The Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination under “Israel’s” Colonial Occupation

July 29, 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen

Afreen Rizvi

From Palestine and South Africa to the Americas and Australia, settler-colonists [have] violently fought to prevent the indigenous people, that were colonised, from fighting for liberation.

This article explores Palestine’s right to self-determination under “Israel’s” illegal occupation. This paper seeks to demonstrate that since the Balfour Declaration that was issued by the British Government in 1917, there have been politically driven strategies deployed to gradually liquidate the Palestinian people. The indigenous people of Palestine have been faced with systematic persecution, apartheid policies and brutal occupation; as such, it is submitted that the Palestinian people must be able to exercise their right to self-determination. I will begin with a discussion on self-determination as a right before outlining the historical background of the “Israel”-Palestine issue, and the political allyship of each entity apart. 

Self-Determination in International Law

The principle of self-determination, as it is understood today, evolved from a principle to a right, triggering much debate over the years. It denotes the legal right to peoples to decide their own destiny in the context of international order.[1]There are two aspects to self-determination: internal and external. Internal self-determination is the right of the people to govern themselves without any other interference, this includes the independence to freely choose their own political, economic and social system.[2] External self-determination on the other hand is the right for peoples to determine their own status politically – this allows the establishment of an independent state. After the First World War, and specifically after his famous “Fourteen Points” speech, US President Woodrow Wilson declared that, “Peoples may not be dominated and governed only by their own consent. ‘Self-determination’ is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.”[3] The right of self-determination was introduced to the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in 1960, and subsequently adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 in the same year. Additionally, the UN Charter stated that one of the purposes of the United Nations was “respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”[4] Upon adopting the Declaration of Decolonisation, the UN underlined the necessity of ending colonialism and through this declared, inter alia, that the right to self-determination was not limited. 

It is important to note that the right of self-determination has been cited extensively by the UN assembly, Security Council, and is enshrined in various treaties as well as in decisions made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The following excerpt from the aforementioned declaration was subsequently introduced in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) providing a detailed legal definition of self-determination, and this definition is used in various international and national treaties and documents.[5]

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.” 

It is widely accepted that the right of self-determination is applicable to “peoples” in colonial territories, as well as others who do not fall in the category of being colonised or oppressed, the only difference is they have to exercise their rights internally. The right of self-determination is no longer limited to the conventional colonial independence scenarios, such that various ethnic and cultural groups of people within different states effectively rely on the right of self-determination in order to declare their independence.[6] A common argument often presented against the right of self-determination is that the principle of territorial integrity in relation to states is challenged by the principle of self-determination – as it is the will of the people that fundamentally leads to the legitimacy of a state. This indicates that people are not only free to choose their state but also their territorial boundaries. However, in accordance with the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the United Nations and International Court of Justice demonstrated that there is no contradiction between territorial integrity and the right of self-determination.[7] In that context, it is necessary to add that Koskenneimi argued that “It is doubtful whether the statement of principle was intended to be taken literally… its revolutionary potential was tempered by the Final Acts strong emphasis on territorial integrity.”[8]

In the context of Palestinian self-determination, I submit that “Israel” is a colonial entity that has occupied Palestinian territory; thus, the Palestinian people must be able to exercise this right. It is imperative to note that under international law, only groups categorized as “peoples” have the right to self-determination. The interpretation of “peoples”, however, continues to cause confusion. For example, one may question do all “peoples” need to share one ethnicity or location? If so, where would be the place that gathers people who are a part of multi-ethnic states? With regard to Palestinians, “Israel” has already officially accepted the existence of the “Palestinian peoples” in the Camp David Accords signed with Egypt in the year 1978.[9]

Moreover, it is argued that the right of self-determination can heavily disrupt the essence of peace, such that political communities may resort to force if their demands are not met.[10] Violence was also exhibited in the case of Nigeria after the British authorities recognized three main groups, Igbos, Hausa-Fulani and Yoruba. These groups were legally recognized after seeking independence. These minority groups were effectively excluded from the political sphere and the impact of this devolution caused further ethnic divide and political strife[11]. It is claimed that the violence that erupted between 1965-1967 with Nigerians and Biafrans signified that exercising the right of self-determination leads to political and ethnic turmoil.[12] 

In response to this argument, it is contended that despite self-determination struggles usually portrayed as violent and brutal measures, people should still have the freedom to exercise this fundamental right. It is important to understand that colonial settlers aggressively battled to preserve their right of conquest as their own right to self-determination. Till present day, “Israel” has committed war crimes, most notably in Gaza. From Palestine and South Africa to the Americas and Australia, settler-colonists [have] violently fought to prevent the indigenous people, that were colonised, from fighting for liberation, thus the argument that self-determination leads to violence and brutality does not hold much weight in this context considering it is no different to the measures taken by colonising entities.[13] Further to this, in the past, the UN has failed to sustain peace even with states that exercised their right to self-determination, as noticed with the case of Cyprus.[14] Conflicts among states exist irrespective of self-determination, therefore the premise of this argument is incorrect. It may be more suitable to look beyond the UN paradigm if we ought to find lasting solutions to such conflicts.

The Palestine-Israel Conflict

In order to better understand the Israel-Palestine conflict, it is necessary to present the issue within the historical framework of decolonisation struggles. Historically, the world has witnessed decolonisation struggles beginning with violence as a result of a people being denied independence and liberation by the colonising entity. The Palestinian struggle against the Zionist ethnonationalist entity has lasted since the 20th century; the story of Palestine is on political independence, liberation, and putting an end to the apartheid Israeli regime. Whilst Zionists argue that “Israel” has a historic right to Palestinian land, it is imperative to note that had it not been for the involvement of European imperial powers, most notably Britain, there would have not been any creation of “Israel”. In November 1917, Britain the de facto ruler of Palestine, issued the Balfour Declaration. The eighty-word statement by Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour announced support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. 

In 1922, five years after the Balfour Declaration, the “League of Nations” approved the British Mandate for Palestine and the establishment of a “Jewish homeland.” The decision of the mandate did not consider the will of the Palestinian people or their fundamental rights. Between 1939 and 1949, there were a series of mass protests that took place against Jewish immigration to Palestine as well as armed Zionist groups launching attacks against the indigenous people of Palestine[15]. It is necessary to note that in 1947, the UN adopted Resolution 181, a partition plan for Palestine which was subsequently rejected by the Palestinians. The UN General Assemblies plan was to partition Palestine between the native Palestinians and the Jewish colonial settlers. Throughout 1948-1949, the Palestinians were attacked by Zionist forces. Villages and hotels were bombed near Haifa demonstrating early signs of ethnic cleansing. In April 1948, one month before the State of “Israel” was created, Zionist forces massacred over 100 250 Palestinians in the city of Deir Yassin[16] which is in close proximity to Jerusalem. In December of 1948[17], the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 which allowed the right of return of Palestinian refugees. This is a brief explanation of how the state of “Israel” came into existence. In 1974, Yasser Arafat, a Palestinian Political leader stated:

“The [UN] General Assembly partitioned what it had no right to divide – an indivisible homeland.”

“Israel” consistently and tactically made use of Occupation Law to further acquire Palestinian land whilst simultaneously arbitrarily arresting and targeting Palestinian people through the use of apartheid policies. It is argued that “Israel” has used UNSC Resolution 242 to justify and legitimate these actions through “political framework shaped by U.S intervention”[18] as mentioned by Noura Erakat, a human rights attorney and Palestinian activist. Erakat claims that the Occupation Law failing to regulate Palestinian territories effectively, is a result of a political, not a legal contest. It is asserted that “Israel’s” argument that the Palestinian territories are simply under their administration, would hold no weight were it not for the political powers involved in the region. 

Furthermore, it is also argued that the United States has favoured “Israel” to such an extent that the US dismisses “Israel’s” violation of international law and allows the state to carry out war crimes without facing any repercussions besides blanket statements. As a result of the Occupation Law that “Israel” takes advantage of, Palestinian territories remain occupied, Palestinian people are systematically being ethnically cleansed[19], and their fundamental rights such as the freedom of movement are infringed.

The Human Rights Watch published a report in April 2021, in which it was made very clear that for the past 54 years, Israeli authorities have transferred Jewish Israeli’s to the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OTP) and “granted them a superior status under the law as compared to Palestinians living in the same territory when it comes to civil rights, access to land, and freedom to move, build, and confer residency rights to close relatives.”[20] In 1970, the General Assembly Resolution 2625 added that “Every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provision of the charter.” Therefore, “Israel” and the international community as a whole should not be denying the Palestinians their right to self-determination. Palestine should be able to manage its own affairs without the interference of external and colonial entities. It is important to understand that the Palestinian people have witnessed the occupation of their lands, forced expulsions to neighbouring lands, military bombardment, and erasure of their identity. As such, the struggle for independence and self-determination should be welcomed by all. 

Ali Abunimah, a policy adviser, argues that self-determination “must return to the center of the Palestinian struggle”[21]. To add, Abunimah asserts that the Palestinian right to self-determination can indeed be compatible with the coexistence of Jews. It is claimed that the United States has a long history of deciding the fate of the Palestinian people. For instance, as per the Clinton Parameters, “Israel” would get “Jewish neighbourhoods” and the Palestinians would get “Arab neighbourhoods”. In hindsight, this meant that “Israel” would be allowed to keep the land it has colonised and annexed since 1967, and the people of Palestine would be able to have what is left – which Israeli occupation forces and settlers continue to annex and occupy till today. America’s “peace process” has allowed “Israel” to aggressively maintain their illegal occupation of the Palestinian people.[22] 

Professor Noam Chomsky in his book ‘On Palestine’[23] highlights that “Israel’s” policies are directly connected to the Zionist ideology that “both aim to establish a Jewish state by taking over as much of historical Palestine as possible and leaving in it as few Palestinians as possible.” Chomsky, a Jewish historian and activist, further claims that the international community has “never condemned” the Israeli entity which led to the enormous expulsion of 750,000 people and the destruction of hundreds of villages and towns. In addition to this, Chomsky states that “ethnic cleansing has become the DNA of Israeli Jewish society.” Erasing the Palestinian land and people should be enough of a reason for the remaining people of Palestine to exercise their right to self-determination. There are distinct similarities between Palestine and the apartheid in South Africa. The Israeli Knesset authorises legislation that separates, segregates, and discriminates against the Palestinians. A recent report by Human Rights Watch also backs up this claim:

“Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy.”[24]

The United States of America remains a close ally of “Israel”. The U.S provides financial and military support to “Israel” which has been used criticised by several human rights agencies as this funding is used to perpetrate human rights abuses against the Palestinians, particularly in the Gaza Strip. In the Ten-Year Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and “Israel”, $38 billion has been promised to “Israel” from the U.S beginning in 2016.[25] This includes $3.3 billion in Foreign Military financing and $500 million for missile defence programs. Several U.S politicians declare their support for “Israel” and do not shy away from mentioning “Israel has every right to defend itself” despite the fact that it is “Israel” that is committing heinous crimes against the Palestinian people. As mentioned by Chomsky, as a result of political power and close relationship with the U.S, “Israel” has been able to act with impunity since 1948. The U.S also has a history of blocking UN resolutions[26] against “Israel”. According to UN data, since 1972, the US has vetoed at least 53 United Nations Security Council resolutions that are critical of “Israel”[27]. 

Contrastingly, Palestine does not have such strong allies. Palestinian resistance leaders have announced receiving military and financial support from the Islamic Republic of Iran; however, I submit that as Iran is a sanctioned country, the support offered to Palestine may not be as much as the support offered by the U.S and the UK to “Israel”. The UK has consistently and repeatedly sold arms to “Israel” despite its illegal occupation of Palestine.[28]

In conclusion, the people of Palestine have every right to self-determination, and this can be understood just by investigating the crimes perpetrated by “Israel” against the Palestinians, and the systematic oppression they have faced as a people. Since 1969, the General Assembly has recognised the “inalienable rights of the people of Palestine”[29] In 1974, member states of the UN worked to restore the “Question of Palestine” on the General Assembly agenda, and as such Arab heads of states upheld the “right of the Arab Palestinian people to the return to its homeland and its right to self-determination.”[30] Some weeks later the General Assembly passed resolution 3236 which mentioned “Recognizing that the Palestinian people are entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,” and (a) The right to self-determination without external interference”. It should be noted that the General Assembly condemned governments which failed to recognise the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under “colonial and foreign domination”. For the Palestinians to exercise this right, the Israeli entity must vacate from the occupied areas in order to establish an independent Palestinian state. The United Nations has again affirmed its commitment to the Palestinian right to self-determination. In November 2020, the UN General Assembly endorsed a draft resolution once again recognising “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to an independent State of Palestine.”[31] 163 states voted in favour of this resolution, whilst 5 states voted against this, namely: “Israel”, The United States of America, Micronesia, Nauru, and the Marshal Islands. Tomis Kapitan eloquently argues that legitimate residents of Palestine include all Palestinians irrespective of where they are located in Palestine, including Palestinian refugees outside of the country. He states that “expulsion does not remove ones right of residency… Palestinians also retain residency rights in those territories from which they were expelled.”[32] Kapitan asserts that the Palestinian people, as a collective, have the “entitlement to being self-determining in that region [historic Palestine]… not qua Palestinians, but qua legitimate residents. The force used against them has not erased the fact that they are, and are recognized as being; a legitimate unit entitled to participate in their own self-determination.”[33]

Whilst some may argue that the Palestinian right to self-determination is an anti-Semitic stance, it should be duly noted that a Palestinian state would include Jews, Muslims and Christians. It is in fact the Zionist entity that remains anti-Semitic by expulsing and rejecting Jewish natives from enjoying their rights in Occupied Palestine. It should be remembered that the Palestinian right to self-determination is legal and in accordance with international law. For the state of Palestine to be completely independent, colonial settlers will have to return to the European countries they entered from and respect international law. To end, a group of academics including Palestinians and Israelis issued a One State Declaration in 2007, inspired by the South African Freedom Charter and declared: “The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it and to those who were expelled or exiled from it since 1948, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status; Any system of government must be founded on the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens. Power must be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all people in the diversity of their identities.[34]

sources

[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_determination_(international_law)#:~:text=Self%2Ddetermination%20denotes%20the%20legal,destiny%20in%20the%20international%20order.&text=For%20instance%2C%20self%2Ddetermination%20is,right%20of%20%E2%80%9Call%20peoples.%E2%80%9D

[2] Salvatore Senese, ‘External and Internal Self-Determination’ [1989] 16(1) Social Justice <https://www.jstor.org/stable/29766439?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents&gt; accessed 9 May 2021.
[3] Wilson, War Aims of Germany and Austria (1918).
[4] UN Charter, Art 1 (2).
[5] https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

[6] Quane, Helen. 1998. “The United Nations and the Evolving Right to Self-Determination.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 47(3): 537–572.

[7] Johan D. Van der Vyer, ‘Self-Determination of the Peoples of Quebec under International Law’ [2012] 10(1) Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 38
[8] Martti Koskenniemi, ‘National Self-Determination Today: Problems of Legal Theory and Practice’ [1994] 43(2) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly <https://www.jstor.org/stable/761238&gt; accessed 10 May 2021.
[9] J Massad, ‘Against Self-Determination’ [2018] 9(2) Humanity 161-191
[10] M Evangelista, ‘Paradoxes of Violence and Self-determination’ [2015] 14(5) Formerly Global Review of Ethnopolitics <https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2015.1051811&gt; accessed 3 May 2021.
[11] B Ibhawoh, ‘Testing the Atlantic Charter: linking anticolonialism, self-determination and Universal Human Rights’ [2014] 18(7) International Journal of Human Rights 1-19

[12] Beardsley, Kevin, David E. Cunningham, and Peter B. White. 2015. “Resolving Civil Wars before They Start: The UN Security Council and Conflict Prevention in Self-Determination Disputes.” British Journal of Political Science 47(3): 675–697.
[13] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-latest-palestinian-happening-b1852170.html
[14] Tobias Nowak and Charis Van den berg, ‘Alternative Approaches to Self-Determination Applied to the Cyprus Conflict’ [2020] 15(5) Transboundary Legal Studies <https://research.rug.nl/nl/publications/alternative-approaches-to-self-determination-applied-to-the-cypru&gt; accessed 7 May 2021.
[15] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-role-of-jewish-defense-organizations-in-palestine-1903-1948
[16] M Hogan, ‘The 1948 Massacre at Deir Yassin Revisited’ [2001] 63(2) The Historian <https://www.jstor.org/stable/24450239&gt; accessed 10 May 2021.

[17] https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/palestineremix/timeline_main.html
[18] Noura Erakat, ‘Taking the Land without the People: The 1967 Story as Told by the Law’ [2017] 47(1) Journal of Palestine Studies 18-38 
[19] Lucy Garbett, ‘I live in Sheikh Jarrah for Palestinians, this is not a ‘real estate dispute’’ (The Guardian, 17 May 2021) <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/17/palestinians-sheikh-jarrah-jerusalem-city-identity&gt; accessed 17 May 2021.
[20] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
[21]Ali Abunimah, ‘Reclaiming Self-Determination’ ( Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network, 21 May) <https://al-shabaka.org/briefs/reclaiming-self-determination/&gt; accessed 10 May 2021.[22]https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/us-role-peace-process-perspective
[23]Noam Chomsky, On Palestine (Penguin Books 2015)

[24] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
[25] https://il.usembassy.gov/ten-year-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-united-states-and-israel/
[26] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/19/a-history-of-the-us-blocking-un-resolutions-against-israel
[27] https://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact_veto_table_en.htm
[28] https://caat.org.uk/resources/countries/israel/
[29] https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-196558/
[30] United Nations
[31] https://prc.org.uk/en/news/3213/un-votes-overwhelmingly-in-support-of-palestinian-self-determination
[32] Tomis Kapitan, “Self-Determination,” in Tomis Kapitan and Raja Halwani, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Philosophical Essays on Self-Determination, Terrorism and the One-State Solution (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 13-71.
[33] Ibid.
[34] “The One State Declaration,” The Electronic Intifada, 29 November 2007

Related

• Fourteen African Nations Agree to Expel ‘Israeli’ Regime from African Union
• Moroccans against Normalization Condemn Direct Flights to Marrakesh from the ‘Israeli’-Occupied Territories
• US Greenlights Helicopters Sale to ‘Israeli’ Entity

On Nasser’s Fight for Arabic Independence and a Free Palestine

Cynthia Chung

June 15, 2021

Nasser became the catalyst for an Arab Revolution for independence, a revolution that remains yet to be finished, Cynthia Chung writes.

In the 1950s the so-called enemy of the West was not only Moscow but the Third World’s emerging nationalists, from Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt to Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. The United States and Britain staged a coup d’état against Mossadegh, and used the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist movement and the grandfather organization of the militant Islamic right, in an attempt to remove Nasser, the leader of the Arab nationalists.

In the 1960s, left wing nationalism and Arab socialism spread from Egypt to Algeria to Syria, Iraq and Palestine. This emergence presented a threat to the old imperialist game of Great Britain, to which the United States was a recent recruit of, and thus they decided to forge a working alliance with Saudi Arabia intent on using Wahhabi fundamentalism as their foreign policy arm in the Middle East, along with the Muslim Brotherhood.

This paper will go through the carving up of the Middle East under Sykes-Picot, the British creation of Saudi Arabia and Israel and the British occupation of Palestine, the origin of the Muslim Brotherhood and Nasser’s fight for Arab independence. In a follow-up paper, I will discuss the role of the City of London in facilitating the bankroll of the first Islamic fundamentalist state Saudi Arabia, along with the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist apparatus.

An “Arab Awakening” Made in Britain

“The renunciation will not be easy. Jewish hopes have been raised to such a pitch that the non-fulfilment of the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in Palestine will cause intense disillusionment and bitterness. The manifold proofs of public spirit and of capacity to endure hardships and face danger in the building up of the national home are there to testify to the devotion with which a large section of the Jewish people cherish the Zionist ideal. And it would be an act of further cruelty to the Jews to disappoint those hopes if there existed some way of satisfying them, that did not involve cruelty to another people. But the logic of facts is inexorable. It shows that no room can be made in Palestine for a second nation except by dislodging or exterminating the nation in possession.”

– the concluding paragraph of George Antonius’ “The Arab Awakening” (1938)

Much of what is responsible for the war and havoc in the Middle East today has the British orchestrated so-called “Arab Awakening” to thank, led by characters such as E.G. Browne, St. John Philby, T.E. Lawrence of Arabia, and Gertrude Bell. Although its origins go as far back as the 19^th century, it was only until the early 20^th century, that the British were able to reap significant results from its long harvest.

The Arab Revolt of 1916-1918, had been, to the detriment of the Arab people, a British led rebellion. The British claimed that their sole interest in the affair was the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and had given their word that these Arab territories would be freed and allowed independence if they agreed to rebel, in large part led and directed by the British.

It is a rather predictable feature of the British to lie and double cross and thus it should be of no surprise to anyone that their intentions were quite the opposite of what they had promised and thanks to the Sykes-Picot Russian leak, were revealed in their entire shameful glory.

If the Sultan of Turkey were to disappear, then the Caliphate by common consent of Islam would fall to the family of the prophet, Hussein ibn Ali the Sharif of Mecca, a candidate which was approved by the British Cairo office as suitable for British strings. T.E. Lawrence, who worked at the Cairo bureau is quoted as saying:

“If the Sultan of Turkey were to disappear, then the Caliphate by common consent of Islam would fall to the family of the prophet, the present representative of which is Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca….If properly handled the Arab States would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of jealous principalities incapable of cohesion…” (1)

Once the Arab Revolt was “won” against the Ottoman Empire, instead of the promised Arab independence, the Middle East was carved up into zones of influence under British and French colonial rule. Puppet monarchies were created in regions that were considered not under direct colonial subjugation in order to continue the illusion that Arabs remained in charge of sacred regions such as Mecca and Medina.

In central Arabia, Hussein, Sharif of Mecca, the puppet leader of the Arab Revolt laid claim to the title Caliph in 1924, which his rival Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud rejected and declared war, defeating the Hashemites. Hussein abdicated and ibn Saud, the favourite of the British India Office, was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Najd in 1926, which led to the founding of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Al Saud warriors of Wahhabism were a formidable strike force that the British believed would help London gain control of the western shores of the Persian Gulf.

Hussein ibn Ali’s son Faisal (under the heavy tutelage of T.E. Lawrence) was bestowed as King of Iraq and Hussein’s other son, Abdullah I was established as the Emir of Transjordan until a negotiated legal separation of Transjordan from Britain’s Palestine mandate occurred in 1946, whereupon he was crowned King of Jordan. (For more on this history refer to my paper.)

While the British were promising Arab independence they simultaneously were promising a homeland in Palestine to the Jews. The Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917 states:

“His majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…”

Palestine had been seized by the British during the so-called Arab Revolt on December 11^th, 1917 when General Allenby marched into Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate and declared martial law over the city. Palestine has remained occupied ever since.

Britain would receive the mandate over Palestine from the League of Nations in July 1922.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in Palestine costing hundreds of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months, until diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire. In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land.

The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel’s “prescription” and the revolt broke out again. This time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the British armed forces and police.

Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.

In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th, 1947. Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th, 1948 after the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948.

The Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood

In 1869, a man named Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, the intellectual founder of the Salafiyya movement, went to India where British led colonial authorities welcomed him with honors and graciously escorted him aboard a government owned vessel on an all expenses paid voyage to the Suez. (2)

In Cairo he was adopted by the Egyptian prime minister Riad Pasha, a notorious enemy of the emerging nationalist movement in Egypt. Pasha persuaded Afghani to stay in Egypt and allowed him to take up residence in Cairo’s 900 year old Al Azhar mosque considered the center of Islamic learning worldwide, where he received lodging and a monthly government stipend (paid for by the British). (3)

In 1879, Cairo nationalists in the Egyptian Army, led by the famous Egyptian hero Ahmed ‘Urabi, organised an uprising against the British role in Egypt. Afghani was expelled from Egypt by the Egyptian nationalists that same year.

Ahmed ‘Urabi served as prime minister of Egypt briefly, from July 1882 to Sept 1882, however, his movement for Egyptian independence was eventually crushed by the British with the shelling of Alexandria in July 1882 followed by an invasion which resulted in a direct British occupation of Egypt that would last until 1956. It would be Gamal Abdel Nasser who would finally end British colonial rule of Egypt during the Suez Crisis, whereupon the Suez canal was nationalised and the British military bases expelled.

While Egypt was fighting its nationalist fight from 1879-1882, Afghani and his chief disciple Muhammad Abduh travelled together first to Paris and then to Britain, it was in Britain that they would make a proposal for a pan-Islamic alliance among Egypt, Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan against Czarist Russia (4).

In addition, the crisis in Sudan, was in the middle of a tribal religious rebellion against the British led by a man named Mohammed Ahmad a Sudanese sheikh who proclaimed himself the Mahdi, or savior, and was leading a puritanical Islamic revolt. (5)

What Afghani was proposing to the British was that they provide aid and resources to support his formation of a militant Islam sect that would favour Britain’s interest in the Middle East, in other words, Afghani wished to fight Islam with Islam, having stated in one of his works “We do not cut the head of religion except by sword of religion.”(6)

Although it is said that the British refused this offer, this is not likely considering the support Afghani would receive in creating the intellectual foundation for a pan-Islamic movement with British patronage and the support of England’s leading orientalist E.G. Browne, the godfather of twentieth century Orientalism and teacher of St John Philby and T.E. Lawrence.

E.G. Browne would make sure the work of Afghani would continue long beyond his death by immortalising him in his 1910 “The Persian Revolution,” considered an authoritative history of the time.

In 1888, Abduh, the chief disciple of Afghani, would return to Egypt in triumph with the full support of the representatives of her Majesty’s imperial force and took the first of several positions in Cairo, openly casting his lot with Lord Cromer, who was the symbol of British imperialism in Egypt.

Abduh would found, with the hold of London’s Egyptian proconsul Evelyn Baring (aka Lord Cromer) who was the scion of the enormously powerful banking clan (Barings Bank) under the city of London, the Salafiyya movement. (7)

Abduh had attached himself to the British rulers of Egypt and created the cornerstone of the Muslim Brotherhood which dominated the militant Islamic right throughout the twentieth century.

In 1899, Abduh reached the pinnacle of his power and influence, and was named mufti of Egypt.

***

In 1902, Riyadh fell to Ibn Saud and it was during this period that Ibn Saud established the fearsome Ikhwan (translated as “brotherhood”). He collected fighters from Bedouin tribes firing them up with fanatical religious zeal and threw them into battle. By 1912 the Ikhwan numbered 11,000 and Ibn Saud had both central Arabia’s Nejd and Al-Ahsa in the east under his control.

From the 1920s onward, the new Saudi state merged its Wahhabi orthodoxy with the Salafiyya movement (which would be organised into the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928).

William Shakespear, a famed British agent, forged the first formal treaty between England and Saudi Arabia which was signed in 1915, which bound London and Arabia for years before Saudi Arabia became a country. “It formally recognized Ibn Saud as the independent ruler of the Nejd and its Dependencies under British protection. In return, Ibn Saud undertook to follow British advice.” (8)

Harry St. John Bridger Philby, a British operative schooled by E.G. Browne and father to the legendary triple agent Kim Philby, would succeed Shakespear as Great Britain’s liaison to Ibn Saud under the British India Office, the friendly rival of the Cairo Arab Bureau office which was sponsoring T.E. Lawrence of Arabia.

In Egypt 1928, Hassan al-Banna (a follower of Afghani and Abduh) founded the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen), the organization that would change the course of history in the twentieth century Middle East.

Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood was established with a grant from England’s Suez Canal Company (9) and from that point on, British diplomats and intelligence service, along with the British puppet King Farouq would use the Muslim Brotherhood as a truncheon against Egypt’s nationalists and later against Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser.

To get the Muslim Brotherhood off the ground, the Suez Canal Company helped Banna build the mosque in Ismailia that would serve as its headquarters and base of operation. (10) The fact that Banna created the organization in Ismailia is itself worthy of note. For England, the Suez Canal was the indispensable route to its prize possession, India and in 1928 the town Ismailia happened to house not only the company’s offices but a major British military base built during WWI. It was also, in the 1920s a center of pro-British sentiment in Egypt.

In the post-WWI world, England reigned supreme, the flag of the British empire was everywhere from the Mediterranean to India. A new generation of kings and potentates ruled over British dominated colonies, mandates, vassal states, and semi-independent fiefdoms in Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Arabia and Persia. To varying degrees those monarchies were beholden to London.

In the half century between 1875 and 1925 the building blocks of the militant Islamic right were cemented in place by the British Empire.

Nasser Leads the Fight for Arab Independence

In 1942, the Muslim Brotherhood would earn their well-deserved reputation for extremism and violence by establishing the “Secret Apparatus,” an intelligence service and secret terrorist unit. This clandestine unit functioned for over twelve years almost entirely unchecked, assassinating judges, police officers, government officials and engaging in goon squad attacks on labor unions and communists.

Throughout this period the Muslim Brotherhood worked for the most part in an alliance with King Farouq (and thus the British), using their clandestine forces on behalf of British interests. And throughout its entire existence it would receive political support and money from the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabi establishment (more on this in part 2 of this series).

The Secret Apparatus would be smashed into pieces by Nasser in 1954.

After WWII, the faltering Farouq regime lashed out against the left in an intense campaign of repression aimed at the communists. The Cold War was beginning. In 1946, prime minister Isma’il Sidqi of Egypt who was installed as head of the government with the support of Banna, openly funded the Muslim Brotherhood and provided training camps for its shock troops used in a sweeping anti-left campaign. Sidqi resigned in Dec 1946 after less than one year as PM due to massive unpopularity.

As King Farouq began to lose his grip on the Egyptian people, the Brotherhood distanced itself while maintaining shadowy ties to the army and to foreign intelligence agencies and always opposed to the left.

The Palestine War (1947-1949) resulted in the establishment of the State of Israel at the cost of 700,000 displaced Palestinian Arabs and the destruction of most of their urban areas.

The territory that was under British administration before the war was divided between the State of Israel (officially formed May 14^th, 1948), which captured about 78% of it. In opposition to Israel, the Kingdom of Jordan captured and later annexed the West Bank, and Egypt captured the Gaza Strip, with the Arab League establishing the All-Palestine Government, which came to an end in June 1967 when the Gaza Strip, along with the West Bank, were captured by Israel in the Six-Day War.

The Egyptian people were furious over these developments, and the reign of British puppet King Farouq who had done nothing to prevent the dismantling of Palestine was on extremely shaky ground. In response to this, Farouq’s accord with the Muslim Brotherhood broke down, and in December 1948, the Egyptian government outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood. Weeks later a Brotherhood assassin murdered prime minister Mahmoud El Nokrashy.

Two months later, in Feb. 1949, Banna was assassinated in Cairo by the Egyptian secret police.

For Arab nationalists, Israel was a symbol of Arab weakness and semi-colonial subjugation, overseen by proxy kings in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

On the night of July 23, 1952, the Free Officers, led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser, staged a military coup that launched the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, overthrowing the British puppet monarch. The Free Officers, knowing that warrants had been issued for their arrest, launched the coup that night, storming the staff headquarters in Cairo.

Cairo was now, for the first time, under the control of the Arab people after over 70 years of British occupation.

The seizure of power by the Free Officers in Egypt came during an era when the entire Arab world from Morocco to Iraq was locked in the grip of imperialism. Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia were French colonies; Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman and Yemen were British colonies. Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were kingdoms ruled by monarchies installed by London. And Egypt under King Farouq was the political and economic center of the Arab world.

A growing surge of Arab nationalism arose in response to the Free Officers’ actions in Egypt. The powerful Voice of the Arabs radio in Cairo was reporting to the entire Arab world that they had found their independence movement, and that Nasser was at its helm.

From 1956 to 1958 Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon underwent rebellions, Iraq’s king was toppled, and Syria united with Egypt in Nasser’s United Arab Republic, part of Nasser’s strategy to unify the Arab world.

In Algeria, moral and material support was given from Cairo towards the Algerian revolution that finally won them independence from French colonial rule in 1962.

That same year, Yemen underwent a Nasser-inspired revolt, triggering a proxy war pitting Saudi Arabia against Egypt, with Nasser stating in a 1962 speech, “Yemen’s fight is my fight. Yemen’s Revolution is our Revolution.”

Nasser’s leadership and the inspiration he stirred were so strong that even as late as 1969 the year before Nasser’s death, Libya’s king was overthrown and Sudan’s right-wing regime was eliminated by military leaders loyal to Nasser.

Nasser had managed to threaten the very heart of Anglo-America’s post-WWII strategy in the Middle East. Nasser understood, that if the vast oil fields in Saudi Arabia were under Arab control, the potential for an economic boom would be enormous for all Arab states, such that the old game of imperialism by Britain and France could no longer retain its chokehold on Arab independence.

Not only was Egypt a military rival to Saudi Arabia, not only did Cairo clash with Riyadh in a shooting war in Yemen, not only did Nasser inspire Arabs in Saudi Arabia with republican ideals but the Egyptian leader even won over some of Saudi Arabia’s royal family. This group was led by Prince Talal to form the ‘Free Princes’, which defected to Egypt demanding the establishment of a republic in Saudi Arabia!

What was really going on during the period of 1954 to 1970, under Nasser’s leadership, was a war between two competing visions for the future of the Middle East; an Arab world of independent but cooperative Arab republics utilising their natural resources to facilitate an economic boom in industrialisation vs a semi-feudal scattering of monarchies with their natural resources largely at the West’s disposal.

The real reason why the British and Anglo Americans wanted Nasser removed, was not because he was a communist or because he was susceptible to communist influence; it was because he refused to obey his would-be foreign controllers and was rather successful in this endeavour, bringing their shadowy actions uncomfortably close to the light and inspiring loyalty amongst Arabs outside of Egypt including those sitting on top of the oil.

What especially worried London and Washington was the idea that Nasser might succeed in his plan to unify Egypt and Saudi Arabia thus creating a major Arab power. Nasser believed that these oil wells were not only for the government of those territories to do with as they wished but belonged to all Arab people and thus should be used for the advancement of the Arab world. Afterall, most Arabs are aware that both the monarchies themselves and the artificial borders that demarcate their states, were designed by imperialists seeking to build fences around oil wells in the 1920s.

Nasser understood that if Cairo and Riyadh were to unite in a common cause for the uplifting of the Arab people, it would create a vastly important new Arab center of gravity with worldwide influence.

In 1954 Egypt and the United Kingdom had signed an agreement over the Suez Canal and British military basing rights. It was a short lived. By 1956 Great Britain, France and Israel concocted a plot against Egypt aimed at toppling Nasser and seizing control of the Suez Canal, a conspiracy that enlisted the Muslim Brotherhood.

In fact, the British went so far as to hold secret meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood in Geneva. According to author Stephen Dorrill, two British intelligence agents Col. Neil McLean and Julian Amery, helped MI6 organize a clandestine anti-Nasser opposition in the south of France and in Switzerland, (11) in his book he writes “They also went so far as to make contact in Geneva…with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, informing only MI6 of this demarche which they kept secret from the rest of the Suez Group [which was planning the military operation via its British bases by the Suez Canal]. Amery forwarded various names to [Selwyn] Lloyd, [the British foreign secretary].”

British prime minister Anthony Eden, Churchill’s handpicked successor, was violently anti-Nasser all along and considered a British coup d’état in Cairo as early as 1953. Other than such brash actions, the only political force that could mount a challenge to Nasser was the Muslim Brotherhood which had hundreds of thousands of followers.

Nasser’s long postponed showdown with the Muslim Brotherhood occurred in 1954, this was timed to add pressure during the rising frustration concerning the British-Egyptian negotiations over the transfer of the Suez Canal and its military bases to Egypt. The British, after over 70 years of direct occupation in Egypt, were not going to give up on one of their most prized jewels, their gateway to the Orient, so easily.

From 1954 on, Anthony Eden, the British prime minister was demanding Nasser’s head. According to Stephen Dorrill’s “MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations”, Eden had ranted “What’s all this nonsense about isolating Nasser or ‘neutralising’ him, as you call it? I want him destroyed, can’t you understand? I want him murdered…And I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt.”

Nasser would not back down, and in the first few months of 1954 the Muslim Brotherhood and Nasser went to war, culminating in Nasser outlawing them as a terrorist group and a pawn of the British.

On Oct. 1954, a Muslim Brotherhood member Mahmoud Abdel-Latif attempted to assassinate Nasser while he was delivering a speech in Alexandria, which was live broadcasting to the Arab world by radio, to celebrate the British military withdrawal.

Panic broke out in the mass audience, but Nasser maintained his posture and raised his voice to appeal for calm, and with great emotion he exclaimed the following:

“My countrymen, my blood spills for you and for Egypt. I will live for your sake and die for the sake of your freedom and honor. Let them kill me; it does not concern me so long as I have instilled pride, honor, and freedom in you.”

The crowd roared in approval and Arab audiences were electrified. The assassination attempt backfired, and quickly played back into Nasser’s hands. Upon returning to Cairo, he ordered one of the largest political crackdowns in the modern history of Egypt, with the arrests of thousands of dissenters, mostly members of the Brotherhood.

The decree banning the Muslim Brotherhood organization said “The revolution will never allow reactionary corruption to recur in the name of religion.” (12)

In 1967, there was a Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab states Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, which was started by Israel in a coordinated aerial attack on Egypt, eliminating roughly 90% of Egyptian air forces that were still on the ground, followed by an aerial attack on Jordan, Syria and Iraq. Israel then went on to conduct a ground attack with tanks and infantry, devastating whole Arab regions.

Despite the disastrous loss to Israel, the people of Egypt refused to accept Nasser’s resignation and took to the streets in a mass demonstration calling for Nasser’s return. Nasser accepted the call of the people and returned to his position as president where he remained as until his death in Sept 1970.

Five million people turned out on the streets of Egypt for Nasser’s funeral, and hundreds of millions more mourned his death throughout the world.

Although Nasser had devastatingly lost a battle, the Egyptian people along with their Arab compatriots understood that the fight for Arab independence was not lost. The dream of dignity and freedom, in forever opposition to the shackles of tyranny could not be buried now that it had been stirred to its very core. Nasser would be the catalyst for an Arab Revolution for independence, a revolution that remains yet to be finished.

Also by this author

Cynthia CHUNG

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada).

A Damned Murder Inc: Kennedy’s Battle Against the Leviathan

The U.S. Pivot to Asia: Cold War Lessons From Vietnam for TodayReturn of the Leviathan: The Fascist Roots of the CIA and the True Origin of the Cold WarBeyond Oil: How the UAE’s HOPE Mars Mission Is Breaking the Arab World Out of the Crisis of Scarcity

Newspeak in the 21st Century: How to Become a Model Citizen in the New Era of Domestic Warfare

Palestine: Old Policy of Divide and Rule Continues

By VT Editors -June 14, 2021

By Sajjad Shaukat Pak VT

After martyring more than 300 Palestinians, including 100 children and 80 women, injuring more than 3000 innocent civilians in Gaza Strip through airstrikes and ground shelling, Israel agreed on a ceasefire with Hamas, which ended the 11 days war.

Unmatched with Israeli arms, freedom fighters of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad group Abu Ubaida had no option except firing rockets inside Israel.

Very tensions had started when Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem and attacked the Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians staged protests in the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex.

In an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers, the OIC had called for an immediate halt to Israel’s barbaric attacks on Gaza.

Earlier, called by China, the UNO Security Council held an urgent meeting on the unrest in Jerusalem. The three sessions of the UN body failed after the US’s moves to block a joint statement that would condemn Israel for the violence and call for a cease-fire.

Like the past administrations, the US President Joe Biden reiterated that Israel has the right to defend itself.

Biden also sent Linda Thomas-Greenfield—the US’s UN envoy to de-escalate tensions. However, it was part of the double game of Washington. When American President Biden seriously pressured Netanyahu to prevent a full-scale war, Tel Aviv agreed for ceasefire.

But, Israeli Premier Netanyahu has not accepted the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute which was stressed by the US and some major Western countries.

In fact, international bodies such as the UNO Security Council, OIC and the US-led West failed to present a solution to end the Israeli state terrorism on the Palestinians, which have continued from time to time.

Notably, like the United States, Ottoman Empire of Turkey was a large multi-ethnic state. In order to maintain their control, one of the British strategies was divide and rule which was being practiced through various tactics like arrangement of rebellions, manipulation of ethnic and sectarian differences. The Britain provided soldiers, weapons and money to the Arab subjects against that Empire. According to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British and French agreed to divide the Arab world between them. The Britain took control of what are now Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan. The French were given modern Syria, Lebanon and southern Turkey. Thus, they brought about the end of the Ottomans and the rise of the new states, with borders, running across the Middle East, dividing Muslims from each other.

Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 which was a conspiracy of the American and the British rulers against the Palestinians was implemented. On May 14, 1948, the UNO acted upon the 1947 UN Partition Plan and established the state of Israel.

Israel occupied East Jerusalem and Syrian Golan Heights during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed the entire city in 1980 in a move that has never been recognized by the UNO and international community.

Once Henry Kissinger stated “legitimacy is not natural or automatic, but created.”

Under the cover of the 9/11 attacks, the US President George W. Bush started global war on terror. Occupation of Afghanistan by the US-led NATO, Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, like the creation of Al-Qaeda by the CIA, the Islamic State group (ISIS), proxy wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen, and elsewhere in the world were part of the same anti-Muslim campaign to continue old divide and rule policy.

Henry Kissinger had suggested the split of Iraq into three independent regions, ruled by Kurds, Shias and Sunnis. In this regard, the Asia Times Online reported in 2005: “The plan of balkanizing Iraq into several smaller states is an exact replica of an extreme right-wing Israeli plan…an essential part of the balkanization of the whole Middle East. Curiously, Henry Kissinger was selling the same idea even before the 2003 invasion of Iraq…this is classic divide and rule: the objective is the perpetuation of Arab disunity.”

Similarly, during the partition of the Sub-continent, the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) which comprised Muslim majority decided to join Pakistan according to the British formula. But, Dogra Raja, Sir Hari Singh, a Hindu who was ruling over the J&K in collusion with the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Governor General Lord Mountbatten joined India.

The Security Council adopted resolution of April 21, 1948, which promised a plebiscite under UN auspices to enable the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine whether they wish to join Pakistan or India. On February 5, 1964, India backed out of its commitment of holding plebiscite. Instead, Indian Parliament declared Kashmir-an integral part of the Indian union.

Indian cruel actions against the Kashmiris reached climax on August 5, 2019 when Indian extremist government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the leader of the fanatic ruling party BJP revoked articles 35A and 370 of the Constitution, which gave a special status to the disputed territory of the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). New Delhi unilaterally annexed the IIOJK with the Indian Federation to turn Muslim majority into minority.

Implementing the ideology of Hindutva ((Hindu Nationalism), Indian prejudiced rulers have Issued over 1.8 million domicile certificates to non-Kashmiris to change the demographic structure of the IIOJK.

And deployment of more than 900,000 military troops in the IIOJK, who have martyred thousands of the Kashmiris through brutal tactics-extrajudicial killings—non-provision of basic necessities of life and medicines for the coronavirus patients prove worst form of India’s state terrorism. Now, almost 21 months have been passed. But, Indian strict military lockdown in the IIOJK continues.

Besides, the Indian Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) further exposed the discriminatory policies of the Modi-led government against the Muslims.

It is mentionable that Article 42 of the 1907—Hague Regulations states that a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

Moreover, in its resolution 3314, the United Nations General Assembly prohibits states from any military occupation. Article 2(4) of the UN charter explicitly prohibits the use of force.

In addition, General Assembly’s resolution 1541 adopted in 1960 accepts the legitimacy of the right of self-determination and opposes repressive measures of all kinds against the freedom fighters by the colonial powers.

Nevertheless, the US-led major Western countries continue old policy of divide and rule to create division among the Islamic countries.

In this respect, on the directions of the US ex-President Donald Trump, some Muslim countries’ various moves such as recognition of the state of Israel, opening of Israeli embassies in their countries, Shia-Sunni sectarian split, manipulation of Iran-Saudi Arabia differences, encouragement to Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, lack of practical action against the Modi-regime etc. might be cited as some instances. Undoubtedly, it is due to lack of unity in the Islamic Ummah that the Muslim countries have become easy target of this old policy.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: Sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

ABOUT VT EDITORS

VT EditorsVeterans Today

VT Editors is a General Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff.

All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff

editors@veteranstoday.com

Phony History: Why There Will Be No Peace in Judea, Palestine, Israel or Whatever

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor 

-May 30, 202102

No surprise to anyone, but there is no reliable history of the Jewish people.  It isn’t just them, when it comes down to history, everyone lies.  I have been on “government sponsored” tours of sites all over the world. 

I have had French tell me a Roman ruin from 100AD was built by a French king 300 years ago.  In Hungary, Roman ruins are dated a thousand years or more after they were built, to support a heritage that never happened. 

 Entire religions, entire historical epochs are erased, cleansed from history.  History is a liar.

Roman Ruins are Commonly ‘Borrowed’

The lies of history are peddled by universities funded by more liars, liars and thieves buying more lies from more liars and thieves.  In the last 20 years, television documentaries have debunked 75% of what we have accepted as history and done so with scholarship “above the norm.”

What is the “norm?”  A historical fact is any lie that has more than two people agree to it.  What historians call “fact,” any cop would call a “shaky alibi.”

There is no bigger historical liar than the history of Judea, the Roman province that now includes a state Jews choose to call Israel.

With a UN vote coming up that President Obama has already promised to veto, a vote giving what may actually be the majority from that region national rights they have been denied, we are talking about the Palestinians, there are suggestions for “talks.”

There can be no talks because there is no basis for talks.  Talks are based on ideas and understandings and the history of the region, be it from 1948 onward on since Exodus and the Egyptian escape, is all total bull, invented mythology made up to support wild claims or simply entertain.

Follow the Israeli Attack Arrows

Jews are told Palestinians are terrorists because of a version of the 1948 war that Israel teaches their people and is taught in America because of Israeli influence.  It is false.

The Suez Canal war of 1956 isn’t taught either.

Many incidents such as the Lavon Affair and the USS Liberty are simply erased because they don’t fit.

That Israel staged the 1967 war as a sneak attack on Egypt, done with considerable help from the US, Britain and France, is another historical secret as is the 1973 war when Israel was kept afloat by the entire military strength of the United States.

Why do you think the Arabs cut off America’s oil?

It was because America sent its military to defend Israel when the Arabs tried to get the land back that was stolen during the sneak attack of 1967?

If much of this is strange to you, you have an Orwellian education, meaning “no education  at all.”

We could start with 1948.  Palestinians owned Palestine along with some Jews and Christians.  Europeans of Jewish faith, armed to the teeth by the US, France and Britain, invaded and pushed the Palestinians off their land.  Fighting back is called “terrorism.”

The Zionist European Invasion Was Successful – American Intel Reported They Would Easily Defeat the Arabs

This is simple historical truth.  Problem is, until Israelis and Americans are willing to accept the real truth, they can never talk to anyone.  Who wants to talk to a deluded bigot?

It gets worse, not just for Jews.  Muslims and Christians are ‘full of it’ as well.

Lost Tribes – MarkChagall

First of all, there is no historical proof that any “Israeli” kingdom ever existed anywhere.  There is no proof, despite decades of “faith based” archeology, phony science, phony history and phony propaganda that Moses or Noah or Abraham ever existed.

In fact, the “holy texts” were long proven forgeries, invented to justify land theft, wild stories of angels and gods giving things away, wildly contradictory, childish in scope and unsupported by science, by evidence and even reason.  “They made it all up.”

What is represented as the “tribes of Israel” was a minor group of largely polytheistic tribes at war with each other and anyone, one of dozens of such groups, who disappeared from the sands of time.

Wild stories that talk of magical beings giving them land and power, not entirely different from the writings of Homer, don’t change that.  Homer wrote much better.

Things we know.  When the crusaders came to Jerusalem in the 1096, there were no Jews there.  There were lots of Christians, however.  You see, until 650AD, Judea had been entirely Christian, meaning everyone who lived there was Christian.

This was part of the Byzantine/Roman empire which had, controlled the region for many centuries.  Back in the early 300’s, Constantine legalized Christianity and, in the process, made it illegal for Jews to hold Christian slaves.

Lost Tribes – Salvador Dali

Why was this an issue?  Try finding out.  History erased all of that, the same history that parted the Red Sea.

Between 135AD and 350AD, Jews and Christians in the Middle East hated each other.

The Christians, most at least, had actually been Jews who converted.  It is part of that “Christ’ thing we call “Christianity” today.  You remember, the “messiah” thing?

History tells us that Jews fought the Romans during the first century, ending 73AD or so.  Then they all got on boats and went elsewhere in the Roman empire with a few staying behind.

However, there are no records of any of this.  No records of them leaving.  No records of them arriving.

No records of them living anywhere else.  No records of their traditions in the Roman empire, though, for instance, there were always Jewish settlements in each Roman city.

The old Jewish section of Rome is right off Via Arenula today.

What is a wild claim, however, is that Jews were expelled, moved to the Roman empire and ended up all living in Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Germany, Czechoslovakia and, mostly Russia.

You see, you couldn’t move there then.  The Visigoths and even nastier people ran those places.

Visigoths – They Did Not do Neighbors Well

They weren’t part of the Roman empire, never were.

There is no record of Jews leaving Judea, no record of them arriving in the Roman Empire at the time claimed, no record of them living there and no record of them all heading out to Russia and Poland, where 90% of Europe’s Jews had lived for centuries.

There is no historical record of any of this.

There is, however, a historical record of a people from Russia called the Khazars who converted to Judaism and created a great empire nearly as large as the United States.

The “Jewish areas” of Russia and Europe were the eastern portion of Khazaria.

One could assume that all Jews in Russia or Poland, just as Helen Thomas said, were from there and had never been from Judea.  We can prove Jews lived there as Khazars.  We cannot prove Jews moved there from Judea.

Does this mean that Jews from that region who, after World War II, chose to move to Palestine were bad people?  No, of course not.  What it does mean is that they never came from there.  Is that important?

Only if the wild and insane claim that a convenient mythology allows one people to steal from another. However, this is the nature of phony history, phony religion and mythology.  Jews from Russia and Poland look pretty much like everyone else from there.

Byzantine Mural – When Jews were Christians – Before They Were Muslims

Other points.  The most likely thing is that Palestinians were once Byzantine Christians and before that Jews.  Why?  There is no proof they came from anywhere else.

There is proof they have been where they are pretty much forever.  There is also proof that people who lived there were, at one time, Jews, then Christians and eventually Muslims.  Why change religions?

Governments created incentives for people to change religions, some involved taxes, others involved serious persecution.

This religious persecution in Judea went on for centuries, Jews persecuting Christians and, later, Christians persecuting Jews.

This was long before Islam existed. This is real history.

Before Muslims became “terrorists,” Jews claimed Christians were “terrorists.”

Then Christians said Jews were all “thieves” and “mongrels” and had killed Christ.  Can we prove Christ existed?  Actually no, we can’t.

However, the Gospels, such as they are, most burned, some horribly mistranslated, are something of a record, much more of a record than the wild discussions of Moses and “mana” and being lost in Sinai for 40 years.

Would any of it stand up in court?  Not for a friggin’ minute!

So, where does this leave us?

Palestinians are probably, by genetic definition, if such exists, the only real Jews.

Most Jews are probably from ethnic groups pushed into Europe, no different than every other migration.  The idea of claimed “immunity” to two thousand years of historical resettlement, religious realignments and the total lack of either archaeological or rational written records as a basis of decades of warfare is insane.

 We could just as easily be talking about the Phoenicians or Philistines or Hittites or Babylonians, the Greeks, the Ottomans or even Egyptians as having historical claim to Palestine.

Lord Balfour (left of pitcher) – Reception at the Tel-Aviv Municipality in 1925

Something we can come closer to proving is that a corrupt British politician named Balfour, back in 1917, loaded with gambling debts, wrote a short document to a wealthy and even more corrupt banker offering some kind of deal on land that he didn’t control.

This was during World War I.  Turkey controlled Palestine entirely, had for centuries.  There were Jews in the Turkish empire.  Turkey invited them there in the 15th century to help run things.  These Jews were, however, Europeans mostly, persecuted in Europe, where they had come to from, not Judea certainly, and welcomed to the Middle East by Muslims.

This is real history.

Britain had no right to cut a “deal” more likely tied to the kind of political payoffs and blackmail used to push President Obama into his humiliating speech to the UN.  The “Balfour thing” which is brought up continually had then and has now NO LEGAL STANDING WHATSOEVER.

Balfour could have been running the mortgage department at today’s Bank of America.

It is time that those that call themselves Israeli’s admit they are resettled Europeans like most of us here in America, taking advantage of a poorly armed and primitive population just as Britain, Spain and later the United States did in North America, like Europe did around the world during the colonial era, like one population did to another since time immemorial.
A few classes in Hebrew, discarding Yiddish traditions, doesn’t change history, it only erases heritage.

Supposedly “mechanisms” and “organizations” are in place, since 1945, to prevent such things.  A civil war in Libya was carefully orchestrated based on such mechanisms and organizations, an intervention under identical circumstances that exist in Israel or Syria.

Zionism in Action – Being a Light Unto the World ?

But the United States is defending Israel and Russia is defending Syria.

Thus, the great world powers, such as they are, have maneuvered the world through a century of atrocity.

This time the United States is attempting to justify prehistoric barbarism of the Israeli occupation of Palestine using language carefully crafted by “advisors” with the ethical and moral authority of  the worst criminal elements of our time.

Use of force to dispossess a people is ethnic cleansing.  Separating people by walls in apartheid.  An armed enclosure filled with men, women and children is a concentration camp.

This is Palestine today, what is called the “State of Israel.”  This is why an American veto is important because the rest of the world sees the truth.

We are asked to endure a century of warfare and economic chaos because of the desire by some to validate bizarre mythologies that are little more than a veneer for something darker.

Israel isn’t about Jews.  Israel is just another issue, strong strangling the weak, the clever controlling the many through deception.

Because of Israeli control of media, a few square miles of sand, some stolen and built with senior citizen vacation condos, some farmed by Asian slaves, much still barren and inhospitable, land no American would park an abandoned tractor on, is costing America and Europe a century of economic survival, costing generations of lives, all based on, not just mythology but a continuing stream of carefully crafted lies.

Settlement?  Talks?   Based on?

Ashkenazi Jews are Turkic Khazars

Khazaria – 600 to 850 AD

BIOGRAPHY

Gordon Duff, Senior EditorSenior Editor , VT

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War. He is a disabled veteran and has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades. Gordon is an accredited diplomat and is generally accepted as one of the top global intelligence specialists. He manages the world’s largest private intelligence organization and regularly consults with governments challenged by security issues.

Duff has traveled extensively, is published around the world and is a regular guest on TV and radio in more than “several” countries. He is also a trained chef, wine enthusiast, avid motorcyclist and gunsmith specializing in historical weapons and restoration. Business experience and interests are in energy and defense technology.

Gordon’s Archives – 2008-2014

gpduf@aol.com

Gaza – US and the West Supports Israel’s Crimes Against Humanity – Understanding the Never-Ending Conflict

May 18, 2021

By Peter Koenig for the Saker Blog

“I said we would exact a very heavy price from Hamas and other terror groups, and we are doing so and will continue to do so with great force,” Netanyahu said in a fiery video address.

Israel’s PM Netanyahu is a war criminal and should be held accountable for war crimes throughout his PM-ship of Israel, according to the 1945 / 1946 Nuremberg trials criteria. His crimes against humanity, against a defenseless Palestine are comparable to the Holocaust.

In 2016 Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu had been indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. The trial is ongoing but has temporarily been “suspended”. Netanyahu has dismissed the charges as hypocritical and acts as if they didn’t exist. Even though he lacks the majority to form a government, he acts with impunity, because he can – he can because he has the backing of the United States.

More importantly, Israel has been accused before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague for crimes against humanity and war crimes against Palestine. The prosecutor of the ICC, Ms. Fatou Bensouda, said on 3 March 2021 that she has launched an investigation into alleged crimes in the Palestinian territories. She added the probe will look into “crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court that are alleged to have been committed” since June 13, 2014, and that the investigation will be conducted “independently, impartially and objectively, without fear or favor.”

In a quick response, PM Netanyahu accused the Court of hypocrisy and anti-Semitism. Of course, the quickest and often most effective defense and counter-attack is calling any accusation, no matter how rightful it is, as anti-Semitism. Calling someone an anti-Semite shuts most people up, no matter whether the accusation is true or false. That explains in part why nobody dares to even come forward with the truth about crimes committed by Israel.
—

Imagine, Jews were the chief victims of the German Third Reich – a Nazi Regime, and today the descendants of these very Jews, persecuted and slaughtered in Nazi-concentration camps, allowed the transformation of Israel into a Zionist Fourth Reich, executing Palestinians Holocaust-style. They have done this with impunity for the last 73 years, with the current massacres reaching unheard-of proportions.

Pro-Palestine protests take place around the world – and especially now, finally, throughout Europe. Workers and young people joined protests across Europe on Saturday, 15 May, including in London, Paris, Berlin and Madrid, to oppose Israel’s bombardment of the Palestinian population in Gaza. The demonstrations coincided with the Palestinian Nakba (Catastrophe Day, 14 May 1948)—marking the founding of the state of Israel, through the forced expulsion of 760,000 Palestinians from their villages.

Here is what one protester, Khalid, in Manchester, UK, had to say. Khalid held a placard reading “Lift the siege of Palestine-Stop bombing Palestine”. He said, “Israel should know better. They know how it feels to be exterminated. They had no homeland and came to Palestine as guests and now they have taken the Palestinians’ homes and are trying to throw them out. The Palestinians have no water, they have no food. You have got people like [UK Prime Minister] Boris Johnson and presidents colluding with Israel and giving them money to destroy human life” – http://www.defenddemocracy.press/protests-across-europe-against-israeli-war-on-gaza/

Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity, always take place with the unwavering support of the United States. No US presidential candidate has a chance of being “elected” to the empire’s highest chair, the Presidency, without having proven his or her unquestioned support for Zionist-Israel. Without that western support, Israel’s war against and oppression of Palestine would soon be over.

Palestine could start breathing again and become a free country, an autonomous, sovereign, self-sustained country, what they were before the forced UN Partition Plan for Palestine, and as was foreseen by UN Resolution 181 II of 1947. This genocidal conflict situation has lasted almost three quarters of a century – and has little chance to abate under the current geopolitical constellation of the Middle East and the world, where obedient submission to US-Israeli command and atrocities is the name of the game.

Background
The conflict started basically with the creation of Israel. The UK, since the end of WWI and the Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, occupier of the Palestine Peninsula (Palestine and Transjordan, see map), proposed to the UN as a condition for UK withdrawal, the creation of Israel in the western part of what was then known as Palestine and Transjordan. The so-called UN Partitian Plan for Palestine, was voted on 29 November 1947 by the UN General Assembly, as Resolution 181 (II). The then 57 UN members voted 33 (72%) for, 13 against the resolution, with 10 abstentions, and one absent. The Palestinian Authority was never consulted on this proposal. Therefore, for many scholars the UN Partition Plan’s legality remains questionable.

The Plan sought to resolve the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements, Palestinian nationalism and Jewish nationalism, or Zionism. The Plan also called for an Economic Union between the proposed two states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

However, immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, a civil war broke out and the plan was not implemented. The remnants of this civil war, the non-acceptance by Palestine of this UN Resolution 181, for which the historic owners of the land were not consulted, are lingering on as of this day.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the British administration was formalized by the League of Nations under the Palestine Mandate in 1923, as part of the Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. The Mandate reaffirmed the 1917 British commitment to the Balfour Declaration, for the establishment in Palestine of a “National Home” for the Jewish people, with the prerogative to carry it out.

The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War, announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The question is still asked today: How legitimate was that declaration in terms of international law? Many academics see this declaration still today as a unilateral move and a breach of international law, as no consultation of the Palestine Authority ever took place.
——

In the November 1947 UN General Assembly vote, the US was among the 33 countries voting FOR the Partition Plan. Interestingly, though, President Truman later noted, “The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me.” – This Zionist pressure was to set the bar for what was to follow – up to this day.

David Ben-Gurion, Zionist statesman and political leader, was the first Prime Minister (1948–53, 1955–63) and defense minister (1948–53; 1955–63) of Israel. In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to “possession of the land as a whole” (emphasis added by author).

As of today, seventy-three years later and counting, the conflict is not resolved. To the contrary. It has become the longest lasting war, or aggression rather, in recent human history. A war it isn’t really, because a sheer oppression and literal slaughter against a perceived enemy, like Palestine that has no weapons to speak of, being bombarded and shot with the most sophisticated US-sponsored weapons systems, cannot be called a war. It is sheer genocide. The Palestinian weapons of choice are mostly rocks; rocks thrown by Palestinians at the Israeli IDF invaders, who then mow them down with machine guns, mostly civilians, women and children.

The Israel armed-to-the-teeth Defense Forces (IDF), invade Gaza and Palestinian West Bank areas with the most sophisticated machine guns, bombs, white phosphorus, practicing indiscriminate killing. The IDF destroys Palestinian living quarters, administration buildings, schools, shops, the little manufacturing industries that makes up their economy – destroying a people already teetering at the edge of extreme poverty and despair. No mercy. What does one call people who are committing such unspeakable crimes?

What does one call this style of aggression? – Literally killing hundreds, thousands of people without defense, in the world’s largest open prison – Gaza – home to more than 2 million people, living in misery, housing and infrastructure constantly destroyed, painfully partially rebuilt – just to be destroyed and bombed to pieces again. Those who don’t die from Israeli direct aggressions, may die from the indirect effects – famine, misery, disease and suicide – of this constant, abject hostility perpetuated upon what was supposed to be, according to the UN Partition Plan, an autonomous Palestine home of the Palestine people.

It is an ongoing – seemingly never-ending conflict, ever since the first Intifada beginning in December 1987 (Intifada in the context of the Israeli-Palestine conflict is a concerted Palestinian attempt to shake off Israeli power and gain independence).

The Oslo Accords I and II are a pair of agreements between the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), of 1993 and 1995, respectively, sponsored by Norway in an attempt to achieve peace between the two parties. The Oslo Accords failed bitterly, over the issue of Jerusalem that was to become the religious capital for both countries, but Israel refused, claiming Jerusalem as her own, making the holy city to Israel’s capital. The first foreign leader recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, was US President Donald Trump on 6 December 2017.
—-

There was, however, another, less talked-about but equally important issue – an issue of survival – within the Oslo Accords: The fair sharing of the water resources. Israel never agreed, as about 85% of all water resources of what used to be the Palestinian Land, falls currently within the borders of what was defined by the Partitian Plan as Palestine. This is based on a World Bank study, in which I participated. On the insistence of Israel, the US vetoed publication of the study. Hence, the report was never officially published and publicly available.

Subsequent, so-called Peace processes, mostly US-sponsored, failed as of this day, because both Israel and the US have no interest in finding a peaceful solution. Neither one of the two nations have an interest in a Peace Accord, as the US needs the conflict to keep control over the Middle East, while Israel has no intentions to give up (slave)-control over Palestine, as her wellbeing depends on the overall control of what used to be Arab-Palestinian territory, and especially Palestine’s water resources. Without them, Israel would be a dry and unproductive desert.

There is a purpose behind these illegal, but ever-growing number of Israeli settlements on Palestine territories: Control over water. The settlements are usually over or near underground water resources. This is one way of controlling Palestine’s water. This happens not only in the so-called West Bank, but also in Gaza, where water resources are really scarce. Gaza is the world’s per capita water-scarcest area. The few Gaza water tables are super-posed by Israeli settlements.

This totally illegal and often UN-condemned Israeli Settlements strategy – also totally ignored by Israel – gradually reduces Palestine land and increases Israel’s control over crucial Palestinian water resources. See map

The impediment of being able to manage their own water resources, therefore increasing their food self-sufficiency through their own agriculture, makes out of Palestine an Israeli slave-state.

In addition, Israel has a handle on opening or closing the Gaza border, letting at will minimal food, medication and other life-essentials into Gaza, as well as allowing exactly the number needed of low-paid Palestinians (literally slave-labor) cross the border in the morning to work in Israel, and having to return at night to their Palestine homes. It is sheer Apartheid exploitation. Furthermore, Israel does not recognize Gaza’s territorial Mediterranean waters which would be a means towards Palestinians self-sustention and economic industrial activity.

According to an OECD report of 2016, Israel ranks as the nation with the highest poverty rate among OECD countries, i.e. 21% of Israelis are living under the poverty line. This is more than Mexico, Turkey and Chile. The OECD average is about 11%. This figure (21%) may be slightly exaggerated, given the relatively large informal sector and transfer payments to Israel from Jews abroad, as well as from international Jewish organizations.

Nevertheless, it is clear that Israel is economically not autonomous and needs Palestine to survive, both in terms of confiscated Palestinian water resources, as well as Palestinian slave labor. Therefore, there is hardly any hope for the UN-planned two-state solution to eventually materialize. There is little hope that this situation will change under the current geopolitical conditions. The US wants to dominate the Middle East and needs Israel as a garrison state that will be armed to the teeth for the US – to eventually grow and become Washington’s proxy ruler of the Middle East.
—

A question that is rarely asked, if ever: What is Hamas’ role in this never-ending Israeli-Palestine conflict? Since 2007 Hamas is officially governing the 2-million-plus population of the 363 square kilometer Gaza Strip. Hamas is also the Palestine paramilitary or defense organization. Hamas is said to be funded largely by Iran. Is it true? And if so, is Iran the only funder of Hamas?

It is odd, however, that ever so often, Hamas attacks Israel by launching unsophisticated rockets at Israeli cities, rockets that most often are intercepted by the IDF defense system, or cause minimal damage. But they cause, predictably minimal damage against an IDF which is US-equipped with the latest technology weapons- and defense systems.

Yet, a Hamas attack on Israel prompts regularly a ferocious retaliation; bombardments, not so much aiming at Hamas, as Netanyahu intimidates, “We would exact a very heavy price from Hamas and other terror groups…” , but at the civilian populations. The heaviest casualties are civilian Gaza citizens, many women and children among them, after an Israeli “self-defense” retaliation. This is of course no self-defense. The Hamas attacks usually follows an Israeli provocation.

Why would Hamas hit back, knowing that they won’t wreak any damage on Israel, yet they will trigger each time a deadly massacre on the Gaza population? – At the outset, Israeli provocations look like “false flags”. Could they be false flags with the willing participation of Hamas? If so, with whom does Hamas collaborate?

These are questions which certainly do not have an immediate answer. But the 14-year pattern of repeatedly similar events begs the question – is there another (Hamas) agenda behind what meets the eye?
——-

What is nearly as criminal as the IDF’s aggressions, is the almost complete silence of the west, and the world at large, vis-à-vis Israel’s atrocities committed on the Palestinian population. It is an unspoken tolerance for the carnages Israel inflicts on Palestine, especially in the Gaza Strip, the world’s largest open-air prison.

For example, the political UN body, despite hundreds of Resolutions, condemning and flagging Israel’s illegal actions against Palestine, including the ever-increasing number of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestine territories, seems to be hapless against Israel. Weak condemnations of Israel, calling both parties to reason – leaves Israel totally cold and undisturbed. There is no punishment whatsoever, not from the UN system, not from the western allies, most of whom are Washington and NATO vassals.

The Biden Administration has taken the usual imperialist position of cynical neutrality, like it was an uninvolved disinterested player, while painting up Israel as being some kind of victim instead of the brutal Zionist apartheid state that it is. It is important to remember that the creation of Israel was so that the US had a garrison state to protect her interests in the Middle East.

Take the UN Secretary General. Instead of condemning Israeli ruthlessness and demanding accountability, the spokesman for UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, merely called on the Netanyahu regime to “exercise maximum restraint and respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.”

The Secretary General himself reiterates his commitment, including through the Middle East Quartet, “to supporting Palestinians and Israelis to resolve the conflict on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions, international law and bilateral agreements.” The Quartet, set up in 2002, consists of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia. Its mandate is to help mediate Middle East peace. As of this day they have not achieved any tangible results.

Because they do NOT WANT to achieve any peace. For the reasons mentioned before, Peace is not in the interest of Israel, nor in the interest of the West, led by the United States. To keep the conflict burning, sacrificing hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of Palestinian lives is not important. It’s just a collateral damage of a larger agenda – control over the Middle East and her riches, a step towards controlling the entire world.

Time and again, Guterres disgraced himself and the office he holds by failing to denounce US/NATO/Israeli aggression and demand accountability for high crimes too serious to ignore.

If the UN is incapable or unwilling of assuming the responsibility of reigning in Israel, perhaps the Group of 77 (by now more than 120 UN member countries) should take a joint stand, exerting pressure on Israel, asking as an intermediary for outright negotiating with Israel and Palestine to reach a sustainable peace settlement, including the original two-state solution, back to the pre-1967 Israeli-Palestine borders. Let us, the UN, become pro-active in seeking and finding a permanent solution for the stressed-to-death, starving and tortured Palestinians, especially those from the Gaza Strip.

---

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

عودة الروح لفلسطين وانهيار القرن العشرين

ناصر قنديل

–

تميّز القرن العشرين بكونه على الصعيد الفكري والسياسي والاقتصادي قرن العقلانيّة، التي لا يرى البعض منها إلا كونها تبشيراً بالخير والعدل والسلام، توافقاً مع الشعارات التي رفعتها الثورة الفرنسية التي افتتحت عهد العقلانية في الفلسفة والسياسة والاقتصاد، لكن ما يتجاهله الكثيرون هو أن هذه العقلانية التي نهضت تحت رايتها إمبراطوريات الغرب الكبرى، تحوّلت الى إنتاج أنماط للدول والنظام السياسي والنظام الاقتصادي، والإفراط بمنح العقل تفويض التدخل لتعليب التاريخ والجغرافيا بإنتاج علب، يجري السعي لفرضها على شعوب العالم، بما يرافق فرضها من عبث إرادوي في التاريخ والجغرافيا، ولعل منطقتنا كانت خير مثال عن هذا العبث، الذي طال العالم كله، حتى أتاح انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي لنا رؤية روسيا تستعيد حيويتها وقوتها بمصادر حضور مؤسسة على عناصر تستمدها مباشرة من التاريخ والجغرافيا، وليس من وصفة وضعيّة اسمها الشيوعية، حوّلتها قوة عظمى لكنها سلبتها الروح، فعادت الروح الناتجة عن تزاوج الروح الإمبراطورية مع المسيحية الشرقية والقومية الروسية. كما أتيح لنا ونحن نرى تركيا كدولة ذات أطماع بجوارها ومخالب تمدّها في المنطقة، تفعل ذلك بعدما تزاوجت طورانيتها السلجوقية مع خلفيتها الإمبراطورية المتمثلة بالعثمانية، بعدما تحررت من الوصفة العلمانية القسرية المهجنة التي فرضت عليها لتحمي الخاصرة الأوروبية، وأتيح لنا أن نرى إيران المتطلعة لدور فاعل في آسيا تفعل ذلك تحت راية إسلامها بخصوصيّته المؤسسة على الكربلائية الرافضة للظلم، بنكهة إمبراطورية متصالحة مع تاريخ بلاد فارس، بعدما تحرّرت من القفص الشاهنشاهي الذي وضعت بداخله، وأجهضت لأجله ثورتها مرات عديدة، لتلعب قسراً دور شرطي الخليج وسند كيان الاحتلال.

–

في منطقتنا تم التلاعب بالتاريخ والجغرافيا بصورة شديدة المرضية، لدرجة غير قابلة للتصديق لمجافاتها كل ما هو طبيعي، فكيف تم تحويل مصر أم الدنيا وزعيمة العالم العربي الى دولة ضعيفة مهددة بالجوع والعطش، وتم تنصيب السعودية بقوة المال والنفط زعيماً بديلاً بلا أي مقومات موضوعية لدور الزعامة؟ وكيف تم الطغيان على دور اليمن التاريخي صاحب الفضل بنشر اللسان العربي وتأصيله، وأصل القبائل العربية وصاحب أكبر تاريخ عمراني منذ مملكة سبأ وسد مأرب، ليتحول مجرد مصدر للعمال في دول النفط الخليجي، وهو الذي يمثل أكبر كتلة بشرية في الخليج يتحوّل مجرد ملحق في السياسات والبحث عن مصادر الحياة؟ وبالعقلانية التي منحت الغرب تفويضاً من الإله الجديد، المسمى بالمصلحة، تم إطلاق الوهابية لتحل مكان الإسلام المتجذر في تاريخ الأزهر وعلماء بلاد الشام والأندلس، وبالعقلانية فرض شطب ابن خلدون وابن رشد وابن عربي من التاريخ العلمي الإنساني ومن التراث العربي، ليحل مكانهم مشعوذون يملكون فضائيات مفتوحة على مدار الساعة لتوزيع النصائح الفلكية للنجاح والتعويذات لمعالجة المرضى، لكن تبقى أكبر عملية عبث بالتاريخ والجغرافيا هي تلك التي شهدها المشرق العربيّ، حيث رسمت خرائط الكيانات الوليدة من اتفاقية سايكس بيكو، على قياس ضمان أمن وهيمنة الكيان المولود بقوة وعد بلفور، كوطن قومي لليهود الذين تمّ جلبهم بالشعوذة والتهجير والإغراء، لإقامة كيان يتحدّى كل ما يتصل بالتاريخ والجغرافيا، ليكون حارساً لأنابيب النفط وتقاطعاتها، وكل ذلك باسم العقلانية، فما يريده العقل وتسخر له الأموال والسلطات والأسلحة يمكن له أن يلغي كل حقائق التاريخ الموروث الذي تسهل شيطنته والجغرافيا العذراء التي يسهل تطويعها.

–

منذ عام 1990 مع سقوط جدار برلين الذي أسس لاستعادة أوروبا وحدتها التي مزقتها العقلانية، كما أسس لاستعادة روسيا لروحها خارج صيغة الاتحاد السوفياتي العقلاني، بدا أن القرن العشرين ينهار، لكن بدا بوضوح أن هذا الانهيار لن يكتمل إلا عندما يلامس حدود المشرق العربي، وخصوصاً عندما تهتز أركان الكيان الذي يحمل أعلى مراتب الدلالة على ماهية العقلانية التي أسست للسياسة والاقتصاد والفكر في القرن العشرين، والذي قام على أعلى درجات العبث بالتاريخ والجغرافيا، ومن هنا تنبع أهمية ما يجري في فلسطين، حيث يقوم الفلسطينيون بإبداع مثير للذهول بتفكيك الكائن الخرافي فرانكشتاين المولود الأهم للعقلانية، فقد ثبت وسيثبت أكثر أن المال والسلطة والسلاح التي أنجبت هذا المسخ العلمي هي مصادر قوة خرساء وتبقى خرساء عندما ينطق التاريخ وتتحدث الجغرافيا، فيتهاوى ما بدا أنه بنيان عصيّ على الرياح، وفلسطين المنتفضة من أقصاها الى أقصاها وفي قلبها القدس وأقصاها، تقول ذلك بما لا يحتمل التأويل، وتثبت أن ما توهّمه البعض من موت القضية الفلسطينية كان مجرد سراب، وأن الهوية الجامعة التي تشعل جذوتها فلسطين والقدس بين شعوب المنطقة لا تزال تحمل سحرها وكلمة سرها، رغم كل عمليات التخريب المبرمج للهويات، وأن الإسلام لا يمكن ان يكون تكفيرياً، وأن المسيحية ترفض أن تكون صليبيّة، فلا غورو المنتقم من صلاح الدين يمثل المسيحية، ولا أبو بكر البغدادي وأبو محمد الجولاني قادة بقر البطون وأكل الأكباد والقلوب يمثلون الإسلام. فالمنطقة اليوم تستردّ روحها من فلسطين، لتدفن الكثير الكثير من موروثات مرحلة العقلانية، فلبنان مأزوم وسورية مهدّدة والعراق تائه والأردن في خطر، ولا أمل بحلول عنوانها كذبة لبنان أولاً وسورية أولاً والعراق أولاً والأردن أولاً، بل الحل الجامع هو فلسطين أولاً، والتسليم بأن الحل الجامع هو بالعودة لمحاكاة المصير الواحد الذي عبثت به خرائط سايكس بيكو، ولو بصيغ تحفظ الخصوصيّات الناشئة.

Israeli Apartheid Confirmed

13 May 2021

by Lawrence Davidson 

Part I—The Question Of Apartheid 

It was perhaps 6 or 7 years ago. I was part of a panel, debating on Israel and the Palestinians, that took place at a local (West Chester, Pa) Quaker Friends school. The school had such debates regularly until the administration caved-in to pressure from the Zionist parents of a number of Jewish students. One of these parents debated for the Israeli side. 

This particular event came to mind upon my seeing the latest Human Rights Watch (HRW) report conclusively laying out the apartheid nature of Israel. Here is the connection: just before the debate was to begin the participating Zionist parent tried to make a command decision. No one was to use the term apartheid in reference to Israel. This was because the assertion was, according to him, obviously nonsense. 

I remember at the time thinking, who gave him the right to define the terms of the debate? As it turned out, and this is quite often the case, those supporting the Palestinians knew twice as much history as did the Zionists, and could call upon twice as many facts and examples. Apartheid Israel was shown to be a matter of fact rather than nonsense. I am convinced that Zionist pressure on the school to end future debates was motivated by the additional fact that those supporting the Palestinians so readily won. 

I have run into many other cases like this. The Zionists would debate for a while, but upon realizing that they could not prevail, they opted for enforced silence—that is, attempting to deny their opposition a stage and eventually labelling them anti-Semites. I often wonder if that Zionist parent who did the one-time debate at the Friends school, ever did face the fact that he was wrong about Israel and apartheid. Not because we said he was wrong. He would never have taken our word for it despite the evidence we had at hand. Rather, because an ever greater number of humanitarian organizations, of which HRW is one, journalists and research institutions have thoroughly and repeatedly laid out the facts that make it so. To this one may now add the charge of “medical apartheid.”

And none of us could forget the ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing if most of us were actually informed of the process.

Amidst the predictable resumption of mass resistance from Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, The Human Rights Watch report confirming Israeli Apartheid presents the seminal context for what we now witness. 

Part II—Human Rights Watch’s 2021 Report

Here is part of the opening pages of the HRW report:

—“About 6.8 million Jewish Israelis and 6.8 million Palestinians live today between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River. Throughout most of this area, Israel is the sole governing power; in the remainder, it exercises primary authority alongside limited Palestinian self-rule.”

—“Across these areas and in most aspects of life, Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy. In pursuit of this goal, authorities have dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity. In certain areas, as described in this report, these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”

—“The prohibition of institutionalized discrimination, especially on grounds of race or ethnicity, constitutes one of the fundamental elements of international law … [over which] the International Criminal Court has the power to prosecute …when national authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue them.”

The report goes on to definitively prove its allegations in 213 pages of depressing detail—all laid out like a damning legal writ. Nor, as suggested above, is this the first time the apartheid nature of Israel been demonstrated. The HRW document was preceded by 16 March 2017 report submitted by UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia demonstrating Israel’s apartheid nature. Though the report was accurate, the UN Secretary General disavowed it under pressure from the United States and Israel. In May of 2018 a

thorough examination appeared entitled Apartheid Israel, by the journalist Jonathan Cook. This was published by Americans for Middle East Understanding in their journal, The Link (April/May 2018). More recently, a 21 January 2021 report by B’Tselem, Israel’s own premier human rights organization, entitled “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid,” proved particularly revealing. One should also take a look at the Israeli Apartheid Factsheet, published 12 January 2021 online, by War On Want. 

The Israeli government dismisses all of these fact-based reports as propaganda. This sets up a question of what is real—one that can be readily resolved, one way or another, through objective outside observers. Unfortunately, Israeli behavior over the past decades has shown that, unless you agree with the Zionist interpretation of events, Israel does not consider you objective. Thus, the HRW representative, and many others as well, have been banned from entering the country. This sort of reaction is not just an Israeli tactic. It is typical of countries in the process of undermining the rule of law and destroying human rights. In a very real way, the charge of “it is all, in this case, anti-Semitic propaganda” is itself a form of propaganda design to shut done critics. 

Part III—The Zionist Rationale

The Zionists consistently say that Israel exists to save world Jewry from persecution—from the constant threat of anti-Semitism and another Holocaust. Many still believe this is true and some of a liberal orientation now resort to this rationale to undermine the HRW report. They charge that it will cause the current wave of anti-Semitism to gain greater traction. Such greater traction always leads to a greater fear of another Holocaust. And this fear will only make the Zionists and Israelis dig in their heels. And indeed, the cries of anti-Semitism and Holocaust has always created a smokescreen behind which can be hidden all Israeli sins. Has anyone ever considered that Israel’s abominable behavior, always committed in the name of the community of worldwide Jewry, is itself a major cause of growing anti-Semitism? 

While Zionism might have started out as a strategy to save the Jews, Israel and the Zionists are no longer in the saving business. In point of fact, various Israeli authorities are constantly bickering about who is or isn’t Jewish. What they are now about is the business of national glorification and expansion—carried on in the old 19th century style of racist imperialism. In this effort the Palestinians are the major victims, but all Jews are, if you will, collateral damage. They become denigrated by the behavior of a brutalizing racist regime that simply declares itself acting in their name.

In the process another truth is also brought low—the fact that means ultimately shape ends. And here is the irony of it all: the outcome of apartheid that is now playing itself out in “greater Israel” was all but predetermined by the nature and behavior of Zionism itself.

Part IV—The Predetermined Nature Of Israeli Apartheid

Here are some of the steps and decisions that made today’s apartheid Israel inevitable:

—The aim of the Zionist movement was to found an exclusively Jewish state. Most of the early Zionists were European Jews searching for a way to escape centuries of anti-Semitism. Living in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, their reference point was the ethnically homogeneous nation state. Soon they convinced themselves that Jews could only escape anti-Semitic persecution if they had their own nation state. 

—By the beginning of the 20th century the Zionists had focused on Palestine as their future political, religious, and cultural nation state. This was due to the land’s biblical associations—and despite the fact that many Zionists were of a secular rather than religious orientation. In 1917, they made an alliance with the British government to rally Jewish support for the British war effort in World War I (WWI) in exchange for British support of a “Jewish national home” in Palestine. This alliance was spelled out in the Balfour Declaration.

—Soon thereafter, the British took Palestine from the Ottoman Turks (the Turks were allies of the Germans in WWI). They then allowed Zionist organized immigration to commence. The British told the Palestinian Arabs that Zionist investment would raise the living standards of the land’s non-Jewish residents. In the meantime, the Zionists discouraged any cooperative interaction with the Palestinian Arabs. This was particularly true when it came to use of Arab labor. Jews who had Arab employees were forcefully pressured to replace them with Jewish immigrants.

—Between 1914 and 1947 both the Arab and Jewish population of Palestine grew. However, Jewish numbers, even though consistently bolstered by Zionist inspired immigration, were never more than 32% of the total population.

—Given Zionist ambitions and the demographics, the question can be asked, just how they could create a state for one group alone in a land where that favored group was a distinct minority? There were only three direct ways: (1) devising a method to get the Arab majority to move out of the country. (2) creating an unequal political and economic system that marginalized the majority, rendering them politically and economically irrelevant. (3) Committing genocide.  

—Both methods 1 and 2 were employed. The first led to the Nakba, the catastrophic removal of some 700,000 Palestinians, during the 1948 war that led to the creation of the State of Israel. Some of these people fled the fighting, but many were forced out at gunpoint by Israeli forces. In truth, the Nakba never completely came to an end as the ongoing home demolitions and evictions show. The second method followed in two stages for those Palestinians who would still find themselves under direct Israeli rule: (A) the so-called Palestinian Israelis, today numbering close to 2 million people or roughly 21% of the population of pre-1967 Israel. These Arabs have been given Israeli citizenship—actually second class citizenship. They are segregated from Jewish Israelis by  a host of discriminatory practices, among which are inferior housing, schools, and job opportunities. (B) The Palestinians who fell under Israeli control in 1967 and remain so today. These are the residents of the West Bank, Golan Heights and also the Gaza Strip, numbering roughly 5 million people. Most of these Palestinians have been denied Israeli citizenship. They are under the rule of Israeli military authorities or an allied Palestinian authority under Israeli supervision. Internal travel is made difficult for them, their ability to improve or expand their infrastructure is restricted. They are encroached upon by illegal Israeli settlements and harassed by Israeli settlers. Attempts at self-defense or counterattack are seen by the Israelis as terrorist acts.

—Means shape ends. (1) The nature of Zionist goals: the transformation of Palestine into a nation state for Jews alone, (2) undertaken with a group mentality shaped by a memories of European anti-Semitism, the outlook of racist European imperialism, and finally the trauma of the Holocaust, (3) strongly inclined the Zionists toward tactics that precluded compromise and equity with the indigenous Palestinians. (4) When the Palestinians inevitably resisted the Zionists they were cast as Arab Nazis, an image which justified the brutal tactics (suppression and expulsion) already in use. Finally, having conquered Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, and shying away from a second mass expulsion as long as the world was watching, the Israelis inevitably fell into apartheid to neutralize the 7 million Arabs under their rule.

Part V—Conclusion

Once you have segregated away those you oppress, the average member of the dominant group can proceed with his or her life in comfortable blindness—literarily not seeing their victims, and remaining purposefully ignorant of the deformed situation that sustains their status, security and wealth. As time goes on all aspects of society (education, employment, media, social norms) come to reinforce this condition. This is the situation in today’s Israel. 

The blindspots can extend to Israel’s Zionist supporters in the diaspora, even if they are otherwise progressive liberals. Take the case of the American Jewish progressive  Peter Osnos, who fears the definitive nature of the HRW report. Why so? Because, he believes, “this report—in detail, length and tone—could be the basis for sanctions against Israel.” As the old Jewish idiom goes, “from his mouth to God’s ears.” However, that is an unlikely prospect. Western governments are so committed to Israel—and steeped in the hypocrisy this requires—that they will simply ignore the HRW revelations, as they did the earlier reports.  

Nonetheless, when you strip away all the ideologically-bred magical thinking, rationalizations, and blindspots, what you are left with is the blatant truth: you cannot impose a foreign group of people, seeking exclusive domination, into a land already populated by a different people, and not end up with a discriminatory and abusive system of rule. And if the abusive system persists something akin to apartheid becomes inevitable. So does periodic mass resistance.

International support for Palestine | The Communiqué with Richard Medhurst

We look back on 73 years of Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation and the international support for it or lack thereof for the Palestinian cause especially as violence from Zionist mobs unfolds against Palestinians in the heart of Palestine’s capital in the Holy City of Jerusalem.

They say that great myths die hard

February 28, 2021

By The Ister for the Saker Blog

They say that great myths die hard, but as it fades into obscurity will anyone really miss the Saudi state?

Because the Kingdom’s cosmopolitan elite longed to be like the West, they imported European sports cars and erected enormous skyrises using slave labor. Riyadh and Jeddah transformed into shopping centers and hubs of oligarchic largesse while the oil-rich sheiks appeased the conservative populace by sanctioning Wahhabist doctrine, public beatings and beheadings, and other backwards symbolic gestures.

Saudi Arabia is essentially based on this great contradiction: posturing itself as the hardline leader of the Islamic world while aligning with America and carrying out a foreign policy that has killed countless Muslims, a contradiction that exists because it is an artificial construct of imperialism.

In the early 1900s, British spies in the Middle East sought to partition off Ottoman claims in the Arab Peninsula with the help of Arab rebels such as Emir Faisal. These spies who included Edmund Allenby and the famous T E Lawrence led the Arab Revolt of 1916 and successfully revoked Ottoman control of the region.

A little-known fact is that Israel and Saudi Arabia share this same point of origin. In December of 1918 after the success of the Arab Revolt, Lord Walter Rothschild held a banquet for Emir Faisal culminating in the signing of the Faisal-Weizmann agreement, used to demonstrate Arab support for the Balfour Declaration: the document that laid the foundation for the state of Israel. The rebels who had been promised a unified Arab state stretching from Aden to Aleppo had been lied to however, as the leaked Sykes Picot agreement revealed a plot by imperial powers to divide and conquer the Middle East along sectarian lines.

Today the pan-Arab doctrine of the government of Bashar al-Assad is the ideological progenitor of those early rebels who fought to unite the Arab world against the wishes of imperialists. The stoking of the Syrian Civil War was just an extension of century-old divide and conquer tactics, as the West sought to enrage Sunnis against the secular Syrian Arab government for the betterment of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Israel. Recall too that neo-Ottoman Turkey is aware of the imperial history and sees Syria as Ottoman territory lost to the West.

If the Syrian revolution ever had a grassroots base it was in the impoverished Sunni Idlib governorate, where Turkey and Saudi Arabia had for decades financed Salafist mosques and imams with the intention of eventually breaking this region off from Syria. Although the remaining terrorists in Idlib have yet to be defeated, Saudi Arabia’s failure to achieve full regime change in the Syrian Civil War marks its waning power: previously both Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein spoke out in favor of pan-Arabism and denounced the Saudis at the cost of their lives. Unlike the ideological and religious bonds that tie America and Israel, America’s commitment to Saudi Arabia was always strategically contingent and several developments suggest that it is declining.

America has abandoned support for the war in Yemen

The war against the Houthi movement in Yemen has been fought with a threefold strategy: sanctions to starve the Yemeni population, targeted assassinations to kill Shia imams and others tied to the Houthis, and traditional military force by Saudi conscripts. The Kingdom’s force has performed poorly and relied heavily on support from America. In one case in 2019, the Saudis were planning an attack in the disputed town of Najran in retaliation for missile strikes on Riyadh oil facilities. They were baited into a trap and over 2,500 were captured by Houthi forces. In blind retaliation, they struck a Houthi prison in Yemen and killed over 290 of their own prisoners.

It is no surprise in such conditions that morale is low among the Kingdom’s soldiers and that Iran has supported the Houthi side with weapons and intelligence.

Why has America abandoned its ally in the conflict? Simply, we don’t need Saudi oil as much anymore. Shale gas technology completely changed the nature of the global oil and gas industry and broke the Saudi monopoly. Recall my article The Empire is Losing the Energy War. Since then, more confirmation of this thesis has come around as prices have risen – beneficial to Russia, and oil experts have broadly agreed that Russia has won the most recent price war with the Saudis. America’s withdrawal in Yemen is an acknowledgement of their diminishing role and a reason which under Trump’s “Middle East Peace Plan” Saudi Arabia panickedly sought to tie its future not to oil production but to the creation of a joint security bloc against Iran.

Pipeline developments: NordStream 2 and Goreh Jask

By mid-2020, two major new pipelines are expected to be built. The first is the NordStream 2, which will cement Russia’s control of European energy markets. Washington is moving in slow motion to try and stop this pipeline but it is basically already done. Only 100 miles of pipe remain and the Biden admin’s early smackdown of the American energy industry with the Keystone XL cancellation means that there will not be enough American gas to provide an alternative to Russia. The German public retains a dislike for Russia but the industrialists have pushed ahead regardless.

NordStream 2 serves two other geopolitical purposes. First, Ukraine will be deprived of $1-2 billion of energy transit revenue, a big deal for a country with a $150 billion GDP. This also lowers NATO’s interest in Ukraine, which will suddenly have less of an ability to bottleneck Russian energy shipments to Europe. Second, the pipeline also reduces Russia’s exposure to Turkey as an energy transit and will allow Russia to be more “gloves off” in northern Syria without risking economic retaliation.

Iran’s Goreh Jask pipeline is expected to be completed by June 2021, and the development will improve the country’s energy situation by limiting its reliance on the Strait of Hormuz and opening up Southeast Asian markets to Iranian oil. In addition to promoting economic ties with the rest of Asia the move also allows Iran to potentially shut off the Strait of Hormuz in a crisis situation, a hypothetical move which never made sense in the past given that it would kill its own energy exports. Naturally, sanctions have been applied to the project but this has simply been used as an opportunity to develop domestic industrial capacity: over 95% of the parts for the Goreh Jask pipeline have been sourced domestically.

Iran is increasing its influence in Iraq and Syria

The increased Iranian influence on Iraq suggests that supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein may have been a miscalculation by the Western bloc. The government of Hussein was aggressive on Iran-Iraq border issues and had a large and powerful military. With Iraq’s expensive military infrastructure largely destroyed and a diminished American presence, Iran has grown its soft power both through religious and economic outreach.

In southeastern Iraq, Iran is massively expanding and developing Shia shrines at sites like Kerbala as a method of promoting its influence. Some of these developments are enormous, for example the $600 million expansion of the Imam Hussein shrine, which was mostly constructed with Iranian funds and parts. These developments also give economic opportunity to both Shia and Sunni Iraqis who are paid to work in construction and benefit from increased tourism. Conducting business in eastern Iraq also gives Iran an opportunity to transact in a region unaffected by sanctions.

Political power is another way that Iran has expanded its reach. The prime minister of Iraq is aligned with the Saudis and Americans but outnumbered in parliament by pro-Iranian MPs, and has been able to do little to diminish the Iranian presence.

As far as Syria, the Iranian angle must be considered. In July of 2015, Quds force General Qasem Soleimani visited Moscow to work out the details of the Russian intervention with Vladimir Putin. Although Moscow denies this likely to maintain good relations with Israel, Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah recently stated that it was Soleimani that convinced Putin to enter the conflict. What was exchanged during that conversation in July of 2015? It is impossible to know but it can be reasonably assumed based on how things unfolded that the Russian intervention was largely a cover for Iranian movement into Syria.

The majority of the leg work performed in the Syrian Civil War was done by Syrians and Iranians. While Russia provided crucial air support and logistics, the on-the-ground troop counts have remained small. What Russian intervention did however was to provide the stamp of legitimacy of a powerful, nuclear armed nation to the Syrian/Iranian side, to prevent any major invasion, and to quickly soften the tones on the Assad government. By clearing ISIS out of central Syria, Iran has now created a contiguous path through Syria and Lebanon and upheld its Syrian ally at the expense of the Saudis.

Pakistan is drifting to Iran

In recent history Pakistan has been heavily dependent on Saudi Arabia, in part due to a Sunni majority and a large amount of outstanding loans financed by the Kingdom. As Sheikh Imran Hosein put it unflatteringly, Pakistan has served as “a shoeshine boy for the Saudis.” Several wedges are growing between this strong historical relationship.

First, Pakistan is warming to its neighbor Iran and the new prime minister of Pakistan has accelerated ties with its western neighbor in many areas. One is the accelerated development of a massive Istanbul-Tehran-Islamabad railway which highlights an emerging challenge to Saudi supremacy: the nascent Turkey/Iran/Malaysia/Qatar bloc in the Muslim world could potentially expand to include Pakistan. Keeping Pakistan away from Iran has long been an intention of the Saudis, who sought to fuel tensions with their neighbor by financing anti-Shia terrorism in Pakistan in the 80s and 90s. Nevertheless, the two countries seem to be getting over it and the populations of both nations rate each other positively in opinion polling.

Another sign of nervousness in the West about Pakistan-Iranian integration is the failed attempt to stop the construction of the new Iran-Pakistan oil pipeline with threats of sanctions. This will further pull Pakistan into the Iranian orbit.

A new major straining factor on the relationship with Saudi Arabia is Riyadh’s unwillingness to defend Pakistan’s claims to the disputed Kashmir border region. Pakistan has hoped that the Kingdom would defend its claim, but Saudi Arabia has been unwilling to do so.

Finally, there is the issue of Israel. Saudi Arabia would like to recognize Israel as soon as possible but doing so would cause massive protests in Pakistan and ruin the Saudi reputation there. Therefore it is trying to pressure Pakistan to first recognize Israel, something which would be unpopular and put the Pakistani government in a precarious situation domestically.

The Saudis are losing their status as the head of the Muslim world

Consider the Iranian ambassador to Pakistan’s recent comments while promoting the D-8 organization of Islamic nations:

“Countries like Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Russia and China have the potential to form a new alliance for better future of the region”

None of this economic integration would be occurring if not for the US sanctions policy. The impact of sanctions has been to lay the groundwork for creation of a “Zone B” which circumvents the Empire entirely. A model that replaces proxy wars, regime change, and terrorist funding with peaceful economic integration and diplomacy. If Iran had full access to international markets it would have been content to sell its exports to the highest bidder and would not be forced to expand its influence regionally as it is currently doing.

What does this emerging “Zone B” look like? Well, let’s start with the Muslim countries labeled an “Axis of Evil” by George Bush and John Bolton:

Syria, Iraq, Iran. And of course we can add in Lebanon, Yemen, and Palestine right off the bat to this anti-imperial bloc. The growing ties between Sunni Pakistan, heterogeneous Syria, and Shia Iran foreshadow a geographically contiguous model of peaceful relations between Islamic nations untainted by the Takifirism of Saudi Arabia, with Syria and Lebanon serving as a tolerant bridge between the Sunni and Shia regions of the Arab world.

This bloc could then be combined with the D-8 Muslim countries: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey. D-8 alone represents one billion people and over 60% of the Islamic world. Iran, as a major advocate of inter-Islamic integration through organizations such as D-8 would be the lynchpin connecting the resistance nations of the Arab world with the larger emerging Islamic economies in a new trade network to bypass sanctions. (It is worth adding that all D-8 nations other than Turkey supported Syria’s side against Saudi in the civil war, so such an alliance is not much of a stretch by any means.)

Add in China, Russia, Mongolia, Myanmar, and the ‘stans and this new Asian empire would come to span a lion’s share of the planet’s population, GDP, energy resources, and habitable surface area. Moscow and Berlin would emerge as gates between East and West while the sprawling trading network of China would provide an alternative to the overregulated and strings-attached commerce and financing available in the West. China has already replaced America as the major trading partner for most nations.

Though there are other concurrent factors at play, the state of Saudi Arabia which once served as the lynchpin for dividing the Islamic world is diminishing, as Eurasian integration progresses naturally. No color revolutions or regime change are required for this process to continue because:

Zone A’s claims to upholding human rights and other civil liberties increasingly appear like a bad joke: undermined by lockdowns, tech censorship, and politically correct speech codes

Zone B is working past historic rivalries in the pursuit of development while Zone A embraces legally enshrined racism and creates complex taxonomies of privilege to delineate tiers of citizenship

Zone B’s population is growing while Zone A’s is declining

Zone B’s share of global wealth is growing while Zone A’s is declining

Zone B has a burgeoning middle class while Zone A’s middle class is disappearing

Zone B is doing away with extreme politics while Zone A is swept by cultural revolution

---

The Ister is a researcher of financial markets and geopolitics. Author of The Ister: Escape America

Naqqash’s solution for Middle East: A Levantine Confederation (Pt. 1)

September 29, 2020

Description: 

In a recent conference held on Zoom and published on YouTube, senior Middle East political analyst Anees Naqqash spoke about his 2014 book titled The Levantine Confederation: The Battle of Identities and Policies.

The book proposes that the solution to the chronic problems of the war-ravaged and tumultuous Middle East region lies in the establishment of a confederation that unites the states of the Levant, or what Naqqash often calls the ‘West Asian region’.

Middle East Observer will gradually be publishing English translations of the author’s online talk over several posts. This is part one, which revolves around Naqqash’s initial motivation for developing the concept of a ‘Levantine Confederation’.

(Read Part Two here)

Source:  Kalam Siyasi (YouTube Channel)

Date:  Aug 26, 2020

(Important Note: Please help us keep producing independent translations for you by contributing as little as $1/month here)

Transcript :

One does not need to be a political or strategic expert in order to know that our (Arab and Islamic) countries are (currently) living through numerous wars, whether internal wars or those of an external (nature); and that international and local powers are participating in these wars; and that the (Arab and Islamic) nation’s capabilities are being exhausted by these wars and violence. Its unity, territorial integrity, potentials, property and civilization are being consumed (as a result).

The worst thing about these wars is that they often tarnish and distort (true) Islamic thought, thus proving that many of those who bear arms (in this region) are in a state of aimlessness regarding the actual and necessary track that they should pursue in order to confront the true enemies of the nation. In other words, it has been proven that many activists and local actors have a weak (level of) awareness. Thus, these topics must be highlighted in order to put things back on track.

The idea of a Levantine Confederation stems from two points. First, history shows that for more than 1400 years our region lived in a state of empire, starting from the Umayyads, to the Abbasids, all the way to the Ottoman Sultanate. Apart from some perversions during the Crusades and the Tatar and Mongol wars, the region lived in (a state of imperial) unity. No foreign power was allowed to intervene in its military, intellectual or economic affairs. However, following the two world wars, the (Arab & Muslim) nation was faced with a set of programs, plans and schemes resulting from its military defeat against the Western powers. This defeat enabled these (Western) powers to set up a very dangerous triangle for us: the Sykes-Picot-Balfour triangle.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement (in 1916) divided the Arab states in the region into small(er) states, while the Balfour Declaration (in 1917) fulfilled the promise of giving Palestine to the Jews for the establishment of a (Jewish) entity, one of the most brutal entities that the (Arab and Muslim) nation has ever faced in the modern era in terms of military, conspiratorial and intelligence capabilities. Today, this (Israeli) entity is posing a new danger, penetrating deep into the nation and the minds of its people.

In addition, these geographical divisions (created by Sykes-Picot and Balfour) established two types of regimes. First, there were the regimes that were built for religious-sectarian reasons, such as the Lebanese state established as a favor for the (Christian) Maronites in Lebanon. However, Lebanon has changed due to shifts in different kinds of balances as Maronites are no longer the largest demographic group (in Lebanon), nor do they occupy the main role in the country. Therefore, Lebanon always suffers from political problems because of its system that is based on sectarian identity, while it is demographically changing in relation to its sects, as some sects weaken and others grow stronger, which causes continuous security disturbances.

In fact, a part of Syrian land was cut off during the drawing of the map of Lebanon. The map of Syria was not drawn by the hands of its people. Rather, it was established based on the lines and borders demarcated by the French, who at that time gave Turkey a part of Syrian territory. Turkey was the only country (in the region) to demarcate its own borders via blood (i.e. through the military sacrifices that it made), because it was defending what was left of the Ottoman Empire. In other words, historically, Turkey was the only country whose borders were drawn with the blood of its people. Meanwhile, Lebanon’s borders were determined by the French Commission (the French body that controlled Lebanon). Many parts of Syrian territory were cut off, and what was left became the Syrian state.

The good thing about Syria is that it preserved its unity against the four-zone division project that the French were planning for. (The French) wanted to establish (four states): an Alawite state, a Druze state, and two Sunni states, one in the north and another in the center; but this project was foiled by the national unity of the Syrians.

Iraq did not demarcate its (own) borders either. Not one Iraqi was involved in the drawing up of the map of Iraq. It was Miss Gertrude Bell – an advisor at the British Foreign Ministry – who drew up the map (of Iraq) and proclaimed Faisal the King of Iraq, based on a sectarian equation that would satisfy both the Shias and Sunnis, and she added some Kurds to a part of the current Iraqi map because (she deemed them) as fierce fighters who would fight against Turkey if a clash broke out between Iraq and the new Turkey.

(Winston) Churchill established Jordan and drew up its map. There was no country called Jordan. The establishment of Jordan fully complemented the British project to establish the State of Israel, in addition to Iraq which was also a British protectorate.

In conclusion, the Levant was suffering from the delineation of borders that were carried out without consultation with its people. (The Levant) was divided up, and new, quasi-national territorial identities were established alongside the sectarian and religious identities that continued to play an (important) role too.

(Read Part Two here)

—–

Subscribe to our mailing list!

Related Posts:

• Naqqash’s solution for Middle East: A Levantine…
• Naqqash: I predict US civil war after 2020…
• (Urgent): YouTube terminates Middle East Observer…
• The Road to Jerusalem: ‘Scholarly certainty’ in…
• US should know ‘Resistance’ now controls all of West…
• (Video): How British Empire & America gave rise to…
• Iran-Russia-China alliance transforming global…
• (Video): Saudi analyst: ‘Normalising ties with…
• Lebanon-Israel border fire: Scandal or victory for Tel Aviv?
• The Road to Jerusalem: 4 Reasons why Israel faces…

Holes in the History Wall Tales, Biden Horses Snicker in Washington

November 10, 2020 Arabi Souri

Holes in the History Wall Tales, Biden Horses Snicker in Washington
Written by Naram Serjoon (source in Arabic)

Marx was not mistaken when he said that history has a scientific movement that makes predicting its journeys like unveiling the unknowns of a mathematical equation, the study of history enables to predict the location of its steps and the direction of its journey.

But Marx’s discovery was used for something else, not just to study history and predict events, we have reached the time of making the history in America, everything at this time has become manufactured or prefabricated, the days and months are poured into mixers and the wall of American time that surrounds us and imprisons us in the prisons of Facebook, the Internet and Instagram is made of them. Seconds, minutes, and hours are melted down to make the stage for events, therefore, the movement of history is apparently governed by the one who holds the bridle of the horse that time uses to ride past us. This is what the United States of America is trying very hard, opposing the natural movement of history, and wants us to believe in the end of history because it has managed the secrets of history-making and analyzed its genetic material. If America manufactures airplanes, bombs, technology, cloning cells, and humans, then why does it not make history as well? America thinks everything can be made if you know its genotype, code, and equations!

Therefore, let us peek behind the holes in the events whose stories and narratives have turned into impermeable walls that do not allow us to see beyond them of the secrets of the date rigging machine that prints the path of the dateline and its breaks just as dollars are printed for us on paper without gold backing. That is, the history that America makes are illusions, like its dollars without value.

When we see the solid walls of history, we must look for cracks or holes through which we see the hidden and the concealed.

For example, among the holes of history, we used to see a wall called the Balfour Declaration, and in that ‘promise’ there were small holes from which we looked and knew that the date of the promise was not a coincidence and a moment of clarity decided by His Majesty’s government, rather, that promise was coupled on that date with the strike of German ammunition workers, the stopping of factories, the cessation of funding for the German army, and after the Germans were on the way to victory in the war, everything turned in 1917, the date of the Balfour Declaration … and the date of the introduction of the first chemical weapon in history to the British army by the Jewish chemical scientist Chaim Weizman, who became one of the founders of Israel later.

What is this coincidence between the Balfour Declaration and the defeat of Germany on the same date?

Among the large holes through which we look at the secrets of Turkey’s history, one of the holes takes us to look at a delusional contempt moment when suddenly the Turkish army allowed the Islamists in Turkey to come to power before the arrival of the Islamist Arab Spring. What is this coincidence if this was not carefully coordinated and arranged?

Yes, what is this coincidence between the arrival of the Islamists and Erdogan to power and the arrival of the Islamist wave led by NATO Turkey to the Middle East?

All stories of history are full of holes, and we should only look boldly and with a critical eye, looking through these holes.

We will know how Kennedy’s assassination was preceded by his powerful statements about the profound forces and capital that govern America and control its decision, which must be curbed.

And we will learn from among the holes how the Watergate scandal began in Damascus when Henry Kissinger was sitting with his boss Nixon and listening to him as he spoke with the late President Hafez Al-Assad about ways to end the conflict in the Middle East in a fair way, and how he was the one who imposed the framework of the debate on his boss. As soon as Nixon returned, he found Watergate waiting for him.

What is this coincidence between Nixon’s talk in Damascus and Watergate, which was waiting for him within days of his arrival?

Today, some holes began to appear in the narration of events, so if we look through some of the holes that appeared in the wall of the American novel about Coronavirus and the defeat of Trump, we might be able to know the itinerary of the next American trip in Biden’s time. Suddenly, through a sudden announcement that the Coronavirus vaccine had been successfully developed in the “Pfizer” laboratories, I tripped over a question that my eyes stumbled upon and it was walking adrift. The question asked: What is this coincidence in the emergence of the treatment or vaccine immediately after the end of the American elections and the securing of Trump’s departure? And why is the world talking that the return to normal life will take place next spring in 2021, that is, with the beginning of Biden’s assumption of power? Today, he says that his team devised an elaborate plan to get rid of the virus and defeat it. It will appear as if Biden is the one who defeated Coronavirus and will assume the presidency without Coronavirus or a dead Coronavirus, and economic activity will return to the same state as it was.

The question that I stumbled upon stumbled upon another question by itself, which is whether China was involved with the Democrats in fabricating the Coronavirus crisis and launching the novel in Wuhan, China because it made a deal with the Democrats who secretly went to it, like what they did in the Vietnam War, and offered a deal to the Vietnamese, urging them to refuse to compromise with the Republican administration in order for it to fail in the elections, so the Democrats present the Vietnamese with a much better offer to end the war.

This correlation between launching the virus story from China and ending and toppling Trump’s rule is possible because it is in the interest of both parties to get rid of Trump’s next project heading to China? China is concerned about Trump’s tendency against it and his trade war, and therefore it may have accepted the Democrats’ offer? Why was the virus absent from China and remained in America eating from the economy of Trump and the West until Trump was overthrown, and then the vaccine appeared two days after the elections? Is this the reason for the resentment against Anthony Fauci among the Trump administration to the point that someone asked to behead him?

Today, if we want to see how Biden’s new cowboy horses will go, the study of history says that whoever makes the next history and forces it to move in the direction they want will be the US Military-Industrial Complex represented by Biden, Hillary Clinton, and the war elite. The danger of this Complex is that it has an American economy that wants to rise quickly after Coronavirus and the strong blow it received. The only way to revive the economy is to sell arms and reproduce wars. Therefore, it got rid of Trump, who wants to run an economy that competes with China in everything, while the Military-Industrial Complex is only meant to establish the war economy, the huge arms trade, and successive wars.

The battlefields that will be conducted in the time of Biden are vast to saturate the insatiable hunger of the Military-Industrial Complex, but it is not thought that the same old battlefields will be attractive. A war arena like Syria can no longer be returned to it with the presence of Russia and the crushing of the Islamist groups that suffered a very violent blow in that war. It will not satisfy the need for the Military-Industrial Complex, insatiable for widespread wars. But will Iran be its battlefield, Turkey, or Russia’s periphery? Each battlefield has its own attraction.

It also appears that the temporary truce with the Americans ended in eastern Syria with the announcement of the deaths of four Americans in eastern Syria. While Biden awaits the day of his coronation, the movement to uproot the American army and its allies in eastern Syria will have been organized, and this was announced in the first resistance operation that killed four American soldiers in the Syrian Jazira (northeast) region.

A very accurate and calculated timing, not by chance, after the announcement of Biden’s arrival (winning), who received the bloody message from eastern Syria that a safe exit from Syria is better than stubbornness. And that this arena is no longer an arena for the American army and American adventures, and that it must hasten to get rid of the burden of being in eastern Syria in order to turn to the wars that are drawn for it according to the agenda of the Military-Industrial Complex in the rest of the world.

Nothing happened by chance these days, and I do not think that the presidential conversation between the People’s Palace (Syria’s Presidential Palace) and the Kremlin was also a coincidence at this time that announces Biden’s arrival at the White House.

It is a conversation that I do not think is far from catching the American bull’s horns before it slips and becomes difficult to control, and perhaps eliminating its last terrorist warehouse in Idlib before Erdogan reopens and leases his goods to Biden in exchange for relief.

I hear the neighing of our horses in the Jazira (Hasakah, Der Ezzor, and Raqqa) and Idlib, but no one will see what will happen except those who pierce the wall of time with the beam of their eyes, and who pierces the wall of American stories with his steel questions and breaks the wall of time with his horse’s neighing.

To help us continue please visit the Donate page to donate or learn how you can help us with no cost on you.
Follow us on Telegram: http://t.me/syupdates link will open Telegram app.

ثقوب في جدار حكايات التاريخ .. خيول بايدن تحمحم في واشنطن ..

Posted on 2020/11/10 by naram.serjoonn

لم يخطئ ماركس عندما قال ان للتاريخ حركة علمية تجعل التنبؤ بمسيرته مثل كشف مجاهيل معادلة رياضية .. فدراسة التاريخ تمكن من توقع مكان خطواته واتجاه رحلته .. ولكن اكتشاف ماركس تم استخدامه لشيء آخر ليس لمجرد دراسة التاريخ والتنبؤ بالاحداث .. بل وصلنا الى زمن صناعة التاريخ في اميريكا .. فكل شيء في هذا الزمان صار مصنوعا أو مسبق الصنع .. فالأيام والشهور تجبل في خلاطات ويصنع منها جدار الزمن الأمريكي الذي يحيط بنا ويسجننا فيه في سجون الفيسبوك والانترنت والانستغرام .. وتصهر الثواني والدقائق والساعات لتصنع منها منصات الاحداث .. ولذلك فان حركة التاريخ محكومة على مايبدو بمن يمسك بلجام الحصان الذي يرحل عليه الزمن .. وهذا ماتحاوله جاهدة الولايات المتحدة الامريكية التي تعاند حركة التاريخ الطبيعية وتريد ان نؤمن بنهاية التاريخ لأنها تمكنت من أسرار صناعة التاريخ وحللت مادته الوراثية .. فاذا كانت اميريكا تصنع الطائرات والقنابل والتكنولوجيا واستنساخ الخلايا والبشر فلماذا لاتصنع التاريخ أيضا .. فكل شيء يمكن صناعته كما تعتقد اذا عرفت تركيبه الوراثي وشيفرته ومعادلاته؟؟

ولذلك دعونا نسترق النظر من خلف ثقوب في الاحداث التي تحولت قصصها وسردياتها الى جدران كتيمة لاتسمح لنا برؤية ماوراءها من أسرار ماكينة تزوير التاريخ التي تطبع مسار خط التاريخ واستراحاته كما تطبع لنا الدولارات على ورق من غير رصيد ذهبي .. اي ان التاريخ الذي تصنعه اميريكا وهم مثل دولاراتها لارصيد له ..

عندما نرى الجدران الصلبة للتاريخ يجب ان نبحث عن شقوق او ثقوب نرى من خلالها المخبوء والمخفي .. فمثلا من بين ثقوب التاريخ كنا نرى جدارا اسمه وعد بلفور وفي الوعد ثقوب صغيرة نظرنا منها وعرفنا ان تاريخ الوعد لم يكن مصادفة ولحظة صفاء قررتها حكومة صاحب الجلالة .. بل اقترن ذلك الوعد في ذلك التاريخ باضراب عمال الذخيرة الالمان وتوقف المصانع وتوقف تمويل الجيش الألماني وبعد ان كان الالمان في طريق الانتصار في الحرب انقلب كل شيء عام 1917 .. تاريخ وعد بلفور .. وتاريخ تقديم السلاح الكيماوي الأول في التاريخ للجيش البريطاني من قبل العالم الكيميائي اليهودي حاييم وايزمن الذي صار من مؤسسي اسرائيل لاحقا ..فماهذه الصدفة بين وعد بلفور وهزيمة ألمانيا في نفس التاريخ؟؟

ومن بين الثقوب الكبيرة التي نسترق النظر من خلالها الى أسرار تاريخ تركيا يأخذنا أحد الثقوب لنطل على لحظة فاصلة مخاتلة عندما سمح الجيش التركي فجأة للاسلاميين في تركيا بالوصول الى السلطة قبل وصول الربيع العربي الاسلامي.. فماهذه الصدفة لو لم يكن هذا منسقا ومرتبا بعناية؟؟ نعم ماهي هذه الصدفة بين وصول الاسلاميين واردوغان الى السلطة ووصول الموجة الاسلامية التي تقودها تركيا الناتوية الى الشرق الاوسط؟؟

كل قصص التاريخ ملأى بالثقوب وماعلينا الا أن ننظر بجرأة وبعين ناقدة فاحصة من خلال تلك الثقوب .. وسنعرف كيف سبق اغتيال كينيدي تصريحاته القوية عن القوى العميقة ورؤوس الاموال التي تحكم اميريكا وتتحكم بقرارها والتي يجب لجمها .. وسنعرف من بين الثقوب كيف ان فضيحة ووترغيت بدأت في دمشق عندما كان هنري كيسنجر يجلس مع رئيسه نيكسون ويستمع اليه وهو يتحدث مع الرئيس الراحل حافظ الاسد عن طرق انهاء الصراع في الشرق الاوسط بطريقة عادلة .. وكيف انه كان هو الذي يفرض اطار النقاش على رئيسه .. وماان عاد نيكسون إلى واشنطن الا ووجد ووتر غيت في انتظاره .. فما هذه الصدفة بين حديث نيكسون في دمشق وبين ووترغيت التي كانت بانتظاره فور وصوله بأيام ؟؟ ..

اليوم بدأت بعض الثقوب تظهر في رواية الاحداث فاذا مانظرنا من خلال بعض الثقوب التي ظهرت في جدار الرواية الامريكية عن كورونا وهزيمة ترامب فربما تمكنا من معرفة خط سير الرحلة الأمريكية القادمة في زمن بايدن .. ففجأة ومن خلال اعلان مفاجئ عن ان لقاح كورونا قد تم تطويره بنجاح في مختبرات “بفايزرز” وقعت على سؤال تعثرت به عيني وكان يسير على غير هدى .. السؤال قال: ماهي هذه المصادفة في ظهور العلاج او اللقاح فورا بعد انتهاء الانتخابات الامريكية وضمان رحيل ترامب ؟؟ ولماذا صار العالم يتحدث عن ان عودة الحياة الى طبيعتها ستكون مع الربيع القادم عام 2021 أي مع بداية تسلم بايدن مقاليد الحكم .. وهو اليوم يقول ان فريقه وضع خطة متقنة للتخلص من الفيروس ودحره .. وسيظهر كأن بايدن هو الذي هزم كورونا وسيتسلم الرئاسة من غير كورونا او بكورونا ميت ويعود النشاط الاقتصادي الى حاله كم كان ..

السؤال الذي تعثرت به تعثر هو نفسه بسؤال آخر هو ان كانت الصين متورطة مع الديمقراطيين في افتعال ازمة كورونا واطلاق الرواية في ووهان الصينية لأنها أجرت صفقة مع الديمقراطيين الذين توجهوا سرا اليها كما فعلوا في حرب فييتنام وعرضوا صفقة على الفييتناميين يحثونهم فيها على رفض التسوية مع الادارة الجمهورية كي تسقط في الانتخابات فيقدم الديمقراطيون للفييتناميين عرضا أفضل بكثير لانهاء الحرب ..

هذا الترابط بين اطلاق حكاية الفيروس من الصين وبين انهاء حكم ترامب واسقاطه وارد لأن من مصلحة الطرفين التخلص من مشروع ترامب القادم نحو الصين ..؟ فالصين قلقة من نزعة ترامب ضدها وحربه التجارية ولذلك فانها ربما قبلت العرض الديمقراطي؟ فلماذا غاب الفيروس عن الصين وبقي في اميريكا يأكل من اقتصاد ترامب والغرب حتى تم اسقاط ترامب ثم ظهر اللقاح بعد يومين من الانتخابات؟؟وهل هذا هو سبب النقمة على انتوني فاوتشي بين ادارة ترامب الى درجة ان هناك من طلب قطع رأسه؟؟

اليوم اذا اردنا ان نرى كيف ستسير خيول راعي البقر الجديد بايدن فان دراسة التاريخ تقول ان من يصنع التاريخ القادم ويرغمه على التحرك في الاتجاه الذي يريده سيكون مجمع الصناعات العسكرية الامريكية الذي يمثله بايدن وهيلاري كلينتون ونخبة الحروب .. وخطورة هذا المجمع هو ان لديه اقتصادا امريكيا يريد النهوض بسرعة بعد كورونا والضربة القوية التي تلقاها .. والطريقة الوحيدة لانهاض الاقتصاد هو في بيع السلاح واعادة انتاج الحروب .. وهو لذلك تخلص من ترامب الذي يريد ادارة اقتصاد ينافس الصين في كل شيء فيما المجمع الصناعي الحربي لايعنيه الا ان يقيم اقتصاد الحرب وتجارة السلاح الضخمة .. والحروب المتتالية ..

ساحات الحروب التي ستدار في زمن بايدن واسعة كي تشبع نهم مجمع الصناعات العسكرية ولكن لايظن ان الساحات القديمة ذاتها ستكون جذابة .. فساحة حرب مثل سورية لم يعد بالامكان العودة اليها مع وجود روسيا وسحق الجماعات الاسلامية التي تلقت ضربة عنيفة جدا في تلك الحرب .. وهي لن تفي بحاجة المجمع الصناعي العسكري النهم للحروب الواسعة .. ولكن هل تكون ايران ساحتها ام تركيا ام محيط روسيا؟؟ فلكل ساحة جاذبيتها ..

ويبدو أيضا ان الهدنة المؤقتة مع الامريكيين انتهت في الشرق السوري باعلان سقوط اربع قتلى امريكيين في الشرق السوري .. وفيما ينتظر بايدن يوم التتويج ستكون حركة اقتلاع الجيش الاميريكي وحلفائه في الشرق السوري قد انتظمت وتم الاعلان عن ذلك في اول عملية مقاومة قتلت اربعة جنود امريكيين في الجزيرة .. توقيت دقيق جدا ومحسوب وليس بالصدفة بعد اعلان وصول بايدن الذي وصلته الرسالة الدامية من الشرق السوري .. من ان الخروج الآمن من سورية أفضل من العناد .. وان هذه الساحة لم تعد ساحة للجيش الامريكي وللمغامرات الامريكية وان عليه ان يستعجل التخلص من عبء التواجد في الشرق السوري كي يلتفت الى حروبه المرسومة له وفق اجندة المجمع الصناعي العسكري في بقية العالم ..

لاشيء حدث صدفة في هذه الايام .. ولاأظن ان الحديث الرئاسي بين قصر الشعب والكرملين كان أيضا صدفة في هذا التوقيت الذي يعلن وصول بايدن الى البيت الابيض .. وهو حديث لاأظنه بعيدا عن الامساك بقرون الثور الامريكي قبل ان ينفلت ويصبح ضبطه صعبا .. وربما تصفية أخر مخازنه الارهابية في ادلب قبل ان يعيد اردوغان افتتاحه وتأجير بضاعته لبايدن مقابل التخفيف عنه .. انني اسمع صهيل خيولنا في الجزيرة وادلب .. ولكن لن يرى ماذا سيحدث الا من يثقب جدار الزمن بشعاع عينيه .. ومن يثقب جدار الحكايات الامريكية بأسئلته الفولاذية .. ويخرق جدار الزمن بصهيل جياده ..

Suspension of Corbyn will define Starmer as Iraq defined Blair

Source

David Hearst

2 November 2020 17:54 UTC |

David Hearst is the editor in chief of Middle East Eye. He left The Guardian as its chief foreign leader writer. In a career spanning 29 years, he covered the Brighton bomb, the miner’s strike, the loyalist backlash in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Northern Ireland, the first conflicts in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in Slovenia and Croatia, the end of the Soviet Union, Chechnya, and the bushfire wars that accompanied it. He charted Boris Yeltsin’s moral and physical decline and the conditions which created the rise of Putin. After Ireland, he was appointed Europe correspondent for Guardian Europe, then joined the Moscow bureau in 1992, before becoming bureau chief in 1994. He left Russia in 1997 to join the foreign desk, became European editor and then associate foreign editor. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he worked as education correspondent.

Keir Starmer’s silence on Palestine and his treatment of his predecessor have set the Labour leader on a collision course with many within his own party

Keir Starmer (L) with Jeremy Corbyn at a press conference in London in December 2019 (AFP)

One of the lesser known aspects of Keir Starmer’s assault on the left of his party since becoming Labour leader is his growing silence on Palestine.

Silencing the Palestinian lobby in Britain has always been a goal of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, which has gone to some lengths to condition debate inside the Labour Party on Israel.

In 2017, an Al Jazeera documentary exposed the efforts of the ministry’s man in London, Shai Masot, to start a youth wing in the Labour Party. Masot was also filmed by an undercover reporter saying he wanted to “take down” government ministers and MPs considered to be causing “problems” for Israel.

Silencing the Palestinian lobby in Britain has always been a goal of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, which has gone to some lengths to condition debate inside the Labour Party on Israel

When Masot was rumbled and expelled, a continuous feed of Jeremy Corbyn’s meetings as a backbench MP with Palestinians, dating back in some cases over a decade, was created to stoke the furore over the then-Labour leader.

This feed was doctored.

When Corbyn met three Hamas politicians whose Jerusalem IDs had been revoked and had staged a sit-in a tent in the grounds of the Red Cross (this was a cause celebre at the time and many Israelis went to show solidarity with the case), the presence of a second Labour MP, Andy Slaughter, who is not a Corbyn ally but is pro-Palestinian, was excised from British reports.

However, a picture of Slaughter appeared in Israeli news channel i24’s exclusive of “Corbyn’s secret visit” in its report in 2018, which was eight years after the MPs’ visit took place in November 2010. 

Role of Shin Bet

The precise details of Corbyn’s visit to Israel in 2010, including who was on it, who arranged it and who they met, were monitored and logged by Israel’s domestic security service, Shin Bet.

When these visits were over, Shin Bet invited Corbyn’s local fixer in for what turned out to be five hours of questioning in a police station in Haifa.

Shin Bet told her they were relaxed about her charity work for the Palestinian cause, but would not tolerate her campaigning inside the Houses of Parliament in the UK.EXCLUSIVE: Jeremy Corbyn questions impartiality of EHRC antisemitism inquiry

If she did not heed the warning, she would spend the rest of her days in prison as an enemy of the state. Her lawyer told her that such a charge could indeed be fabricated against her and that an Israeli court would send her to prison if this happened. She is an Israeli citizen.

At the very least, the warnings given to Corbyn’s fixer confirm that Israel’s security services had set their sights on the MP at least five years before he became Labour leader and long before antisemitism in Labour became a newsworthy issue.

Nobody in the Labour Party was bothered with Corbyn’s travels, which certainly were not secret. He was a backbencher on the fringes of the party. Only Shin Bet took note.

The smear campaign has been wonderfully effective. Of course, many groups joined in for different reasons, including people indifferent to the conflict in Palestine who had shown no past interest in it.

The compromising material of Corbyn’s past contacts would have had no purchase had there not been a determination within the Parliamentary Labour Party and at Labour headquarters to stop Corbyn at all costs. But taken together, it worked.

A poll conducted by Survation last year asked member of the British public who were aware of antisemitism in Labour what percentage of party members had complaints against them.

Their mean average reply was 34 percent. The real figure is a fraction of one percent. The perception of antisemitism was over 300 times the reality in Corbyn’s party.

Palestine lost

Since becoming leader, Keir Starmer has avoided contact with Palestinian leaders, either in Israel or in Britain.

Starmer has had two opportunities to engage.

On 26 June this year, 15 members of the Knesset who comprise the Joint List wrote to all party leaders in Britain to urge them to “actively oppose” attempts by Israel to annex territory unilaterally.Israel’s Joint List urges British political parties to oppose annexation

The Joint List, the main coalition representing Palestinian citizens of Israel, is the third largest group of MKs in the parliament. The letter was sent by Yousef Jabareen, the head of the Joint List’s international committee.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson instructed one of his ministers, James Cleverly, minister of state for the Middle East and North Africa, to reply.

“We continue to urge Israel not to take these steps. The prime minister has conveyed the UK’s opposition to unilateral annexation to Prime Minister Netanyahu on multiple occasions,” Cleverly wrote.

Starmer did not reply, and still has not replied. Jabareen received an automated reply from Starmer’s office, telling him that he receives hundreds of emails each day.

On 16 September, a group of leading British Palestinians, many of whom were members of Labour, but some not, wrote an open letter to the Labour Party insisting on “the right of Palestinians to accurately describe our experiences of dispossession and oppression” and rejecting Labour’s attempts to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

The letter was accompanied by emails to Starmer to set up a meeting. They were told that Starmer was too busy to meet them. They were referred to Lisa Nandy, the shadow foreign secretary, who also declined to meet them.

A ‘dressing down’

However when Stephen Kinnock, who comes from the right wing of the party and is a bitter critic of Corbyn, called in a parliamentary debate for the UK to “ban all products that originate from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories”, Nandy found the time to intervene.

Nandy told the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council – according to a source quoted by MailOnline – that Kinnock, a consistent and long-standing critic of Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians, had been given a “dressing down” for his remarks made during the Commons debate.

Starmer’s sole intervention in this debate occurred when he was asked by Jewish News about sanctions and he stressed the need instead to maintain a ‘strong working relationship with Israel’

“Lisa made no secret of the fact she and the leader were angry with Kinnock,” the source is quoted as saying.

“Especially after all the work that has been done to try and restore Labour’s relationship with the Jewish community.”

Starmer was said to be “infuriated”.

Nandy herself proposed a ban on the import of goods from illegal settlements in the West Bank, but only if Israel pressed ahead with annexation.

Starmer’s sole intervention in this debate occurred when he was asked by Jewish News about sanctions and he stressed the need instead to maintain a “strong working relationship with Israel”.

Starmer said: “I don’t agree with annexation and I don’t think it’s good for security in the region, and I think it’s very important that we say that.

“Whether sanctions follow is another matter but at the moment let’s resolve this in the proper way. But this is not good for security in the region. That should be a paramount consideration.

When pressed further, he added: “There needs to be a strong working relationship where we are able to exchange views frankly, as you would with an ally and on some of these issues, a frank exchange is what we most need, I think.”

Labour’s history

This Monday marks 103 years since the Balfour Declaration committed British governments to support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The 1917 document predates Labour’s emergence as a political force in the years after World War One, but the party has a history of its own in the Middle East which no leader can ignore.Jeremy Corbyn suspended from Labour following antisemitism report

In 1944, when the territory of Palestine was still under British control, its national executive committee authored a motion, passed by conference, which read: “Palestine surely is a case, on human grounds and to promote a stable settlement, for transfer of population. Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out, as the Jews move in. Let them be compensated handsomely for their land and let their settlement elsewhere be carefully organised and generously financed.”

But it has history more recent than that.

The suspension of Corbyn after the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report into antisemitism last week contrasts with Corbyn’s treatment of Tony Blair, who as a former Labour prime minister was excoriated by the 2016 Chilcot Report over his decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

John Chilcot, a former senior diplomat, eviscerated Blair, stopping short of accusing him of lying to parliament.

Chilcot said that at the time of the invasion, Saddam Hussein “posed no imminent threat” and revealed a private note that Blair sent to Bush in July 2002 which read: “I will be with you, whatever.”

In a two-hour press conference following the publication of the report, Blair was unrepentant. “I believe we made the right decision and the world is better and safer,” he declared.

He argued that he had acted in good faith, based on intelligence at the time which said that Iraq’s president had weapons of mass destruction. This “turned out to be wrong”.

Corbyn’s suspension

Corbyn offered a total apology on behalf of the party for the decision to invade Iraq.

He said: “So I now apologise sincerely on behalf of my party for the disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq in March 2003. That apology is owed first of all to the people of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and the country is still living with the devastating consequences of the war and the forces it unleashed. They have paid the greatest price for the most serious foreign policy calamity of the last 60 years.”

He went on: “The apology is also owed to the families of those soldiers who died in Iraq or who have returned home injured or incapacitated. They did their duty but it was in a conflict they should never have been sent to.”

Corbyn appeared as if he was defying the leadership, even though at the time he spoke, he had no idea what Starmer would say on a key point that defined their dispute

Blair at the time was just a member of the party, in the same situation as Corbyn was last week.

Corbyn, however, did not suspend Blair for not apologising and uttering words which went against the party line.

Instead, the opposite was happening. The “party of war” within the Parliamentary Labour Party went on the offensive against the leadership.

MPs who had backed the Iraq war, and consistently voted against inquiries into it, went after Corbyn.

Of the 71 MPs who voted no confidence in Corbyn in 2016 and who had been in parliament in 2003, 92 percent had voted in favour of the Iraq war and seven against.

In justifying his action to suspend Corbyn, Starmer said that the former leader had defied his response to the EHRC report, which condemned anyone trying to claim that antisemitism had been exaggerated for political reasons.

The night before the report was published, Starmer phoned Corbyn to say he would not be condemning him by name in his statement of reply to the EHRC report. Corbyn and his team repeatedly asked Starmer what he would say in his statement. Starmer said he would send them his lines.

Angela Rayner, the deputy leader, also promised Corbyn’s team that she would send them the lines of Starmer’s statement. Both failed to do so. The reactions of the two men were thus set on collision course.

Corbyn appeared as if he was defying the leadership, even though at the time he spoke, he had no idea what Starmer would say on a key point that defined their dispute.

Corbyn subsequently failed to back down, but one possibility is that Starmer’s team knew what Corbyn would say, while Corbyn himself was kept in the dark until it was too late.

The left bites back

Corbyn did not defend himself against allegations that he tolerated antisemitism or that he himself was an antisemite, claims that are still being made today. To the extent that he let this campaign run unchallenged in the High Court, he himself is responsible.

Quite apart from the fate of Corbyn, support for Palestine is much greater in the party than Starmer is comfortable with. Palestine, which he knows about much less than Corbyn, is his blindspot

On the day Corbyn was suspended, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, the original complainant in the EHRC investigation, wrote to Starmer and David Evans, the general secretary, demanding investigations into 32 members of the Labour Party, including Angela Rayner, Starmer’s current deputy, and 10 other MPs. 

In response, seven trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party and one which backed Starmer as candidate, published a statement expressing “serious concern” about the manner and rationale for Corbyn’s suspension, suggesting it had undermined party unity and democratic processes.

Far from being his “Clause 4” moment – the issue that Tony Blair used to define New Labour by dropping the party’s historic commitment to state ownership of key industries – the suspension of Corbyn could define Starmer’s leadership in the same way that Blair’s decision to invade Iraq has cast a shadow over everything a man elected three times as prime minister did. The ghosts of Iraq follow Blair around to this day.

Quite apart from the fate of Corbyn, support for Palestine is much greater in the party than Starmer is comfortable with. Palestine, which he knows about much less than Corbyn, is his blindspot.

Unless Corbyn is reinstated quickly, the decision to suspend him from the party could prove to be a permanent and defining stain on Starmer’s leadership.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

• Palestinian ends 103-day hunger strike after Israel agrees not to extend detention
• Jeremy Corbyn suspended from Labour following antisemitism report
• Israel’s Joint List urges British political parties to oppose annexation
• Israeli forces stop Palestinians attending Friday prayers at Al-Aqsa
•  France-Turkey showdown: A battle to shape the regional order
• Erdogan-backed Tatar wins shock victory in North Cyprus presidential poll Keir Starmer is not a leader of courage – but he may soon lead the UK

Balfour Declaration Anniversary: Protests in UK, Palestine (PHOTOS)

November 2, 2020

Activists and representatives of Palestinian political groups and civil society in Gaza commemorate the 103rd anniversary of the Balfour Declaration with vehement rejection. (Photo: Fawzi Mahmoud, The Palestine Chronicle)

Factories belonging to Israel’s largest arms manufacturer, Elbit System, woke up this morning to groups of protesters demanding their closure. 

Protests led by the direct action campaign group Palestine Action were organized to coincide with the anniversary of the infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917, which the campaign group says had “paved the way for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the violent dispossession of 750,000 Palestinian.”

Activists simultaneously blocked Elbit’s many subsidiaries in the UK forcing three of their weapons factories to shut down. They sprayed red paint on the premises in what looks to be a symbol of Palestinian blood spilled by weapons manufactured by the firm. 

'Combat Proven': Israel's thriving war business in Europe |

An employee stands next to an Elbit Systems Hermes 900 UAV at the company's drone factory in Rehovot, Israel on June 28, 2018… | https://t.co/dEpg0VQ6wG pic.twitter.com/p6BWIcdgSx

— Rocketnews (@Rocketnews1) December 21, 2018

The activists claim that Elbit weapons are marketed as “field-tested” on Palestinian civilians, notably Gazans who are mostly children and refugees.

Palestine Action is “a new grassroots network of anti-racist groups and individuals taking direct action to end UK complicity with Israel’s colonial and Apartheid regime.”

“The ultimate aim is to shut Elbit down and end all UK complicity with Israeli apartheid.”

Balfour Declaration 

The Balfour Declaration refers to a letter by British Secretary of State, Arthur James Balfour, in November 1917, addressed to a leading British Zionist, Baron Lionel Walter that ‘promised’ Palestine as a national home for the Jews.

“Dear Lord Rothschild,

“I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

“I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

“Yours,

“Arthur James Balfour.”

The British intention of ensuring the establishment of an exclusively Jewish state in Palestine was becoming clearer with time. The Balfour Declaration was hardly an aberration but had indeed set the stage for the full-scale ethnic cleansing that followed three decades later. 

In his book, ‘Before Their Diaspora,’ Walid Khalidi wrote: 

“The Mandate as a whole was seen by the Palestinians as an Anglo-Zionist condominium and its terms as instrument for the implementation of the Zionist program; it had been imposed on them by force, and they considered it to be both morally and legally invalid. The Palestinians constituted the vast majority of the population and owned the bulk of the land. Inevitably the ensuing struggle centered on this status quo. The British and the Zionists were determined to subvert and revolutionize it, the Palestinians to defend and preserve it.” 

Photo Gallery

Activists and representatives of Palestinian political groups and civil society in Gaza commemorated the 103rd anniversary of the Balfour Declaration with vehement rejection, carrying signs that called for a British apology and the dismissal of the colonial legacy that determined the fate of Palestinians for over a century.

(All Photos: Fawzi Mahmoud, The Palestine Chronicle)

(The Palestine Chronicle, MEMO) 

Palestinian Resistance Reiterates Commitment to Restore Palestine on Balfour Declaration’s 103rd Anniversary

By Staff

On the 103rd anniversary of the ominous Balfour Declaration, the Islamic Jihad and Hamas Palestinian resistance movements stressed rooted rights to return the occupied Palestinian lands.

The Islamic stressed its rootedness in the Palestinian lands despite increasing conspiracies, adding that among the results of the ominous Balfour Declaration is the Arab regimes’ racing to normalize with the occupation.

It also noted that “what has been taken by force would never be restored without force, and the resistance won’t spare any effort to fight the criminal Zionist enemy.”

“Rights are not denied by obsolescence, and generations won’t have mercy on those who were behind the sufferings of their grandfathers, fathers, and sons,” the resistance group emphasized.

For its part, Hamas stated that: “Our right is deep-rooted, and normalization and conspiracies will fade away.”

Slamming the US’ similar role to its ally, the UK, Hamas added that such practices represent an attempt to clone similar promises covered with modern names.

The ‘Deal of the Century’ is not less ominous, and is more dangerous than the Balfour Declaration, the Palestinian resistance group reiterated.

The 1917 ominous declaration, was named after British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour, who sent a letter to Lord Lionel de Rothschild voicing the British support for establishing a ‘nation home’ for the Jews over the land of Palestine. He guaranteed supporting the Jews’ aspirations to have a nation no matter how.

Palestinians Sue Britain for 1917 Balfour Declaration

By The New Arab

Global Research, November 02, 2020

The New Arab 23 October 2020

Palestinian lawyers on Thursday filed a complaint to sue the British government for the 1917 declaration setting out London’s support for a “national home” for the Jewish people in Palestine.

The lawyers filed a complaint in the occupied West Bank town of Nablus that claimed “the suffering of the Palestinians” stemmed from this document.

The Balfour Declaration, signed by the then British foreign secretary Arthur James Balfour, is seen as a precursor to Israel’s creation and the Palestinians’ ethnic cleansing from their homeland in 1948.

“The British mandate is at the root of the suffering of the Palestinian people and has paved the way for the violation of their rights and the plunder of their land,” Munib al-Masri, head of the Federation of Independent and Democratic Trade Unions, told a news conference in Ramallah.

As well as the trade unions group, the complaint was filed on behalf of the International Commission to Support Palestinian People’s Rights and the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate.

The Balfour Declaration was published on November 2, 1917, a year before the end of World War I.

In one sentence it announced the British government’s backing for the establishment within Palestine, then a region of the Ottoman Empire, of “a national home for the Jewish people”.

It was a shock to the Arab world, which had not been consulted and had received promises of independence of its own in the post-war break up of the defeated Ottoman Empire.

The Palestinians have always condemned the declaration, which they refer to as the “Balfour promise”, saying Britain was giving away land it did not own.

With the Balfour Declaration, London was seeking Jewish support for its war efforts, and the Zionist movement, which pushed for a homeland for Jews in Palestine, was an emerging political force.

The British Mandate for Palestine was later set up in the wake of World War I, and ran until Israel’s declaration of statehood in 1948.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from YourNewsWirePalestine Urges Arab League to help Sue Britain over 1917 Balfour Declaration which Established A “Homeland for the Jewish people.”The original source of this article is The New ArabCopyright © The New Arab, The New Arab, 2020

A Mutual Understanding

October 28, 2020

by Nicholas Molodyko for The Saker Blog

They need to understand that we know. We need to understand that they are human.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn at Harvard University, 1978 © YouTube

Cancer Ward

From my youth I had a strong connection to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, but I did not know precisely why. His name was mentioned in our house. His friends were friends of my parents.

Solzhenitsyn was supposed to spend a summer in the late 1970s with our family in Alaska. That was the plan, one that excited me. In preparation, I attempted to read Cancer Ward, the semi-autobiographical novel Solzhenitsyn completed in 1966, a dissection of the cancerous Soviet police state. I was 12 years old. I was unprepared for such a thing. It would be a long time before I had the maturity.

Solzhenitsyn in that spring of 1978 gave the famous commencement speech at Harvard, where he publicly shamed the country’s elite, to an America unprepared to accept such a thing. And it would be a long time before the country even had the maturity to understand and could really do so.

Solzhenitsyn did not visit us in Alaska that year.

Now, I’m over forty years older, Donald Trump is America’s 45th President, and the country is revisiting the prophet’s words. Because President Trump is up against the same angry Harvard crowd.

Under a False Flag

From the earliest days in the build up to the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, as part of a purely political strategy, Vladimir Lenin attacked Tsar Nicholas II for his alleged mistreatment of Jews and publicly denounced not only all manifestations of antisemitism but everything but the kitchen sink that could be associated with it.

After the Revolution, when Lenin took power in Russia, he endorsed the establishment of special departments for Jewish affairs in both the ruling Communist Party and in the relevant ministry, the Commissariat of Nationalities, headed by Joseph Stalin. Lenin had taken note of the higher percentage of Jews in the revolutionary movement than their proportion in the population, and he initiated the promotion of Jews to higher positions in the state and party apparatus. Lenin essentially took from Oliver Cromwell’s playbook. And, voilà, an elite Jewish politburo was born.

“With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders,” said Sir Winston Churchill referring to the Soviet government.

The Bolsheviks claimed power on November 7, 1917 and two days later the fledgling government issued its famous “Decree on Peace.”

The Balfour Declaration, a letter dated November 2, 1917 from British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain, was then published on the very same day as Lenin’s “Decree on Peace.”

This was kept secret, because in 1917 the British government, through international bankers, offered a national home for Jews in Palestine, at the expense of the land and future of the Palestinians.

The promissory note to Lord Rothschild for the Zionist Federation, the Balfour Declaration, partly drafted by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Louis Brandeis, and underwritten by U.S. Congress has cost and continues to cost American taxpayers billions of dollars a year.

The year 1917 was a very big year, indeed. A revolutionary one. A transparent cabal of British and American financiers backed Vladimir Lenin and the so-called Jewish “Bolsheviks” set out to destroy Russia and murder tens of millions of Christians, at very same time the Balfour Declaration backed by a secret cartel was signed to establish a Jewish state in the Middle East where Palestinians would be mass murdered, as if by Biblical design.

In “Under a False Flag,” Lenin described a three-phase development of capitalism, culminating in reactionary and militarist imperialism, sustaining itself through super-profits used to secure the support of an aristocracy. It is a Biblical account of opportunism. Then, in “The Deception of the People by the Slogans of Equality and Freedom,” Lenin warns about the elaborate false flag operations and deception perpetuated under the disguise of democracy.

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves,” said Vladimir Lenin.

The Politburo

On June 8, 1978, an exiled Russian author spoke out against the malign media and its suppression of independent thought during a commencement speech at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He was in the belly of the elite beast that controls America, and he knew it.

Much has been written about that event. Much has still gone unsaid. I plan to say some of the unsaid things.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a writer in the grand 19th century Russian literary tradition who represents our plight today to defeat violence and lies, the twin pillars of 21st century  authoritarianism, in America. The twin pillars of the totalitarianism in the East in the 20th century that Solzhenitsyn warned us from that day forth.

On that day at Harvard in the 20th century, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s words had the same effect as the preaching of John the Baptist. Both had a sharp message to deliver to an audience they believed had grown complacent and morally decadent.

Solzhenitsyn tried to shake up the exact people he believed were responsible for the decline of the West and installation of a politburo, the shrill war mongers in Washington DC. Similarly, John the Baptist denounced the moral depravity of King Herod and his politburo. The politburo was the principal policymaking committee in the former Soviet Union, founded in 1917, to oversee the violence and lies of the state. It is the most appropriate word.

For his prophetic word, John the Baptist was thrown into a dirty dungeon. Then, on September 11th of that year, to be exact, his head was offered on a platter as a gift from Herod to his equally depraved daughter, Salome. In 1978, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was banished from the intellectual set in America. Harvard, the New York Times and DC’s politburo put his head on a metaphorical cocktail tray.

When the most influential group of American intellectuals, liberals and Neoconservatives alike, united against one man, a Russian refuge in a New England town, there was unquestionably a John the Baptist vibe. Both prophets were dismembered, dismissed for saying too much.

Speaking of prophets, the esteemed Palestinian scholar Edward W. Said wrote that “American Orientalism” is unique because it is seen almost entirely thru the prism of Israel. To be precise, the Zionist Israel of the Ashkenazi European Jews. He’s been dead for nearly 17 years. But the British are pathologically relentless in their perverse cruelty and continue to this day post mortem to brutally smear Edward Said for saying too much. He has been dismissed by the Zionist powers even in death.

Today, we simply cannot dismiss the most uncomfortable part, the distinct roles that atheist Jews have played in empire and in the installation of a suzerain or politburo in the Holy Roman, Habsburg, Russian, French, British, and American Empires, and in the outcomes of the Israel project via the World Wars and the British Zionist enterprise today. But, let’s get one thing straight. Capisce? We are talking about a policy making minority of white, liberal, atheist, intellectual elites, not Jews, in general. Not by a long shot. John the Baptist and Solzhenitsyn were warning us about the conspiracy of identity politics, not about Jews. They were warning us about rich, atheist oppressors. They were not fingering religious Jews.

I think Zionism in America today is best understood as what is left of the politburo —decades of clandestine operations of a rogue network of military-industrial complex officials and intelligence agents involved in an invisible government supporting a British enterprise. Zionism has more in common with a corporation than a religion or even a political ideology. Zionism has got little to do with religious Jews. In fact, Zionism is opposed to Judaic dogma and is thus heretical. Not to mention that Zionism is next level schismatic.

The Schismatics

Let’s start at the beginning. There are three Abrahamic religions, a group of Semitic-originated religions that claim descent from the Judaism of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. According to the Hebrew calendar, this is the year 5,781. Christianity was founded 2,020 years ago, and Islam 1,450 years ago. Each religion was originally a whole one. Over time, each has encountered schism.

A schism is a division between people, usually belonging to a religious denomination. The word is most frequently applied to a split in what had previously been a single religious body, such as “the Great Schism” of Christianity in 1054 between Orthodoxy (true faith) in the East and the Roman Catholic Church in the West. Then, the Western Church became highly political and split into a million pieces.

A schismatic is a person who creates or incites schism in an organization or who is a member of a splinter group. Schismatic as an adjective means pertaining to a schism or schisms, or to those ideas or policies that are thought to lead towards or promote schism. In religion, the charge of schism is distinguished from that of heresy, since the offense of schism concerns not differences of belief or doctrine but promotion of, or the state of, division.

However, schisms frequently involve heresy, but it becomes the matter of a political point of view rather than a church law. For instance the Orthodox Church considers the Roman Catholic Church heretical but the Catholic Church says that the Orthodox Church is schismatic. Because the Orthodox Christian Church is not a political organization.

While Christianity was intended as a beautiful religion of peace, some of the schismatic pieces are heretical, politically aggressive and even war-like.

Orthodox Christianity is one of three original true Abrahamic faiths —Orthodox Christianity, Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Islam. Each has suffered schisms and with each spilt, like cancer cells, the divisions have increased toxicity, chaos and conflict and decreased full unity and peace.

As breaks in a religion increase and church laws or canons are broken in favor of a new branch, the least canonical branches become the most political. While, there are several formal branches of Jewish faith (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox and Reconstructionist Judaism), Zionism is purely political but has somehow retained a religious imprint. This is because Zionism is a product of the British Empire, namely Western intelligence services.

The schisms within Orthodox Christianity today are regional and related to the Catholic Church, such as what has been going on in Ukraine —all orchestrated by Western intelligence services such as America’s CIA and Britain’s MI6. A schism in Orthodox Islam emerged into public consciousness at the end of the 1970s —the Sunnis and Shias. In 1978, the Islamic revolution in Iran, orchestrated, once again by the CIA and MI6, brought politics front and center.

This political strategy of cancerous attack on a faith, religious metastasis, is a fundamental aspect of atheist philosophy as it is applied in the ideologies of Nazism, Bolshevism, and Neoconservatism. It is the basic principle of divide and rule, but applied to a sovereign religion, not a sovereign state.

Zionist Ze’ev Jabotinsky, co-founder of the Jewish Legion of the British army in World War I in Poland, was a journalist who died as Vladimir Jabotinsky in 1940, near Hunter, New York. He founded the militant Zionist Revisionist movement that played an important role in the establishment of the State of Israel. During the 1920s and 1930s, Jabotinsky and his movement were frequently called fascist.

Polish Zionist Jabotinsky and his buddies implemented a staggering number of permutations that did divisive harm to Judaism. At the same time, the permutations enabled Polish Zionism to appeal to a broader base of supporters than any other Jewish political movement. This created an elite leadership that was vastly out of touch with the majority of Jewish people.

Sound familiar? It should. Because Zionism is the living definition of identity politics. It is a perversion. Like “angiogenesis” in a cancer, which is perversion of a normal cellular process, a perversion that is an essential requirement for the development of cancer. Thus, attempts to stop the spread of a cancer in a human body that can easily result in killing the person. The Western intelligence services attack in a political war-like fashion the immune systems of the peaceful Abrahamic religions.

The Transparent Cabal

Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir with Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson during a reception at Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yitzhak Rabin’s residence in Washington, D.C. © Moshe Milner/GPO

In his 2008 book, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, Stephen J. Sniegoski describes in great detail how Neoconservatives were the driving force behind the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, their motivation was based on their belief that American interests in the Middle East are virtually identical with the Israeli Likud party’s beliefs about Israeli interests in the region, and these mutual interests lie in destabilizing Israel’s adversaries and reconfiguring the environment rather than in the traditional American policy of stabilizing the Middle East.

They began to see McGovern and Carter Democrats and the Nixon and Ford Republicans as insufficiently devoted to anti-communism, military strength, interventionism and Israel and gravitated first to Senator Henry Jackson (D-WA) and then to the Reagan Republicans.

Sniegoski argues that, while the Neoconservatives were the driving force for the war with Iraq in 2003, the basic idea of offensive war to weaken Israel’s neighbors, induce regime change and reconfigure the region has been an element of Zionist thinking since Vladimir Jabotinsky in the 1920s.

The barbaric Zionist Jews that caused the Great Terror remained in power in the Soviet Union until Joseph Stalin had to purge (murder) them. Consequently, U.S. Senator Jackson went on to become the patron saint of those outcasted Soviet Jews and his legacy, while mostly clandestine, can be glimpsed at briefly through the Henry Jackson Society, a Transatlantic foreign policy think tank based in London. Its purpose is “the promotion of liberal democracy across the world,” and it is currently focused primarily on “supporting global democracy in the face of threats from China and Russia.” Importantly, the Henry Jackson Society in England is the sister organization to The Atlantic Council in America, a den of vipers.

“Senator Henry Jackson, the Solzhenitsyn Affair, and American Liberalism,” by Jeff Bloodworth (2006) provides a sanitized version of how Jackson exploited Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn with his anti-communism campaign. Clearly, the CIA was heavily involved and poached Solzhenitsyn as its asset. And it did not go well.

For his “defense of the rights of the Jewish people,” in 1983 an international panel selected the late Senator Henry Jackson as a recipient of the first “Jabotinsky Prize: Shield of Jerusalem” award.

Identity Politics

There is a unique historical relationship between capitalism and Jews that is crucial to understanding America. Why Jews have tended to be disproportionately successful in capitalism, the Jewish role in the development of capitalism, and the role of capitalism in the fate of Jews. In a way, Jews unknowingly were the early agents of globalization.

Like today’s web strategists and technologists, Jews were keen on building networks across national borders. And like today’s high-tech entrepreneurs, the global Jewish diaspora managed to utilize this network for their benefit. Who wouldn’t? The relationship is best understood in the context of identity politics and the function of  conspiracy inherent to capitalism.

Identity politics in America began in 1973, the year the first volume of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipeilago was published in the West. In fact, if you take a look at the “Solzhenitsyn affair” which involved Neoconservative U.S. Senator Henry Jackson, President Nixon, Vice President Gerald Ford, the birth of “human rights,” the Helsinki Commission, and the emigration of millions of Soviet Jewry to America, you get a much better understanding of the people who consider themselves to be the elite in U.S. today.

In response to Republican President Nixon, it was Democrat Senator Jackson and House Representative Charles Vanik who passed a bill in 1974 denying the Soviet bloc most favored nation trading status unless it granted Jews freedom to emigrate. The first piece of U.S. legislation inspired by the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” the Jackson‐Vanik amendment has acted as a catalyst in hastening Soviet Jewish emigration policies.

Since the mid-1960s, nearly half a million Jews from the former Soviet Union have settled in the United States. They constitute the largest single group of Jewish immigrants to enter the U.S. since the 1920s. Although they share kinship ties with the many American Jews whose roots are also in the pre-communist Russian empire, their lives have been shaped by different forces: the Bolshevik revolution and life in a communist state. Like American Jews, contemporary emigres are distinguished by high levels of skill and education, are urban and disproportionately professionals. Unlike most American Jews, they have had minimal exposure to formal Jewish training and Jewish religious life, and no experience with a highly organized Jewish community.

This is a tremendous piece of American history. Soviet Jews have been steadily streaming into the U.S. for decades, to the point of even insulting Israel, which campaigned hard on their behalf and had hoped to populate itself with the Jewish emigres. The U.S. has long had an open policy to Jews, which continued even after the Soviets cracked open their borders. Soviet Jews were not forced out due to war, famine or natural disaster and didn’t seek refugee status. This is an important point today. Because some may have been fleeing prosecution for crimes against humanity during the Great Terror.

Enormous resources were invested in this immigration of Soviet Jews by the U.S. Government. Accordingly, Soviet Jews in the U.S. created an ecosystem of prosperity around themselves and the Jews who mass migrated to Israel.

According to Pew, after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Israel’s largest wave of Jewish immigrants arrived from Russia and other former Soviet republics. These immigrants far outnumbered those from other countries since Israel achieved statehood. According to Pew, Soviet Jews brought a secular mindset to Israel, and more than two decades later, Jews who were born in the FSU continue to be noticeably less religious than Israeli Jews overall. Secular means atheist: 81% FSU-born Jews in Israel self-identify as secular. Importantly, 25% of Israel’s population is made up of Jews from USSR and these Soviet Jews are running Israel’s Likud government.

We must insert Canada here. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, Canada has been one of the most active centers of former Soviet Jewish immigration. Toronto has attracted disproportionate numbers of immigrants: over 47% of all new immigrants to Canada have settled in Toronto in the late 1990s. About 70% of former Soviet Jewish immigrants to Canada reside in Toronto. According to the 1996 Canadian census, nationally there were about 16,000 Jews born of Russian/Soviet parents, mostly refugees – arrivals of the 1970s and 1980s.

Toronto is the most Zionist community in the world.  Toronto is also an international hot spot for all types of bigotry and heinous hate crimes. Toronto is important to our story for one reason. Zionist operatives there are complete morons, so much so that they exposed with their own incompetence the biggest subversive cultural revolution in the history of the world.

The anti-religious enthusiasm that once galvanized the secular Jews of Russia produced long-lasting results for Jewish immigrants. The religious Jew became “the other.” Thus, identity politics is yet another underhanded attempt to install policies of white supremacy via the tactics of British East India Company, predicated on the “representation” of approved minority individuals who appear as part of the elite class —educated, monied, brainwashed.

Identity politics as a school of thought is Hitler’s racist ideology with a fresh coat of paint. The paint comes from an exclusive manufacturer that gives each paint color the thoughtful name of a Pantone pedigree which can used across global industries with ease.

Zionism is Slippery

Zionism is an especially slippery one, and that is its most marked characteristic.

On November 10, 1975 UN Resolution 3379 passed which defined Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. The Soviet Union originated the idea leading up to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. What national consensus influenced the Soviet Union to take such a step?

Remember, Zionists Jews played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role effectively dominating the Soviet terror regime during its early years and in a genocide of tens of millions of Christians.

In 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 3379, which “determine(d) that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Fifteen years later, on December 16 1991, that resolution was revoked. The UN had defined Zionism as a racist ideology. It was repealed in 1991 when Israel and the U.S. initially refused to participate in the Madrid Peace Conference.

The Madrid Peace Conference, held from October 30 to November 1, 1991, marked the first time that Israeli leaders negotiated face to face with delegations from Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and, most importantly, with the Palestinians.

The year 1991 was also the year that communism fell. That year and the George H.W. Bush legacy in the Middle East —the Gulf War and the Madrid peace conference— continue to shape U.S. policy in the region a quarter century later.

Most people do not seem to understand that Jewish is not a race. However, how Jewish today is applied has subversively made it one. Jews come in all sizes, shapes and colors including black. A Jew is not just a willow thin white lady with a Harvard degree and a Park Avenue apartment full of Chanel suits who works as a staff writer at the New York Times. The Manhattan doyenne is literally the racist version.

Zionism dictates racial and religious supremacy. Israel, a state built on ethnically cleansed land, thus operates under the veil of a democracy in which the Jewish population is the exclusive beneficiary of the democratic process. However, Israel’s Jewish population is itself stratified within an ethnic hierarchy, where prosperous Ashkenazi (white Jews of European descent) dominate the economy, media and politics. In comparison, Mizrahi and Sephardi (Jews of MENA descent) suffer socio-economic hardship.

If you have ever been to Jerusalem, you know what I am describing. The disparity is shocking. It is like going to the Jim Crow South in America. It is a type of white supremacy. It is racism. It is apartheid, but even worse. It is severe brutality, communist strength brutality. This type of racism means that white lady at the New York Times can write about everybody else and decide on their narratives. Moreover, like anti-Semitism, racism is part of the racket of the Zionist Cultural Revolution.

Racism is all too evident in Israel. Ruling class Zionists cause the hardship that the Mizrahi and Sephardi suffer. Through rhetoric and vitriol they’re able to redirect anger toward African migrant communities who’re victims of greater oppression themselves. It’s a mess, but you never hear about it. The media, the Jerusalem press corps, sees to that.

Zionism is a white, Ashkenazi phenomenon, based on the denial of the Orient and the rights of both Mizrahi Jews and the Palestinians, “the other.” You could call it white supremacy and you’d be right. Solzhenitsyn detailed it in the banned book, 200 Years Together, which documents the mutual understanding between Russians and Jews of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn could have easily been writing about Neoconservatives in America.

The Zionist Cultural Revolution

There’s an uncomfortable similarity between the Zionist Neoconservatives in America —and their dedicated “intelligence community” such as the CIA and the NSA— and the Zionist Bolsheviks who ran the early Soviet terror agencies that committed all of the atrocities: NKVD, Cheka, KGB, and GRU —80% of Stalin’s Soviet government, from bottom to top. Zionists were responsible for The Great Terror and the genocides of tens of millions, “The New Martyrs” —all of those who were martyred in the years of severe persecutions against the faith and the Orthodox Church, which continues in the world for over 70 years in the 21st century.

The persecution started immediately after the 1917 October Revolution, when the Bolsheviks took over. The persecution against the faithful was purposeful and long, and surpassed in cruelty all the previous persecutions against the Church, including those by the Roman emperors in the first, second, and third centuries. The Bolsheviks created an antihuman and criminal ideology to guide rulers for decades. This ideology led to millions of victims, the people of different beliefs and social status. They began with the class struggle against the nobility and merchant class followed by the dispossession of well-to-do peasants, then resettlement and destruction of whole ethnic communities. One destruction campaign followed another and these criminal actions continued for several decades. The Russian Orthodox Church was only one of the targets of that suicidal campaign waged by the authorities against their own people.

The number is unknown, whether it was tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions, because the whole truth about those years will never be revealed. Not all the archives will ever be opened so that the records could reveal who remained faithful to the end and who stumbled. Besides, there are many forgeries in the transcripts of interrogation we use to restore the story of a given new martyr. Some recorded as having renounced their faith did not actually do that.

Revolutions are always atheist in nature. The Zionist cultural revolution is the revolution of revolutions. In fact, it seems to have been modeled on the fall of Byzantium. Atheist revolutionaries spread religious disunity and divide the majority of people as a means to gain political or territorial advantage for a minority of atheists. A revolution can manifest as an inner enemy which appears within the bowels of society to break its spirit, turning the majority into a helpless victim of the minority or suzerainty as it did in Byzantium after nearly twelve hundred years of peaceful living.

I wrote this a year ago: “I am not going to go into detail about the Neocons because there’s really not too much to say beyond the salient fact that they are a deliberately constructed social group, almost like a secret society, that has only one unifying principle: to make money and do it anyway they desire, because when you are morally bankrupt the world is your oyster of possibilities. Neoconservatives identify themselves as whomever is paying them to do so. In layman’s terms, we would call them con artists.”

From a policy perspective, the reference that makes most sense to the Neocons and racist Zionist Jews, in general, is the one instance in our country’s history of American authoritarianism — the one party terror state that was the Jim Crow South — was built on minority rule. The degree of discrimination against blacks under Jim Crow was unparalleled. Yet elite opinion at the time sanctioned it as legally-mandated white supremacy. This is exactly the same kind of warped thinking and public manipulation we see among Neocons today.

The “intelligence community” believes the U.S. was built on this superiority of white men. Their professional culture was shaped by that system. Slavery and Jim Crow may be behind us, and attitudes have no doubt become more open and tolerant over time, but they remain unchanged.

Racist Neoconservatives have run Washington DC this way. The Zionist elite minority and their cult-like war machine. Their think tanks, in particular, should all be abolished like slavery and then segregation was.

What is the difference between the oppressors in the U.S. “intelligence community” and the infamous oppressors of Nazi and Soviet secret police? Nothing. The slightly longer answer to that question is that the Americans are clumsy to the point of incompetence and even more arrogant than the Germans and Russians.

“Stalin’s terror” is, in fact, Zionist terror. Anti-Jewish sentiment is widespread among people of the former USSR because Jews played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role effectively dominating the Soviet terror regime during its early years. In turn, Neoconservatives carried this torch to America and along with the fabricated “war in Iraq” in 2003, lied their way to achieve nearly every war since World War Two.

The use of terror to revolutionize society is an historical precedent established by the Bolsheviks. We need to talk about the bullies in America’s politburo. We need to talk about their exploitation of religion. We need to talk about the British Zionist enterprise —The Saker (Andrei Raevsky) calls this the “AngloZionist Empire” —in relation to America’s alliance with Israel. We need to look at racial trouble in the U.S. and issues like “cancel culture” with respect to the Zionist Cultural Revolution.

U.S. President Trump has encouraged these conversations. You just were not aware that this is part and parcel of “draining the swamp.” He’s turned the British Zionist enterprise upside down. He’s called their bluff. Donald Trump is essentially “containing” Zionism to use a word that the Neocons understand. The Zionism he seeks to contain is the toxic part, the white supremacist ideology. For example, Trump is pushing back against the rising tide of Marxist critical theory. He’s quietly containing the Zionist cultural revolution in America. In order to contain today’s cultural threats, the oppression must be eliminated.

At the same time, Israel is rejecting that political Zionism. Slowly. It’s a process. A very slow one. Apartheid in South Africa was not resolved over night. Apartheid is a cancer in the body politic of the world. One of the largest Christian denomination, the Dutch Reformed Church (NGK), used Christian theology to argue a theological support for the Apartheid regime. The Dutch Reformed Church, with 3 million Christian members, remained the “official religion” of the Apartheid-supporting National Party.

How the Zionist regime and settler colonialism will be brought to an end is an important question to discuss. The clearest and most practical vision to date seems to be that, as in South Africa, the Zionist state will have no choice but to capitulate.

How the Zionist cultural revolution will be brought to an end is the question we all must face if we want to stop the chaos in the world. We need a mutual understanding of the answer.

Live Not By Lies

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote the essay “Live not by Lies” in 1974 on the same day in February that year that secret police broke into his apartment and arrested him. The next day he was exiled to West Germany.

Everybody today knows that the media is a horrific problem. The extent of lying in the press is simply out of control. Now we need to better understand why journalists gesticulate wildly on social media, wave their arms in the air at the New York Times, shout at the crowd from CNNand MSNBC, invent things in the Washington Post, and try to attract the fame and attention they feel they deserve in The Atlantic.

All those years ago, Solzhenitsyn attempted to inform the world that the Bolsheviks committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. And he said the fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the “fourth estate” —the press, the media, and the profession of journalism— is in the hands of the Bolshevik perpetrators. He was warning that the “fourth estate” is the “fifth column.” Today the media is visibly filled with the “intelligence community.” Simply turn on CNN; former intelligence agency officials are now political commentators.

Julian Assange reported that nearly every war that has started in the last 50 years has been a result of media lies. The “intelligence community” has him locked up in a British prison.

The Balfour Declaration was only considered to be a first step that would enable the British Government to entreat the sympathies of world Jewry, for the Entente war effort and a British Palestine. To that end, the Government quickly embarked upon an elaborate and extensive propaganda campaign. This endeavour was undertaken with the ever present advice and work of Britain’s Zionist supporters in London. Together, British officials and Zionists sought to create and disseminate the myth that the Jewish nation was about to be reborn in Palestine under British auspices, which would capture the Jewish imagination but would in no way commit the Government to anything beyond the vague terms of the Balfour Declaration.

This was the sum of British policy towards the Zionist movement for the remainder of the war and the extent of the Anglo-Zionist alliance, as it was originally conceived by the British Government. Journalism has been a British military strategy since 1917.

Journalism in America today is, in fact, Zionist “hasbara” and therefore, by design, is intended to hide the truth. Hasbara is the Israeli word for how Zionists explain to the world through the Jerusalem press corps their slaughter of Palestinians. It is almost never the truth. Zionist propaganda and the most ridiculous lies. The sole purpose of Zionist hasbara is to side step conspiracy.

For example, maybe the biggest historic example, in fact, whenever there’s an attempt to discuss ancient Christianity and its legacy of Eastern Orthodox Christianity —iconoclasm, persecution, martyrdom, and subsequently a massive, Holocaust-like, genocide of Christians— it is shut down in the same manner that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and others were when speaking of Jews as perpetrators.

Simply put, the Orthodox Christian Church is not a political organization. While the Church is a global body, it does not function like a transnational corporation. Any “power” has been decentralized. Inasmuch as there is no PR, marketing, or even a spokesperson to be found, the Orthodox Church is even without the Madison Avenue language necessary to express the concept of the “New Martyrs” in secular terms.

Christianity has always been anti-imperialistic. Of the currently existing autocephalous Orthodox Churches the most ancient are the Jerusalem, Alexandrian and Antiochian Churches founded by the Holy Apostles. Later, Byzantium, in 330 AD which was pretty peaceful for nearly twelve hundred years. And the ideology of pre-1917 Russia might be described as a kind of “Orthodox monarchism.”

In other words, Christian imperialism exists in the West today in the person of the Pope. In the East, it was and remains a temptation. Orthodox Christianity peacefully held the nations of Byzantium together for twelve hundred years, not imperialism. Since 1453 and the fall of Constantinople, anti-Christian forces worldwide, and destructive forces inside the broader Christian Church itself have carried out the real imperialistic plans.

Christians are the victims of worldwide persecution and this does not minimize the Holocaust nor demonetize Islam. The untold story of the 20th century is the murder of over 50 million Christians, mostly at the hands of communist and Islamic regimes. Christian genocide has continued into the 21st century. In an era when we get get statistics for nearly anything at our fingertips within seconds, some how the number of Christian lives lost to terrorism, war, genocide and mass murder is strangely missing.

It is estimated that the number of Christian martyrs during the 20th century far exceeds that of all the martyrs who died for Christ during the first three centuries of Christianity. Simply combine Christian mass murders worldwide.

• Armenia
• Bosnia (Srebrincha)
• Ethiopia
• Galicia (Thalerhof)
• Greece
• Iraq
• Romania
• Russia
• Rwanda
• Serbia
• Ukraine (Holodomor)
• Global genocide of Orthodox Christians
• Global persecution of Orthodox Christians
• Persecution of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine

The political scientist, adviser and academic who spent more than half a century at Harvard University, Samuel P. Huntington has been credited with forecasting the cultural and religious context in which a 9/11-type incident could emerge. In 1993 Huntington argued that with the collapse of communism, ideological rivalries would no longer drive global affairs. Conflict would occur between groups defined by culture, religion and identity. His thesis was propped up amid NATO’s fresh attacks on the Slavic (Orthodox Christianity) fraternity.

Huntington is the Zionist cult scholar who inspired “Israel Lobby” book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Another Zionist cult political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski (the father of corporate media maven Mika Brzezinski), back in 1997, in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives wrote: “After the victory over communism, we need a split of Orthodoxy and the breakdown of Russia, and Ukraine, where betrayal is the norm of public morality, will help us in this.”

When Zionist Brzezinski died, Zionist Radek Sikorski, the former foreign minister of Poland and “a distinguished statesman at the Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies” wrote a very telling love letter to “Zbig” in the Washington Post. Zionist Sikorski is married to an American columnist, Zionist Anne Applebaum. Applebaum and her husband serve as British foreign agents of influence. Lucas is British. Are Sikorski and Applebaum the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg of the 21st century? Communists? Maybe not, but they have not been playing for Team USA. Applebaum has spent the better part of her dreadful writing career trashing the conservative Catholic majority of Poland, which is literally all of Poland. The country is at least 93% Roman Catholic in faith. Also, Anne Applebaum heavily plagiarized Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (several books worth) and censored out the parts incriminating the cabal of atheist Jews and the Anglo-American “intelligence community” or their unspeakable crimes in Soviet Russia, so there’s that.

According to U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, Brzezinski, after the collapse of communism, the Zionist West’s main opponent became the Orthodox Christian Church. The Balkan wars manufactured by NATO in the late 1990s were a manifestation of this concept. Samuel Huntington peddled an international conspiracy theory that became the cornerstone of NATO after the fall of the USSR.

I wrote this a year ago and it has taken me that long to get the full depth and vastness of the terror: “Remember, the true religions prevent the New World Order, that is the crux here. With that in mind, you should know, if you don’t already, that Orthodox Christianity is the truest form of Christianity. It just is. Don’t argue with me, just accept it. Here comes the worse part. After the devastation that NATO caused in Serbia in the 1990s people started to notice a pattern with NATO operations after the second World War, specifically that the Alliance was bombing Christians. For a person like me, I don’t normally think in such terms so that before the recent crisis in Ukraine, I myself brushed it off as a conspiracy theory. Well, guys, it is not.”

If you turn your eyes to a think tank (read shit hole) in DC, the Center for European Analysis(CEPA), which is a National Endowment for Democracy (NED) spinoff and initially directed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeline Albright, you can arrive at the current day. You will find Ben Hodges at CEPA. Also, Anne Applebaum and CEPA’s Edward Lucas crowned themselves the king and queen of “disinformation” when the crisis in Ukraine broke out. It’s a small world, huh?

Zionist Albright spelled out the first two decades of the new millennium in 1998: “As we prepare to undertake NATO’s first post-Cold War expansion next spring, prior to the Summit, the Alliance is considering its vision for the future, and initiatives critical to preparing NATO for the 21st century.” The transparent cabal have focused on so-called “disinformation.” Check out Albright’s speech at the Atlantic Council in 2017 regarding the alleged threat of “digital disinformation.”

Life is full of disinformation, it’s called lying.

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets

The very first adventure of one of the world’s most beloved cartoon characters.

If someone would give me a handsome book deal, I’d love to do a children’s book or even young adult franchise in tribute to 1929 publication, “Tintin in the Land of the Soviets” and Belgian cartoonist Hergé, where Tintin discovers the truth about the Bolsheviks, specifically the theft of the country’s wealth by its leadership.

Listen, Vladimir Lenin was a grifter who exploited the Jews. This is a simple and easily understandable message that we ought to convey broadly. In fact, in the original book, Tintin stumbles upon the secret cache of riches that Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky have stolen from the Soviet people.

Armed with this knowledge, Tintin flees Russia with his faithful dog called Snowy returning safely to Belgium and is greeted with great pomp by the rapturous public. The ending to my book would be just as magnificent as the original. Because in my book the pathological hatred for President Trump, the Neoconservative fifth column and their think tanks in our nation’s capital would be really explosive.

I would update the story for 2020 in America and my character would visit “the Land of the Neoconservatives.” Because the Bolsheviks —Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky— were a British cabal in Russia just like the Neoconservatives are today in America. A sneaky fifth column of total frauds supported by the same dark financial structure in the City of London, in the interest of the global elite. I might even use the phrase “Davos Man” Samuel P. Huntington penned in a paper about elites and “an emerging global superclass” of “Davos men” or “gold-collar workers.”

I am actually quite serious. The mutual understanding is one that we ought to be teaching kids as soon as they can understand that conspiracy is a part of modern life. Importantly, convey the message that conspiracy aims to divide us and is a most always blamed on the victim.

No, the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was not a Jewish plot. In fact, kids ought to learn about the function of economic conspiracies and the political perversion of the religions so they don’t grow up to be adults who fall for hate propaganda and deceitful intellectual ideologies.

To find unity, let’s bring conspiracy out of the shadows.

While Solzhenitsyn’s work was a significant contribution to such mutual understanding, many were offended by his suggestion that some Jews also need to come to terms with their sins. I take a different stand, maybe because I have the benefit of hindsight and luxury of progress. I say we need to look at ourselves. Look within U.S. foreign policy. Look at the trillions of dollars that America has sent in aid to fund the Israel project. Don’t blame the “Jooz.”

I believe that we are at an important crossroads of knowledge. It is time for everybody to take a closer inspection in the mirror to reflect on how we arrived here, in order to fully shift the understanding internally. The mirror reveals it all, crystal clear, if we’re willing to look.

There are plenty of other people who understand the depth and breath of Solzhenitsyn’s message. Kim R. Holmes, the Executive Vice President, at The Heritage Foundation is one of them. Read his excellent article, which sort of dovetails my own. And read writer (and Jazz saxophonist) Gilad Atzmon regarding the U.S. military-industrial complex.  “America is willing to sacrifice its young soldiers and national interests and even its economy for Israel,” writes Atzmon. Also, get familiar with the plight of the Torah Jews. They are my team! Finally, always read Andrei Raevsky (The Saker), and here is one he wrote for The Unz Review.

Spiritual Awakening

Our awareness of Alexander Solzhenitsyn seems to have been awakened following Ukraine’s coup d’état in 2014 that was backed by Washington, when several Russian-language publications decided to revisit Solzhenitsyn’s statements about the two neighboring countries made throughout his life. After all, he foretold today’s Ukrainian crisis.

The veil of the mutual understanding was lifted in Ukraine. Did Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn change the course of either the East or the West? Maybe not back then. But his words have had residual impact since the Harvard speech, for certain, and we are only now really starting to appreciate them as we should, four decades later.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn spoke of a “moral revolution” that would move beyond the excesses of modernity, yet without returning to the spiritual despotisms of the past. Because he instinctively knew that the so-called “intelligence community” was up to no good and was scheming to split peaceful religions and society, in general. The Bolsheviks had relied on those covert actions. And ascetic religions were and are the enemy of the “intelligence community,” back then and now, because these religious practices allow a man to take control of himself in a powerful way, to think for himself.

Thus, the immediate threat to American national security is our military-industrial complex and specifically its intelligence agencies that pervert religions around the world. Alexander Solzhenitsyn said it all those years ago at Harvard. But he used words we did not understand at the time. Because we were not prepared to hear them.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn understood that spiritual genocide, a cancer resulting from a system, like communism, can be not only be difficult to recognize—and many people are entirely unaware that this type of terror even exists.

Let’s try internal realization instead of finger pointing. When we seek knowledge about the world’s damaged bullies through compassion and understanding, we will eventually come to a state of full unity through mutual understanding. This is what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn tried.

They need to understand that we know. We need to understand that they are human.

Solzhenitsyn sought to encourage a mutual understanding between Russians and Jews. He even cooperated with the CIA until it became clear that they like the Jewish politburo in the Soviet government were equally as perverted, equally as corrupted from their original course.

The mutual understanding is that the peaceful religions have been been perverted for the purpose of terror. We only now can begin to understand all of this. Because we are finally having a spiritual awakening in America.

On a policy level, this leads to better decision making. Because humility fosters critical thinking. It is also important in ending wars and in conflict resolution. It enables a policy where a nation is more likely to accept that it wrongfully provoked war. And this kind of public policy starts with education of the very young.

“It’s a universal law — intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility,” said Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

---

Nicholas Molodyko is a writer in Chicago who writes about Western popular culture and politics in relation to the secret history of the Eastern religions. After writing professionally in the fields of public health research and international development, while working in Europe, Asia and Africa, he is now writing independently at Mediapart in France.

Palestine and the Other Philby

By Jeremy Salt

Source

This reading of history is substantially but not wholly based on Elizabeth Monroe’s book Philby of Arabia (London: Quartet Books, 1973). With the exception of Kim Philby’s references to his wife, his father, and his once best friend, Nicholas Elliott, all the quoted material is taken from the book.

The young generation may never have heard of Kim Philby, so a few words by way of introduction are necessary. Philby was at Cambridge University in 1934 when he was recruited as a Soviet agent. He went to Spain to report the civil war before being recruited by M16 in 1940, rising to senior positions, including control of the Soviet desk, even as he handed Britain’s secrets to his Soviet controller. By 1949 he was head of intelligence at the British embassy in Washington, which, through his close friendship with James Jesus Angleton, the head of the CIA’s special operations section, gave him insights into American secrets as well, and perhaps the secrets themselves.

In 1951, Guy Burgess and Donald McLean, both friends of Philby and his colleagues in the British intelligence community in the US, and both Soviet agents, defected. Philby also came under suspicion and was compelled to resign, before being cleared of any wrongdoing by Prime Minister Harold MacMillan in 1955.

In 1956 Philby moved to Beirut as a correspondent for the London Observer. A Soviet defector having pointed the finger at him again, MI6 sent another old friend and colleague, Nicholas Elliott, to Lebanon in 1963 to question him. They had one meeting, during which Philby verbally confessed but refused to put anything down in writing. Before their planned second meeting, Philby made his way at night to the docks where a Soviet freighter took him to Odessa. Honored by the Soviet government, he lived in Moscow until his death in 1988.

Philby is ranked as the most successful of all cold war agents. The information he passed on led to the death of hundreds of people, including armed men sent into Albania to overthrow the Stalinist government of Enver Hoxha and a defector who tipped off the British consulate in Istanbul. Soviet agents got to him and once back in Moscow, he and his family disappeared forever.

Philby expressed no regret for any of this, on the basis that these victims of the spy game knew, like him, what they were letting themselves in for. He even provided information to the Soviet Union on his wife Aileen (“bourgeois and philistine”), his old friend Nicholas Elliott (“ugly and rather pig-like”) and even on his father, Harold St John Philby, which is where the central point of this article begins.

If Philby made his way into the intelligence community and then journalism with such ease it was because he was ‘one of us,’ the privileged elite which ran Britain. His father was also ‘one of us,’ even if generally out of tune with what his government was doing. Whereas Kim concealed who he really was, Harold spoke openly, critically and often angrily, irrespective of the effect on his listeners. He would never have been a good choice for the intelligence community, but he did serve the government after 1918, holding down numerous positions in Iraq, Transjordan (as it then was) and Saudi Arabia.

If he irritated senior figures wherever he went he was always respected for his knowledge, his explorations and his close and useful personal connection with the Saudi monarch, Abd al Aziz ibn Saud.

Even when serving the government Philby used his spare time to explore Arabia. He crossed the fearsome desert expanse known as the ‘empty quarter (ruba’ al khali), he looked for (and found) evidence of ancient cities and culture. He also amassed collections of rare specimens of butterflies and birdlife, many ending up in British museums.

Privately, Philby ran two families, one in England and one in Riyadh. At the age of 60, having become a Muslim, he accepted the ‘gift’ of a girl of 16 from the Saudi king and went on to have several children with her. He was still running his other home and wife, Dora, in England,   seeing her only when he visited or she visited him. As illegal and as abhorrent as it would be in England for a man of Philby’s age to take as a wife a girl of 16, it was probably unremarkable in Saudi culture.

His Cambridge background, his butterfly and bird collecting and his life-long love of cricket established Philby as a conventional upper-middle-class Englishman but there was this other maverick side, often intemperate and deeply critical of imperialism, in particular Britain’s policies in the Middle East, establishing him as another kind of conventional Englishman, strongly individual and eccentric by the standards of others. The two sides lived somewhat awkwardly with each other throughout his life.

Philby was immediately hostile to the post-1918 mandates system, which he regarded as a “fig leaf” for French and British imperialism. In Iraq and Syria, it was clear to him that both Britain and France had betrayed their promises of national governments to be established on the basis of the free choice of the indigenous people. The exception in this stream of thinking was Palestine.

Charged with going to the Hijaz to smooth over differences with the Sharif Husain of Mecca – now self-proclaimed king of the Hijaz as well – over British policy on Palestine and the rising power of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, Philby got somewhere on the first issue, Husain seeming to understand “that the British wished to settle some Jews in Palestine,” but he was immovable on the second. Abdul Aziz ibn Saud was preparing to pounce on the Hijaz, driving Husain and his family into exile, and forbade Philby from making a side trip to the Saudi kingdom in Najd (central Arabia) before returning to Cairo.

On Palestine, Philby was inconsistent. If the Iraqi and Syrian people were to be given the right to their own government through the free choice of their people, why not the people of Palestine? From official quarters the answer was clear if usually muffled: because we intend to give Palestine to zionist settlers and until they reach a majority, independence has to be withheld.

In Britain Philby sat on a League of Nations Union committee alongside academics, politicians, and zionists charged with coming up with a model mandate for Palestine. Although the British government and the Zionist movement knew what they wanted in Palestine, a Jewish state at the expense of the Palestinians (as Balfour had made clear in public statements),   the Zionist intention from the start to get rid of the Palestinians through ‘transfer’ was concealed by the zionists and bypassed as a subject for polite conversation by the British government.

Far from speaking against the zionist colonization of Palestine, Philby and T.E. Lawrence, forever linked in British minds with the struggle for Arab independence, believed, as Elizabeth Monroe has written, that “an injection of Jewish brains and money into the Arab world would improve Arab chances of successful independence.”

Thus swayed by zionist thinking, Philby was supported by Chaim Weizmann, whom he later took tea with in London, when he applied for a position in Palestine, only to be turned down because of advice to the High Commissioner that he was argumentative and would prove to be a nuisance.

Philby’s views on Palestine were nothing if not inconsistent with each other and with his general support for Arab independence. He regarded the Balfour Declaration as “an act of betrayal for whose parallel, the shekels and the kiss and all the rest of it, we have to go back to the Garden of Gethsemane.”

At the same time, he thought British governments should reaffirm the declaration because Jews had a “perfect right” to settle in Palestine on “a basis of equality with the existing population.”   Transjordan, he thought, would only be too happy to accept Jewish investment and immigration into a territory that should never have been separated in the first place. He never budged from his belief that the Jews had it in them to benefit the Arab world as long as – the critical qualification – they dropped any wish to dominate. Of course, Weizmann and others in the Zionist leadership gave endless assurances that this was the last thing they had in mind.

Philby frequently tried to bring Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud around to his way of thinking on Palestine. The king shared the general Arab view that to take land from the indigenous population of Palestine and give it to Zionist settlers was unjust. He opposed partition when it was proposed in 1937 (the Peel plan) and said that even if all other Arab states recognized a Jewish state he never would, a statement of contemporary relevance given the recognition of Israel by the UAE and Bahrain and Saudi Arabia’s scarcely concealed dealings with Israel.

In 1939 Philby showed how poorly he understood Abdul Aziz ibn Saud on the question of Palestine. During a meeting in London with Professor Lewis Namier, Jewish, and a zionist, he said the king would come on board with British policies in the Middle East (as against the growing influence of Germany and Italy) if he were given money and weapons.

Namier suggested a meeting with Weizmann to see what might be arranged. When Namier, Philby and Moshe Shertok (later Sharett), political secretary of the Jewish Agency, met Weizmann on October 8, Philby proposed that if the zionists could come up with a 20 million pound ‘subsidy’ for the king, they could be given western Palestine, with the exception of the ‘Vatican City’ in east Jerusalem. At the same time, they should commit themselves to help secure Arab unity and independence (outside Palestine of course), which in Philby’s view was only attainable under Abdul Aziz’s leadership.

According to Weizmann, the conversation included references to “considerable transfers of the Arab population”: hedging his position, he said there was not much the zionists could do to advance the situation politically, apart from which they were bound by their “loyalties” to Britain and France.

Forever chasing money, Philby no doubt saw some coming to him if this scheme could be pulled off. He presented it to Abdul Aziz on January 8, 1940, when, in his own understanding, the king did not turn it down, saying only that he would give an answer at the appropriate time. In truth, the king was probably taken by surprise and did not like what he was hearing. Philby misconstrued silence as consent, wrote to his wife about the king agreeing and was sufficiently indiscreet to mention it to Syrians in the king’s entourage.

In February 1940, Weizmann contacted him from Washington to see how things we going. “Slowly,” Philby had to respond, while remaining confident that the king was “quite favorably inclined towards the proposal and is just thinking about how it can be worked out without producing howls of anger among certain Arab elements.” While Weizmann worked on the Americans, the plan would have to wait for the king to work out how to overcome Arab objections.

In 1940 and 1942 Weizmann saw President Roosevelt and, in the second of these years, Churchill as well. In Weizmann’s account, Churchill talked of wanting to make Abdul Aziz the “boss of bosses” in the Middle East “provided he settles with you.” This was an opportunity for Weizmann to try and dovetail the Zionist-Philby plan with what the Americans and British were both thinking.

In August 1942, Roosevelt sent Colonel Harold B. Hoskins to the Middle East as the head of a mission to engender goodwill. At a time the Middle East was unanimously hostile to the zionist presence in Palestine, not much goodwill was going to be generated by the plan which came out of the Hoskins mission, which was to admit 500,000 Jews into Palestine and set up a binational state as part of a Levant Federation that would include all of historic Syria.

In 1943 Roosevelt sent a message to the Saudi king that both “Arabs and Jews” would be consulted over the future of Palestine.   In August Hoskins was sent to Saudi Arabia to see if the king would agree to meet Weizmann. When he made the suggestion the king blew up. In Elizabeth Monroe’s summary of the occasion, “he hated Weizmann personally because the latter had impugned his character by offering a bribe of 20 million pounds if he would accept Arab settlers from Palestine.”

Furthermore, the king had been told the payment would be guaranteed by Roosevelt, which was certainly due to Weizmann’s campaigning. The king was so incensed at the offer and the involvement of the US president “in such a shameful manner” that he never brought it up again in his discussions with Hoskins.   Hoskins went to London, where he “disabused” Weizmann and Namier of the idea that Philby’s views represented the Saudi king’s. Philby persisted in believing that if Hoskins had approached the king with a firm offer on behalf of the US and British governments it would have been accepted. Of course, with oil being drilled in commercial quantities since 1938, the money on offer would soon be eclipsed by the vast sums flowing into the kingdom.

With partition passed by the UN General Assembly and the situation in Palestine worsening, the king could not bring himself to listen to the radio. Tears would come to his eyes. He agreed to meet members of an Anglo-American Commission bent on linking “Jewish victims of Nazi persecution everywhere” to the zionist colonization of Palestine. The king distrusted Philby when it came to Palestine so he was not at the meeting, at which Abdul Aziz told his visitors that “if the immigration of Jews continues and their possessions in Palestine increase, they will become one of the most powerful governments, equipped with arms and wealth and everything else. They will be against the Arabs and at the same time [will be] difficult for them.”

With the British leaving Palestine, he said a continued British mandate would be better than a triumph for the Jews or an enlarged kingdom for King Abdullah of Jordan, then conspiring with the Zionist leadership.

With the Arab states under foreign domination, and the Arab League newly formed and ineffectual, Philby came to admire “the courage and fanaticism of the Jews as much as I deplore the futility of the Arabs.” It was no wonder that many in Saudi court circles regarded him as a zionist spy, a British intelligence agent or a communist. As Philby’s son Kim was a committed communist and at the time was handing secrets from inside MI6 to the Soviet Union, there was certainly irony in their suspicions.

Philby needed to be in Saudi Arabia for further desert explorations and to make money from his various commercial ventures. He must have known that if he pushed the king any further on the question of Palestine he would he putting his own interests at risk. He continued to argue for the right of the Arabs to run their own affairs, all the Arabs, that is, except the Palestinians.

– Jeremy Salt taught at the University of Melbourne, at Bosporus University in Istanbul and Bilkent University in Ankara for many years, specializing in the modern history of the Middle East. Among his recent publications is his 2008 book, The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands (University of California Press). He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Analyst: An Islamic and United Front against Normalization

By Nour Rida

There has been recent agreements between the UAE and Bahrain with ‘Israel’ to open formal diplomatic ties as total departure from the Arab consensus over the resolution of the Palestinian issue. ‘Israel’ and the UAE on August 13 reached a deal that will lead to full normalization of diplomatic relations between the two sides, in an agreement apparently brokered by US President Donald Trump. Bahrain also signed the controversial and US-brokered normalization agreements with ‘Israel’ during a ceremony in Washington on Tuesday.

Commenting on the matter, political analyst and expert on Palestinian affairs, and also professor at the University of Tehran Dr. Hadi Borhani told al-Ahed news “At a certain point, all the countries of this region had opposed the presence of the ‘Israeli’ entity in the Middle East and this totally makes sense. ‘Israel’ and the ‘Israelis’ do not belong to the Middle East, they came from thousands of kilometers away from Europe. Their issue was an issue with Europe to begin with, and the British colonialists were the ones who exported this issue to the Middle East by bringing the ‘Israelis’ to the region. The people of the region are well aware of the Sikes-Picot agreement, the Balfour declaration issued by the British government and they saw with their bare eyes how ‘Israel’ occupied Arab and Muslim lands, kicked out its people and removed Palestine off the world map.”

According to the analyst, every person who has reason understands the ‘Israeli’ project and its aggressions and acknowledges it is an occupation. “The majority of the people of the region do enjoy this sense of reason and have eyes that see the reality, including regular people and rulers and officials. This is the general atmosphere. However, some country rulers and governments were pushed into this treason, as ‘Israel’ exploits their weakness points. The major issue in the region, in my opinion, is that Arab governments are busy accusing each other of extremism, westernization, and orientalism and turned these conflict with ‘Israeli’ to one among themselves.”

He went on to explain “You see this in the wars between Arab nationalism and Arab kingdoms, Islamist versus nationalist, etc. If these countries try to respect each other and put differences aside, then they can remain united in face of the ‘Israeli’ occupation and presence in the region. We also see pressure put on Egypt by cutting off the Nile waters, and on Sudan by promising it will be removed off the list of supporters of terrorism if it acknowledges ‘Israel’ as an independent state, and so on.”

Dr. Borhani also noted that “The region does not stand in a right position. If the governments of the region do not wake up and decide to take a serious stance on the presence of the ‘Israeli’ occupation, then the situation will keep deteriorating and it will take the region into historical misery. The countries of this region must be able to see and understand the history of this issue well and make a serious decision to get out of this cycle of humiliation. The first step towards such an accomplishment would be to recognize each other’s existence and differences in opinion and position. The countries of the region must avoid division and enmity and find areas of cooperation and synergy.”

As the expert expresses, “According to Imam Khomeini, if Muslims do not disperse, and unite together, and each one of them pours a bucket of water on ‘Israel’ that would be enough to solve the problem. But without such cooperation, even the most advanced weapons cannot do anything because these weapons are used to weaken each other and that strengthens ‘Israel.’”

Touching on Kuwait’s stance, Dr. Borhani praised Kuwait for its good position on the Palestinian issue. “Kuwait’s relations with Palestine are rooted in history. This position is not only limited to its rejection to the normalization with ‘Israel’ today. Many Palestinian refugees grew up in Kuwait. Many pro-Palestinian organizations were supported by Kuwait as well. This all goes back to the status of Kuwait; its democracy is the best among the GCC and many Arab league countries. Also, the Assembly of the nation of Kuwait is a real assembly and that makes the voice of the people heard. The majority of people in Kuwait oppose ‘Israeli’ presence, and so the resistance against ‘Israel’ will continue in that small country. Moreover, Kuwait is a country of education and culture and this matters a lot. Hence, we can say that the Kuwaiti people are aware of the history of the region and the history of colonization and the occupation of Palestine. This awareness for sure has a positive effect on Kuwait’s position on the Palestinian issue and all Arab countries should follow its lead.” 

As for Iran’s position, Dr. Borhani said that Iran is the most important provider of security in the Persian Gulf. “The security of the Gulf waterway is vital for Iran and the region. ‘Israel’s’ presence in these waters is a matter of concern and could affect the security of the region. Iran has made it clear to the UAE and Bahrain that the countries that provided the ground for ‘Israel’ are responsible for any insecurity and disturbance in the region.”

In terms of Iran’s position, the analyst concluded that “Iran must avoid unilateralism and take positions that are supported and approved by Arab nations and the countries of the region. Iran must enter into serious cooperation with Arab countries to counter the normalization of relations and form an Islamic front against normalization. Many countries in the region oppose normalization. Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Pakistan, Malaysia, Palestine and other countries are in this group.”

“New world order pledged to Jews” 80 years ago

Source

September 21, 2020 – 11:43

Most Zionist diplomacy takes place in secret, through corruption and blackmail (euphemistically called “lobbying”). But sometimes it is deemed appropriate that some statement be written down by some government representative in support of Zionism. The Goyim who write these statements may think them of little consequence, but Zionists know very well how to capitalize on them.

The most famous such document is the short letter written by the British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, president of the Zionist Federation, on November 2, 1917. Prime Minister Lloyd George later explained the deal in those terms:

“Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to give facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.” 

Less known than the Balfour Declaration is the letter obtained by Nahum Sokolow, head of the World Zionist Organization, from the French Foreign minister Jules Cambon. Dated June 4, 1917, it not only anticipated the Balfour Declaration but cleared the way for it. It states that the French government “feels sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is linked to that of the allies.” The cause in question is “the development of the Israeli colonization in Palestine” and “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.” Back in London, Sokolow deposited the Cambon letter at the Foreign Office, where it stimulated a spirit of competition. In January 1918, he returned to Paris, this time with the aim of securing a public French declaration in support of the Balfour Declaration.  A magnificent example of the efficiency of Zionist transnational diplomacy for war profiteering.

If Balfour thought that, after the war, his letter, cautiously worded and typed on unmarked paper, would be of little consequence, he was wrong. Zionists made it a cornerstone to their project. When the British government proved reluctant to deliver after the Versailles Treaty, they invested on the ambitious, unscrupulous and bankrupt Winston Churchill (1874-1965), whose thoughts were, in his own words, “99 percent identical” with Chaim Weizmann’s.  

During WWII, Churchill and Weizmann conspired to repeat the winning strategy of the Balfour declaration in WWI, attempting to monetize Jewish influence to bring the United States into the war. In a letter to Churchill dated September 10, 1941, Weizmann wrote: 
“I have spent months in America, traveling up and down the country […]. There is only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of ‘all-out-aid’ for her: the five million American Jews. […] It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favor of Great Britain. They are keen to do it—and may do it—again.” 

As soon as he had become Prime Minister in May 1940, Churchill instructed his War Cabinet member Arthur Greenwood to craft a document assuring the Jewish elites that a winning Britain will give them not only Palestine but a major share in the “new world order” to compensate for “the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people.” Although it is little known, this “Greenwood Pledge” is, according to Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise, “of wider and farther reaching implications” than the Balfour declaration. The New York Times published it in its October 6, 1940 edition, under the amazing title “New World Order Pledged to Jews” (reproduced here and here). 

The recipient of the declaration, here presented as Dr. S.S. Wise, was a major player in Zionist deep politics since the time of Theodor Herzl, and a close collaborator of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Samuel Untermeyer. He was the founder of the New York Federation of Zionist Societies in 1897, the first seed for the Zionist Organization of America, of which he was president. In 1917 he participated in the effort to convince President Woodrow Wilson to approve the Balfour declaration. In 1936, he was a co-founder of the World Jewish Congress, dedicated to rallying world Jewry against Hitler. 

Here is the full text of the New York Times, introducing the  “Greenwood Pledge”:

New York Times, October 6, 1940

NEW WORLD ORDER PLEDGED TO JEWS;

Arthur Greenwood of British War Cabinet Sends Message of Assurance Here

RIGHTING OF WRONGS SEEN

English Rabbi Delivers to Dr. S.S. Wise New Statement on Question After War

In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, a member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of “justice and peace.”

Mr. Greenwood, who is Deputy Leader of the British Labor party, declared that in the new world the “conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted.” He added that after the war an opportunity would be given to Jews everywhere to make a “distinctive and constructive contribution” in the rebuilding of the world.

The message was delivered last week to Dr. Stephen S. Wise, chairman of the executive committee of the World Jewish Congress, by Rabbi Maurice L. Perzweig, chairman of the British section of the congress. Rabbi Perizweig arrived from England Monday evening. 

Intention to Right Wrongs

Comparing the statement with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, D. Wise declared that in a sense it had “wider and farther reaching implications,” as it dealt with the status of Jews throughout the world. He said that Mr. Greenwood’s message could be interpreted as a statement of England’s firm intention to help right the wrongs which Jews have suffered and continue to suffer today because of Hitler’s “disorder and lawlessness.” Mr. Greenwood, sending the Jews of America a message of “encouragement and warm good wishes,” wrote: 
“The tragic fate of the Jewish victims of Nazi tyranny has, as you know, filed us with deep emotion. The speeches of responsible statesmen in Parliament and at the League of Nations during the last seven years have reflected the horror with which the people of this country have viewed the Nazi relapse into barbarism.

“The British Government sought again to secure some amelioration of the lot of persecuted Jewry both in Germany itself and in the countries which were infected by the Nazi doctrine of racial hatred. Today the same sinister power which has trampled on its own defenseless minorities, and by fraud and force has temporarily robbed many small peoples of their independence, has challenged the last stronghold of liberty in Europe.

New World Order Forecast

“When we have achieved victory, as we assuredly shall, the nations will have the opportunity of establishing a new world order based on the ideals of justice and peace. In such a world it is our confident hope that the conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted. 

“In the rebuilding of civilized society after the war, there should and will be a real opportunity for Jews everywhere to make a distinctive and constructive contribution; and all men of good-will must assuredly hope that in new Europe the Jewish people, in whatever country they may live, will have the freedom and full equality before the law with every other citizen.”

In an interview at the Hotel Astor, Rabbi Perlzweig declared he was certain Mr. Greenwood “speaks for England.” There is a clear realization, he added, that freedom and emancipation for the Jewish people are tied up with emancipation and freedom for people everywhere. The message, Rabbi Perlzweig remarked, was the subject of earnest consideration by the British Government. “This is a declaration on behalf of the whole world,” he observed. “Here the British Government expresses clearly what it hopes will take place after the war is won.”

[1] According to a 1937 report of the Palestine Royal Commission, quoted by Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, pp. 18-21.

[1] Martin Kramer, “The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration,” June 5, 2017, on mosaicmagazine.com

[1] Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henry Holt & Company, 2007.

[1] David Irving, Churchill’s War, vol. 2: Triumph in Adversity, Focal Point Publications, 2001, pp. 76–77.

[1] Thanks to M.S. King, who made this information known here: http://www.tomatobubble.com/nwo_jews.html

RELATED NEWS

• The usurpation of Palestine from Balfour to Trump
• Jacob’s Sons, Jews or Zionists?–Part 5
• Israel, From Terrorist Groups to State Terrorism

History: The Zionist Origins of Saudi Arabia and Its Royals

Part I

By Rez Karim

Global Research, September 22, 2020

Recognizing the contentious nature of the subject, this two-part article relies only on official treatises, pacts and primary sourced evidence to compile a historically accurate account of the founding of Saudi Arabia and Al Saud family becoming ‘Royals’.

Growing up Muslim in a Muslim majority country, I spent most Friday afternoons at a mosque, attending the Jummah prayer. First part of a Jummah prayer calls for the Imam to perform a Khutbah – a weekly sermon of sorts. It was in one of those Khutbahs that I, as a very young boy, learnt about the plight of the Palestinians for the first time.

Indeed, it’s a common practice among Imams around the world to bring up the Palestinian issue at mosques, especially during Friday sermons, and pray for the Palestinian people. In those prayers and discussions, Israel’s name comes up inevitably. In fact, Israel’s oppression of Palestinians bears no ambiguity in Islamic thoughts. And condemnation of Israel, therefore, comes naturally to Muslims around the world.

However, what escapes awareness in almost all Muslims is the connection between Israel and Saudi Arabia. While zealously castigating Israel for its atrocities, Muslims often revere Saudi Arabia as the custodians of Islam’s holiest sites; completely ignoring the Kingdom’s role in founding the Zionist state in the first place.

Notwithstanding the existence of a deep-seated bias against Israel among Muslims, it’s important to recognize that the lack of criticism for Saudi Kingdom, alongside Israel, doesn’t come from bias. Indeed, this absence finds its roots not in bias, but in a complete lack of knowledge. Knowledge among current generation of Muslims, as well as among the world population, about how Saudi Arabia and its founding king, Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud, played a critical role in establishing the Zionist state of Israel.

Suffice it to say, this ignorance about one of the most critical periods in world history seems anything but normal. Amazingly, the world, especially the Muslim world, had been kept in darkness about this momentous chapter in Middle East history. Propaganda and omissions run rampant within the historical accounts of this period. Official Saudi sources like House of Saud website, for example, avoids any mention of British involvement in founding the KSA. Although this omission seems predictable to many, it’s worth noting that even mainstream media outlets like the BBC, and prominent historians such as Professor Eugene Rogan etc., routinely portray Ibn Saud as having acted independently during WWI, and not as an instrument for the British Empire.

Therefore, recognizing the contentious nature of the issue – and to avoid becoming yet another ‘perspective’ on the subject – this article relies only on primary sourced evidence and the following four official treatises and declarations to compile a historically accurate account of the events:

1. The McMahon-Hussain Correspondence
2. The Treaty of Darin
3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement
4. The Balfour Declaration

1. The McMahon-Hussain Correspondence

To properly understand the events that led to the creation of both Israel and Saudi Arabia, we must travel back to the early 1900s’ Middle East. At the outbreak of WWI in the region, Sir Henry McMahon, then British High Commissioner in Egypt, offered Hussain bin Ali, Sharif of Hijaz (or ruler of the Hijaz – the western Arabian region in which Mecca and Medina lie), an independent Arab state if he would help the British fight against the Ottoman Empire. Hussein’s interest in throwing off his Turkish overlords converged with Britain’s war aim of defeating the Ottomans. McMahon made this offer via a series of letters exchanged between him and Sharif Hussain, collectively known as the McMahon-Hussain Correspondence. On his 14 July 1915 letter to McMahon, Hussain stated, among other things, the following as one of his propositions:Palestine: Britain Should Apologise for the Balfour Declaration, Not ‘Celebrate’ It

“Firstly.- England will acknowledge the independence of the Arab countries, bounded on the north by Mersina and Adana up to the 37th degree of latitude, on which degree fall Birijik, Urfa, Mardin, Midiat, Jezirat (Ibn ‘Umar), Amadia, up to the border of Persia; on the east by the borders of Persia up to the Gulf of Basra; on the south by the Indian Ocean, with the exception of the position of Aden to remain as it is; on the west by the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea up to Mersina. England to approve the proclamation of an Arab Khalifate of Islam.”

In response, McMahon wrote on 24 October 1915:

“I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of the limits and boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me that the time had not yet come when that question could be discussed in a conclusive manner.

“I have realized, however, from your last letter that you regard this question as one of vital and urgent importance. I have, therefore, lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter, and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement, which I am confident you will receive with satisfaction:-

“The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded.

“With the above modification, and without prejudice of our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept those limits.”

Interestingly, throughout history, there has been much disagreement as to whether this promise included Palestine. However, as we can see above, the area promised to the Arabs in McMahon’s letter excluded only the territory to the west of a line from Damascus north to Aleppo. Palestine, far to the south, was, by implication, included. Nevertheless, the British subsequently denied that they included Palestine in the promise and refused to publish the correspondence until 1939.

At the time however, Sharif Hussain believed this official promise from the British Government. He went on to make the most significant contribution to the Ottoman Empire’s defeat. He switched allegiances and led the so-called ‘Arab Revolt’ in June of 1916, which removed the Turkish presence from Arabia.

The defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the British in WWI left three distinct authorities in the Arabian peninsula. Sharif of Hijaz Hussain bin Ali of Mecca (in the west); Ibn Rashid of Ha’il (in the north); and Emir Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud of Najd and his religiously fanatical followers, the Wahhabis (in the east).

2. The Treaty of Darin

On 26 December 1915, Sir Percy Cox, on behalf of the British Government, signed the Treaty of Darin with Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud. Also known as the Darn Pact, the treaty made the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate. The British aim of the treaty was to guarantee the sovereignty of Kuwait, Qatar and the Trucial States (later UAE). Abdul-Aziz vowed not to attack these British protectorates. He also pledged to enter WWI in the Middle East against the Ottoman Empire as an ally of Britain.

Britain’s signing of Darin Pact in December went against their promises of mutual protection made to Sharif Hussain in October; because Britain’s treaty with Ibn Saud does not oblige him to not attack the Hijaz.

The treaty also saw Abdel Aziz receiving £5000 per month ‘tribute’ from the British Government. After World War I, he received further support from the British. Support included substantially more monetary rewards and a glut of surplus munitions.

3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement 

On May 19, 1916, representatives of Great Britain and France secretly reached an accord, known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The accord aimed at dividing most of Arab lands under the Ottoman rule between the British and the French at the end of WWI. In its designated sphere, it was agreed, each country shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit.

Two diplomats, a Briton and a Frenchman, divided the map of one of the most volatile regions in the world into states that cut through ethnic and religious communities. The secret agreement largely neglected to allow for the future growth of Arab nationalism; which at that same moment the British government was using to their advantage against the Turks.

A century on, the Middle East continues to bear the consequences of the treaty. Many Arabs across the region continue to blame the subsequent violence in the Middle East, from the occupation of Palestine to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), on the Sykes-Picot treaty.

Indeed, Britain’s signing of this treaty went directly against what it promised to the Sharif of Hijaz in October of previous year. As we will see in Part II of this article, Britain’s betrayal of their promises of an independent Arab state eventually led them to unleash their attack dog, Ibn Saud, on Sharif Hussain and topple him. This allowed the British to effectuate the Sykes-Picot accord, and subsequently establish the Zionist state of Israel.

Read Part II

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Author Rez Karim is an Electrical Engineer and Chief Editor at VitalColumns.com.

Featured image is from the authorThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Rez Karim, Global Research, 2020