US Ambassador Quietly Delivers West Bank to Israel in NY Times Interview

By Miko Peled
Source

JERUSALEM, PALESTINE — In a highly provocative statement — one that was most likely well planned — United States Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said in an interview this week to the New York Times that “Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank.”

Responses to this statement were quick to pop up, with the Israeli “Left” condemning and the Right expressing their agreement. Public Security and Strategic Affairs Minister Gil’ad Erdan said:

The Trump administration’s view, which was expressed by Ambassador Friedman, is the only one that might bring about change and make the Palestinians understand that boycotting Israel and the United States and supporting terror and incitement won’t achieve anything.”

Erdan continued: “For years the Palestinians were told that time is in their favor and therefore (in addition to many other reasons) they refused.”

Bezalel Smutrich, chairman of the “National Unity” Party said that it seems the Americans finally understand that Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Smariah will “uproot the Arab desire for an independent state,” and that this desire is what is “fueling terrorism and the violent struggle for over one hundred years.”

It seems interestng that the Zionist perception is that more opression and more exclusion will convince the Palestinians to stop fighting for their rights.

On the Israeli Left the responses were quite strong. Ofer Cassif, of Hadash-Ta’al Party, tweeted“Neither the government of Israel nor the U.S. administration can hide the truth – the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are occupied Palestinian territories that will be released and lawfully returned to their owners as part of a just peace deal.”

Cassif went as far as publishing a letter he wrote to Ambassador Friedman, which was also turned into an ad saying, “We are not a US Protectorate.”

Mtanes Shehadeh, head of Balad Party, also tweeted, saying that permanent Israeli sovereignty of Palestinian territories would be a violation of International law.

The truth hurts

It is true everywhere that the truth hurts, but perhaps nowhere as much as in Palestine. In this particular case the truth is that if one accepts the legitimacy of Israel in the Galilee, the Naqab, Jerusalem or any other part of Palestine, then there is no room to draw an artificial line and say “this is as far as it goes and Israel has no right to Judea and Samaria.” Not to even mention the fact that the line that is used here — the “Green Line” that delineates the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — was drawn by Israel, based on Israeli interests when the Zionist state was established. And then — in 1967, when it no longer suited Israel’s needs — it was de factoeliminated by Israel.

When the cease fire lines were drawn in 1949, lines that defined the state of Israel and are known as the pre-1967 borders, it was Israel that decided what parts of Palestine would be included within the newly established Zionist state. It was clear to the Israeli military and politicians that these were not permanent boundaries. Israel’s first foreign minister, Moshe Sharet, mentions in his memoirs an occasion when important Jewish leaders came for a visit to Jerusalem. They were invited to a gathering where several speakers presented, one of whom was my father, then a young lieutenant colonel. Sharet notes with great pleasure how the young Peled made it clear that the eastern boundary of the State of Israel needed to be the Jordan River. He added that the military is prepared for the day when the government will give the order to complete that task.

It was about ten years later, and almost exactly 52 years ago, that my father was now one of the Israeli army’s generals and the job was completed. Israel’s eastern boundary was pushed all the way to the Jordan River and Judea and Samaria came within the boundaries of the state. Needless to recall here that Jewish settlements in these areas were built almost immediately and any talk of giving them up was considered treasonous.

Just as we either accept racism as legitimate or we reject it, we either accept the legitimacy of Zionism or we reject it. There is no room for a middle way. If any proof is still needed that as long as Zionists control Palestine Palestinians will enjoy no rights, the past seven decades supply ample proof. As long as there is an “Israel,” Palestinians will continue to suffer from forced exile, arbitrary detention, and ongoing killing of civilians.

Is David Friedman, the former Trump lawyer and major supporter of settlements, right? No! However, if one accepts the legitimacy of the Zionist state then one might as well accept Ambassador Friedman’s statement and Israeli sovereignty over all of Palestine. The Zionist state claims all of Palestine to be “The Land of Israel,” and has in fact taken over and settled all of Palestine.

Consecutive Zionist governments have made it clear that there is no West Bank, only an area of The Land of Israel called Judea and Samaria. Israel makes it clear that settling Jewish people anywhere in the Land of Israel is a right that is not negotiable. No single form of opression by Israel will end until the entire system of Zionist occupation and oppression is brought to an end. It is like trying to put out fires while allowing the arsonist to keep pouring fuel into them. The arsonist is the Zionist state.

Not a random statement

David Friedman’s statement was not random and was not made out of the clear blue sky — he does, after all, represent the United States government. The statement is well timed and goes along with policies we have seen enacted by the Israeli government and supported by the Trump administration: recognition of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel; defunding UNRWA; closing the Palestinian mission in Washington, and in fact deporting the head of the mission along with his family; the recognition of Israeli sovreignty over the Syrian Golan Heights; and the proposed state of “New Palestine.”

All of these point to the inevitable recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, and are part of the grand, so-called Deal of the Century.

Advertisements

New Evidence Proves Israel Attacked USS Liberty With Orders to Kill 294 Americans

Global Research, June 08, 2019

America is commemorating the 52nd anniversary of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty.

This article was first published on November 14, 2014

Fresh evidence presented in an exclusive Al Jazeera investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 Americans proves the incident was not a mistake. Since 1967 the ‘official story‘ has been that Israel simply misidentified the American ship as Egyptian for several hours. Israel apologized to the United States and for several decades we’ve been led to believe that this could be the only explanation for why Israeli jets and torpedo boats would launch rockets, missiles and torpedoes at an American target for more than two hours.

A new documentary called ‘The Day Israel Attacked America” airing on Al Jazeera was produced and directed by award winning British film maker Richard Belfield. Thanks to the audio evidence obtained by Belfield, it is finally possible to prove the survivors of the attack on the USS Liberty were right all along. The survivors have always been extremely confident that Israel’s intentions were to sink that ship and kill everyone on board so Egypt could be blamed for the tragedy. Why? To convince President Lyndon Johnson (and the American public) that we needed to declare war on Egypt. This is the definition of a ‘false flag‘. (can you say 9/11?)

It appears that once again, a conspiracy theory has turned out to be conspiracy fact. You can finally take off your tinfoil hats!

Earlier this year, I acquired a copy of the audiotape of the attack as it had unfolded, the real time conversations between Israeli Air Force pilots and their controllers back at base. It had never been broadcast before. I went to talk to Al Jazeera and after careful consideration, the network commissioned the film.” – Richard Belfield

Just sixteen minutes after Israel attacked America, the USS Liberty was confirmed by Israeli forces to be an American ship. These conversations can be heard in the documentary Al Jazeera has been airing on their station.

“To what state does she belong?” (Answer): “American”

Yet the attacks continued for an hour and a half!

Even five minutes before the first bombing you can hear Israeli Air Force pilots question whether the ship was American or not. You don’t have to be a genius to understand why these pilots would be extremely uncomfortable attacking a ship suspected to be American without being given direct orders to do so. I believe we can safely assume this attack wouldn’t have been carried out otherwise.

rsz_deathamerica“Is it an American ship?” “What do you mean American?” “No comment.”

Twenty minutes after a ground controller answered “American” when asked “to what state does she belong?” by Israeli Air Force pilots, the first torpedo hit the USS Liberty. A voice can clearly be heard which confirms that this target, thought to be American at that time, was to be destroyed.

“The torpedo is talking care of the ship now.”

As soon as the first torpedo hit the USS Liberty, Israeli torpedo boats circled the ship and started machine-gunning the American target for another 40 minutes. When the USS Liberty crew lowered their lifeboats into the water to evacuate their ship, the Israelis moved closer so they could gun down the Americans attempting to save their own lives.

More than ten years ago a journalist named Arieh O’Sullivan from the Jerusalem Post was allowed to listen to these same audiotapes. He published a transcript of the Israeli military transmissions he heard directing the attack on the USS Liberty. Sixteen minutes after the attack started, just as in the recording obtained by Al Jazeera, O’Sullivan’s transcript (translated from Hebrew to English) shows the same exchange.

“Kislev, what country?” (Answer): “Apparently American.”

That is where O’Sullivan’s transcript, published over ten years ago by the Jerusalem Post, ends. There is just one major problem with that… The attack continued for another hour and a half!

Navy Admiral Thomas Moorer, who has served this country as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Naval Operations, once lead an independent commission to investigate what really happened to the USS Liberty. The commission’s findings were made public in 2003. Here are a few of the shocking conclusions.

  • The attack, by a U.S. ally, was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill its entire crew.
  • The attack included the machine-gunning of stretcher-bearers and life rafts .
  • The White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the USS Liberty. This was the first time in naval history a rescue mission had been cancelled while an American ship was under attack.
  • Surviving crew members were later threatened with court-martial, imprisonment, or worse if they talked to anyone about what had happened to them; and were “abandoned by their own government 

John Crewdson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, published in 2007 what former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has called the ‘most detailed and accurate account of the Israeli attack‘ for the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun. You guessed it, Crewdson was fired by the Chicago Tribune just a year later after working there for 24 years. You should read his work.

Israeli messages intercepted on June 8, 1967, leave no doubt that sinking the USS Liberty was the mission assigned to the attacking Israeli warplanes and torpedo boats as the Six-Day War raged in the Middle East. Let me repeat: there is no doubt – none – that the mission of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) was to destroy the USS Liberty and kill its entire crew.” – former CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

 

The inadequacy of ‘Israel-Palestine conflict’ label

By Agha Hussain
Source

To treat the ‘Israel-Palestine conflict’ as one in a long list of bilateral country disputes to be found in the modern age attaches to the real issue all the wrong dynamics, underlying realities and extremely ineffective ‘solutions’. The sheer inadequacy of looking at this particular ‘issue’ through the lens of Israel versus Palestine is striking and not as such something that requires a great effort and deep study to highlight prominently and forcefully enough to convince popular punditry to abandon it for the sake of strengthening and liberating the discourse.

The ‘Israel-Palestine conflict’ label implies two coherent state entities with a balance between their ability to inflict harm upon each other – thus warranting the intention of multinational organizations and platforms for ‘conflict resolution’ – that isn’t completely one-sided. Demonstrating the inherent weakness of this framework is not difficult and does not even require a study of the ‘Israel-Palestine conflict’ during the 70-odd years it has existed subject to awkward attempts to shoehorn it into a ‘state versus state’ format.

All it really takes is a look at the feats and displays of political strength the “Zionist” movement pulled off prior to Israel’s physical creation in May of 1948 and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine itself, as argued by Historian Ilan Pappé in his book The ethnic cleansing of Palestine. A prompt realization follows that a relatively powerless, less-than-wealthy, beleaguered Palestinian populace living under the Ottomans and then the British were never a rival, competitor, threat or even serious factor for the Zionists do consider while carrying forth their aggressive, expansionist movement.

The Balfour Declaration

With the World War I effort not going well for Britain in 1916, British Zionists formally approached the British with the offer of drawing the US into the war on Britain’s side. In exchange, the Zionist demanded the British promise them a Jewish national home in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire, after the war was over.

Integral to this scheme, of course, was not only the Zionists possessing great influence over the US government but also the British acknowledging this fact and thus being sure that the Zionists could secure US intervention for the Allies. The Balfour Declaration took the form of a letter written by British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour in 1917 to Lord Walter Rothschild, a prominent British Zionist, promising a Jewish national home in Palestine.

As documented in the book ‘Against Our Better Judgement: The Hidden History of How the US was used to Create Israel’ by Alison Weir, the letter had been crafted and deliberated upon by both British and American Zionists for two years prior to being finalized and dispatched by Lord Balfour.

Using an array historical sources close to the Zionist political movement of the time, Weir’s book documents in detail how well-placed Zionists in the US and Britain coordinated with each other their efforts to make such a British-Zionist pact possible.

As early as 1915, Horace Kallen, the head of the ‘Parushim’ secret society of Zionists in the US revealed decades later to have included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, had suggested such a pact to the British. Kallen and especially Brandeis were on close personal terms with President Woodrow Wilson. Brandeis, appointed by Wilson to his prestigious judicial position in 1916, had considerably privileged access to the president as a close personal affiliate despite the obligation of judges to avoid politics.

Brandeis had also been named the honourary president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) in 1918, as Weir’s seminal book also documents.

Chaim Weizmann, Russian-born Jewish chemist and leader of the British Zionist Federation, was in close contact with Brandeis as a means of reaching US President Wilson directly. In April 1917, a month before the US would enter the war, Weizmann contacted Brandeis and urged him to secure a supportive stance toward Zionist aspirations in Palestine from officials close to Wilson. This informal method of reaching Wilson’s ear was used in large part because the US State Department, staffed with officials familiar with socio-political dynamics in the Arab world, saw the catastrophe that backing the Zionist project would cause.

Reminiscent to this mode of interaction is also the modern day stove-piping at the White House, whereby President Donald Trump’s influential son-in-law Jared Kushner has often formulated foreign policy based on plans concocted with foreign heads of state through informal channels (even Whatsapp). The influence and ability of the Zionist lobby to bypass procedure, protocol and proper channels in the US government, evidently, has not changed in all the years since the likes of Brandeis acted as high profile messengers from Zionist lobbyists to the White House.

Weizzman had also been in touch with the British government, notably Lord Balfour, since over a decade prior to the issuing of the Balfour Declaration. As narrated in a 2005 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs articles, Lord Walter Rothschild’s niece mentioned in her book ‘Dear Lord Rothschild’ that Weizmann had met Balfour several times between 1905 and 1915. Weizman also maintained frequent audience with the British War Cabinet, which included Balfour and the then-Prime Minister Lloyd George (both Zionists for religious reasons), in the months leading up to the issuing of the Balfour Declaration.

After apparent stalling by Wilson upon British requests in September 2017 for a draft declaration, Weizmann again contacted Brandeis and impressed upon him the need for his and Wilson’s support for the text being prepared. In October, a draft sent by the British to Wilson was handed over by the President to Brandeis for his approval, with the latter then adding the key phrase ‘Jewish race’ instead of ‘Jewish people’. By October 13, Wilson had approved the text, prepared by British Zionists and with vital input from Brandeis.

The Balfour Declaration was issued by Britain on 2 November 1917 and signified immense Zionist political depth inside major Western powers as well as the recognition afforded to this fact by major Allied powers as they sought US entry into World War I.

Nominally stateless yet geopolitical active

Weizmann, rewarded with his role in procuring the Balfour Declaration for the Zionists with presidency of the World Zionist Organization (WZO) and who would become the first president of Israel, attended along with David Ben Gurioun, who would become the first Prime Minister of Israel, the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as a Zionist delegation. Demands were put forth for the Litani River to be included in the proposed borders for the Jewish state, albeit it was allotted to (French-controlled) Lebanon as per the terms of the 1915 Sykes-Picot treaty which had remained secret till then.

Sidon city and Mount Hermon in Lebanon along with huge chunks of land from Transjordan and a corridor across the Sinai from the port city of Aqaba to the Egyptian port city al Arish (thus extending the Jewish state’s access to the Mediterranean coastline) were also demanded by Weizmann at Paris in 1919.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine and creation of Israel: a one-sided affair

As the late veteran historian on the issue of Israel and Palestine, Donald Neff, narrated in a 1998 article, Palestine’s Arabs could not put up much of a resistance to the Jewish armed groups violently expelling them from their homes and turning two-thirds of Palestine’s 1.2 million Arabs into displaced refugees. By May 14 when David Ben Gurion announced Israel’s creation, 77.4 percent of Palestine had been captured by the Jews and largely cleansed of its Arab inhabitants.

Israeli historian Ilan Pappe’s ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ points out that the British dismantlement of Palestinian military capabilities via the suppression of the Arab Revolt (1936-39) had allowed the Zionists to begin actively planning the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in the early 1940s. The Arabs had turned into increasingly soft targets, and this was exploited by Zionist terrorist groups such as the Stern Gang which even plotted terrorist bombings in Europe and the famous Irgun Zvei Lumi, which had carried out bombings and massacres of Arabs since as early as 1938.

Future premiers of Israel such as Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin were among the ranks of such terror groups. These groups would also, despite political differences with the Jewish Agency, cooperate fully with the Haganah in its ethnic cleansing campaign in Palestine.

The Jewish Agency – Israel’s government in waiting – tasked academics to draw up extensive maps and detailed reports on the Arabs’ villages, towns and lifestyles which would later help the armed wing of the Zionists in Palestine, the Haganah, in the ethnic cleansing effort.

Unlike the hapless Palestinians, however, the Jews had ample weapon supplies for both the one-dimensional capture of much of Palestine and the brief skirmishes that would follow with neighbouring Arab states in 1948. The Jewish Agency had active arms smuggling networks in the US bringing explosives, munitions, combat aircraft and other supplies from the US War Assets Administration. This made the clashes between the Arabs and Jews a one-sided affair indeed and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine an easy task to accomplish.

Is there truly an ‘Israel-Palestine conflict’?

History and current affairs both testify to the fact that Palestinians act as merely the most physically proximate victims to Israel’s atrocities, oppression and occupation and that to treat and not as a competitor in any major way to Israel past stiff resistance offered by some armed factions to Israel in Gaza.

That a movement so powerful and influential would struggle or be constrained in its ambitions to any extent by the brave yet outmatched Palestinians has always been unlikely. Zionism’s power waxed and grew incrementally in the years leading up to the creation of Israel in May 1948 just as the power of the traditional colonialist states waned and the founding fathers of Israel evidently planned a lot further than just subjugating Palestinian self-determination.

The Joke of the Century

By Jeremy Salt
Source

Mike Pompeo speaks with Benjamin Netanyahu a29fb

With fresh elections called by Benyamin Netanyahu for September, it is possible that the ‘deal of the century’ may never see the light of day.  Condemned across the board by Palestinians, even supporters are backing away.  Mike Pompeo, Trump’s Secretary of State, said recently it was a deal “only the Israelis could love” and possible was “unexecutable.” Still, for what it reveals of the minds that could come up with such a scheme, the ‘deal of the century’ is still worth examining.

The ‘deal’ would be the joke of the century were it not so seriously intended.  Whether deal or joke, however, the bottom line is blackmail and even murder. If Hamas and Islamic Jihad don’t accept this deal, the US will allow Israel to “personally harm” their leaders, in other words, kill them.

The full package is to be unveiled in late June but these are some of the details, as leaked from the Foreign Ministry to Sheldon Adelson’s newspaper, Israel Hayom, a propaganda conduit for the Netanyahu government.  Adelson’s wife Miriam, Israel Hayom’s chief executive, is one of the richest women in the world, with an estimated personal fortune of $22 billion.  She and her husband have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into their pet causes, the Republican Party and the state of Israel.  Described in the US media as an ‘humanitarian’ and ‘philanthropist,’ this sponsor of Israel’s racist war on the Palestinians was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018, the highest US award that can be conferred on a civilian.

Some of the detail in the Jared Kushner ‘deal of the century’ may be kite-flying, to be modified before the formal release of the plan, so that it won’t look so bad after all, but the deadly intent, to erase Palestine forever and replace it with a strangulated state of ‘New Palestine,’ is not to be doubted.

As outlined in Israel Hayom, Israel would annex all the West Bank settlement blocs. Together with the isolated settlements to be brought within this land grab, Israel could be expected to seize most if not all of Area C of the West Bank, as assigned to full Israeli control in the long-moribund ‘peace process.’

This would give it up to 62 percent of the West Bank.  ‘New Palestine’ would consist of Area A (about three percent) and presumably most of Area B, consisting of 24 percent, to make statehood even remotely plausible. The territory taken by Israel would include the fertile and well-watered Jordan Valley.  Overall, the Palestinians would be left with about 12 percent of their stolen homeland.   In practice, there would be no real change from the present situation. The ‘deal’ would simply ratify Israeli settlement and land seizures in a new pseudo-legal arrangement.

The West Bank would be connected to Gaza by a highway, to be funded mainly by China but with smaller financial contributions from South Korea, Australia, Canada, the US, and the EU.   Egypt would lease land to ‘New Palestine’ for the construction of an airport and an industrial zone in Sinai. The Palestinians would also have a port.  This and other infrastructural and administrative costs would be covered by $30 billion paid by the oil-producing Gulf states (70 percent, the US (20 percent) and the EU (10 percent).

A time frame of five years would provide plenty of room for the freezing of grants if the Palestinians misbehave, in the event of rockets still being fired into Israel or through their perceived failure to comply with the terms imposed on them, as interpreted by Israel, of course.

Israel would continue to oversee the ‘security’ of ‘New Palestine’s’ land and sea borders, so no change here either except the semantic.  As the trump hand in negotiations would always be held by someone else – Israel, the US or Egypt or the donors to the various projects – the Palestinians would be perennially open to threat and intimidation and the withholding of financial grants.

‘New Palestine’ would have its capital in Jerusalem, most probably in the village of Abu Dis, which was brought within the municipal boundaries by Ehud Barak during the Camp David negotiations to create the fiction of a shared capital. In fact, Jerusalem would remain under the full control of the Israeli municipality and government. Palestinians would have no say at all in how the city is run.

East Jerusalem Palestinians would remain the citizens of ‘New Palestine’ but Israel would control their daily lives as before.  Restrictions would be formally applied to real estate deals, so that Israelis could not buy Palestinian houses and Palestinians could not buy properties sequestered by Jewish settlers.  In practice, given Israel’s determination to turn Jerusalem into a wholly Jewish city, except for Palestinian remnants, it is difficult to see this restriction being applied to the settlers, whom the occupier’s law allows to seize Palestinian property by the most dubious means.

Hamas would have to hand in all its weapons immediately.  New elections would be held in a year.  ‘New Palestine’ would have no army, only a lightly-armed police force.  Having spent more than seven decades destroying the old Palestine – the real Palestine – Israel would take responsibility for the defense of the new, but the Palestinians would have to bear the costs of their own protection as calculated by Israel.

The Palestinians would have to accept that they have no right of return and naturally there is no mention of the hundreds of billions of dollars that is their due from the theft of their land and the destruction of hundreds of their villages in 1948-9.  Hot on reparations from Germany, Israel has never shown any interest in paying back the Palestinians for what it has stolen and the lives it has destroyed.

If the Palestinians do not accept the ‘deal of the century’ the US will do everything in its power to make sure that no institution or country in the world gives them any financial support. If the PLO accepts the deal but Hamas and Islamic Jihad do not, the US would support any Israeli attempt in times of conflict to ‘’personally harm’’ their leaders.  In other words, the US government would openly support their assassination.

As the US has always tacitly supported the murder of Palestinian leaders, the only change here would be the move from implicit to open support but either way, this is gangsterism pure and simple, put down in writing by the smooth-faced son of a property developer from New Jersey.  Where is Tom Wolfe now that he is needed to put all of this into the only appropriate form, satire?

If Israel rejects the offer then it too would receive no more financial support from the US government. The notion that an Israeli government would reject an arrangement that gives it virtually everything it has ever wanted except the complete expulsion of the Palestinians is grotesque.

How astonishing it is that in the 102 dramatic years since the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, that after a century of massacres, murders and assassinations of Palestinians and other Arabs by the Zionists and their ‘western’ sponsors, after the resistance of young and old Palestinians generation after generation, and against the background of the complete illegality of Zionist actions, that this squalid deal is the best Jared Kushner could come up.

He clearly has no grasp of history.  No doubt he discussed this at length with Ivanka. That the fate of Palestine could come to rest in the hands of these spoilt American juveniles, these Ken and Barbie dolls, who could be stood next to their waxen simulacrums in Madame Tussaud’s without anyone noticing the difference, is the measure of the complete bankruptcy of the United States in the Middle East.

How equally astonishing it is that Jared, or Ivanka, or Trump or his settler-supporting ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, could be so ignorant of history, so unaware of the human spirit as demonstrated not just by the Palestinians but by every occupied and oppressed people through the entire course of history, that they could have even thought the Palestinians would buy into this cheap realtor’s stunt.  Buy now, because tomorrow it’s going to be twice as expensive. This is a bargain you Palestinians just can’t afford to miss. The vendor can’t hold off forever.

The racist, orientalist implications have been brought out by Haidar Eid and others.  Dignity, honor, pride, justice, moral, legal and historical entitlement are all missing from Jared Kushner’s calculations.  The money deal is on the table and the native better pick it up because this is the best he’s ever going to be offered and if he doesn’t he’s going to be whipped until he sees reason.

‘‘I’m not here to be trusted,’ Jared said of the Palestinians in an Axio-HBO interview. ‘They’re gonna judge it based on facts and then make a determination .. When I speak to the Palestinians what they want is the opportunity to live a better life …. They want the opportunity to pay the mortgage.’’ This is the Palestinian problem reduced to the cash worries of a suburban American household.

In the Bible, an Esau returning hungry from the fields is said to have sold his birthright to his brother Jacob for a ‘mess of pottage,’ which seems to have been a plate of lentils. In a similar fashion, Jared is about to put his offer to the Palestinians on the kitchen table: they will have to forfeit their birthright, but do they want the lentils or not?

He is not even sure the Palestinians will prove capable of governing themselves.  That was the British line when they took Palestine from the Palestinians in 1920.  They said they would hold Palestine until the people are ready for self-government.  In fact, these liars were holding Palestine in limbo until the Zionists settlers had built up the numbers and were ready for self-government without the Palestinians.

Over decades the Zionist line was that ‘we have no negotiating partner.’  In fact, it was the Palestinians who never had a negotiating partner and do not have one now.  Israel has ignored, undermined or debauched every single peace offers ever made.  It has chosen all of Palestine over peace every time.  Now along comes the ‘deal of the century’ to close off all remaining options and deliver the Palestinians into a formally structured Babylonian life of bondage to the state of Israel.

Palestinians have already responded by signaling to Jared that he can put his ‘deal of the century’ in a place where the sun never shines.  This struggle will continue, fought within Palestine and from beyond its borders.

Making Prayer Safer: 94% of DHS Grants to Enhance Security Goes to Jewish Groups

By Philip Giraldi
Source

Secure State Bonding ffc00

There is an unfortunate tendency in the United States to throw money at a problem, particularly when the problem is related to powerful constituencies. The recent attacks on synagogues, churches, and mosques have included two attacks on synagogues in Pittsburgh and San Diego that killed 12 and a shooting at a Texas church in 2017 that killed 26. The recent massacre of 51 Muslims in New Zealand also resonated in the United States.

Attacks on religious sites are increasingly being seen as a national problem in the U.S., even though they are statistically speaking extremely rare, far less frequent than attacks on or inside public schools. The characteristic government response to the incidents has been to authorize and granting money to provide surveillance cameras, bulletproof glass and armed guards for those sites that are considered to be particularly vulnerable.

It also is happening at state and local levels. The New York city council is considering including funding for security at houses of worship in the next year’s budget, while Connecticut is proposing a grant of $5 million to pay for specific physical security upgrades.  Not to be left behind, a bipartisan bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Rob Portman and Gary Peters to authorize $75 million in grants to protect religious sites as well as select nonprofit organizations. The nonprofits would include facilities that are considered vulnerable to violence, including abortion clinics.

As usual, however, the devil is in the details and, most particularly, in the process used to determine who gets the cash. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) already doles out considerable money, $1.7 billion in 2019, in grants to various organizations and both governmental and non-governmental entities. Included are grants to “nonprofit” groups that are considered to be particularly targeted by terrorists. This process is not particularly objective and it was reported in 2014 that fully 94% of all grants issued by DHS to enhance security had gone to Jewish groups and their associated facilities. Jewish groups also received nearly all of the grants since the inception of the program in 2005, totaling $151 million. This disparity, which was the case even before the two recent armed attacks on synagogues, is a tribute to the political power of Jewish organizations versus the lack of the same relating to small and relatively impecunious congregations of Christians and Muslims.

Indeed, many religious groups have taken steps on their own, without a government handout, to enhance their own security. They are to be commended for doing so. It is to be presumed that some other houses of worship have been hesitant about upgrading security, even if they can afford it, because they are waiting for the government to cover the costs. Other religious entities have eschewed overt security because it sends the wrong message about their accessibility to the public.

In theory, community policing means that law enforcement officers, paid for by the entire community, will be deployed at locations where their presence contributes to public safety. This is already the case in most towns and cities, where policemen are present and highly visible at the times of religious services to handle traffic and other security problems. This is all accomplished without any particular fuss and without any special federal government grants.

There is also the question of how the grants would be awarded. As noted above, the politically powerful who have access to the bureaucrats will inevitably be the principal beneficiaries. Sarah Levin, director of governmental affairs for the Secular Coalition for America, has observed that there is no particular reason why grants for security enhancement at religious sites should not be made available to anyone who believes him or herself targeted for any particular reason or even for no reason at all. She cites the example of non-religious nonprofits, to include abortion clinics, explaining that “Favoring the security of houses of worship over the security of other communities is not only violation of separation of church and state, it’s wrong.”

Levin is right but she is wrong about the broader acceptability of government issuing grants to specific communities or constituencies that are considered to be threatened. Government should be neutral, leaving it up to local police and the resources of the communities themselves to assess the security situation and provide appropriate protection against potential criminals.

The desire on the part of some in government to pander to some constituencies that are most vocal is understandable, but it is not acceptable to do so because that ultimately means that the state is enabling the activities of one group over another based on a subjective grant-giving process. And doing so also raises moral issues. Why should I as a Roman Catholic who does not believe acceptable some forms of abortion be required to pay taxes to protect the activity of abortion clinics?

The mentality of those in government that compels some legislators to seek to favor certain groups derives from the unfortunate tendency to regard some actions as more heinous than others. Is it really worse to shoot people in a synagogue rather than in an elementary school, requiring national level remedial action consisting of grants to upgrade security in the former rather than the latter?

The willingness of some in government to use taxpayer money to support constituencies near to their hearts rather than based on objective standards that apply to everyone all began with the popularization of the concept of the “hate crime.” For the first time killing, robbing or maiming someone was considered somehow to be worse if hatred for that individual or the group he or she represented was involved. Now we Americans will have religious groups and abortion clinics alike lining up for assistance to protect themselves against maniacs and the ones who shout the loudest will, as ever, get the lion’s share of the money.

Watch US spy for Israel Jonathan Pollard Kvetching* about Israel.

June 02, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

In a rare interview with Israel’s Channel 12, Jonathan Pollard, the American who betrayed his country for the Jewish State  has spoken of his frustration with the Israeli government, which it claims has forgotten about him. Back in the 1980s Pollard was an intelligence analyst for the United States Navy. He was caught selling US government secrets to Israel and spent 30 years in prison. Throughout Pollard’s time in prison, the Israeli and Jewish pressure groups  Lobbied relentlessly  for his release, claiming that the spy did not harm American interests, but was simply trying to help Israel. Ever since his release, Pollard has been required to wear an ankle monitor at all times. His Internet browsing is strictly regulated by the US government and he is not permitted to leave his New York home after sunset. He is also not permitted to leave the US, and Washington has refused to allow him to move to Israel.

* Kvetch – an old Yiddish noun meaning “nagging complainer”, and in verb form “kvetching” means “to complain”.

My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal and security services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me and others.

Donate

 

التنبه لمناورة الزمن وروزنامة الاستحقاقات مع ساترفيلد

مايو 29, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– حتى الآن يبدو أن ما حمله معاون وزير الخارجية الأميركية ديفيد ساترفيلد إلى المسؤولين اللبنانيين حول التفاوض لترسيم الحدود البرية والبحرية إيجابياً ويبدو استجابة مفاجئة للرؤية اللبنانية التي تستطيع القول إنها حققت انتصاراً تكتيكياً مهماً بفعل التضامن السياسي والرئاسي من جهة وقوة لبنان الرادعة التي وفّرتها المقاومة وفق معادلة الغاز بالغاز. من جهة أخرى وبفعل الحاجة الإسرائيلية الماسّة لطمأنة أسواق الاستثمار العالمية في مجال النفط والغاز إلى مستقبل تعاملها في المنصات الإسرائيلية تحت سقف اتفاق يوفر الأمن للاستثمارات والأعمال من جهة موازية.

– المفاوضات لم تبدأ بعد وقبول التلازم بين المسارَيْن البرّي والبحري من جهة وقبول الرعاية الأمميّة من جهة أخرى موافقتان إسرائيليتان وأميركيتان تثيران الريبة ولا يجب وضعهما حصراً في دائرة النجاح اللبناني والحاجة الإسرائيلية والقلق من معادلات الردع. فأميركا و»إسرائيل» في قلب حربين متلازمتين واحدة بوجه إيران وثانية لتسويق صفقة القرن ويجب التنبه لحاجة واشنطن وتل أبيب لتحييد لبنان وقوة مقاومته، خصوصاً عن هاتين الحربين. فالمقاومة هي القيمة المضافة الرئيسية في جبهة المواجهة التي تنتصب خصوصاً بوجه مشروع صفقة القرن، وملف التوطين وتصفية حق عودة اللاجئين الفلسطينيين قضية لبنانية لا تقل أهمية عن مفاوضات الترسيم، والموقف اللبناني الجامع مع المقاومة في مواجهة صفقة القرن سيُسهم في كشف حدود المناورة الأميركية الإسرائيلية، بينما الابتعاد عن المقاومة في هذه المواجهة ومطالبتها بالتهدئة فسيعني تشجيعاً لمناورة أميركية إسرائيلية تستثمر تضييع الوقت التفاوضي لتمرير العمليات التمهيدية في صفقة القرن، ومن ضمنها إنهاء حق العودة بغياب المقاومة، وتغييبها بشراكة لبنانية.

– التنبّه هنا يعني أن يضع اللبنانيون الواقفون في صف المسؤوليّة التفاوضيّة والذين لا يوافقون المقاومة في كل خياراتها في حساباتهم أن شلّ قدرة المقاومة على تظهير موقفها من الحربين الكبيرتين المتصلتين بمستقبل المنطقة يصب في خدمة «إسرائيل» لا المصلحة اللبنانية، وأن الزمن الذي ستستهلكه المفاوضات سيكون مؤشراً على حقيقة النيات الإسرائيلية الأميركية، حيث يفترض إذا صدقت التحليلات والقراءات عن تراجع إسرائيلي برعاية أميركية بخلفية الحسابات المصلحية التي يمليها الإسراع في استخراج النفط والغاز أن تسير المفاوضات بسرعة، وأن تفضح كل مماطلة في الشكليات والتفاصيل وروزنامة التفاوض ومواعيد جلساته وجود نية أخرى لها عنوان واحد، هو التفاوض لأجل التفاوض، كما كان حال المفاوضات الإسرائيلية مع السلطة الفلسطينية، ولذلك فإن أولى مهام الجانب اللبناني وضع روزنامة افتراضيّة لكل مرحلة من المفاوضات، ترسم خطاً أحمر عندما يكون الوقت المستغرق قد تخطّى التوقعات المفترضة، سواء لمرحلة المفاوضات التحضيريّة قبل الجلسة الأولى، أو مفاوضات الشكليّات والترتيبات، أو المفاوضات التقنية الجغرافية، والمفاوضات القانونية الاقتصادية، وصولاً إلى المفاوضات الختامية، وفي كل مرة يتم تخطي الزمن الافتراضي المتوقع يجب التساؤل حول الخلفية، والتدقيق بحجم قضايا الخلاف بقياس المصلحة النفطية الإسرائيلية وأضرارها، وما يستحق بالمقابل تحمل هذه الأضرار، ماذا عساه يكون؟

– على ضفة موازية يجب أن يضع لبنان أمامه ميزاني قياس ومراقبة، واحد يتصل بمسار التوتر الأميركي الإيراني في ظل تهديد إيران بالخروج من الاتفاق النووي خلال ستين يوماً تنتهي مطلع شهر تموز، والحديث الأميركي عن القلق من قدرة إيران على امتلاك ما يكفي لإنتاج قنبلة نووية خلال شهرين أو ستة شهور إذا عادت للتخصيب المرتفع لليورانيوم، ومراقبة إيقاع الحركة التفاوضية الأميركية الإسرائيلية مع هذه المواعيد. وبالمقابل مؤتمر البحرين الخاص بصفقة القرن وما سيليه من مواعيد ترتبط بها وبحلقاتها المتسلسلة، وجعل تقاطعات الروزنامتين مؤشراً للمفاوض اللبناني ومرجعيته السياسية والأمنية في قياس الجدية من المناورة في الحركة الأميركية والإسرائيلية.

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: