Preparing for War on Hizbullah

 

The US and its Arab allies are drawing up plans to suffocate the movement financially as a prelude to eventual militarily action

By Abdel Bari Atwan

atwan-ok15-400x264

May 21, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –   The US-led war on the Islamic Sate group under the banner of fighting terrorism may be viewed by many, especially by Arab members of the coalition that is waging it, as legitimate. But in our view it increasingly looks like a cover or smokescreen aimed at paving the way, or bestowing legitimacy on, a different war: one aimed at eliminating resistance to Israel in the region, and specifically the Lebanese Hizbullah movement.

The US war for Kuwait in 1991 was fought for the same purpose. A trap was set, after careful planning and precise distribution of roles, for Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Its aim was to drag him into Kuwait to provide a pretext for destroying Iraq, aborting its scientific progress and military ascendancy and undermining its regional role. It is no exaggeration to say that the proxy war on Syria war has a similar objective– not only to destroy and fragment Syria as an adversary of Israel, but to lure a reluctant Hizbullah into the conflict and thus diminish its enormous popularity and the place it gained in hearts of tens or hundreds of millions of Arabs after its two great victories against Israel: First, when it succeeded in liberating southern Lebanon from Israeli occupation in 2000 after years of persistent resistance, and again in July 2006 when it also fought valiantly and stood fast in epic resistance to an Israeli onslaught that sought to annihilate it.

Most of the regional moves currently being made by the US — including Donald Trump’s upcoming visit to Riyadh and the Eager Lion military exercises in Jordan – have one ultimate objective: to declare all-out war on Hizbullah. This includes drying up its financial resources and criminalizing the organization, in the same way Saddam Hussein was criminalized and the Palestinian resistance movement prior to that: first during the days of the PLO and its factions, and then with the rise of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups that continue to fight Israel.

The West has a variety of problems with Iran, and the country’s nuclear ambitions are one of the most prominent. But it is possible to live with, and even contain, these ambitions by various means. However, Iran’s unforgivable sin in the West’s eyes was to support Hizbullah in Lebanon and transform it into a formidable military force that poses a real deterrent and threat to Israel at a time when the Arab states were surrendering to it. Many have stopped referring to it as the enemy and instead begun building bridges of cooperation and normalization with it and treating it as a strategic regional ally.

Hizbullah crossed all American and Israeli red lines by developing a vast missile capability (100,000 missiles according to some estimates) along with fighting skills that most of the region’s armies — including the Israeli army — lack, combining attributes of conventional armies with expertise in guerrilla warfare. Moreover, four years of fighting in Syria has further strengthened, developed, and modernized these skills.

There have been reports in recent days of an unpublicized closed-door meeting in Washington involving a number of Gulf and Arab states aimed at agreeing a strategy for confronting Hizbullah in the coming period. Participants included Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE. This was intended to prepare for the two multilateral summits (with Arab/Muslim leaders and Gulf rulers respectively) that Trump will attend in Riyadh.

Reports from this meeting indicate that the joint Western-Arab plan for confronting Hizbullah include imposing financial sanctions on the organization’s members, supporters and sympathizers around the world, especially Lebanese expatriates in Africa and Europe who provide financial support for the party or institutions affiliated or close to it. This will involve measures to monitor money transfers and dry up all the party’s external funding sources in order to create difficulties for its leadership in financing its political and military structures and its extensive social institutions and activities.

The war on the hardline jihadi groups such as the Nusra Front and IS is drawing towards a close. Nusra is besieged in Idlib, rural Damascus and a few enclaves in rural Aleppo. The recent Astana agreement delegated the task of liquidating it to the so-called moderate Syrian opposition factions backed by the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As for IS, it has lost most of Mosul, and the war to liberate al-Raqqa by the US-backed Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) is now imminent, and will begin as soon as sufficient supplies of American tanks, armoured vehicles and missiles have been delivered to these forces.

In other words, the destruction of the ‘Islamist’ groups that are internationally designated as terrorist organizations will open the door wide to the more important war on Hizbullah, not only in Syria but in Lebanon too. It is to begin with an economic war and culminate in a military offensive — as, indeed, the wars on Iraq did.

Could this scenario which is being implemented in stages against Hizbullah (and by extension Iran) achieve the same success it did against Iraq – and prior to that against the Palestinian presence in Lebanon, which was ended with the 1982 Israeli invasion? It is hard to give a categorical answer to this hypothetical question. What can be said, however, is that circumstances have changed, and Israel has changed as well. Hizbullah is the pivot of a regional and confessional structure, and has the open and total support of Iran, and of Iraq to a lesser degree. Any war against it will not be easy. If the 1991 scenario succeeded in Iraq, that was due above all to Arab collusion and betrayal, as well as the demise of the Soviet Union which left the US as the world’s unchallenged hegemon.

The wars currently unfolding in the region and the conspiracies being hatched are all for the sake of enhancing Israel’s security and stability and maintaining its military power and supremacy. It is ironic that this is happening around the time of the centenary of the infamous Balfour Declaration and Sykes-Picot agreements. For the task now being undertaken is aimed at consolidating the Zionist presence in Palestine and the region envisaged in that Declaration, while dismembering the states that emerged from the womb of those agreements.

This article was first published by http://www.raialyoum.com

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

The Balfour Declaration – A Century of Jewish Power

May 17, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

This year, Palestinians and their supporters mark the 100th anniversary of The Balfour Declaration, a written statement from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, in favour of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

For Palestinians, The Balfour Declaration was the beginning of their plight: a century of ethnic cleansing at the hands of European newcomers who claim Palestine as their historic home. Yet, for some reason, supporters of the Palestinians are desperate to suppress discussion of the motivation for the Balfour Declaration – how and why did it come about?

The Balfour Declaration provides solid evidence that the dominance of Jewish political lobbies in world affairs is not really a ‘new development.’ In 1917, at the peak of WWI, it was up to a few Jewish financiers and lobbyists to decide the fate of countries, continentsand the outcome of global conflicts.

In his invaluable book, The Pity of it All, Israeli historian Amos Elon suggests that the 1917 Balfour Declaration was at least partially motivated by the British government’s desire to win the support of pro-German American Jews so that they would help to pull the USA into the war. 

Elon argues that at the beginning of the war,  German- American Jewish financierssidedwith the Germans and would reject any possible alliance between the USA and England.  “Jacob H. Schiff, head of Kuhn, Loeb—at the time the largest private bank in the United States after J. P. Morgan—declared that he could no more disavow his loyalty to Germany than he could renounce his own parents. Schiff prayed for Germany’s victory. In a statement to the New York Times on November 22, 1914, he charged the British and the French with attempting to destroy Germany for reasons of trade.” (The Pity Of It All, pg. 455)

And German-American Jews were not alone in the Jewish community.  Russian-American Jews also supported Germany in the war.

 “Eastern European Jews in the United States, repelled by the anti-Semitism of czarist Russia, were equally pro-German. In Russia itself, Jews of the Pale greeted German troops advancing into Poland, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine as liberators. In a sense, they were.” (ibid)

According to Elon, the Brits encountered an American Jewish problem.

“The British government took these developments very seriously. In a fit of paranoia, the British ambassador in Washington even suspected the existence of a veritable German Jewish conspiracy in the United States directed at Britain.” (Ibid)

Elon’s conclusion is clear.

“The 1917 Balfour Declaration, calling for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, was at least partly motivated by the British government’s desire to win support among pro-German American Jews.” (ibid)

Elon’s reading of the circumstances that led to the Balfour Declaration is pretty much the same as  Benjamin Freedman’s in his notorious 1961 address. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8OmxI2AYV8

Freedman states that Zionists offered Britain their support in pulling the USA into the war in return for a British commitment to make Palestine into a Jewish homeland in the future. Freedman believed that Germany’s post-WW I animosity towards Jews stemmed from what they regarded as the betrayal and complicity of German-Jewish financiers in their defeat.

100 years after the Balfour Declaration, Palestinian solidarity enthusiasts choose to avoid discussion on the global Judeo-centric politics that led to the  declaration,  even though it was arguably the most significant event that shaped the Middle East and present day Palestinian reality. This reluctance suggests that the solidarity movement is itself an occupied territory. Once again, we observe that the discourse of the oppressed is controlled by the sensitivities of the oppressor.

To learn more:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nakba-history-and-the-origins-of-the-jewish-state-the-role-of-the-balfour-declaration/5338365

A MUST SEE: Father Mmanuel Musallam SPEAKING OUT on Nakba Day Plus ‘Peace” Photo Story

الاب منويل مسلم في ذكرى نكبة فلسطين هذا الخطاب القاه في المنتدى العربي الناصري

Treason’s Photo Story

==================

The Long Way to OSLO

Alan Hart the Linkman Between Perea And Arafat

Arafat: a Political Biography by Alan Hart

Old Posts 

Alan Hart and the Assasination of ABU JIHAD, ABU IYAD, ABU ALHOUL Paved the way to OSLO

=========================

Zionist Treaty with the King of Treason

Clinton with Arab Traitors

=====================

ABBAS and HAMAS

Palestine shall never die

Related Videos

Related Articles

ALLIANCE OF CONVENIENCE: WHY ISRAEL SUPPORTS ISIS? (SYRIANA ANALYSIS)

In Gaza

Apr 29, 2017, Syriana Analysis

Since the beginning of the war in Syria, Israel took the opportunity to pursue its strategic interests in the neighboring country, by tacitly and sometimes publicly allying itself with Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Syriana Analysis addresses the recent bombings of Israel and US on Syria, elaborating the geopolitical goals behind these strikes.

*

Related: “Syria Lambasting Israel for Aiding ISIL”

Apr 20, 2017, Nizar Abboud:

“At the UN Security Council the Syrian delegate, Bashar Al-Jafari attacks Israel’s help to terrorist group, including ISIL in Syria.”

~Excerpts of what Ambassador Bashar al-Ja’afari stated:

“…it’s a very dubious silence that we meet here in the council regarding Israeli policies and practices. This is what has encouraged Israel to continue its practice of occupation and settlement building. It’s also why Israel has violated the plan of disengagement regarding the Golan and all issues related to combating terrorism.

It’s also why this is why Israel has offered its support to various armed terrorist groups in particular on the Syrian Golan, in particular than al-Nusra Front. This is a body this is a group that the United Nations considers as a terrorist group. Well, this group actually receives assistance from Israel.

Israel has facilitated the the movement of these terrorist groups through the line of demarcation line and as a result of that these groups have threatened the Syrian people and it’s the Qatari regime also that has offered its support to these groups.

Israel has not contented itself with offering support to these groups but in fact it has also tried to violate Syrian airspace and to attack Syria this took place on the seventeenth of March of this year in Palmyra. Israel provided its assistance to Da’esh which was present in the area there just then.

All this clearly shows that Israel and terrorism are the two sides of the same coin.

When we say that Israel and terrorism are indeed the two faces of the same coin we need to recall that the history of Zionism itself is a history of terrorism: The goal is to kill and to violate the rights of others, and to base itself on a legend of a religious state which in fact is against all international laws. In fact it’s a state that doesn’t respect the freedom, justice or any principle.

…A state that creates millions of refugees cannot speak of democracy, does not have the right to speak of human values does not have the right to speak like this even though it is responsible for chaos, for the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

When this entity it’s up continues to distort history, to rob territory, to perpetrate massacres against this Arab peoples who live under occupation.

We see that this state has an arsenal of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and it is protected by the member states of the Security Council even what as we have tried to create a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East.

The world cannot disregard the fact that it is on the basis of the Balfour Declaration that this entity was created and this has had a serious impact on the history of humankind.

In fact a racist entity that excludes everyone else and that is based on an extremist religious ideology continues to operate in the region, which in many ways is hardly different from the methods used by Da’esh.

We insist on the Syrian sovereignty on occupied Golan based on the fourth of June 1967 borders. This is a right that is not subject to discussion, it is an inalienable right and we can this can not we cannot make any concessions on this. Our right on this has been violated and we have to make sure that this territory returns to its rightful owners.

We have to call on Israel to free Sedki al-Maket (also: Sedqi al-Maqt)–who we call the Syrian Mandela–and others who are in Israeli prisons for taking pictures, taking photos that prove that Israel is cooperating with the al-Nusra Front on the occupied Paris Syrian Golan these photos were taken this is why these the 2 Syrian individuals were arrested by Israel.”

Further Related Links:

Syrian Ambassador to UN Address to Schiller Institute September 11 Memorial Conference, Sep 14, 2016 [VIDEO]

Interview: Syrian Ambassador to the UN, Dr. Bashar al-Ja’afari on Sovereignty, Terrorism, and the Failure of the UN, Jan 17, 2015, Al-Akhbarin Arabic, Global Research, Consortium News, Rabble.ca, Oriental Review, Uprooted Palestinians

Scoundrels & Gangsters at UN: Silencing the Syrian Narrative, Feb 4, 2015, Russia Today, Global Research, Uprooted Palestinians, In Gaza

Will the British royal family celebrate 100 years of shame by endorsing israel?

Will the British royal family celebrate 100 years of shame by endorsing Israel?

 

Prince Charles wearing a Jewish kippah

An official visit during the centenary year of the Balfour Declaration could be another nail in the coffin of the British Monarchy

By Stuart Littlewood

You know that awful feeling of doom when bad news makes your blood run cold? It’s happened to me at least four times already this year:

  • when Theresa May invited Trump on a state visit to the UK when he’d been in office only five minutes and clearly ought to be on probation for at least two years;
  • when the British government announced it was going to whoop it up for the centenary of the Balfour Declaration;
  • when the British government announced it had invited Israel’s chief criminal, Binyamin Netanyahu, to those Balfour celebrations; and
  • when news came the other day that a member of the British royal family might break precedent and formally visit Israel later this year.

That fourth one had the Times of Israel crowing with delight. Its report succeeds in portraying Prince Charles as the perfect stooge while Boris Johnson is having a bad hair day as usual. Such a visit would, of course, legitimise Israel as an illegal occupying power and destroy the last shred of British credibility in the Middle East and indeed the rest of the civilised world. But that counts for nothing among the bird-brains that run our country.

Let’s remember how this Balfour lunacy began, Arthur Balfour (later Lord Balfour) being British foreign secretary at the time and a Zionist convert.

His Declaration of 1917 – actually a letter to the most senior Jew in England, Lord Rothschild – pledged assistance for the Zionist cause with total disregard for the consequences to the native majority in the land the Zionists had targeted: Palestine.

Calling itself a declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, it said:

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, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing and non-Jewish communities…

Balfour also wrote:

In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country. The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now occupy that land.

The “running sore in the East” and how it turned septic

Obviously, there was opposition. Lord Sydenham warned:

The harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country may never be remedied. What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.

Well, we know now, a hundred years on.

So what was behind it? I like the account of Jewish businessman Benjamin Freedman who gave a speech at the Willard Hotel, Washington, in 1961. He told his audience that Britain, in World War I, was in dire straits thanks to the success of the German U-boats. It was alone, almost out of ammunition and on the edge of starvation. Germany offered peace terms, and while Britain chewed it over the Zionists of Germany (representing the Zionists of Eastern Europe who wanted an end to the Czar) came to London and said: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.” And that was the bargain Britain struck, in October 1916, overturning earlier pledges to the Arabs for their help.

And having done their bit, the Zionists wanted a “receipt” – written confirmation of Britain’s pledge. Hence Balfour’s infamous “Declaration” in November the following year, a grubby note addressed to Lord Rothschild promising to pay off the Zionists with land that wasn’t Britain’s to give.

When the war was over a large delegation of Jews attended the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. According to Freedman, who was there, when the Great Powers carved up the losers’ territories – German and Ottoman – the Jewish delegation claimed Palestine, producing Balfour’s promissory note.

In August 1917, while the Palestine deal was still being discussed but before Balfour issued his Declaration, Lord Montague penned an important memorandum to the British cabinet. Montague, only the second Jew to serve in a British cabinet, was minister of munitions in 1916 when, said Freedman, Britain was running out of ammunition. He wanted to place on record that in his opinion the policy of the British government was anti-Semitic because it would provide a rallying ground for anti-Semites in every country in the world. “Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom,” he said. He assumed that Zionism meant that Muslims and Christians were to make way for the Jews and that Jews would be put in all positions of preference.

No such a thing as a Jewish nation

Montague argued that there was no such thing as a Jewish nation, and he was well aware of the unpopularity of the Jewish community. “We have obtained a far greater share of this country’s goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to… Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships and intolerant in our attitude…”

As for the Balfour Declaration itself, he felt the government was carrying out the wishes of a Zionist organisation “largely run by men of enemy descent or birth”. Furthermore, he said, “I would be almost tempted to proscribe the Zionist organisation as illegal and against the national interest.” His message to Lord Rothschild was that the government should help Jews in Palestine enjoy liberty of settlement and life on equal terms with inhabitants who hold other religious beliefs, but go no further.

The insane Declaration was followed 30 years later by another monstrous betrayal when the Great Powers pushed the United Nations into cruelly partitioning Palestine, again without consulting those who lived there. Worse still, the UN did nothing to halt the Jewish terror spree and land grab that followed.

Celebrating Balfour amounts to praising the thieves for keeping what they stole

Justice groups are now saying it’s time the British government, which accepted the mandated responsibility for the Holy Land up to 1948, had the good manners to admit its part in the catastrophe and say sorry for the needless damage and suffering caused to Palestinian Arabs who once considered themselves Britain’s allies. That would be a reasonable starting point for dealing with the horrendous situation today.

Celebrating Balfour amounts to praising the thieves for keeping what they stole. Those who cannot stomach such a cowardly betrayal of Christian and Muslim communities in the Holy Land may consider signing a petition addressed the the Queen’s private secretary asking that she does not travel to Israel at this time. It points out that the situation vis-à-vis Palestine is regarded by the Foreign Office as “unfinished business” and a royal visit would not only add insult to injury to the Palestinians but embroil Her Majesty in a controversy that could damage the international standing of the British monarchy.

The time for the royal family to start being nice to Israel is when Israel starts being nice to its Palestinian neighbours, honours its obligations under the UN Charter, ends its illegal occupation and shows proper regard for international and humanitarian law.

And not before.

The Real Zionist Colonial Project how this led to the murder of baby Ali

 

ISRAEL – Colonization 101 :

It began in the 1920’s long before the holocaust long before Israel was created. It was the ultimate colonization project to create the Jewish Homeland. The men that met during these first Zionist Congresses knew that there were already people living in Palestine which was owned by the Ottomans. Their plan was simple it was to get enough rich Jews to donate money and buy the land from the Arab owners. To their dismay this didn’t work. Even though they offered exorbitant prices for the land most of the owners wouldn’t sell. They needed another way to get more land and WW2 gave them the opportunity. By making the rest of the world feel guilty for not stopping the Nazis before millions of people were killed, they got Britain to partition Palestine. Of course that meant they still didn’t have enough land, but believing in the power of money they figured they could get the poorer Arabs to leave by removing from them all ways of making a living and paying off the rich landowners who really didn’t care to stay in Palestine but were using its land for investment purposes. All this was done including the first Boycott in the holy land used by the Jews against the Arabs by refusing to hire them to work the land they made their living from and stopping others from buying from Arab stores. It was a planned and well calculated campaign to try to get the Palestinians that were trying to survive packing. Although in their marketing campaign to get more Jews to come to Palestine they told the world that it was a land without a people for a people without a land ,they knew that was a lie. It was very effective though and fooled people all across the world.

In 1895, Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary:

“We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.” (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)

Sad to say the original Jewish inhabitants of Palestine did try to stop these European usurpers warning them when they realized what they were planning that it would start a war, but the Palestinian Jews that had gotten along with their Arab neighbors for hundreds of years had no power over the Europeans. They watched in horror as the coexistence they had treasured was destroyed and made the Arab was redefined as “the Enemy and the Other” that had to be expelled to fulfill the dream of taking over the holy land. For the Europeans this was no problem because ignoring the fabulous civilization and technology the Arabs had, they saw them as primitives which would make easy pickings to get rid of.

Next step was to get the poor Jewish emigrants to be their army. They took these scared tired people who had just run from the Nazis and put uniforms on them and told them that the evil Arabs were trying to steal the land from them and unless they attacked and killed them the Arab civilians would finish the job the Nazis hadn’t been able to do. These people who didn’t speak Hebrew understood very little, Most were about 18 – 21 years of age and just followed orders. They didn’t even know what they were doing.

It was a gift to them that the Arabs didn’t accept the partition plan (coordinating with the British occupiers, the zionists knew that the Arabs wound agree to split Palestine). It just made it easier to find an excuse to steal more land to create a larger Jewish Homeland. It was obvious from the first the Arabs were disorganized and had no real army to fight and the Jews in comparison had been well trained in Military techniques from the British before they bombed the King David Hotel and got the British to leave.

From then on it was easy. The Arabs had no organization. Scaring them off with an assassination in the center squares of village here and there. Burning the roofs of houses and if they didn’t move fast enough shooting at their feet as they ran as fast as they could. Then to make sure they would have no place to come back to the militants bulldozed the homes and other buildings so all that was left behind was rubble. They saved the nicest homes and moved Jewish immigrants in without even taking out the personal belongings and furniture of the owners.

https://youtu.be/yhfEWqBvav0 as illustrated here in a interview about the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine .

Although this was the intent from the start by manipulating the historic records they were able to keep this a secret for years. Instead these people who eventually called themselves Israelis told the world that they were a quiet and peaceful people and the big bad Arabs wouldn’t stop attacking them. To the worlds sorrow they fooled us completely and we all believed this until social media revealed all.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story2321.html  original article from the San Francisco Chronicle in 2007

Instead of the Arabs attacking them, reality was that in the goal of continued colonization the Israelis never left their Palestinian neighbors alone. It wasn’t good enough chasing them from their own homes in Israel proper, the Zionists wanted more. They chased thousands of people to Gaza and then decided that was a mistake they wanted Gaza for their own. Same happened inthe West Bank.

The war of 67 allowed them to take much of the land there also. Still not enough they bullied taunted and wouldn’t stop until the Palestinians rose up. This might have worked but America had done too good a job making sure the Israelis never had to deal with the consequences of their own actions. Like the children they were America spoiled them. Not only gave them weapons to protect them and use to attack but they let these uncontrollable colonists steal secrets and even create their own nuclear bomb program.

After that these spoiled brats started to think they were made of Teflon and everything they wanted to do they could because no one could stop them. They started to believe they really were the “Chosen” which up until that time was not part of the “Jewish People” but something Christian Zionists had called them. It seemed they thought they were the new royalty and the rest of the world should bow down to them and sacrifice to protect them. The closest way to describe them is they truly believe like the Roman gods and goddesses of the past Jewish Israelis are protected by some sort of Magical powers.

This has led to the Israeli present belief that the expansion of Israeli borders is the ultimate goal. Some even believing every Jew in the world needs to move to Israel so the state has to be big enough to hold them all. The end all of this colonization project is to get as many Arabs out of the holy land and get them to move to Jordan or Egypt. Unfortunately this plan has never worked and instead has made the Palestinians want to resist more. Despite Abbas attempt to mollify the Israelis by working as their puppet, the majority of the Palestinians wont and can’t just give up and let the Israelis have their way.

“Occupation by definition is a criminal and degenerate status that contradicts the principles of human rights, the UN Charter, international law and international morals and ethics. The Israeli occupation is hateful and despicable by nature and it works against the people. It subjects the lives, interests and property of the Palestinians to constant danger. The occupation is oppressive and brutal and innovative in finding new ways to control people and keep them fearful. It always works to spread terror in the hearts of those living under it. In the circumstances, holding the occupation responsible for killing people and confiscating their property is considered to be an attempt to avoid the problem.

“While some supporters of Israel may criticize Israeli security forces for what they perceive as a failure to perform their duties, the bitter truth is that these security forces are part and parcel of the same colonial project that has been expelling, ghettoizing, and killing Palestinians since the inception of the state.

This explains why Israel’s vaunted security apparatus and networks of collaborators have been unable – or perhaps unwilling – to apprehend the suspects in the firebombing. Given the Israeli government’s complicity with the movement that burned baby Ali, any investigation will ring hollow without prosecution of responsible officials at the highest levels.”apprehend the suspects in the firebombing. Given the Israeli government’s complicity with the movement that burned baby Ali, any investigation will ring hollow without prosecution of responsible officials at the highest levels.” https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/20212-who-burnt-ali-dawabsheh-to-death#st_refDomain=m.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/

Theresa May wants British people to feel ‘pride’ in the Balfour Declaration

Source

By Robert Fisk

Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza. Surely we should apologise

Theresa May told us that Britain will celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration this summer with “pride”. This was predictable. A British prime minister who would fawn to the head-chopping Arab autocrats of the Gulf in the hope of selling them more missiles – and then hold the hand of the insane new anti-Muslim president of the United States – was bound, I suppose, to feel “pride” in the most mendacious, deceitful and hypocritical document in modern British history.

As a woman who has set her heart against immigrants, it was also inevitable that May would display her most venal characteristics to foreigners – to wealthy Arab potentates, and to an American president whose momentary love of Britain might produce a life-saving post-Brexit trade agreement. It was to an audience of British lobbyists for Israel a couple of months ago that she expressed her “pride” in a century-old declaration which created millions of refugees. But to burnish the 1917 document which promised Britain’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine but which would ultimately create that very refugee population – refugees being the target of her own anti-immigration policies – is little short of iniquitous.

The Balfour Declaration’s intrinsic lie – that while Britain supported a Jewish homeland, nothing would be done “which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – is matched today by the equally dishonest response of Balfour’s lamentable successor at the Foreign Office. Boris Johnson wrote quite accurately two years ago that the Balfour Declaration was “bizarre”, a “tragicomically incoherent” document, “an exquisite piece of Foreign Office fudgerama”. But in a subsequent visit to Israel, the profit-hunting Mayor of London suddenly discovered that the Balfour Declaration was “a great thing” that “reflected a great tide of history”. No doubt we shall hear more of this same nonsense from Boris Johnson later this year.

Although the Declaration itself has been parsed, de-semanticised, romanticised, decrypted, decried, cursed and adored for 100 years, its fraud is easy to detect: it made two promises which were fundamentally opposed to each other – and thus one of them, to the Arabs (aka “the existing non-Jewish communities”), would be broken. The descendants of these victims, the Palestinian Arabs, are now threatening to sue the British government over this pernicious piece of paper, a hopeless and childish response to history. The Czechs might equally sue the British for Chamberlain’s Munich agreement, which allowed Hitler to destroy their country. The Palestinians would also like an apology – since the British have always found apologies cheaper than law courts. The British have grown used to apologising – for the British empire, for the slave trade, for the Irish famine. So why not for Balfour? Yes, but…. Theresa May needs the Israelis far more than she needs the Palestinians.

 

Balfour’s 1917 declaration, of course, was an attempt to avoid disaster in the First World War by encouraging the Jews of Russia and America to support the Allies against Germany. Balfour wanted to avoid defeat just as Chamberlain later wanted to avoid war. But – and this is the point – Munich was resolved by the destruction of Hitler. Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza.

This is the theme of perhaps the most dramatic centenary account of the Balfour Declaration, to be published this summer by David Cronin (in his book Balfour’s Shadow: A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel), an Irish journalist and author living in Brussels whose previous investigation of the European Union’s craven support for Israel’s military distinguished him from the work of more emotional (and thus more inaccurate) writers. Cronin has no time for Holocaust deniers or anti-Semites. While rightly dismissing the silly idea that the Palestinian Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al Husseini, inspired the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe, he does not duck Haj Amin’s poisonous alliance with Hitler. Israel’s post-war creation as a nation state, as one Israeli historian observed, may not have been just – but it was legal. And Israel does legally exist within the borders acknowledged by the rest of the world.

There lies the present crisis for us all: for the outrageous right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is speeding on with the mass colonisation of Arab land in territory which is not part of Israel, and on property which has been stolen from its Arab owners. These owners are the descendants of the “non-Jewish communities” whose rights, according to Balfour, should not be “prejudiced” by “the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. But Balfour’s own prejudice was perfectly clear. The Jewish people would have a “national home” – ie, a nation – in Palestine, while the Arabs, according to his declaration, were mere “communities”. And as Balfour wrote to his successor Curzon two years later, “Zionism … is … of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices [sic] of 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”.

Cronin’s short book, however, shows just how we have connived in this racism ever since. He outlines the mass British repression of Arabs in the 1930s – including extrajudicial executions and torture by the British army – when the Arabs feared, with good reason, that they would ultimately be dispossessed of their lands by Jewish immigrants. As Arthur Wauchope, the Palestine High Commissioner, would write, “the subject that fills the minds of all Arabs today is … the dread that in time to come they will be a subject race living on sufferance in Palestine, with the Jews dominant in every sphere, land, trade and political life”. How right they were.

Even before Britain’s retreat from Palestine, Attlee and his Cabinet colleagues were discussing a plan which would mean the “ethnic cleansing” of tens of thousands of Palestinians from their land. In 1944, a Labour Party statement had talked thus of Jewish immigration: “Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in.” By 1948, Labour, now in government, was announcing it had no power to prevent money being channelled from London to Jewish groups who would, within a year, accomplish their own “ethnic cleansing”, a phrase in common usage for this period since Israeli historian Illan Pappe (now, predictably, an exile from his own land) included it in the title of his best-known work.

The massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians at Deir Yassin was committed while thousands of British troops were still in the country. Cronin’s investigation of Colonial Office files show that the British military lied about the “cleansing” of Haifa, offering no protection to the Arabs, a policy largely followed across Palestine save for the courage of Major Derek Cooper and his soldiers, whose defence of Arab civilians in Jaffa won him the Military Cross (although David Cronin does not mention this). Cooper, whom I got to know when he was caring for wounded Palestinians in Beirut in 1982, never forgave his own government for its dishonesty at the end of the Palestine Mandate.

Cronin’s value, however, lies in his further research into British support for Israel, its constant arms re-supplies to Israel, its 1956 connivance with the Israelis over Suez – during which Israeli troops massacred in the Gaza camp of Khan Younis, according to a UN report, 275 Palestinian civilians, of whom 140 were refugees from the 1948 catastrophe. Many UN-employed Palestinians, an American military officer noted at the time, “are believed to have been executed by the Israelis”. Britain’s subsequent export of submarines and hundreds of Centurion tanks to Israel was shrugged off with the same weasel-like excuses that British governments have ever since used to sell trillions of dollars of weapons to Israelis and Arabs alike: that if Britain didn’t arm them, others would.

In opposition in 1972, Harold Wilson claimed it was “utterly unreal” to call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 war, adding that “Israel’s reaction is natural and proper in refusing to accept the Palestinians as a nation”. When the Palestinians first demanded a secular one-state solution to Palestine, they were denounced by a British diplomat (Anthony Parsons) who said that “a multinational, secular state” would be “wholly incompatible with our attitude toward Israel”. Indeed it would. When the PLO opposed Britain’s Falklands conflict, the Foreign Office haughtily admonished the Palestinians – it was “far removed” from their “legitimate concerns”, it noted – although it chose not to reveal that Argentine air force Skyhawk jets supplied by Israel were used to attack UK forces, and that Israel’s military supplies to Argentina continued during the war.

A year later, Margaret Thatcher, according to a note by Douglas Hurd, included “armed action against military targets of the occupying power” as a definition of “terrorism”. So the Palestinians could not even resist their direct occupiers without being criminals.

On an official visit to Israel in 1986, Thatcher said that she regarded discussion of Jerusalem as “internal politics”. In 2001, Tony Blair’s government granted 90 arms exports licences to Israel for “defensive” weapons – including torpedoes, armoured vehicles, bombs and missiles. There is much, much more of this in Cronin’s book, including Blair’s useless and disgraceful period as “peace” envoy to the Middle East and the growing business contracts between British companies and Israeli arms providers – to the extent that the British army ended up deploying Israeli-made drones in the skies of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Outside the EU, Theresa May’s Britain will maintain its close relations with Israel as a priority; hence May’s stated desire less than a month ago to sign a bilateral free trade agreement with Israel. This coincided with an Israeli attack on Gaza and a Knesset vote to confiscate – ie, steal – yet more lands from Palestinians in the West Bank.

From the day that Herbert Samuel, deputy leader of the Liberal Party and former (Jewish) High Commissioner for Palestine, said in the House of Commons in 1930 that Arabs “do migrate easily”, it seems that Britain has faithfully followed Balfour’s policies. More than 750,000 Palestinians were uprooted in their catastrophe, Cronin writes. Generations of dispossessed would grow up in the camps. Today, there are around five million registered Palestinian refugees. Britain was the midwife of that expulsion.

And this summer, we shall again be exhorted by Theresa May to remember the Balfour Declaration with “pride”.

%d bloggers like this: