campaigning against him was forbidden. A reported 98.2 percent of voters endorsed his rule. The American ambassador called this plebiscite a “resounding success.”

In 1955 the CIA gave $1 million to a pro-American party in Indonesia. Two years later the United States maneuvered a friendly politician into the presidency of Lebanon by financing his supporters’ campaigns for Parliament. “Throughout the elections, I traveled regularly to the presidential palace with a briefcase full of Lebanese pounds,” a CIA officer later wrote. “The president insisted that he handle each transaction by himself.”

Our intervention in Lebanon’s election provoked protests by those who believed that Lebanese voters alone should shape their country’s future. The United States sent troops to Lebanon to suppress that outburst of nationalism. Much the same happened in the Dominican Republic, which we invaded in 1965 after voters chose a president we deemed unacceptable. Our intervention in Chile’s 1964 election was more discreet, carried out by covertly financing favored candidates and paying newspapers and radio stations to skew reporting in ways that would favor them.

Condemning interference in foreign elections is eminently reasonable. The disingenuous howls of anti-Russian rage now echoing through Washington, however, ignore much history.

Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, and author of the forthcoming book “The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire.”

Syrian Army makes final preparations for east Aleppo offensive: map


BEIRUT, LEBANON (8:15 A.M.) – On Sunday morning, the Russian and Syrian air forces began launching wide-scale airstrikes across the Deir Hafer and Maskanah plains, hitting several terrorist targets along the Raqqa-Aleppo Highway.

These wide-scale airstrikes come as the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) makes the final preparations for their long-awaited east Aleppo offensive.

A military source in Aleppo told Al-Masdar News on Saturday night that the Syrian Arab Army will concentrate on the Deir Hafer Plains, despite rumors of an attack on the Al-Bab Plateau.

If the Deir Hafer Plains is in fact the target for the Syrian Arab Army, then the long-term goal is the Al-Raqqa Governorate because as the government forces continue to push south from Deir Hafer, they will ultimately reach the Maskanah Plains, which is located along the provincial border.

The attack on Deir Hafer could not come at a better time for the Syrian Arab Army, as the Islamic State finds themselves under attack at nearby Al-Bab by the Turkish Army and western Al-Raqqa by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Related Videos

Syrian airstrikes pummel ISIS outside Deir Ezzor airbase


Related Articles

“جيش لحد” السوري .. يبيع سورية وفلسطين لإسرائيل بـ”خارطة طريق”

"جيش لحد" السوري .. يبيع سورية وفلسطين لإسرائيل بـ"خارطة طريق"

المصدر: عاجل – مواقع
القسم: سياسة – محلي
16 كانون الثاني ,2017  01:44 صباحا
تقدمت ما تسمّى “جبهة الإنقاذ الوطني” التي يقيم أفرادها في عواصم الخارج، بما سمته “خارطة طريق” للسلام بين سورية وإسرائيل.

وكشف محرر الشؤون الشرق أوسطية في الإذاعة الإسرائيلية، أنّ “خارطة الطريق” تتضمن اعترافاً بـ”دولة إسرائيل وإيجاد تسوية عادلة لقضية الجولان ترضي كلا الشعبين السوري والإسرائيلي، والانتقال بالعلاقة بين سورية وإسرائيل من مرحلة العداء إلى مرحلة الصداقة والتعاون ثم التحالف والعلاقات الاستراتيجية”.

ونشرت صحيفة المنبر اليهودي TRIBUNE JUIVE التي تتناول الشأن الإسرائيلي واليهودي في العالم، نصّ “خارطة الطريق” التي كتبها منسق “جبهة الإنقاذ الوطني” المدعو “فهد المصري” ةوالذي يقدّم نفسه على أنه “معارض سوري”، حيث تلخّصت في خمس فقرات حول “ضمان أمن إسرائيل، ومهام الأجهزة الأمنية والعسكرية في سورية الجديدة، القضية الفلسطينية، إيران وأدواتها، هضبة الجولان”.

وأضافت اذاعة الاحتلال: إن “خارطة الطريق تتضمن أيضاً إلغاء مخيمات اللاجئين الفلسطينيين في سورية وتحويلها إلى مناطق سكنية”، مشيرة إلى أن الخارطة تتضمن أيضاً حل كل فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية الموجودة على الأراضي السورية.

وفيما يتعلق بإيران، فإن الوثيقة التي عرضتها ما تسمى “جبهة الإنقاذ الوطني السورية المعارضة”، تنص على “طرد جميع الخبراء الإيرانيين وعناصر حزب الله من الأراضي السورية”.

وكان فهد المصري المتحدث باسم ما يسمى “مجموعة الإنقاذ الوطني”، وجه رسالة مسجلة بالصوت والصورة إلى إسرائيل يدعوها فيها إلى “دعم الشعب السوري ليس بالأعمال الإنسانية فقط بل بتوسيع رقعة المساعدات”.

وجاء في فقرة “أمن واستقرار إسرائيل” في خارطة الطريق المزعومة، أنّ “سوريا الجديدة” لن تكون معادية لدولة إسرائيل أو أي دولة أخرى سواء في المنطقة أو في العالم، وأنها لن تدعم أي مجموعات عسكرية مسلحة تهدف لتخريب “أمن إسرائيل” ولن تفتح لها مراكز تدريب على الأراضي السورية، كما أنها لن تكون مكاناً للتخطيط لاستهداف أمن واستقرار إسرائيل وكذلك الأمن والاستقرار الإقليمي والدولي.

وبحسب “الجبهة”، فإنّ “أمن واستقرار إسرائيل مرتبطان بضرورة رحيل الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد ونظامه، وعودة الأمن والاستقرار في سورية، في ظل وجود سلطة قوية بعد الأسد”، كما أنّ الفوضى والتطرف والإرهاب تفرض تشكيل نظام عسكري انتقالي، ودعم المرحلة الانتقالية يتطلب دعماً من “القوات العربية المشتركة” ومن تركيا برعاية الأمم المتحدة.

وفي فقرة “الأجهزة الأمنية والجيش الوطني في سورية الجديدة”، اقترحت ماتسّمى “جبهة الإنقاذ المعارضة”، إعادة بناء الجيش والأجهزة الأمنية والشرطة على أسس “مهنية”، تضمن أمن الحدود واستعادة الأمن والاستقرار، مع الحفاظ على الأمن الوطني والإقليمي ومكافحة التطرف والإرهاب، إضافة إلى عدم مشاركة ماسمّته بـ “الجيش الوطني” في أزمات أو صراعات خارج الحدود السورية. وأكّدت أنّ الأسلحة السورية يجب أن تكون “أسلحة دفاعية” تهدف إلى ضمان الأمن الداخلي والاستقرار الوطني، وعلى “الجيش الوطني” أن لا يسعى لامتلاك أي نوع من أسلحة الدمار الشامل.

واقترح “المصري”، أن لا تتجاوز الفترة الإلزامية للخدمة العسكرية السورية ستة أشهر، ودعم عملية البناء والتنمية وعودة اللاجئين السوريين إلى وطنهم.

أما فقرة “القضية الفلسطينية” ضمن “خارطة الطريق”، فقد تضمّنت اقتراحاً بمنح الجنسية السورية للاجئين الفلسطينيين في سورية، وتحويل مخيمات اللاجئين الفلسطينيين في سورية إلى مناطق سكنية إضافةً إلى حلّ جميع “الجماعات المسلحة”، وجميع المنظمات السياسية الفلسطينية المتواجدة على الأراضي السورية.

وأشارت الجبهة المعارضة في مقترحها إلى ضرورة حظر نشاط وعمل جميع المنظمات الفلسطينية في الأراضي السورية وخاصّة منظمتي حماس والجهاد الإسلامي “الإرهابيتين”، وأن تكون البعثة الدبلوماسية التابعة للسلطة الفلسطينية في سورية الممثلة الوحيدة والشرعية للفلسطنيين داخل سورية، كما أنّه سيتم تأسيس علاقة جديدة للدولة السورية مع الممثل الشرعي للفلسطينيين المعترف به دولياً.

وفي فقرة “إيران وأدواتها” كما جاءت في الخارطة، طالبت جبهة الإنقاذ الوطني بـ”إلغاء جميع الاتفاقيات الموقّعة بين طهران ودمشق وطرد جميع الخبراء والضباط العسكريين ورجال الأمن الإيرانيين وكل الدبلوماسيين الإيرانيين وإغلاق السفارة الإيرانية والمراكز الثقافية والدينية وجميع الجمعيات والمنظمات التابعة لإيران في سوريا”.

كما أشارت “الجبهة المعارضة” إلى ضرورة “طرد ميليشيات حزب الله والميليشيات العراقية والأفغانية وغيرها من سورية، واعتبار حزب الله حزباً إرهابياً، واتخاذ كافة الإجراءات القانونية ضدّ إيران وجميع المنظمات التابعة لها للحصول على تعويض مالي لمشاركتها في الحرب” في سورية.

وأكّدت الجبهة في تلك الفقرة، على “حظر نقل الأسلحة إلى لبنان عبر سورية، وتدمير جميع الأنفاق السرية بين البلدين”، وتحميل الدولة اللبنانية المسؤولية الكاملة عن مشاركة حزب الله في القتال في سوريا، وكذلك الأمر مع الحكومة العراقية عن مشاركة “ميليشيات عراقية” في القتال على الأراضي السورية.

وما يسمّى “جبهة الانقاذ الوطني المعارضة”، كانت شكرت في منتصف الشهر الماضي الاسرائليين الذين تظاهروا ضد الحكومة السورية والرئيس الأسد في سوريا.

وأضاف البيان: “إننا نشكر الإسرائيليين الذين لبوا نداءنا وخرجوا للتظاهر كما نشكر جميع المبادرات الأهلية في كل بقاع الارض والتي خرجت للتعبير عن رفضها ما يحدث من فظائع وجرائم حرب وجرائم ضد الانسانية في حلب وعموم سورية”.

وفي وقت سابق، بعث منسق “جبهة الإنقاذ الوطني” فهد المصري برسالة إلى “إسرائيل” خلال حديث خاص مع الإذاعة الإسرئيلية يدعوها إلى إقامة “منطقة آمنة” في الجنوب السوري، وبناء مرحلة جديدة معها، وأشار حينها إلى أنّ “سورية ما بعد الأسد لن تكون معادية لإسرائيل” على حدّ تعبيره.

%d bloggers like this: