The poet says: “ Palestine is a pool of blood and tears and cries, either you end the battle or you allow the people to finish the battle for you” . The question is : Who will finish the battle of Palestine? The battle is waiting to be finished and who knows when this will happen and where? The failure of the assault on Syria caused by the predators , who wanted to repeat- in Syria- what they did in Palestine more than sixty years ago, tells a lot .

The same predator acted this time also with different means and brought- instead of Zionist gangs – his ugly war machine made by merciless terrorist fanatics trained by him and financed by the Gulf oil. It was in the name of fake Islam that all this was conducted like it was conducted before by Zionist Jews in the name of Judaism . And you can feel and see the same hands behind it all, and you cannot be mistaken. The same author is there , the same predator that has left his signature everywhere .The same purpose was to be achieved: slaughter and partition and defeat and displacement of great numbers of people, of different religions and sects, and installment of a Religious State built on hateful fake Islam that will turn Syria into another occupied Palestine or –at best -another Saudi Arabia . A new Syria that will pacify with Israel .

Still you find people saying that the Syrian events started as this and as that and there was uprising in the air . These are the intellectuals of the west who still think that our nation should follow the path drawn by them, those who think that they know better and that the west has something to give to the east .Maybe there was uprising in the air, but- on the ground- there was neither uprising nor insurrection but the conspiracy of the colonialist predator aided by his local clientele ; nothing but death and destruction and destruction and death. How long it will take Syria to recover no one knows, and how long for the society -as a whole -to heal no one knows also. One thing is for sure this should not be repeated anywhere, in any other place, in any Arab or Muslim country, or any country on the face of the earth .
This should never be allowed to be repeated. The predator knows this; that this might be his last strike that was not successful by the way . There are new players on the ground , hidden and active players that changed the whole equation, and the predator was not master of the situation though he caused the usual damage . This player is the mighty Resistance of Hizbullah, and this player is Iran who turned the equation in favor of Arabs and Palestinians, and in favor of the cause .

After this defeat in Syria , the predator has been rushing here and there to do away – in Arab Countries-with the whole setting of the rule of Sectarian Sunni Islam, which is the Islam that pacifies with Israel, in order to promote- again- the secular forces that also pacify – and to a greater extent – with Israel, and resume -thus-the original scheme of undermining the Armed Resistance using this time the secular forces set against religion after using the sectarian ones.

The secular rule- backed by the militaries in Egypt- comes in handy to help the predator get out of the Syrian mess where the Syrians are daily progressing on the ground . This is why the predator is rushing to come up with an understanding with the Palestinian Authority, to save whatever could be saved, in this critical time where Syria is still busy retrieving its villages and towns, and where the Palestinian Resistance of HAMAS is at a loss of what to do after the ousting of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers and that of the princes of Qatar and the troubles faced by Erdogan .

The predator is trying to catch up on the lost time, and getting ready for the next round against the Resistance, overlooking the fact that the Resistance- who won the first round-will not lose the second .

A Talmudic Deliberation

Alan Dershowitz vs. Gilad Atzmon –

By Gilad Atzmon

Ethnic cleansing advocate Alan Dershowitz is campaigning today for the release of arch spy Jonathan Pollard. In a commentary published on the repulsive Jewish media outlet The Algemeiner, Dershowitz argues “the time has come…for the United States to do the right thing with regard to Jonathan Pollard.”

Dershowitz’ argument is amusing as usual.  “Pollard poses no continuing danger to America, since he has not had access to our secrets for nearly 30 years.”

Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, should know that people occasionally remain locked behind bars for the crime they committed in the past rather than the crime they may not commit in the future.

For some peculiar reason Dershowitz also equates between Pollard and the Palestinian freedom fighters (whom he calls ‘murderers’), due to be released by Israel.  “Unlike the Palestinian prisoners who are to be released, he (Pollard) has expressed regret over his actions and has sought forgiveness.”  Dershowitz obviously fails to realise that freedom fighters and political prisoners don’t tend to ask for forgiveness. Their action is the outcome of a legitimate struggle against oppression.  However, Pollard, who was involved in an act of treason, falls into a different category altogether. Dershowitz and Pollard should accept that the act of asking for forgiveness doesn’t necessarily lead to a pardon.

Dershowitz believes that the USA should release Pollard in an attempt to persuade the Israelis to ‘vote for peace.’ “The Israeli public will have to vote for any deal struck between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators,” contends the ‘best Jewish Lawyer in the world.’ The Talmudic reasoning is quick to follow – “the outcome of such (Israeli) referendum will depend on whether Israeli voters believe that their security has been assured and that the United States continues to stand behind them.” So here we are, America should let off an arch Israeli spy so the Israelis can vote for peace.

I think that Dershowitz’ Talmudic orientation is indeed very impressive. However, being myself a product of Talmudic upbringing, I would actually go along with Dershowitz’ suggestion. I would propose that the USA releases Pollard immediately under a strict provision – If the Jewish State votes peace as Dershowitz promises, Pollard would remain free. But if the Israelis fail to provide, if they vote against peace (as they usually do), then Pollard would be locked behind bars again as stipulated by his life sentence.

Such a condition would make the Israeli spy into a negotiation bargain for peace. If the Israeli people really want Jonathan free, as Dershowitz insists, they would have to choose peace for the first time.

I would love to know how Dershowitz can rescue his troubled case now.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, available on  &

Livni Suggests Erasure of Palestinian History is a Necessary Price for Freedom


By Muki Najaer / PNN

Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni suggested on Thursday July 18th during President Shimon Peres’ ‘Facing Tomorrow’ conference that Palestinians stop using the word ‘Nakba’. Nakba, or ‘catastrophe’ in Arabic, refers to the plight of Palestinian Arabs starting in 1948, displacement and murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians.  The Nakba is marked by the start of Israel’s occupation in 1948 –also considered the moment of the Israeli state’s independence.

Livni said, “the Palestinians could celebrate Independence Day if they would erase the word ‘Nakba’ from their vocabulary.”  Her insensitive assertion suggests that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine would end, if only Palestinians forgot about their history.

Livni’s remark is not the first of this kind.  In a 2007 address to the Annapolis Conference she said, “Not every celebration of ours is cause for sorrow on the other side, and vice versa. I say to my Palestinian colleagues: Do not bemoan the establishment of the State of Israel; establish your own state,” thereby diminishing the actions of the Israeli state against Palestinians for the last 65 years.  She went on to say, “The establishment of the Palestinian state is not our Nakba, or disaster – provided that upon its establishment the word “Nakba” be deleted from the Arabic lexicon in referring to Israel,” as if partition is comparable to the occupation and destruction of Palestinian land and sovereignty for six and a half decades.

Livni’s suggestions to eradicate the word ‘Nakba’ in reference to the Israeli state’s long lived history of oppressing Palestinians has caused internet controversy, with some interpreting her remark as an attempt to give Israel a clean slate.  I am left wondering: How would Livni and other Israeli’s feel about their freedom hinging on the eradication of the word ‘Holocaust’?  While comparing the Nakba to the Holocaust is highly contested, that debate misses the point:  As a peace negotiator, Livni’s remarks invalidate generations of Palestinians’ experiences of oppression.

West’s war crimes in Syria exposed


Horror inflicted on the Syrian people by Western –backed militants. This is Al-Khaalidiyya district of Homs Image courtesy Syrian Perspective

by Finian Cunningham   

 There was a time during the 30-month covert dirty war on Syria when the Western governments and mainstream media would make a clamor over reported massacres. Now, despicably, these governments and media just ignore such atrocities.

Why? Because it is increasingly clear that the groups committing these crimes against thousands of Syrian civilians are the foreign-backed mercenaries, whom the Western media and their governments have tried to lionize as “rebels” fighting for “democratic freedom”.

West arming rebels

That charade is rapidly disintegrating, exposing not just criminal Western governments sponsoring the violence against civilians, but an entire media industry that is also guilty of war crimes through its willful complicity.

This is not mere hyperbole. To disseminate false information and lies about conflict – under the guise of independent news – is to be complicit in covering up war crimes. You can hardly get more serious misconduct than to tell lies about crimes against humanity.

These toxic lies and propaganda are now being exposed as the Western-backed plot to subvert the sovereign state of Syria unravels; this unraveling is accentuated by the West’s death squads becoming even more unhinged as they stare at looming defeat at the hands of the Syrian army.

The latest massacre occurred in the town of Khan al-Assal in the northern province of Aleppo. Some 150 people, mostly civilians, were reportedly slaughtered in cold blood. Many of the victims were shot in the head execution-style. The groups claiming responsibility are the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front and Ansar al Khalifa.

A new massacre in the Khan al-Assal district of Aleppo has claimed the lives of 123 while many are still reported missing.

A new massacre in the Khan al-Assal district of Aleppo has claimed the lives of 123 while many are still reported missing.

Reliable sources say that the killers tried to cover up their barbaric crimes by mutilating the corpses and burning the remains. Only days before this orgy of murder, the same groups are believed to have massacred at least seven civilians in the town of Maqbara in the province of Hasakah.

Elsewhere, as the Syrian national army makes searing advances against the militants, it is apparent from the identities of the dead that the majority of these fighters are foreigners, from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Jordan, Turkey, as well as from the US and Europe, including Britain, France and Germany.

Just last week, it was reported that Saudi Arabia bought $50 million-worth of heavy arms from Israel to supply this foreign network in its endeavor to terrorize the people of Syria into submission.

Already, the US, Britain and France have stumped up over $200 million which they claim is provided to “the Syrian opposition” in the form of “non-lethal aid”.

This is just cynical semantics to cover up the fact that the Western governments and their regional Turk, Arab and Israeli proxies are sponsoring genocide in Syria.


Syrian soldiers before their execution in Khan al-Assal by U.S. backed militants

Over the weekend as the mass murders in Khan al-Assal and Maqbara emerged there was a telling silence in the Western media. A cursory glance at outlets such as New York Times, Washington Post, Voice of America, the Guardian, BBC, France 24, Deutsche Welle, Reuters, among others, showed no or negligible reports on the atrocities.

A notable exception was the London-based Financial Times, which headlined: “Syria opposition condemns rebel attack”. The FT tried to obfuscate the mass murder of civilians by claiming that “extremist rebels” had executed captured Syrian army soldiers and by giving prominence to condemnation of the “abuses” by the exile non-entity group, the Syrian National Coalition.

Similar Western silence followed another massacre last month in the village of Hatlah in the eastern province of Deir al-Zour. In mid-June, more than 60 mainly Shia inhabitants were slaughtered again by Western-backed foreign militants. Most of the victims were women and children. Syrian government appeals for international condemnation at the United Nations were ignored.

Contrast this void in Western government and media reaction to earlier massacres. In May and June 2012, the Western media went viral with reports of mass killings in the villages of Houla and Qubair where some 108 and 78 inhabitants were murdered, many of them with throats slit. Immediately, the Western media then claimed or implied that the perpetrators were Syrian state forces and roundly condemned President Bashar al-Assad.

Back then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Assad of “ruling by murder and fear” and led the chorus of Western governments calling for Assad to step down.

It later transpired that the Houla and Qubair massacres were the work of the Western-backed foreign militants. But Western media did not follow-up with corrective reporting. This is the conduct of a propaganda ministry, not independent journalism.

The same propaganda formula of sensationalist headlines and innuendo, with minimal evidence, was repeated in subsequent massacres, such as in Tremseh in July 2012, or the bomb attack on Aleppo University in January this year in which more than 80 were killed. Also in that same month, more than 100 bodies were fished out of the Queiq River in the Bustan al-Qasr district of Aleppo – all of those victims with gunshot wounds to the head. Never mind that the district was under the control of foreign militants, the Western media continued their campaign of innuendo that it was the Syrian state forces that carried out the executions.

The Syrian government has consistently alleged that all these mass killings are the work of Western-backed militants. This sickening terrorist methodology concatenates with the Takfiri mentality of killing everyone who is deemed to be an infidel – Sunni, Shia, Alawite, Christian, non-believer alike, who does not subscribe to their fundamentalist twisted theology.

It is entirely in keeping that Western governments and Wahhabi Arab despots sponsor such groups given the long history of collusion between these protagonists, going back to the creation of al-Qaeda by Western military intelligence in Afghanistan during the 1980s to fight the then Soviet-backed government in Kabul.

The indiscriminate murder of civilians in wholesale massacres by Western-backed death squads operating in Syria to overthrow the Assad government is also consistent with the countless no-warning car bombs that have ripped through markets, streets, hospitals and schools all across Syria. Days before the latest slaughter in Khan al-Assal, a car bomb killed at least 10 in the Jaramana district of the capital, Damascus.

A few months earlier, another deadly bomb attack also targeted Jaramana, killing more than 30. The district is a mixed community of Muslim, Christian and Druze, which is largely supportive of the Assad government. As with the many other massacres in Syria, the aim is to terrorize the civilian population, to sow sectarianism and to coerce the populace to relinquish support for the government.

As the foreign criminal conspiracy to force regime change in Syria flounders – with the turning point being the Syrian army victory in Qusayr early last month – the Western-sponsored terrorists are resorting to more and more desperate methods. This depravity was manifested yet again in the slaughter of civilians in Khan al-Assal and Maqbara. Tragically and despicably, we can expect more such atrocities in the coming weeks and months as the Western criminal conspiracy suffers more defeats.

But what is truly remarkable is how the Western governments and their propaganda machine, known euphemistically as the mainstream news media, are ignoring these latest massacres. That is because their vile game is up. They can no longer dissimulate on the reality of who is carrying out these massacres and how it is all part of a criminal genocidal campaign directed from Washington, London and Paris. That is why they are feigning to ignore such atrocities. To look into them honestly would uncover the ugly face of Western imperialism and the unconscionable role played all along by so-called Western news media.

Meanwhile, proper journalistic services like Press TV that are reporting the reality of what the Western governments are really doing in Syria via their death squads are being banned from satellite networks controlled by Western authorities.

Indeed, a very real extension of this censorship is how Press TV correspondent Maya Nasser was murdered last September by Western-backed death squads in Damascus for the very reason that he was helping to uncover the truth about what is being inflicted on Syria. Assassination is just an extreme act of censorship, as the Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw once noted.

Western government and media silence over the latest massacres in Syria is not just a matter of indifference or sloppy journalism. It is indicative of their complicity in the covert genocidal war on Syria.

Zionism and the United States Congress


The locus of the present day conflict in Palestine may not be in Palestine but in Washington, DC, and in the US Congress, because the US Congress supports, probably unwittingly for the most part, the ethnic cleansing and destruction of the Palestinian people.

When the US Congress in 2011 gave Israel’s Netanyahu 29 standing ovations, was it aware it was applauding a genocidaire, asks William James Martin


by William James Martin

The ideology, or political project of Zionism, which underlies the creation of the state of Israel, had in fact a Christian origin rather than a Jewish one, as writings can be found dating from the 1500s written by Christian clergymen in England advocating the migration of Jews to the Holy Land.

The migration of Jews to Palestine was also advocated by Napoleon Bonaparte.

The first Jewish presentations of Zionism were written by Moses Hess in 1862 and 20 years later by Leo Pinsker, both of the Russian pale, with each writer advocating a separate state for Jews.

Twentieth century Zionism was initiated by Theodore Herzl who, likewise, advocated a separate state for Jews in his book, Der Judenstaat, written in 1896. One year later he formed the World Zionist Congress that held its first meeting in Basel, Switzerland, in that same year.

What to do with the Arabs present in the prospective Jewish state dominated the thoughts of the founders of Israel from Herzl up until the actual expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948.

Thus Herzl stated: “[We shall] spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”

Thus the concept of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was introduced.

It is not rocket science; if you want to create a state exclusively of Jews, mostly European, in the heart of the Middle East, then you must first get rid of the Arabs.

In 1928, Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of the Revisionist wing of the Zionist movement, which advocated the revision of the British Mandate for Palestine to include the east bank of the Jordan and some of present-day Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and which was the progenitor of the present-day Lukud Party, wrote of the Palestinians in his booklet, The Iron Wall, that no people were ever willing to give up their land to another people through mutual agreement and that the colonization by European Jews of Palestine must be prosecuted by force and against the will of the indigenous people. It must be executed behind an iron wall of bayonets, using his metaphor.

By the 1930s, “transfer” of the Arabs was the unanimous preference of the founders of Israel. So-called transfer committees, headed by Joseph Weitz, director of land management for the Jewish Agency, were set up explicitly for the purpose of studying ways of “transferring” the Arabs out of Palestine.

At the beginning of 1948, despite 50 years of land purchases, Jews only owned six per cent of the land of Palestine. By the year’s end, the Israeli army controlled 78 per cent of Palestine in a process of ethnic cleansing that saw the destruction of 531 Arab towns or villages and 11 Arab urban areas, with massacres, large or small, at almost all of those towns or villages, the almost complete looting of Palestinian property and wealth, including looting of banks, confiscation of Palestinian homes and property, businesses, fields and orchards.

The Palestinian people lost everything. Those who survived the massacres lost their careers, their means of livelihood, only to find refuge in tent cities set up by the United Nations that were later to become squalid refugee camps of cinder block buildings dotted around the Middle East.

By just checking the timeline, one quickly disposes of the 60-year-old Israeli propaganda myth that the pre-state of Israel was innocently minding its own business when it was attacked by five armies of surrounding Arab states.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians began 30 November 1947 in Haifa when the Jewish army under David Ben-Gurion, along with the Jewish terrorist group, the Irgun, under Menachem Begin, began shelling Arab sections of that city. The ethnic cleansing of the Arabs of Haifa was completed by April 1948 when shelling by Jewish forces obliged Haifa’s Arab residents to flee toward the harbour where they attempted to board boats in order to escape. Thus the Arabs of Haifa were literally “pushed into the sea” by Jewish forces. Many of those fleeing were drowned when the boats were overloaded and capsized.

In March of 1948, Ben-Gurion finalised and distributed Plan D to his officers, which was a programme for destroying and depopulating Arab villages and eliminating any resistance. Already, by that date, 30 Arab villages had been depopulated of Arabs.

One revealing paragraph of this document states: “These operations can be carried out in the following manner: either by destroying villages (by setting fire to them, by blowing them up, and by planting mines in their rubble), and especially those populations centres that are difficult to control permanently; or by mounting combing and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the villages, conducting a search inside them. In case of resistance, the armed forces must be wiped out and the population expelled outside the borders of the state.”

The massacre at the Arab village of Deir Yassin, only one of many, but possibly the most famous, occurred 9 April 1948. Israel declared itself a state 14 May 1948, and it was the next day that the first regular soldier of an Arab army set foot in Palestine. By then, about half of the 750,000 to 800,000 Palestinian refugees had been generated and all of Palestine’s urban centres and been depopulated of Arabs.

Let me be clear: the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians began six months before the entrance into Palestine of any regular member of the surrounding Arab armies. And further, the intent of the Zionist movement to displace the Arab population had been in place for half a century.

One cannot understand the natural anger and resentment of the Arab people, and particularly the Palestinian people, towards Israel, and also to the West for supporting their oppressors and for being blind to their own suffering, without coming to a full understanding of the catastrophe, which the Palestinian people call the Nakba, that befell them in 1948. One cannot understand the same if one accepts the lie that the pre-state of Israel was just innocently defending itself, which is the fiction, I suspect, most members of the US Congress accept.

Nor can one understand the futility of the exalted “peace process”, ongoing now for the last 24 years, concurrent with the further erosion of Palestinian rights and freedom, and migration of new Jewish settlers into the West Bank and East Jerusalem, without understanding that Israel acquired its present status as a state not by negotiation with Palestinians, but by brute force and very much against the will of the indigenous people.

For the Arab people, Israel is an alien implant, imposed by Western powers, in the heart of the Arab world against the will of the Arab people.

The Palestinians living under occupation have been living in that situation for 45 years, deprived of basic human rights, abused and, more often than not, humiliated, suffering degradation on a daily basis, as their land and property and resources are hour-by-hour confiscated by the state of Israel, which also winks at settler violence and looks the other way as settlers, who have built their settlements on hilltops, dump their sewage onto Palestinian farmland, as they also cut down their olive trees, burn their fields and poison or otherwise kill their livestock, in order to make way for more settlers and settlements, as well as to make life as miserable as possible for the Palestinians with the intention of making their migration from Palestine more attractive than their continuing presence.

The Palestinian refugee population now stands at about five million — the largest refugee population in the world and the longest standing refugee population. There are no prospects on the horizon for any change in their situation.

Zionism is a political programme of clearing Palestine of Palestinian Arabs in order to create the space for an exclusive Jewish state. As such, its goal is to destroy the Palestinians as a people with an identity, as a people and with an attachment to the land of their births and the births of their ancestry. Such a project meets the definition of genocide under international law. Genocide is a crime against humanity was well as against its immediate victims. Genocide is a crime in which all of humanity is degraded.

When the US Congress gave 29 standing ovations to the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in his most recent appearance before this body, they were applauding a man whose has dedicated his entire life to the destruction of the Palestinian people and their ethnic cleansing.

The US Congress does not seem to know, or to care: Those who came to Palestine in the 20th century for the purpose of ethnically cleansing the indigenous people in order to establish a racially or ethnically pure Jewish state are the victimisers, not the victims; those who are being ethnically cleansed are the victims, not the victimisers. The US Congress has it backwards.

Did it not occur to the members of this august group that Netanyahu, after receiving 29 standing ovations, would return to Israel with an imprimatur from the US Congress to continue, or even accelerate, the disenfranchise of the Palestinians?

The day that the Knesset endorsed Oslo II by a majority of one, in 1993, thousands of demonstrators gathered in Zion Square in Jerusalem. While the demonstrators displayed an effigy of Rabin in SS uniform, Netanyahu delivered an inflammatory speech calling Oslo II a surrender agreement and accused Rabin of “causing national humiliation by accepting the dictates of the terrorist Arafat”. A month later, in November 1995, Rabin was assassinated by a religious-nationalist Jewish fanatic with the explicit aim of derailing the peace process. Rabin’s demise, as his murderer expected, dealt a serious body blow to the entire peace process.

There is a YouTube video, from 2002, of Netanyahu seated on a couch in the home of an Israeli family, unwittingly on camera, and bragging that he was able to destroy Oslo, and that he deceived the US president at that time, Bill Clinton, into believing he was helping implement the Oslo Accords by making minor withdrawals from the West Bank while actually entrenching the occupation. He boasts that he thereby destroyed the Oslo process.

He dismisses the US as “easily moved to the right direction” and calls high levels of popular American support for Israel “absurd”.

He also suggests that, far from being defensive, Israel’s harsh military repression of the Palestinian uprising was designed chiefly to crush the Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat so that it could be made more pliable to Israeli diktat.

Netanyahu is playing the US Congress for fools.

Days before he received 29 standing ovations in Washington, Netanyahu sat in the Oval Office with the US president and told him that he would not accept 1967 borders as the basis of a solution. The 1967 borders basis for a settlement has been the consistent American position since the 1967 war (ie for 45 years), and under both Democrat and Republican presidents.

Netanyahu told the US president that Israel needed most of the West Bank because otherwise Israel would be militarily vulnerable, and also an indefinitely long presence in the Jordan Valley, because otherwise Israel would be militarily vulnerable. Of course, Netanyahu has a consistent policy of ethnically cleansing Jerusalem of Palestinians because it was given to Jews by God, or because it is the Jewish birth right. That leaves very little for the Palestinians, does it not? The original inhabitants of Palestine, the Palestinians, were promised statehood by the British Mandate for Palestine.

It is not true, by the way, that Jews were building the city of Jerusalem 3000 years ago, as Netanyahu repeatedly claims, and even if it were, it would not override international law’s injunction against ethnic cleansing. The archaeologists tell us that Jerusalem was an abandoned village 3000 years ago surrounded by a small agrarian population. This is during the purported time of David and Solomon and the purported United Kingdom. Jerusalem did not achieve any significance until the eighth century BC and then as the continuous development of a Palestinian settlement from which artefacts have been discovered representing a variety of Palestinians deities of which Yahweh was only one of several. There is not one shred of evidence for a Jewish temple dating from 3000 years ago, or any other significant engineering structures from that time.

Furthermore, it is unlikely that Netanyahu, or any other Israeli who claims to be derived from God’s Chosen People, possesses any genetic connection to the ancient Judeans. The burden of proof is on Netanyahu to produce a verifiable pedigree or genealogical tree stretching back 3000 years into the Iron Age. In fact, no living person is able to do that.

Netanyahu derives from European Jewish ancestry, who, in turn, derive mostly from the Russian Khazars, those living near the Volga and Don Rivers, who converted en masse to Judaism in the ninth century AD bringing a much larger population to Judaic belief than any population of Judeans of the ancient world, or their descendants.

Paul Wexler, a philological archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, in his book, The Non-Jewish Origin of the Sephardic Jews, writes that Hebrew and Aramaic made their appearance in European Jewish text only in the 10th century AD, and were not products of earlier linguistic developments. During the first millennium AD, Jewish believers in Europe knew no Hebrew or Aramaic. Only after the religious canonisation of Arabic in Islam and Latin in Christianity did Judaism adopt and propagate its own religious language as a high cultural code.

It is as likely that Adolf Hitler is a descendant of the ancient Judeans as is Netanyahu, for all anyone knows.

The locus of the present day conflict in Palestine may not be in Palestine but in Washington, DC, and in the US Congress, because the US Congress supports, probably unwittingly for the most part, the ethnic cleansing and destruction of the Palestinian people.

Jewish terror state advises Sri Lanka on slow-motion genocide

Israel is the expert in that field

Israel advises Sri Lanka on slow-motion genocide




30 July 2013 



Women wearing mock blood lie on ground surrounded by other seated women

Tamil protesters outside the Sri Lankan consulate in Toronto, May 2009.

                (Richard Lautens / The Toronto Star)              

Towards the end of 2008, I joined thousands in Toronto to protest Israel’s attack on Gaza. Like people all over the world, we called for an immediate end to the war. At York University, where I was a student, we mobilized the campus to defend Palestinian rights.

A few months later, bombs were falling on my own people — in the Vanni region of northern Sri Lanka. And once again, we hit Toronto’s streets in protest.

I realized then that even though our homelands are oceans apart, Palestinians and Tamils have much in common.

Through the “war on terror,” the Israeli and Sri Lankan armies have waged war on civilian populations.

The Rome-based Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal has commissioned an independent report that finds the Sri Lankan state guilty of bombing hospitals, humanitarian operations and even government-declared “safe zones,” in clear violation of international humanitarian law (“Preliminary report,” January 2010 [PDF]).

A United Nations report estimates that from January to May 2009, between 40,000 and 75,000 persons were killed (“Report of the secretary-general’s panel of experts on accountability in Sri Lanka,” 31 March 2011).

The Sri Lankan government’s own statistical data reveal that almost 147,000 persons remain unaccounted for: no one knows if they are held in prison, injured, or dead (“146,679 Vanni people missing within a year of war: Bishop of Mannaar,” TamilNet, 12 January 2011).

Major arms supplier

But there are more direct connections.

Israel has been a major arms supplier to Sri Lanka’s government, as well as providing it with strategic military advice. With permission from the United States, Israel has sold Sri Lanka consignments of Kfir jets and drones.

Israel has also supplied the Dvora patrol boats to Sri Lanka, which have been used extensively against Tamils (“Sri Lanka learns to counter Sea Tigers’ swarm tactics,” Jane’s Navy International, March 2009 [PDF]).

And Israel has also provided training to the Special Task Force, a brutal commando unit in the Sri Lanka police.

The similarities don’t end there. Both Palestinians and Tamils have been subjected to a process of settler-based colonialism.

In the 1980s, Israel offered advice to Sri Lanka as it built Sinhala-only armed settlements in the eastern province, which aimed to create buffer zones around Tamil-majority populations (the Sinhalese are the ethnic majority of Sri Lanka) (“Sinhala academic blames US-UK axis for genocide in Tamil homeland,” TamilNet, 15 April 2012).

The strategy employed was the same as Israel’s in the West Bank: to destroy the local population’s claim to national existence and render invalid any political solution based on popular sovereignty.

Just like in Palestine, land seizures and settlement programs in Sri Lanka are fragmenting the Tamil people’s national and social coherence throughout their historic homeland in the north and east of the island. As exiled journalist and human rights worker Nirmanusan Balasundaram wrote earlier this year, the effect is to undermine any possibility of creating a contiguous national homeland (“Sri Lanka: The intentions behind the land-grabbing process,” Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, 30 April 2013).

Sham dialogue

Within the occupied West Bank, this process takes place against the backdrop of “dialogue,” which more and more Palestinians see as a sham as Israeli settlements spread across their land. After the 2009 war, the Sri Lankan government used the rhetoric of “reconstruction” and “redevelopment” to obscure its process of rapid colonization.

For Tamils, “post-war development” has become another form of counter-insurgency warfare, whereby Sinhala settlements, state-led militarization and the open gerrymandering of constituencies all threaten the Tamils’ historic relationship to their homeland.

The Palestinian experience — in particular, the Oslo accords signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993 — has been instructive for Tamils.

An international agreement with India foresees Sri Lanka holding elections this September for a Northern Provincial Council, supposedly another gesture of reconciliation. The US is backing the election, despite serious reservations within Tamil civil society and the diaspora.

The council, if elected, would provide Tamils with only the perception of self-determination — similar to the experience of the Palestinian Authority — while the military occupation continues to dominate every aspect of civilian life. The council’s powers would remain under the control of the Sinhalese-dominated government in Colombo, Sri Lanka’s capital, and its governor would be a direct appointment of the Sri Lankan president (see “Much ado about nothing,” Colombo Telegraph, 21 April 2013).

Regardless of the façade of self-government, the crime of apartheid remains a fact of life for Tamils in Sri Lanka, as it does for Palestinians under Israeli rule.

Sri Lanka’s treatment of the Tamils in the north and east of the island meets the definition of apartheid contained in the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.

Apartheid involves the domination of one racial or ethnic group over another. The convention is not restricted to the particular manifestation of apartheid in South Africa or to majorities being oppressed by minorities. Instead, it condemns practices that resemble apartheid — of which there is more than one version.

Without a doubt, there are critical differences between the oppression faced by Palestinians and the oppression faced by Tamils (and by black South Africans, for that matter). Nevertheless, both Israel and Sri Lanka are characterized by discrimination, repression and territorial fragmentation through stolen land.

The unitary Sri Lankan state structure constitutionally places all power of the state exclusively in the hands of the Sinhalese people, while denying Tamils equal access to education, their own language, their land, and self-determination.

Common experience

In light of this common experience, the Palestinian and Tamil peoples are enduring a slow — but relentless — genocide. The massacres in Gaza and the Vanni were carried out to kill civilians, cause serious bodily and mental harm, and impose conditions of life that produce partial and gradual physical destruction — all with little meaningful opposition from global capitals. Both can be considered cases of genocide, as it is defined by the United Nations.

In the case of Sri Lanka, as long as it uses the language of “reconciliation,” it will continue to pursue the same strategy and enjoy praise from major powers.

But the realization of our peoples’ aspirations does not depend on the whims of foreign governments. It rests with the Tamil people — as the aspirations for a liberated Palestine rest with the Palestinians — and the support of a mobilized and engaged international solidarity movement. By supporting each other’s struggles, and by learning from each other’s histories, we can get one step closer to a more just world.

For both Palestinians and Tamils, the attacks of 2008 and 2009 were part of a broader history of dispossession, occupation and genocide. Our people have a lot in common in the struggle for peace and justice. In fact, our oppressors appear to have lots in common too.

Krisna Saravanamuttu is an activist based in Toronto, Canada. He is a member of the steering committee of the Canadian Peace Alliance, and is the spokesperson of the National Council of Canadian Tamils. Follow him on Twitter: @KrisnaS85.

The morning after blacklisting Hezbollah: is the EU experencing ‘byers remorse’?

Franklin Lamb


It may well have seemd like a fine idea at the European Unions Foreign Ministers cocktail recption in Brussels, where ample alcholol freely flowed the night before last weeks vote to blacklist the “military wing” of Hezbollah.  But shortly after the vote the EU appeared to be experiencing a severe hangover as the stark reality of its  impetuous  decison began to soak in.

After periodical discussion of the US-Israel demand for blacklisting Hezbollah for more than a year, and adding its name to the EU list of 26 organizations and 11 individuals currently being designated as ‘terrorists’ is in becoming clearer by the day the the EU actions may not have been in anyone’s interest except possibly Israels.

It is true there was never much enthusiam at EU HQ for taking the blacklisting step given some fundaental uncertainites  of what it would mean in reality.  But American and Bristish pressure, and headlines from Israel screaming:  “ We told you  about rising anti-semitism from Europe” following the EU decision to  blacklist illegal  Zionist colonies imiplanted on the West Bank portion of occupied Palestine, weeks earlier.   To round up EU votes, the US State Department staff designated to lobby the 28 EU foreign minisstries also focused on the unproven Bulgaria bus attack, and Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria as reasons to go along with the blacklisting decision which requried  a unanimous vote for the 28 EU countries foreign ministers.

Minutes after the EU vote,  problems began to appear and it became obvious that buying into the US-UK Hezbollah “ military wing” blacklisting project was not an attractive product after all.
Some of the reportedly emphasized ‘talking points’ to the EU Foreign Ministries from Washington and London included the following:

  •  The EU blacklisting Hezbollah’s military wing would “compensate” Isreal, as it  has been demanding, for the EU vote early this month that essentiallly boycotted Zionist colonial projects throughout the illegally occupied West Bank
  • The action would not affect UNIFIL or UNSCR 1701 because Hezbollah  has good relations with UNIFIL and they would likely continue to work with the 15 European countries nationas making up UNIFIL including the five EU members ,France, Spain, Italy, Poland and Ireland who have troops patrolling the Lebanon-Palestine border;
  • Israel would be assauged and can claim a victory in its war with Hezbollah;
  • The Lebanese political parties backed by certain EU member states and the Gulf Countries such as Saudi Arabia would benefit in terms of estalishing a new pro-March 14th   dominated governemnt, significantly pressuring Hezbollah’s delegation in Parliament and  at the ballot box by the blacklisting—although it was not spelled out precisely how to would work;
  •   US-led western aid to the Lebanese army would likely increase and Hezollarah’s international reputation would suffer;
  •  There would be no damage to EU-Lebanese relations and any negative reactions would soon dye down.

However great all this may have sounded in some capitols  before the ill-considered vote, a rude awakening began to dawn almost immediatley after the votes were counted. Criticisms, complications and doubts from the EU action are contining to be voiced and second thoughts are spreading despite efforts of the EU Ambassador to Lebanon, Ms. Angeline Eichhorst at damage control.

Even before the EU’s decision to blacklist Hezbollah’s “military wing” was publicly released, Ms. Eichhorst sought and was granted appointments with Hezbollah’s Ammar al-Musawi, Liaison for International Relations, and Minister of State Mohammad Fneish,  at which she repeatedly offered assurances that the EU vote will have zero effect on relations with the group’s “civilian wing.”  She assured the gentlemen that the EU votes do not reflect on the Lebanese government in any way, explaining that the EU “has no problem with Hezbollah participating in any future government.”

Ambassador Eichhorst declared that “this decision is a political message to Hezbollah for the attack in Burgas, Bulgaria, which is a terrorist attack on European soil.”
She added, however, that this does not reflect on the Lebanese government in any way, explaining that the EU “has no problem with Hezbollah participating in any future government.” After her meeting with Hezbollah’s minister in the current caretaker government, she stated, “Financial assistance will continue, of which Minister Fneish’s ministry gets a sizeable share, and we want for this cooperation to continue.”
For his part, and ever gracious towards the EU’s well-meaning Ambassador , who appeared to understand some of the diplomatic complications the EU action unlearned, Hezbollah MP Fneish reminded the ambassador that “Israel occupied our land for many years, and we did not hear a single objection  (from the EU) “we were careful to maintain good relations with Europe, despite the terrible legacy Europe left behind among our people – from the Palestinian cause to colonialism – and despite this, you choose to remind us again of this painful history.”
 Minister Fneish reiterated Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah’s statement that the European decision will provide Israel with political cover for any future attack on Lebanon, in which case Hezbollah would consider the EU a partner in such a crime. Eichhorst replied that the EU decision has nothing to do with Resistance to Israel or Lebanese sovereignty.”
 Both Musawi and Fneish stood their ground in their discussions with  EU ambassador Eichhorst, insisting that the decision was an insult to the Resistance. They dismissed the decision as politically motivated, particularly given that the outcome of the Burgas investigation is rooted in allegations and conjecture, even by the admission of the ambassador herself who conceded that there are no firm results regarding responsibility for the Burgas incident that cost innocent lives.
Ms. Eichhorst’s  hosts were reportedly far too polite to ask the EU ambassador just how the EU planned to somehow go about distinguishing a “civil wing” and a “military wing”.
And they are not alone in appearing a bit puzzled. According to a lawyer at the American Society of International Law in Washington DC, the EU decision was a big mistake from an international law standpoint and could be an international lawyer’s worst nightmare or a dream come true. Which would depend if the lawyer was representing the EU in trying to unravel the civil-military conundrum or advising thousands of EU member states businesses and agencies wanting to continue any business with the Lebanese government, UNIFIL, or countless NGO’s who regularly interact with Hezbollah.
“It’s a real legal mess!” the ASIL source explained, as he described the legal confusion the EU action caused.  “The best thing for EU credibility and international relations right now on this subject would be for the EU to forget what it did and to desist from any implementation whatsoever.  And then let the designation be removed after the six months trial period as provided by EU regulations.  Otherwise, their decision will swamp courtrooms and complicate Middle East-European political and economic relations with challenges from all points on the compass with uncertain outcomes to say the least.”
It is not only Hezbollah, the leader of the National Lebanese Resistance and American international lawyers who have expressed concerns about the EU action last week.  It seems that nearly everyone else does too and this reaction is adding to the EU’s ‘morning after’ queasiness.
Many citizens of Lebanon are expressing concern that the EU brush stroke aimed at Hezbollah’s “military wing” may tar them as well due to the ‘terrorism’ label toxicity these days. A Sunni taxi driver wondered if his children could now get visas to Europe because of the ruling.  Lebanon is very sensitive to the issue of Visas as they see fellow citizens are being forced out of Gulf countries due to fabricated claims of association with Hezbollah. In these countries hundreds of thousands of Lebanese have had visas for decades. It is the uncertainly among many-understandably paranoid Lebanese living and working abroad than is causing near panic among some in Lebanon.
It’s hard to find in Lebanon, even among Hezbollah detractors, a political party that is publicly endorsing the EU decision because they basically see no advantage for Lebanon of their own tightly controlled sects, whether Christian, Muslim, or Druze.

On 7/27/13 Former premier Fouad Saniora, head of al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc, no friend of Hezbollah,   voiced “concern and regret over the reasons that led the European Union to take the decision of putting Hezbollah’s so-called military wing on its terror list.”   Saniora added in a statement released from his party’s media office:

 “We had commented on this issue in the bloc’s statement and voiced our regret and also our concern over the reasons that led the EU to take such a decision, especially that we in Lebanon have ties of solid friendship with 28 European countries, and thus none of us would have liked to see this happening.”
Saniora’s friend and colleague, Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel argued over the week-end that the European Union’s decision to blacklist Hezbollah’s military wing is “ambiguous,” pointing out that it will have a negative impact on the country. In an interview with Voice of Lebanon radio (100.5) he argued that “The decision confused the Lebanese situation and will constitute negative repercussions on all matter especially the cabinet formation process,” Gemayel said. He pointed out that the decision targets Hezbollah members who his party considered “ghosts,” saying: “The members that are responsible for Hezbollah’s military action are unknown.”
Even Israeli officials have problems with the EU’s decision. Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman and MK Avigdor Lieberman slammed the EU’s decision to put military wing of Hezbollah on terrorist list, saying that not only military wing, but the entire organization should be blacklisted. “
As usual, Lieberman found some anti-Semitism lurking among the Europeans, claiming that they were satisfied with going only halfway, and like the West Bank Settlements EU decision, the EU wants to punish not the terrorists but those (like-Israel!) who reject terrorism and fight it. Half a dozen other Israeli officials including the ever garrulous Shimon Peres chimed in to form a chorus condemning the EU.
Far be it for this observer to advise the European Union’s Foreign Ministry or to promote an American association’s legal analysis and advice.  However, the American Society of International Law lawyer, quoted above, makes a valid point.  
The best move for the EU now, as it tries to recover from the current self-inflicted debacle is to do nothing to inflame the situation by cooking up some dubious terrorist lists.  Rather, in six months the EU should assure that this month’s blacklisting decision acquiesced in under US-Israel pressure, lapses.
Franklin Lamb is doing research in Syria and Lebanon and is reachable c/o
%d bloggers like this: