Saudi Sympathizes with ‘Holocaust Victims’, Pays ‘Israel’ Billions of Dollars in Return for Air Defense Systems

Source

 January 22, 2020

The Zionist media revealed that Saudi will purchase Israeli air defense systems in order to face the Iranian threats, adding that Riyadh will pay billions of US dollars in order to conclude this deal.

After Aramco attack, the Saudis discovered that they are exposed to all kinds of attacks especially those launched via drones and mobile missiles, according to the Zionist analysts.

The Israeli military analysts stressed that the Army badly needs the Saudi funds in order to reinforce its readiness to confront the various challenges, especially those posed on the northern border of the occupation entity.

The Zionist media outlets also highlighted the Saudi tendency to employ clerics in the process of normalizing ties with the entity, focusing on the viaist paid by 15 clerics, led by the secretary general of the so-called Islamic World League ‘Sheikh’ Mohammad Issa, to Auschwitz camp in Poland in order to express sympathy with the so-called ‘Holocaust victims’.

Muslim” World League chief meets Lebanese “Sunni “Mufti

It is worth noting that one of the clerics was the Lebanese Mohammad Ali Al-Husseini who was hailed by the Israeli media for his anti-Hezbollah stances.

A “Muslim” Zionist

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Dissecting Identity Politics: Gilad Atzmon with Angelo John Gage

 

We dissected the disastrous impact of identity politics, the meaning of Zionism, Israeliness, and Jewish culture, we covered many topics such as historicity, the Holocaust, White Nationalism and more. It was a lot of fun. Hope you enjoy watching us.

Gilad Atzmon on Truth, Faith and Palestine – Chester Interfaith Palestine Conference

 

 The following is a talk given at Chester Interfaith Palestine Conference 2019 on  (2.1.2019).

https://youtu.be/pfxhicFBHSI

 In the last few days Zionist and Israeli advocacy groups were desperate to cancel the  gathering of many local peace enthusiasts, intellectuals and religious leaders. Every Hasbara trick was put into play: Social media abuse, intimidating phone calls, smears and lies. But none of it worked. The pro- Israeli bigoted efforts backfired – – interest in the conference grew immediately, the local community stood for Palestine, peace, harmony and free speech!

Roderick Heather MBE, Chairman of Hoole Community Centre was subjected to vitriolic abuse.  I learned yesterday that Mr Heather decided to attend the conference meetings and to judge for himself whether it was a ‘hateful’ gathering. Apparently he was  impressed and announced to the group at the end of the first day  that they will always be welcome at the Hoole Centre.  Here is the message Mr Heather sent to North West Friends of Israel, the advocacy pressure group that led the campaign.

Hoole CEOIMG_8452.jpg

One may wonder why Zionist operators are so desperate to cancel Palestinian meetings and are so fearful of my work in particular. As things stand, the law seems to be on their side. With the IHRA definition of antisemitsm  and current legislation designed to supress all criticism,  the Zionist advocacy groups could theoretically  seek to punish  everyone who even comes close to any disputes of the operation of  their community or their beloved state. You would expect Zionists to ignore Palestinian gatherings. If those gatherings were indeed ‘hateful’ they could have  locked many of us up behind bars a long time ago. Clearly, the friends of Israel know that the  reality is  different. Palestine solidarity is a peaceseeking mission. Despite my huge body of work, I have never been accused of making a single hate statement. Needless to mention, I do not need to mention that I have never been charged or even questioned by a any legal authority anywhere in the world about anything I have said or written. The same applies to Stephen Sizer. The Zionist Lobby groups accuse Palestinian solidarity gatherings of  being ‘hateful’  while knowing that this type of behaviour is something that Palestinian activism is free of.

Here are final words from Chester Interfaith Palestine Conference:

 Chester Palestine Conference November 2nd 2019

 The Chester Palestine Conference was even more successful on its second day.  We actually ran out of chairs!

 The theme for the day was “Grassroots for Palestine: making local links”.

 The day started with a brief interfaith service.

 Burnley Women’s Peace Group shared the experience of their Jerusalem Peace Pilgrimage this year. The images of Palestinian suffering were very moving. They are a Jewish, Christian and Muslim interfaith group.

 A Jewish Roma activist addressed the similarities between the Roma and Palestinian experience.

 Andrew Herbert from Chester’s Methodist Church spoke of his Palestinian house rebuilding experience with the Amos Trust.

 Gilad Atzmon the international jazz artist and author of best-selling books on Jewish identity politics flew in from Greece to give a wide-reaching presentation entitled “Zionism from Herzl to Bibi”.

Atzmon was born into a Jewish family in Tel Aviv, and conscripted into the Israeli regime army where he had a life-changing experience when he was shocked by the barbaric conditions imposed by the Israeli regime on the Palestinians during the Israeli invasion into Lebanon in 1982.

In his intellectual, philosophical and polemical style he engaged us to think deeply about the causes of the worsening trauma of the Palestinian people.

 Damien Short’s presentation on the Genocide of the Palestinians was unable to be shown due to technical problems. We will endeavour to distribute it to the conference attendees. Damien is a Reader in Human Rights at the University of London. His book “Redefining Genocide: Settler Colonialism, Social Death and Ecocide”, which includes a chapter on Genocide and Palestine, is highly recommended.

 The Israeli artist Zohar’s exhibition of Palestinian paintings is on show at Chester University Kingsway Arts Campus, Kingsway, Chester CH2 2LB for the month of November.

These accomplished and thought-provoking pictures are “witnessing the chaos and brutality inflicted on the Palestinian civilian population by an ever more confident and belligerent military power.”

(For insurance and practical reasons we were unable to show these at the conference).

 We look forward to the 3rd Annual Chester Palestine Conference in 2020 !


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

Donate

Bibi in Banderastan, or the importance of words

Bibi in Banderastan, or the importance of words

[this column was written for the Unz Review]

Israeli Prime Minister made it to Kiev today, where he was greeted by the (pseudo) “traditional” Ukronazi slogan “Glory to the Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!”. For somebody like me who dislikes Zionism and Nazism just about the same, it was a sweet irony to see an Israeli Prime Minister officially traveling to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine to commemorate the massacre of Jews at Babii Iar greeted by the very same slogan which the Jews murdered at Babii Iar heard from their Banderite executioners while they were being shot.

STOP!

Do you already hear the choir of voices protesting: how can anyone expecting to be taken seriously write a paragraph about the civil war in the Ukraine with all the following words: Ukronazi, Zionism, Nazism, Nazi-occupied, Jews and Banderite?

That is a very good question.

But I have a better one!

How can anyone expecting to be taken seriously write a paragraph about the civil war in the Ukraine WITHOUT all the following words: Ukronazi, Zionism, Nazism, Nazi-occupied, Jews and Banderite?

Let’s begin with the first question. The obvious implied criticism behind the first question, is very simple and it assumes that there is a profound and inherent contradiction between everything Nazi and Jews/Zionism. Speaking about a “Nazi Jew” or a “Nazi Zionist” is just as nonsensical as speaking about dry water or and diamonds raining from the sky!

Except that both dry water and diamonds raining from the sky do exist in real nature, so let’s not jump to conclusions too fast and see which contradictions are real, and which ones are only apparent.

I won’t even go into the (deliciously controversial) topic of the historical fact of the collaboration of the German National Socialists with various Zionist organizations which, rather naively, thought that a nationalist like Hitler would understand their own nationalism and help them to emigrate to Palestine. But this goes even further than that as Hannah Arendt said, in her superb book “Eichmann in Jerusalem” (see excerpt here or, even better, read the full book (for free!): various Jewish organizations continued to work with/(for?) the Nazis well into the so-called “Holocaust”.

[Sidebar: to be honest, I don’t think that we, safely sitting in the comfort of our homes, should be too quick to condemn these Jewish organizations. Yes, of course, many of them were “naive” (and I am being polite here), but others must have realized that European Jews are in a great deal of danger and must be evacuated at any cost and if the only way to achieve such an evacuation was to deal with the Nazis, then so be it! This is no different than offering a bribe to a jail guard to obtain some kind of favor. Thus I think that Jewish organizations which today categorically deny having collaborated with the Nazis are mistaken on not one, but two grounds: first, the truth is coming out and it is impossible to suppress it and, second, there is nothing shameful in swallowing your disgust to save a person. Except that for the racially deluded minds of modern Zionists, such an admission would take the air out of their silly notion of racial superiority. Hence the categorically crimethink nature of speaking about this]

No, what I want to suggest here is very different: in our 21st century, most of the 20th century terminology has lost its meaning. What is a liberal (no, not Hillary!)? What is a Communist (no, not Obama!)? What is a Christian (no, not the Pope!)? What is a democrat (no, not Kamala Harris!)? What is a patriot (no, most definitely not Trump!)? What is a tyrannical dictator (nope, not Putin!)?

You think that I am being facetious here?

Then explain to me how a rabidly Takfiri regime like the one in Saudi Arabia can get help from Zionist Israel? Or how the “democratic West” gave its full support to Takfiris in Chechnia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya and Syria? How is it that during the so-called “Global War on Terror”, (which was supposed to be officially waged against al-Qaeda and its various local subsidiaries, in retaliation for 9/11) the various Takfiri groups only got stronger? Yet what we really see is that the US provides training, financing, coordination and even close air support for pretty much every al-Qaeda type out there?

There are two phenomena which explain this gradual dissolution of meanings into meaningless and insipid categories: first, the correct meaning of many terms has been covered by a thick layer of ideological imperatives and, second, most 21st century politicians couldn’t care less what any word really means. All they care about is framing the discussion in a way which makes it easy for them to obfuscate their numerous crimes.

The truth about the Ukraine is very simple: yes, there are bona-fide Nazis in the Ukraine and, yes, they have a lot of influence due to their quasi monopoly on violence and total collapse of the state. True, these hardcore Ukronazi freaks are a rather small minority, but one which is well organized, well funded and fully prepared to use violence.

Jewbanderite

There are also a lot of Zionists in the Ukraine. And while these folks silently hate each other, they hate (and fear!) Russia much, much more; just like mobsters can fight each other, but can unite against any common threat (such as, say, an honest police chief).

Oh, and yes, there are also plenty of very influential Jews in the Ukraine (Kolomoiskii and Zelenskii being the two best known ones right now) and they have the full backing of the AngloZionist Empire and all of the Zionists interests in the West. And I think that most folks fully understand that. The real reason behind all the protests about me using terms such as “Ukronazi” stems from a very different cause.

The problem is that you get a lot of ruffled feathers when you suggest that the USA, which is supposed to be some kind of “land of the free and the home of the brave” aka “the indispensable nation” is found in bed with the self same folks who the US propaganda machine paints as arch-villains: Nazis, of course, but also Takfiris. As for the Zionists, it would be wrong to say that the US of A is “in bed” with them. No, it’s even worse: the much-maligned and ridiculed term of ZOG (as in “Zionist Occupation Government”) is much more accurate, but it offends those who rather think of themselves as “rulers of the world” than the voiceless serfs of a regime of foreign occupation!

US Americans love to thump their chests while mantrically chanting some nonsense along the lines of “USA is number 1!” and they get really mad when they are told that “the party is over” which I did in this article in which I wrote:

Both US Americans and Europeans will, for the very first time in their history, have to behave like civilized people, which means that their traditional “model of development” (ransacking the entire planet and robbing everybody blind) will have to be replaced by one in which these US Americans and Europeans will have to work like everybody else to accumulate riches

And, just by coincidence, Paul Craig Roberts recently wrote an article entitled “American Capitalism Is Based On Plunder” in which he explained that US foreign policy is basically driven by a plunder imperative and that if that imperative cannot be realized abroad, it will be implemented at home (I wonder if he will be accused of being anti-American or even of “Communism”? It is quite striking to see a paleo-conservative like Paul Craig Roberts basically paraphrasing Lenin and his statement that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism” (a historical truism which the western propaganda system is doing its best to bury, obfuscate, ridicule and the like).

Writing things like these typically result in a barrage of ad hominems which, by itself, is quite telling (usually the same 2-3 folks, some probably remunerated for their efforts) There is a Russian saying that “the hat of the head of the thief is burning” (see here for an explanation of this rather weird expression) and this is exactly what is happening here: the folks protesting the loudest are always the ones who are most unwilling to stop the planetary plunder, messianic arrogance and imperial hubris in which they were raised. It is not only their livelihoods which are threatened by such talk, but even their very identity. Hence the very real and very high level of rage they feel.

Finally, there are all the Nazi sympathizers who absolutely hate Jews and for whom any notion of Nazi and Zionist collaboration are just as much a case of crimethink as it is for Zionist Jews to admit that they have collaborated with bona fide Nazis many times in the past.

However, if we set aside silly ideological shackles, we can immediately observe that the kind of ideology of racial superiority which the Nazis are known for can also be found in the Judaic (religious) and Zionist (secular) ideologies. In fact, both National-Socialism and Zionism are just two amongst many more types of European nationalisms which have their root in 19th century ideological categories.

Let’s try a different approach: what do Ukie “dobrobats”, al-Qaeda forces in Syria, KLA units in Kosovo and Israeli settlers in Palestine have in common? Correct! They are all first and foremost *thugs* who all prey on the weak and defenseless. In other words, they are the perfect tool to force civilians to surrender and accept some kind of foreign rule. That foreign rule is, in each case, the one of the AngloZionist Empire, of course. This, in turn, means that their official ideologies are almost irrelevant, because in reality they are all servants of the Empire (whether they understand it or not).

Conclusion one: it’s all a big lie!

Yes, it is a big lie. All of it. And this is how we end up with an Israeli Prime Minister who, by any criteria, is not only a Fascist, but also a Nazi as long as we make it clear that his brand of Nazism is a Jewish one, not a Germanic one. And it’s not just Bibi Netanyahu who does not mind dealing with Ukronazis, so the the the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine (see here for details). As for the said Ukronazis, they are now trying hard to deny that Bandara and his gang massacred Jews during WWII. As for Zelenskii, he is most definitely not a Nazi, but he has already caved in to the Ukronazi ideology (i.e. a form of Nazism which substitutes myths about “ancient Ukrs” to the more traditional Germanic myths about the Aryan-Germanic “race”). Then there is Kolomoiskii who is simply a typical Jewish mobster who has no personal ideology whatsoever and who has no love for the bona fide Ukronazis, but who is being very careful about how to purge them from power lest they beat him yet again. And above them all, we have the leaders of the Empire who use ideological categories as slurs but who don’t give a damn who they back as long as it is against Russia.

Against this background it is worth asking a simple question: do these words even matter? Do they still have any kind of meaning?

Conclusion two: yes, words do still matter!

I believe that they do, very much so! This is precisely why the legacy corporate ziomedia and those brainwashed by it freak out when they see expressions such as “AngloZionist”,“Ukronazi” or even the rather demure “Israel Lobby”. When somebody comes up with a powerful and correct descriptor, say like “ZOG” – the propaganda machine immediately kicks into high gear to shoot down in flames whatever author and article dared to use it. In fact, there are at least two types of wannabe word censors which typically show up:

TYPE ONE: the real McCoy. These are the sincere folks (whether of the Nazi or Zionist persuasion) who are truly outraged and offended that such “hallowed” words as Nazi/Zionist (pick one) can be combined with “abominations” such as Nazi/Zionist (pick the other one). These are all the Third Reich nostalgics, the defenders of a “White Christian West” and all the rest of them neo-Nazis.

TYPE TWO: the paid trolls. These are the folks whose task it is to obfuscate the real issues, to bury them under tons of vapid ideological nonsense; the best way to do that is to misdirect any discussion away from the original topic and sidetrack it into either a barrage of ad hominems or ideological clichés.

Seriously, what we are witnessing today is a new age of censorship in which government and corporations work hand in hand to crush (ban, censor, demonetize, algorithmically purge and otherwise silence) all those who challenge the official ideology and its many narratives. It would be naïve to the extreme to assume that the so-called “alternative media” and blogosphere have been spared such an effort at silencing ideological heresies.

Next time these self-appointed enforcers of the politically correct doxa come out, try this experiment: when you read their comments, don’t just look at what they write, but also try to guess why they write what they write and then mentally place a T1 or T2 sign next to their comments and you will soon see that they follow a careful pattern 🙂

The Saker

Gilad Atzmon on The Public Space

June 01, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

I discussed with Jean-Francois Gariépy a wide range of issues to do with Israel, Jewish ID Politics, Nationalism and Race. Though JF and myself disagree on some fundamental matters, this one hour discussion is fascinating, enlightening and most important, open and tolerant.

The Lies About World War II

 • MAY 13, 2019

In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough. For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.

As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a history of the first world war that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/09/the-lies-that-form-our-consciousness-and-false-historical-awareness/

Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .

Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.

Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.

I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.

In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.

World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.

Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.

Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.

This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.

To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship. I am merely reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established. You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.

World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.

Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.

In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.

In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.

Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.

The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.

From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.

Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.

Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany’s rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.

Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory. Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain’s behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency. Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments. For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.” For Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.” Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone.”

A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR’s policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man.” Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout the war.” Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also. https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/0307405168/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Pat+Buchanan&qid=1557709100&s=books&sr=1-3

Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production. The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war. One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.

Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country’s military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco. Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.

Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill’s doing, not Hitler’s. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with “von” before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.

Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.

It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.

Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.

Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.

The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.

Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.

No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.

It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.

The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.

Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.

The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.

It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.

In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves.”

So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

Why not make Parliament into a Holocaust Memorial?

May 08, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

holocaust parliament.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Five British Prime Ministers, some of them renowned war criminals, united yesterday in a call to build a Holocaust Memorial in proximity to Parliament.  “A sacred, national mission,” is how Theresa May described the idea and for once, I totally agree with this tragic, sad woman. I would take it further: don’t just build a holocaust shrine in Westminster, make our parliament into a Holocaust monument. We don’t really need a House of Commons; as things stand, we better get direct orders from our true rulers in Tel Aviv.

But there is a deeper ethical rationale that justifies the erection of a holocaust memorial instead of our dysfunctional parliament. Every political commentator in Britain knows by now that the more that Jewish pressure groups terrorise the kingdom, its human rights campaigners, its artists, writers and poets, the more Brits become aware of the crimes of Zionism, Israel and their ruthless Lobby. The more British politicians join Parliamentary friends of Israel clubs, the less Brits trust their political system. The more Holocaust indoctrination is shoved down our throats, the more suspicious Brits become of the manner in which history is told.

Mrs May said: “By putting our National Holocaust Memorial and Education Centre next to our Parliament, we make a solemn and eternal promise that Britain will never forget what happened in the Holocaust.” Is that true Mrs. May? Do you really mean what you say? Will our Holocaust memorial bring to light the embarrassing fact that Britain made it very difficult for Jewish refugees to seek a safe haven in the Kingdom or in other parts of the empire? In 1937, as the rate of Jewish refugees looking to immigrate to Britain increased, the British government created stricter standards for those whom they would admit. One was that refugees had to have ₤50 deposited in an overseas bank, but in Germany it was against the law to possess foreign currency. If this was not enough to stop Jewish immigration from Germany, the British government limited the number of immigrants in 1938 and 1939. Practically speaking, the British Government turned its back on German and Austrian Jews.

 The PM vowed that “in the face of despicable Holocaust denial, this memorial will stand to preserve the truth forever.

” I am here to tell you with confidence that the British Holocaust memorial will act intensively to conceal British complicity in the destruction of European Jewry.

 Mrs May was joined by all the living former prime ministers: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Sir John Major. With the exception of Sir John Major, all our living PMs are involved in a lot of death and carnage. While Blair and Brown led this kingdom to a disastrous criminal war in Iraq that led to millions of casualties, it was Cameron who managed to pull this country into a chain of disasters in Libya, Syria and beyond.

 Tony Blair whom third of the British people see as a war criminal  said in his message that “Antisemitism and hate did not end in 1945. Unfortunately today some of this poison is back from the political fringe to parts of the political mainstream.” Blair was probably referring to his own party that struggles to disown the criminal past he himself inflicted on it. But the truth of the matter is that Antisemitism didn’t die in 1945, certainly not in Britain. The post-war Labour Government went out of its way to make the lives of Jewish holocaust survivors impossible. In Zionist history, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin (Labour) is remembered as one of the bitterest enemies of the Jewish people. This senior Labour politician had opposed removing the limiting of Jewish immigration to Palestine. Is this Zionist chronicle of Labour anti-Jewish politics going to be explored in the Holocaust monument?

It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Blair and Brown are so enthusiastic about a museum that Chronicles Nazi crimes rather than a proper and timely institute that would explore their own crimes in Iraq. It is pretty clear why David Cameron prefers to divert attention from his own blunders in Syria and Libya. But it goes further. Britain and the Empire have a long list of crimes against humanity to account for: slavery, concentration camps in the Boer war, the partitioning of India, the destruction of Palestine, famines in Ireland and Bengal. Millions of innocent people lost their lives due to the crimes of the empire, yet our ethically compromised Prime Ministers are committed to the commemoration of crimes that were committed by another people. Is this the ethical message we are supposed to pass to the next generations? Is zero self-reflection a new British value?

 I have learned that Jeremy Corbyn, the person who according to the polls is destined to become our next PM, is not at all different from his predecessors. Corbyn, who at a certain point claimed to care for the many, is now subscribing to the primacy of Jewish suffering. Corbyn was quick to announce that he also would “strongly support permanent commemoration, including a national memorial, alongside extra investment in educational programmes.” I guess that supporting a Holocaust memorial is an entry ticket to 10 Downing Street.

There is a good reason to believe that our entire political class has migrated to Egypt by now, without exception they all live in a state of denial. 

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

DONATE

How was it possible for a Jewish candidate to win the 2019 Ukrainian presidential bid if Ukraine is a rigidly nationalist country?

by George Eliason, Special Correspondent for the Saker Blog in Novorussia

How was it possible for a Jewish candidate to win the 2019 Ukrainian presidential bid if Ukraine is a rigidly nationalist country?

How was it possible for a Jewish candidate to win the 2019 Ukrainian presidential bid if Ukraine is a rigidly nationalist country?

Although the investigation isn’t complete, I have uncovered all the working parts that make an impossible story not only plausible but show the election results as the only logical conclusion.

As I was sorting through all the information about the election, I came across the one person whose presence on Zelensky’s team as a spokesman told me worlds about what was really going on with the election.

He represented groups responsible for millions of Holocaust deaths in WWII. These groups also killed millions of their own people who were fellow Ukrainians with abandon. According to their own words, they have been waiting to do this again since 2003 when they figured out they cannot convert most families that suffered torture under nationalists to become part of them.

The Russian perspective on passports

Giving foreign passports to Ukrainians isn’t a new or controversial thing. It’s been going on since 2015 when Hungary decided to protect the rights of ethnic Hungarians living in Ukraine. According to EA DAILY, Poland handed out Polish Cards which simplifies immigration by identifying the holder as a Pole. And Romania is offering the same easy passports for Ukrainians.

For the last 4 years, indignation has been in short supply though. The same can be said about secession talk from the same ethnic groups in those regions. Even Galicia, the birthplace of Ukrainian nationalism wants to get away from Kiev these days. Once again, western indignation is on vacation for the holidays.

On April 25th, 2019 Russia offered passports to the people of Lugansk People’s Republic (LNR) and DNR. I contacted Dmitry Polanskiy, the Russian Federation’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN about the passports and who can possess one.

Ambassador Polanskiy, without getting too far ahead, is the passport separate from Russian citizenship? I don’t understand how but it would make sense.

Ambassador Polanskiy– In a nutshell – the process lasted some time and ended with President signing this document. No specific timing. And they don’t have to denounce their UA citizenship, so in principle, it changes nothing for UA. If they chose additional RU passport they will get things that they didn’t have for five yrs – social payments, medical service, etc.

As for Zelenskiy – we need to see. There have been so many conflicting signals during the election campaign. He (Zelensky) will be judged by his actions.

The passport is the same. But in other cases applicants have to denounce their citizenship if they apply for a Russian one.

Ambassador, how do you plan on dealing with the foreigners in the region that have LDNR passports? Are they exclusion from this?

Ambassador Polanskiy– It is stipulated that the decree applies only to Ukrainian citizens living in LDNR.

Following this is the RF’s decision to possibly expand the offer of Russian passports to every Ukrainian that wants one. As you’ll soon see, the implied protections may go beyond what anyone is thinking right now.

Volodymyr Zelenskiy winning the 2019 Ukrainian election is equivalent to a Jew whose family was marked for death becoming Fuehrer in a Nazi Germany within 100 years of Adolf Hitler, providing Hitler won the Great War, of course.

When you consider the unlikelihood of this, Barrack Obama comes to mind. He became the US president within 143 years of African Americans being bought and sold and killed almost at will.

In Zelenskiy’s case, the real Ukrainian nationalist Politik has finally kicked in and the neo-nationalists are about to get an abject lesson in the stark realities of OUN politics.

What’s really interesting is that any Jewish leader that takes issue with these statements is in danger of being rightfully labeled a Holocaust denier. From 2014 on, Jewish leaders have been enamored with Waffen SS Galizien and deny the significance the OUN, UPA, police, and citizen battalions have in the Holocaust.

The only fair thing to say is the Ukrainians have been open about all of this since 1918. Remember that date. It was when the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR) was declared by the revolutionary Rada located in the Teacher’s House, in Kyiv. The importance of the Teacher’s House is that it is where Ukrainian and Diaspora nationalist leaders go to renew and celebrate their commitments to Fascist Chauvinistic Nationalist politic.

Since that’s the case, going forward Ukraine’s Nazi political parties will clearly explain why Ukraine has always been a fascist chauvinistic nationalism in their own words. Many of the proof documents are in Ukrainian. The pages can be translated here.

The short summary is in 1991 Ukraine declared independence. The last president of the Ukrainian Government in Exile (UNR), Mykola Plavyuk, decided the form of government the modern state of Ukraine would have. He transferred the UNR powers and symbols of state to the new Ukrainian government.

When Ukraine failed to live up to its end of the bargain, in August 2004, Plavyuk and the other OUN nationalist Diaspora leaders expressed their dissatisfaction by creating the Orange revolution in November 2004.

The problem with it was it wasn’t violent and earthshaking. No real changes were made and within a few months, no one cared.

Plavyuk, who founded the Ukrainian World Congress and was the current OUNm world leader moved to Ukraine. He was the leader of CYM Ukrainian scouting. Both CYM and PLAST were used to develop children into nationalist terrorist operatives from the time of the 1918 failed government all the way through the Cold War. PLAST was opened in W. Ukraine and CYM in Central and East Ukraine to develop the operatives that would eventually pull off a violent revolutionary coup against the same elected president they prevented from sitting in 2004- Victor Yanukovych ten years later.

In 2018, the current Ukrainian nationalist Diaspora leaders declared the Orange Revolutionaries failed again. This time it was after the violent and earthshaking coup that was supposed to bring in the OUN’s government. After the coup, all the current leaders under Poroshenko’s watch did was enrich themselves and take half measures. The verdict from the OUN was in long before the 2019 election happened.

“These people have had a chance to become Ukrainian George Washingtons and they’ve wasted it”

The 2019 Ukrainian election highlights the danger when an overt chauvinistic nationalism that fails to destroy local opposition is never dealt with decisively. Because the overt part was soundly rejected by the majority population, Ukraine needed a new rapprochement with OUNb, OUNm, and OUNz nationalist groups and signatory groups like the UCCA (Ukrainian Congressional Committee of America) or UWC (Ukrainian World Congress).

In 1991, if given an option, the rabidly nationalist Ukrainian Diaspora would have opted to support the Soviet Union for a few more years because they were totally unprepared to set up the government they preserved in the Diaspora for over 70 years on Ukrainian soil. In all that time, the Diaspora had next to no impact on the lives of people in Ukraine who only knew them as Hitler’s thugs and murderers.

Understood in this light, the civil war in Ukraine can only make sense. In 2019, the average Ukrainian voter wasn’t voting for Zelenskiy who never bothered to make a campaign appearance or voice a position on anything indicating he was running. It was a vote against overt nationalism and Poroshenko’s EuroMaidan inaugurated government that brought in the beginning of the Ukrainian Diaspora’s trademark nationalism.

Regardless of who won the election, it was to the people of Ukraine that were lied to in 1991, 2004, 2014, and yet again given hope only to watch it smashed.

Why do Ukrainian Diaspora nationalists hold this much weight?

The government of Ukraine belongs to the UNR and politicians in Ukraine live and die at its discretion. Below, both the Diaspora and current Ukrainian leaders tell that story in their own words.

There were terms and conditions attached to receiving the symbols of the UNR in 1991. One of them was the type of government would conform to the model Simon Petliura’s government left the UNR. This is the model the Diaspora carried from 1919-1992. This is the only model for Ukraine and the combined OUN delivered this.

If the government stepped away or signaled it might go against the UNR, labeling the leadership pro-Soviet or post 1991, pro-Russian is a death sentence for the traitor who fails on nationalist chauvinist grounds.

Volodomyr Zelenskiy -Ukrainian Nationalism’s 1st Jewish Nazi Leader?

This is the year of Stepan Bandera OUNb leader and the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) in Ukraine. Monuments are going up all over to commemorate Waffen SS soldiers and death camp lever pullers as well as mass murder events the OUN and UPA committed across Ukraine.

This is the Ukraine Zelenskiy is in charge of and he sees Stepan Bandera as a cool hero for Ukrainians.

The Jerusalem section (Jewish quarter) of Vinnitsya, one of Ukraine’s larger cities, is where Ukrainian leaders decided to commemorate Simon Petliura. He was the leader of the failed 1918 UNR government. Petliura murdered about 100,000 Jews in one year during continuous pogroms in Ukraine while failing to establish his government.

It isn’t known how many more Christian Ukrainians the nationalists murdered. Will Zelenskiy follow this example?

With a civil war Zelenskiy has no intention of stopping ready to flare up, the idea that rabid Diaspora nationalists in the OUN groups UCCA and UWC have this much control over a Ukraine where they consider the people to be waste or worse, as ex-Soviets; should have the world in an uproar.

These groups have no natural ties to the Ukrainian people. In fact, the Lvov region is as close as most of their leaders ever got and it was in Poland at the time. Most WWII and Cold War Ukrainian nationalist leaders and people are Polish. Ukrainian was a political membership at the time, not a nationality.

What makes Volodomyr Zelensky dangerous is that no one is willing to see a Jewish president acting on behalf of a Stepan Bandera, Simon Petliura, or Roman Shukehvych coming. Poroshenko reeks of corruption and it’s obvious he doesn’t care about his country or people. It’s easy to see that disaster coming.

The people behind the Zelenskiy government see all non-nationalist Ukrainians as people that tortured their own parents. The Ukrainians that want power were told to look at all non-OUN families this way.

If you had the chance for revenge on someone that you were told tortured or murdered your family and you didn’t have to worry about any legal or social fallout, what would you do?

These WWII Nazi leftovers live to see every person related to the Allies of WWII that isn’t a nationalist tortured, murdered, or relocated.

This is why Russia’s offer of passports in Donbass and Ukraine is important to protect civilians. The following proofs are given in list form from different major sources that shaped the policies described above.

Ukraine- All OUN Nationalist Groups Agree on that Ukraine Started In 1918

The first few accounts show precise agreement describing what Ukraine is. Ukraine is the continuation of Simon Petliura’s fascist chauvinist regime. The last account which contains parts of an interview with the last UNR president about the transfer of state and how Ukrainian leaders disappointed the OUN and Diaspora is chilling. He’s angry the cleansing hasn’t started in Ukraine yet and then threatens them if they don’t make things right.

Bogdan Chervak is the world leader of OUNm or Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (Melnyk).

“The UNR had its own army, currency, public administration bodies, flag, emblem, and was recognized internationally. It was a full-fledged state which we, unfortunately, failed to preserve. And our enemies know this. This is why the propaganda of the so-called ‘Russian World’ is aimed at convincing the world that Ukraine has never been a state and what is going on today is temporary. But the history of the Ukrainian Revolution, particularly of the UNR, shatters these stereotypes. It shows that Ukrainians had a state of their own as far back as the early 20th century. We proclaimed and took up arms for it, but we lost it due to Russian aggression. In 1991, we in fact restored Ukraine’s independence that dates back to the UNR times.

The events in Russia aimed to preserve the empire by modernizing it a little. At the same time, the goal of the Ukrainian Revolution was to establish a Ukrainian state. While in the 1st Universal the Central Rada declared its political goal to gain autonomy for Ukraine as part of a democratic federative Russian republic, it proclaimed the Ukrainian National Republic (UNR) in the 3rd Universal.”

Ukrainian presidential continuity through the Diaspora 1917-2005

But after the Bolsheviks strangled Ukrainian independence, the struggle for its restoration extended beyond the borders of Ukraine by the State Center of the UPR in the exile, which for 72 years (!) Continuously represented the Ukrainian Republic at the international level. State independence of Ukraine was restored on August 24, 1991. Solemnly constituting its powers on August 22, 1992, the State Center of the UPR in exile led by the last President of the UPR, Mykola Plavyuk, made a historic statement that “proclaimed on August 24 and approved by the people of Ukraine on December 1, 1991, the Ukrainian state continues to state national traditions of the UNR and is the successor of the Ukrainian People’s Republic “. Democratic traditions and state symbols of the UPR have inherited modern Ukraine.

Therefore our flag is blue and yellow, the coat of arms – Tryzub, the anthem – “Ukraine has not died yet …” Even the name of the Ukrainian hryvnia currency is inherited from the time of the UPR.”

This shows clearly all the symbols of the Ukrainian state were given by the UPR in 1992.

August 22, 2002, UKRAINIAN WORLD COORDINATION BOARD UKRAINIAN WORLD COORDINATING COUNCIL– In 1918, an independent sovereign Ukrainian People’s Republic was proclaimed by the fourth session of the Central Rada (at the historic Teacher’s House in Kiev). After the struggle and defeat, the UNR government continued to work in exile. This is an unprecedented phenomenon in history, when non-stateless people retained their own State Center, Government, President. They carried out a major mission of uniting all Ukrainian emigrants in the world so that they did not assimilate, not disappear, support Ukrainians in their great Ukraine, tortured and destroyed repressions and the famine of the brutal Soviet system. 

And here – a remarkable day on August 24, 1992, when in the Mariinsky Palace, the President of the UPR, Mykola Plavyuk transfers the authority of the National Center of the Ukrainian People’s Republic to the nation-elected President of Ukraine and signs of state power – a flag and a seal. This important act testified to the continuity of the Ukrainian statehood … The Great Citizen of Ukraine Mykola Plavyuk lives for Ukraine. He believes in Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, and his faith is effective, active. He holds high the flag of Ukrainian nationalism, the highest manifestation of patriotism, great sacrificial love for his native land. He is a real hero of Ukraine.”

The transfer of power, legitimacy, and state by Plavyuk has conferred on the basis that it is the 1918 UNR that is transferred to its rightful place as the government of Ukraine.

WW II mass murderer Stetsko lay in state at Teacher’s Building in Kyiv which was home to 1918 government

When WWII OUNb Bandera leader Slava Stetsko died in 2003, OUNm world leader and former president of the UNR president Mykola Plawiuk (Plavyuk) was there to honor his colleague.

“The next day, prior to the funeral procession to Baikove Cemetery, Mrs. Stetsko’s body lay in state at the Teachers Building in Kyiv, which had served as the session hall for Ukraine’s Central Rada during Ukraine’s short-lived independence beginning in 1918.

Representatives of local OUN groupings from Volyn, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, and Ternopil attended in large numbers. Mykola Plawiuk, leader of the OUN-Melnyk faction paid his respects at the Teachers Building.”

This Interview with last UNR president Mykola Plavyuk ties everything together.

Ukraine, being an integral part of the empire under the name of the USSR, nevertheless had its own President. But he was abroad. When August 24 was proclaimed, and on December 1, 1991, a nationwide referendum confirmed the restoration of the Ukrainian state, the last President of the exile was obliged to act in accordance with a historical document signed by Simon Petliura. Why did he transfer his powers to Leonid Kravchuk, how he perceives the present realities, which sees the prospect of our state … These and other questions on the eve of Independence Day are answered by Mykola Plavyuk, the last President of Ukraine in the exile. 

2004 Interview with Mykola Plavyuk, OUNm leader, founder of the Ukrainian World Congress, and last UNR Diaspora president

– Mr. Mykola, twelve years ago, on behalf of the Government of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, you passed the attributes of power to the first publicly elected President of Ukraine. What induced you to take such a step?

Plavyuk- It is true: in August 1992, the State Center of the Ukrainian People’s Republic in exile ended its activities. The relevant statement was signed by me as the President of the UPR, Michael Voskoboinik as chairman of the Ukrainian National Council and Ivan Samilenko, the head of the UNR government in the exile. We made our credentials to the hands of the President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk. Our move is due to the decision of the Labor Congress of the Ukrainian People’s Republic of 1919 and the decision of the Head of the Directorate of the UNR Simon Petliura, which obliged the President and the Government of the UNR to end its activities since the restoration of Ukraine’s state independence and the election of its people in a manner. As you know, this happened on December 1, 1991. We could not continue the activities of the DPU of the UPR abroad, because it would harm independent Ukraine. Is not it clear? How would the world perceive our ruling? if we did not recognize an independent Ukrainian state? USA, Canada, and others would recognize, and we – no?”

 According to the best available Ukrainian sources, just like everyone else, the OUN Diaspora was caught with their pants down when Ukraine declared independence. They had no mechanisms in place to jump in and build their state on top of Soviet society. 

Plavyuk- But this state, let’s face it, is rather the continuation of the Ukrainian SSR, and not the UNR? Those who fought for the Ukrainian state are not honored. And vice versa: those who fought against it, tortured the Patriots – in the rank of heroes. 

Today, we see this sentiment played out in Ukraine. WWII heroes that fought against Nazi Germany and the OUN or UPA are criminalized. Their pensions are taken. Nazi SS, UPA, the police battalions that were so eager to engage in mass murder are being rehabilitated and given pensions and hero status.

Plavyuk – The then President Leonid Kravchuk publicly stated that modern Ukraine is the successor to the national traditions of the UPR, documented January 22, 1918 and 1918.

We have executed the decisions of the Labor Congress and the Directory of the UNR. On the contrary, I am happy that it was enough to work in 70 years worthy political activity aimed at restoring Ukraine’s state independence …
The authorities and the people of Ukraine, who chose it, are responsible for the current state of Ukraine.

Plavyuk– I am glad that for thirteen years state traditions have been consolidated in Ukraine, and a new generation of qualified personnel who is able to manage the new Ukrainian state has grown. The growth of understanding among our people is comforting, that the Ukrainian state should be national, and the Ukrainian nation – its owner. 

Mykola Plavyuk moved to Ukraine after transferring the government and helped nationalist scouting groups to get off the ground.
Plavyuk– I worry that the modern Ukrainian government does not fulfill its obligations to the Ukrainian people and cares about its personal or clan interests. And its policy is not consistent and does not always correspond to the interests of the Ukrainian people.
But today, quite often, our Ukraine is called non-Ukrainian …
Therefore, my work is realized in accordance with the slogan “OUN – for national and social justice in an independent national Ukrainian state”.

Plavyuk- It is unlikely that the current generation of compatriots(political leaders) will survive when this slogan is embodied in the concrete actions … 

Plavyuk was clearly calling for a nationalist revolution in August 2004. He threatened Ukrainian leaders to get in line with UNR politics or else. The Orange Revolution started 3 months later in November 2004. It was supposed to deSovietize and clean up corruption. All it did was make Nazi rhetoric politically popular in Kiev.

Because Plavyuk was a leader in the CYM children’s scout movement (it developed political nationalists) he was able to help develop a robust politic based scouting culture. CYM was brought into Eastern Ukraine where it had no record. PLAST, which is CYMs counterpart was kept in the west where it was developed in the 1920s. Both groups taught children sabotage, bomb building, and murder during WWII and after. Until the 1980s both groups were considered terrorist organizations worldwide.

For another 10 years, a lot of focus and NGO money went into developing both scouting groups in Ukraine to prepare leaders for the next revolution. This was called EuroMaidan.

The link from OUN Nazi murderers to President-elect Volodomyr Zelenskiy

Across the history of Ukraine, we see the Diaspora nationalists considering only themselves and only their nationalism worthy of Ukraine. From WWII through the 2014 coup every other political leanings have been met with violence.

These people have had a chance to become Ukrainian George Washingtons,” says Yurash. “And they’ve wasted it.”

Sviatoslav Yurash is a name I’ve kept an eye out for since the near the beginning of January 2014 when he walked onto EuroMaidan and demanded to be the international spokesman. And they let him.

After that, if you wanted to interview or speak to Aresniy Yatsenyuk, Petr Poroshenko, Oleh Tianhybok, or Vlad Klitchko; you went through Yurash.

Within days he was also the spokesman for Pravy Sektor and Dimitro Yarosh. Following the coup, he became the spokesman for Assistant Defense Minister Yarosh, Defense Minister Parubiy, and the Ukrainian Army.

I did mention he was a 17-year-old college student who dropped out to go to the protest, didn’t I?
Yurash made it clear that he was never paid for his trouble. He also started the website Euromaidanpr which pumps out a lot of Ukraine’s propaganda. He coordinates with 3 Chalupa sisters through the site and its sister website InformNapalm.com which they use to provide propaganda to western outlets.

As a thank you for volunteering, Sviatoslav Yurash was given a job as the Deputy Director of the Ukrainian World Congress (UWC)Kiev office.

The UWC was founded in 1967 by an OUNm leader Andriy Melnyk supporter named Mykola Plavyuk who later became its president as well as the last Diaspora UNR president. The UWC was recognized by the United Nations Economic and Social Council as a non-governmental organization with special consultative status. Today it has ties with 61 countries and represents a Diaspora of 20 million Ukrainians.

The Atlantic Council has a contract with the UWC to promote its interest which it does in spades. When the article “Why Poroshenko Doesn’t Deserve a Second Term” came out, it meant it was already over. The fat lady sang. The cows came home. The song was over.

Sviatoslav Yurash is Volodomyr Zelenskiy’s spokesman and is one of his top advisors. What does that tell you about the election?

Russia chose the perfect time to introduce RF passports in Donbass and Ukrainian expansion of the passport program will help to stabilize the region. If people don’t start paying closer attention to the back story with this election, we are in for one hell of a ride.

United Against Forgiveness

The Jewish world is outraged this morning with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who apparently said he believes the crimes of the Holocaust can be forgiven, but not forgotten.

The far-right leader made the comments on Thursday night at a meeting with evangelical pastors in Rio de Janeiro.

“We can forgive, but we cannot forget. That quote is mine. Those that forget their past are sentenced not to have a future,” Bolsonaro said, adding that actions are needed for the Holocaust not to be repeated.

Bolsonaro is probably not the most forgiving person around. He freely spews misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ, and racist statements. However, he  is a devout Christian and forgiveness is central to Christianity of all denominations.  Forgiveness is not an ‘option’ as far as Christianity is concerned, it is actually a must. Forgiveness in Christianity is a manifestation of submission to Christ. “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Matthew 6:14-15).

I guess that those who subscribe to the Old Testament’s ‘eye for an eye’ paradigm see forgiveness as an existential threat or a sign of weakness. Otherwise it is hard to grasp the hostile reaction to Bolsonaro’s statement.

But Israelis have been forgiving the Germans for more than a while. Back in 1953 Israel signed a reparation agreement with the West German Government. According to the Agreement, West Germany was to “compensate” Israel “for losses in Jewish livelihood and property resulting from Nazi persecution.” The legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eban coined the precious adage ‘there is no business like Shoa business’ in the light of the Israeli-German reparation agreement. Israel was happy to transform Germany’s guilt into hard cash, yet some may argue that forgiveness wasn’t part of the deal. As a matter of fact, more than seven decades after the liberation of Auschwitz, the Brazilian president is singled out  by Jewish and Israeli outlets for stating the true meaning of Christian ethics; forgive but don’t forget. Be merciful, however learn not to repeat your past sins.

It is also important to mention that from time to time Israelis and Jewish leaders explore forgiveness when there are clear political or material gains. Back in 2015 we learned from Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu that it was the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haji Amin al-Husseini, who gave Hitler the idea to exterminate the Jews. Needless to mention that Netanyahu’s claim was ludicrous and harshly criticised, but it practically confirmed that within certain political circumstances even Hitler could be vindicated as long as a Palestinian is there to take his place as the ‘ultimate evil.’

But Netanyahu was neither the first nor the last Israeli to forgive Hitler and the Germans. Back in 2014 we learned about Olim L’Berlin (Ascending to Berlin), a movement of young Israelis returning to the German capital because it was cheaper, cleaner and simply nicer. We would like the believe that Olim LeBerlin enthusiasts must have finally forgiven the Germans and even learned to love their new neighbours as much as they love themselves.

I am obviously not a supporter of the Brazilian president. However, I think that for us who dwell within the borders of the English-speaking empire, forgiveness and Christian values may as well be our last hope.  I would have liked to think that president Trump and his dedicated Evangelist vice president Mike Pence take Jesus’s teachings into account when they consider whether to pardon Julian Assange for telling the truth. They should explore Christian mercifulness and reject the barbarian Old Testament vengeance that has made it into the true ugly face of America’s new century.


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

The Brink-a film review by Eve Mykytyn

April 04, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: Steve Bannon is probably the most unpopular character as far as progressives and liberals are concerned. People who like to see themselves at the Left side of the political spectrum  regard Bannon as a vile hateful character as well as a rabid antisemite. Yet, symptomatically or even tragically, those who detest Bannon shy away from tackling his populist mantra. This is rather concerning considering the fact that Bannon has proven to be a shrewd political tactician and even a kingmaker. It is probably Bannon who carries the prime responsibility for Trump’s successful presidential campaign. Those who are fearful of Bannon revert to name-calling: they slalom in between his ideas with the hope that no one notices. They do their best to avoid anything that may evoke thinking or resemble reasoning.  It is not a secret that those who currently claim to advocate social justice are apparently too fearful to engage with substance but they fail to do so in the name of social justice.  

 In the following film review Eve Myktyn tells us about Alison Klayman’s The Brink.  Mykytyn went to the film hoping to learn more about Bannon but it seems she left the cinema knowing more about Klayman’s phobia of the man. If those who call themselves progressives want to sustain relevance, sooner or later they will have to engage in a proper intellectual exchange as name calling, misquoting and crude editing tactics do not do justice to social justice. 

A film review by Eve Mykytyn

Steve Bannon may well be, as he is often called,  the ‘architect of evil.’  But Alison Klayman’s mystifying documentary, The Brink, which sets out to “[use] Bannon’s own words and behaviors to reveal his hypocrisy and expose the danger he poses to liberal democracy”  fails to show Bannon as hypocritical or dangerous.

The film’s opens begins with Bannon talking about a journey he made to World War II’s concentration camps. He notes that the Birkenau concentration camp was built using the finest of German engineering and wonders how ordinary Germans could get together and plan such a site. Perhaps Klayman felt that she couldn’t cut this otherwise disconnected scene because it showed Bannon to be an anti Semite, although he was simply musing about how a concentration camp came to be built. Is any question about any aspect of the Holocaust verboten? Apparently so, The Forward  interprets Bannon’s remarks as: “rhapsodiz[ing] about the precise engineering of one of the most evil thing humans have ever created, the Birkenau extermination camp.”

Instead, of engaging with Bannon’s avowedly nationalist politics, much of the film is devoted to a fly-on-the-wall view of Bannon’s daily routine. Bannon eats and drinks (a combination of  Red Bull and a disgusting mess of green ‘diet’ juice), speaks at rallies, poses for photos, meets with nationalist leaders in Europe, touts his propaganda movie, and texts and talks endlessly on the phone: so much film time is devoted to the quotidian aspects of Bannon’s life that the shrewd and divisive political operative is reduced to boring.

Klayman attempts to score a point by asking Bannon where he is, so that she can report that he is on an airfield for private planes. Is Bannon’s not particularly luxurious private plane, filled with his allies and journalists really relevant to the larger debate?

The film follows Bannon to Toronto where he appears for a formal debate with David From on the proposition that the “future of western politics is populist, not liberal.”  This is finally the real debate. Is it ‘country first’ or do we have a responsibility to all without regard to borders? The debate can be found here (the first 10 minutes of chatter can be skipped): the exchange between two articulate men whose views are antithetical to each other is well worth the time. Tellingly, The Brink does not show the debate, instead we see the effects that Bannon’s presence evokes. The protests outside the debate are portrayed as huge and scary, inside Bannon gently confronts hecklers, whose poor behavior he comically attributes to an ‘ex-wife.’  That’s it. The Brink apparently feels no need to counter Bannon’s views or even better, simply show From’s effective dissent.

 

When the film does allow Bannon to articulate his thesis, it is in a brief scene in which Bannon is speaking to a rally. In it, Bannon states that the benefits of citizenship should be distributed only to citizens, without regard to race, religion or sexual preference.  This is the core of the populist nationalist movement that helped elect Donald Trump and has scored victories in Britain, France, Belgium and Sweden.  Bannon’s current project is to knit together like-minded counter globalists from Europe and the United States.

The Brink’s opposition to nationalist populism is left to Guardian reporter Paul Lewis who accuses Bannon of using “anti-Semitic tropes,” then interrupts Bannon’s denial. Bannon insists that there’s nothing nefarious about using the term “globalist” or criticizing George Soros for the NGOs he funds. Vogue claims Bannon uses the term globalist “with a wink and a nod…as a stand-in for Jews.”  Bannon’s movement is opposed to globalism. Is there a non anti Semitic way to oppose globalism?

Just  in case anyone failed to understand the intended message, the film ends with a stirring homage to the current crop of new representatives with the background picture of Washington, DC lit in rainbow hues. Apparently, a diverse group of new congressmen and women is a refutation of Bannon and what he stands for, too bad that The Brink fails to explain why that may be so.

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

source: https://www.evemykytyn.com/reviews/2019/4/3/review-of-the-brink

Denote

Protest at the Vortex -the artistic/humanist take

March 19, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

In this beautifully made short video by Rishi Pelham you can meet both my detractors and my supporters.

Notorious rabid Zionist Jonathan Hofmann is correct in his assessment that I do manage to unite the ‘entire Jewish tribe’ against my work, and by that I include all fifteen of them. Noticeably, I am not the first one, I am actually in a good company here. Jesus was pretty effective in infuriating his contemporaries, so did Spinoza, Marx, Otto Weininger, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Richard Falk and many others. The question we may want ponder is why Momentum’s ‘leadership’ decided to operate as a Sanhedrin  and why not a single Momentum member heeded the leadership’s call.

You can see that, once again, none of my detractors is familiar with my work. If they did, they would know that in my work I do not address ‘Holocaust ideology,’ I write about the treatment of the Holocaust as a religion. History as I understand it, is the attempt to narrate the past as we move along. When the past is persistently revisited and revised, then history becomes a meaningful pursuit. Restrictions placed on the investigation and discussion of certain past events reduce such events into dogma, a religion. I, for my part, have often declared that if the holocaust is the new Western religion, all I ask is to enjoy the right to be agnostic. 

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

Denote

Jewdas Lies Again

March 11, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

jewdas.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

In August 2017 Jewdas,  a bunch of self- proclaimed ‘alternative’ Diaspora Jews were exposed as merely a brand of dishonest Zionist merchants. They picketed my concert at the Vortex and handed out flyers presenting a pile of fabrications and misquotes attributed to me.

They were filmed and exposed as liars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKMITv5ZPdw

Watch Jewdas lying through their teeth…

But Jewdas did not learn their lesson. They are attempting to repeat their failure. This time they call to Shut Down Nazi Apologist Jazz with a plan to picket my concert at the Vortex on Friday.

I am not a Nazi apologist. I am an opponent of all forms of racism and discrimination. Jewdas does not even attempt to explain why they call  me a ‘Nazi apologist,’ Instead they provide a  link to a Zionist write-up on Rationalwiki that is in itself a set of quotes taken out of context in an intentionally misleading manner. Here is Rationalwiki’s takedown of me:  “Atzmon has been accused of denying the Holocaust; he objects to this. ‘I have never denied the Holocaust or any other historical chapter,’ he says. ‘I also find the notion of ‘holocaust denial’ to be meaningless, and on the verge of idiotic.’

Here is the actual quote of my talk delivered in Freiburg, Germany in 2011. “Needless to say, I have never denied the Holocaust or any other historical chapter. I also find the notion of ‘holocaust denial’ to be meaningless, and on the verge of idiotic. However, I do indeed insist, as I did here today, that history must remain an open discourse, subject to changes and revision, I oppose any attempt to seal the past, whether it is the Nakba, the  Holocaust, the Holodomor or the Armenian genocide. I am convinced that an organic and ‘elastic’ understanding of the past is the true essence of a  humanist discourse, universalism and ethics.”https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-being-in-time.html)

One may wonder, if there was any truth in their  claim, why those Zionists and their so-called ‘alternative’ twins see the need to attribute to me fabricated quotes and misquotes in an attempt to deceive? One possible answer is that I brought to light a truth which they can’t handle let alone suppress.

In my work I repeatedly argue that history must be open to discussion. Revisiting and rethinking history is at the core of universal ethical thinking and the aspiration for a better future! If the English speaking empire had been brave enough to face its past conduct, it might have saved itself from repeating its crimes in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. If Israel and its Lobby were honourable enough to examine Jewish history, it would probably attempt to prevent its enthusiastic Lobby from causing more harm. If Jewdas were simply able to re-visit its recent past or just watch the above expose of themselves caught in their lies, one would think they would want to avoid re-exposure as an authoritarian intolerant Jewish thought police dedicated to harassing a non-political music venue.

Given Britain’s present economic and political woes, perhaps the Jewdas warriors for their own particular brand of correct ‘alternative’ Jewish thought would be wise to support elementary freedoms and civilized debate. Jewdas might even wish to allow the Brits a night off from the toxic political environment to just enjoy music. The music might even soothe the self-righteous arrogance of those whose satisfaction is gained by calling me and others names.

 Defy the oppressive, duplicitous and dictatorial forces. Join us at the Vortex this weekend

To Book on line:

Fri March 15 click here

Sat March 16 Click here

Denote

Messianic Process Began with IAF Airstrike in Syria, Will End With Israeli Elections

Messianic Process Began with IAF Airstrike in Syria, Will End With Israeli Elections

February 15, 2019

By Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz January 22, 2019 , 2:40 pm

“Indeed, my God does nothing Without having revealed His purpose To His servants the Neviim.” Amos 3:7 (The Israel Bible™)

Featured image (Credit: Breaking Israel News)

Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, one of the most prominent rabbis of this generation, made a shocking statement, claiming that the Messiah will precede the upcoming Israeli elections. Several rabbis noted that the writing is on the wall and the signs that the process leading up to the Messiah has already begun…for those who have the eyes to see it.

Rabbi Yekutiel Fish, an expert in Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) gave a lesson this week in which he discussed how the Messiah was imminent. Rabbi Fish cited Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, one of the most prominent Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) rabbis of this generation, who began foretelling the arrival of the Messiah just a few years ago.

“It is written that in the days leading up to the Messiah, tzaddikim (righteous men) will begin to announce his arrival but some people, those who have not prepared for His arrival, will laugh at the righteous and the learned,” Rabbi Fish said, warning that it is forbidden to mock the righteous.

Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, a leading authority in Haredi Jewish society, (Credit: Yaakov Naumi/Flash90)

Fish emphasized that Kanievsky was especially suited for presaging the arrival of the Messiah. Not only is Rabbi Kanievsky one of the most learned and righteous Jews alive today, there is another indication of his connection to the Moshiach (Messiah). Rabbi Kanievsky’s full given-name is Shmaryahu Yosef Chaim ben (the son of) Miriam. Rabbi Fish noted that first letters of each of Rabbi Kanievsky’s Hebrew names can be rearranged to spell “Moshiach.”

Rabbi Fish related a story that is just now being told within Haredi circles in Israel. A young Torah scholar from outside of Israel was hosted for the Sabbath a few weeks ago at the house of a follower of Rabbi Kanievsky. The young man visited Kanievsky during the Sabbath. He asked the rabbi if he should apply for Israeli citizenship in order to vote for the Haredi party in the Israeli elections being held on April 9.

“There is no need,” Rabbi Kanievsky answered. “The  Messiah will already be here before the elections.”

The young man was unsure that he had heard the rabbi correctly so after he departed from the house, he asked Kanievsky’s grandson, a venerated rabbi in his own right, to confirm the answer. The grandson entered the rabbi’s chamber and asked again: ‘Should the young man apply for citizenship before the elections?’

Rabbi Kanievsky responded, “I already told him that there is no need. The Messiah will be here before the elections.”

Rabbi Fish emphasized the need for Rabbi Kanievsky to make such statements.

“People need to act in practical manners to prepare for the Messiah, not just speak about it,” Rabbi Fish told Breaking Israel News. “Rabbi Kanievsky is calling for all religious Jews and all Jews in general, to come together, to show unity, not just for the Israeli elections or national interests. Our ultimate goal as a nation is to bring the Messiah and we need to be united, to actually love one another to do this.”

Rabbi Pinchas Winston, an expert on Jewish sources concerning the Messiah, normally eschews predictions of the Messiah’s arrival based on a precise date but notes that such a statement made by a scholar and righteous Jew of Rabbi Kanievsky’s stature needed to be related to in a different manner.

“You should know that Jews who live in a Messiah awareness take these predictions seriously,” Rabbi Winston told Breaking Israel News. “People who haven’t been trained properly to see this, can’t see it. They won’t see it even when it is happening in front of our eyes.”

Winston noted that the paradigm for this ability to see the Redemption was implicit in the story of the Exodus from Egypt.

“Moses was walking around for 79 years and when he revealed himself, so many people, Jews and Egyptians, were surprised.”

Winston noted that many people cannot see the beginnings of the Messiah as they are actually appearing because they have been taught that redemption has never happened.

“The modern state of Israel is the second time the Jews have come back to Israel,” Rabbi Winston noted. “There have already been two Jewish Temples in Jerusalem. People who are not educated or living in a Messiah context don’t relate to this so they can’t see it as a possibility even while it is happening.”

Rabbi Winston applied this concept to modern history.

“The Holocaust never happened until it did,” Rabbi Winston said. “So the Jews were surprised by it even though it was building up for years. Today, people learn about the Holocaust as if it could never happen again so even after the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh and the election of openly antisemitic politicians, they insist it cannot happen again.”

“God can be speaking right at you, saying the Messiah is right in front of you, but if you refuse to hear, you won’t,” Winston explained.

Rabbi Fish agreed, emphasizing that prophetic predictions could materialize while going unnoticed. Eight days ago, Rabbi Fish predicted that the blood moon lunar eclipse that passed over the continental U.S. on Sunday would be a significant omen, even more so because it coincided with the Jewish holiday of Tu B’Shevat.

In fact, an unprecedented daylight airstrike by the Israeli Air Force against Iranian military targets in southern Syria on Sunday led to an intensification of the conflict. An Iranian General declared that his forces were prepared to “destroy Israel” and the Israeli Intelligence Minister referred to the situation as an “open confrontation” with Iran.

“It is true that Rabbi Kanievsky has been saying the Moshiach is imminent for a few years, but that is not really very long when we are speaking about the Messiah,” Rabbi Fish said. “And every time, Rabbi Kanievsky speaks in different terms, describing a different aspect of the process,” he added.

“The Messiah is already active in the world but not everyone is willing to see this,” Fish said. “Some people are unwilling to see this no matter what proof is presented. If the conflict with Syria develops, it will become clear that the process of the Messiah began on Tu B’Shevat.”

Rabbi Fish emphasized that the upcoming Israeli elections are the result of a political divide that may prove to be irreconcilable.

“This could be the end of the Israeli government as we know it,” Fish said. “The conflict is over the law concerning the draft. The Supreme Court gave them three months to solve this. After that, no one knows what will happen.”

“The only solution is unity,” he maintained. “Not the appearance of unity for political purposes but a sincere and deep unity of the Jewish people. The last time we stood together as a nation was in the days of the Temple. If this [political] crisis, or the military crisis, brings us together, the result could be the Messiah.”

Rabbi Matityahu Glazerson (Screenshot)

 

Rabbi Kanievsky’s statement was also discussed by Rabbi Matityahu Glazerson, an expert in Torah codes, in a recent video. Using a Torah program that searches for equidistant letter sequences in the Bible, Rabbi Glazerson did a search for relevant expressions concerning Kanievsky’s announcement. He noted that the term “יבוא משיח” (the Messiah will come) appears once in Leviticus 23 adjacent to the letters “תשעט” signifying the current Hebrew year, 5779.

The rabbi also noted that included in the table was the word “מפורים” (from Purim). The holiday of Purim will fall on March 21 this year, three and a half weeks before the Israeli elections.

Also included in the table is the word “תשובה” (repentance) and אמונה (belief).

“Tshuva and belief are what bring the Messiah,” Rabbi Glazerson said. “Even in the times that are suited for the Messiah to come, without tshuva, there can be no Messiah. And faith is what leads to Israel being redeemed.”

Brits and the Holocaust

January 29, 2019

Not to see that Gaza is a concentration camp is a Holocaust denial!!!

Not to see that Gaza is a concentration camp is a Holocaust denial!!!

By Gilad Atzmon

The British and Jewish press reported yesterday that a poll released to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day found that “1 in 20 British adults does not believe the Holocaust happened and 12%  think the scale of the genocide has been exaggerated.”

Nearly half of those questioned said they did not know “how many Jews were murdered by the Nazis and one in five people thought fewer than two million Jews were killed.”

This is proof, once again, that the more they dogmatically insist on trumpeting the primacy of Jewish suffering, the less people are interested in the Jewish plight. The same principle applies to anti-Semitism, the more Jewish institutions bemoan the tragedy, opposition to Jewry grows  in the Kingdom and beyond.

Speaking for the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, which commissioned the poll, Olivia Marks-Woldman told the BBC that: “without a basic understanding of this recent history, we are in danger of failing to learn where a lack of respect for difference and hostility to others can ultimately lead.” If Marks-Woldman is truly concerned about ‘respect for difference and hostility to others’ she may want to point out what she and the Trust have done to stop the holocaust now taking place in Palestine at the hands of no other than the Jewish State.

Karen Pollack, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said in a statement that the survey showed “the need to increase education about the genocide.” How many more hours should BBC Radio 4 dedicate to the Nazi era and Jewish suffering bearing in mind that we have only 24 each day?

The Jewish press also noted that the poll results are consistent with CNN’s recent findings that one-fifth of Europeans believe Jewish people have too much influence in finance and politics, and one-third said they knew nothing at all or “just a little” about the Holocaust.  I wonder if this means that it is time that Jewish institutions examine themselves and try to figure out what is at play here.  Why are Europeans ‘denying’ the Jewish past? How is it possible that the more time, effort and money are invested in ‘Holocaust education’ the ‘less educated’ people seem to be?

But here’s the twist. The Times Of Israel reported yesterday that last December “a major European report found nearly 90 percent of European Jews feel that anti-Semitism has increased in their home countries.”  Apparently the most common ‘anti-Semitic’ statements Jews heard were “comparisons between Israelis and the Nazis with regard to the Palestinians.”

Perhaps the Holocaust Memorial Trust ought to be reassured by this positive finding.  Not only do Europeans and Brits understand the Holocaust, they manage to apply its message in a universal manner. They are disgusted by fascism, racism, ethnic cleansing and oppression and happen to see Israel’s leadership as the Nazis of our time. I accept that this may be offensive for some Jews, but it does indicate that the most important lesson of the Holocaust, the importance of opposition to racism and oppression, is well and widely understood.


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

ATB

Gilad

What Happened To the Billions Germany Gave Israel?

By Hafsa Kara Mustapha
Source

Holocaust_Survivor_4ea8a.jpg

The Holiday season as December is now referred to, is a time for parties, family gatherings, gift sharing and all the lovely things associated with the end of year festivities.

As the party season bids farewell and the cold weather intensifies it is also a time to reflect on those less fortunate.

In this context, charities work particularly hard to raise funds for the category of people they chose to support. Across social media, which have become major advertising platforms, appeals for funds are now a regular fixture on users’ feeds.

A recent request for donations that was of particular interest was one for money to help elderly Holocaust survivors in their twilight years.

The touching images of frail-looking men and woman are undoubtedly moving and force all those who see them feel much empathy towards a group of vulnerable people who suffered major trauma. Yet as the details of requested donations emerged it became increasingly odd to see these adverts. Of all the vulnerable groups existing today Holocaust survivors are, thanks to reparations paid by Germany, aptly provided for.

Claims Conference

In 1951, just under six years after the end of the Second World War, an organisation was set up called the Claims Conference.

It was tasked with obtaining reparations from Germany in order to compensate Jews for the persecution they suffered at the hands of the Nazi regime. It has to be noted however that Roma, gay, disabled as well as Communist activists who were equally interned in concentration camps, were not offered financial reparations.

Never the less the Claims Conference, set up by a group of Jewish organisations, has been working tirelessly to seek ‘a small measure of justice for Jewish victims’ as stated on its website.

This ‘small measure,’ obtained from Germany, has totalled over $70bn over the past seventy years.

This eye-watering sum that amounts to the state budgets of several countries would have been used to assist Jewish victims following the collapse of Hitler’s rule.

Yet the regular appeals for further donations, from ordinary citizens, implies that Holocaust survivors are still in need of monetary assistance, despite ongoing negotiations with the governments of Germany and Austria to pay further damages to Jewish claimants.

So the question is if Germany –and Austria – have released over $70bn to compensate survivors yet survivors are still in need of assistance, where has the money gone?

In July 2018 the German government agreed to release a further $88m towards care cost for the elderly.

Yet by Christmas adverts appealing for support for the very few survivors left were circulating again.

According to Claims Conference auditing is undertaken by KPMG however the body is regulated by the organisations that form it.

In 2013, a Holocaust survivor called Dora Roth made headlines when she accused the Israeli government of siphoning money destined for victims such as herself.

In April 2016 Haim Katz, Israel’s welfare minister, released a report revealing that more than 20,000 survivors in Israel had never received financial assistance owed to them.

The money, however, was regularly delivered by Germany yet it appears it never reached those it was intended for.

While Germany is only too happy to deliver the funds it is silent on who should be their recipients. According to one former German politician, now working in the financial sector, German politicians cannot stand up to Israel. ‘They know Israel will shout anti-Semitism at the first opportunity and are too terrified with being labelled with that fateful word.’ Asked if German media and politicians are not concerned about where these vast sums of money are ending, he added that issues relevant to compensation and Israel are taboo in his country.

‘Despite the economic downturn, we continue to be milked like cash cows, knowing full well it’s beyond reason to continue to demand such sums, yet there are no brave politicians or journalists willing to ask the questions.’

The Israeli minister who exposed the problem also went on to say that the problem is far worse than it appears as his report only took into account the surviving victims as of 2016 explaining that many more died throughout the years without ever seeing the money Israel claimed on their behalf.

Israel for its part blames the delay in delivering the funds to issues relating to heavy bureaucracy but many find that argument laughable.

Simon, an ex Israeli now living in Paris laughs at this excuse: ‘it didn’t take them 70 years to fleece the Germans but they –Israeli authorities- need 70 years to distribute the money.’

Disillusioned with Israel and its founding ideology Zionism, Simon is scathing towards his former country: ‘To get a permit to destroy a Palestinian home, they took 7 minutes, adding that his rejection of the country was a result of the abuse he received from other Israelis because he was a Holocaust survivor.’

We were viewed with absolute contempt by our ‘fellow countrymen’ (he insists on the brackets). They would tell us we were weak and went to the camps like ‘sheep to the slaughter’.

They would even make sheep noises when I used to walk in the streets when neighbours found out I was a survivor.

Confirming how unimportant Holocaust survivors are in Israeli society, and how oblivious the public is to their plight, Roth’s outburst had little consequences. From a European or American perspective, the fact survivors who have obtained so many reparations –unlike any other group in history- should be left to die in poverty should be major news and yet the money continues to be delivered while the victims continue to die destitute.

Ironically it is their legacy that is used as a justification for the existence of the nation that continues to neglect and despise them.

Who will dare ask the question?

Despite all the evidence of legitimate questions being raised, no one is raising them.

Where is this money ending up? Who is tasked with distributing and why is it failing?

Why should so much of it go through the Israeli government when not all survivors are or have remained in Israel?

Some claim Israel uses it as part of its nationwide budget others still say it is going to fund the military.

It is ironic that money made available to victims of war should now be invested in furthering wars by a country itself often accused of Nazi-like policies and routinely committing war crimes.

The spectre of being labelled an anti-Semite is, of course, a genuine concern no politician or journalist can ignore.

The mere fact of holding to account Israel over the possibility some are extorting funds would be spun as the ‘age-old accusations Jews love money.’

Anti-semitic ‘tropes’ as these bizarre semantic twists are called are casually thrown about wherever Israel or a Zionist person or organisation face questions.

If questions arise about misinformation from an Israeli source then claims of ‘Jews run the media’ will soon surface and bring the subject to a close.

Should claims of embezzlement surround an Israeli or Zionist body then its accusations of ‘Jews love money.’

Even high-profile cases of child abuse involving notable Zionist figures are inevitably spun as ‘Jews are using the blood of goyim children.’

For every Israeli/Zionist crime, there is its accompanying ‘anti-Semitism’ protection policy.

This time, however, victims of Israeli dishonesty are Jewish.

Who will speak up for them?

No one is the simple answer. According to varying reports, most if not all Holocaust victims will have died by 2025.

Israel is therefore just buying time. Meanwhile, now that Germany can no longer be ‘legally’ fleeced, Arab money is the next target for Israel’s appetite for easy ‘guilt money,’ as Simon puts it.

Israel- who expelled Palestinians from their ancestral homeland in 1948 yet refuses to compensate them- is going after Arab states in the hope of obtaining some $250bn in reparations. Though the overwhelming majority of Arab Jews left their Arab nations voluntarily and were never subjected to any treatment remotely equivalent to concentration camps, Israel, knowing it can manipulate international institutions, is launching its latest money-making scheme.

The only question that remains is who will be made to pay up next?

Gamblers are betting on Italy. After all the Roman Empire has a lot to answer for.

The Elusive Middle East Peace

December 18, 2018

by Ghassan Kadi for The Saker Blog

Subtle news sources coming on the grapevine allude to impending Middle East fresh peace talks. The end of the “War on Syria” will bring serious and realistic opportunities for Russian-sponsored peace talks, and there are direct and indirect hints and leaks made by certain officials here and there, hints and leaks which will become overt and obvious in the near future, culminating into news to the effect that new peace talks will resume.

The Arab/Israeli conflict seems intractable, and every time peace talks loom, we need to remember to examine the root of the problem and consider ways in which the deadlock can be surmounted.

Four decades after Kissinger pushed the USSR out of its position in the Arab/Israeli negotiation talks and made it law for America to defend Israel, the one-sided unparalleled superiority that America provided Israel with was not “good enough” to give Israel the “safe haven” that Zionism promised Jewish migrants with after the horrors of the Holocaust. If anything, the more aggression the state of Israel displayed and the more audacious America was in providing it with impunity, the more determined Palestinians became; and Hamas was the direct outcome of the joint Israeli/American bullying and the Palestinian despair that followed the supposed peace talks of the Oslo Agreement.

In retrospect, Kissinger, the man who gave “shuttle diplomacy” its name, has inadvertently created a deadlocked situation, and in doing so, America has done itself a huge disfavour in the unconditional support it provided Israel with over all those years and has turned itself into a de-facto pariah arbitrator; a mediator that axis-of-resistance Arabs, and all Palestinians in particular, do not trust. In doing so, it kicked itself out of the scene, paving the way for Russia to fill the void it left behind.

On the other hand, Russia is on talking terms with all parties in the Middle East and President Putin personally has good and strong relationships with Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and of course Syria. Furthermore, Putin had all the reasons to sever ties with Erdogan, however the master of pragmatism managed to find a way to mend the rift without losing face, and even though Erdogan has not yet shown any credibility, Putin sees Turkey as a potential key player in the peace process in Syria.

Notwithstanding all of the above, all the American Russophobic rhetoric amounts to nothing, because America and Russia will always be on talking terms.

Briefly put, no entity other than Russia is potentially able to bring all Middle Eastern parties to the negotiation table, and the “hints” speak of such eventuality, come the end of the War on Syria; and this is what Putin wants.

In the meantime, relevant parties will have to accept to come to the negotiation table, and be prepared to negotiate.

It was easy back in 1948 for the Arabs to carry the “push them back” slogan; referring to sending Jewish migrants back to where they came from. More than seven decades after the establishment of Israel, if the Palestinian cause were to maintain the moral upper ground, this “ambition” can no longer apply to second and third generation Jews who were born in the land their forefathers migrated to; albeit those forefathers migrated and settled illegally. By the same token, and most importantly, Palestinians cannot be expected to take the moral upper ground alone without a reciprocal agreement that grants them the long-awaited justice; including the right of return.

And as negotiations mean to give and take, it is interesting to note that the English term is said in this sequence; give and take, rather than take and give, because if a negotiator does not begin with giving, he will not be able to take.

This will be the sticking point because religious hardliners on both Arab and Israeli sides have perfected the art of each claiming to be the rightful and exclusive owner of the Holy Land. As a matter of fact, it was only when the religious spin replaced the national argument of the Arab struggle that a secular fight was taken to theocratic camp and Zionism was, to some degree, able to use history to support its argument. That said, even though Jewish presence in Palestine indeed predates Islam, this does not justify the displacement of Palestinian Arabs, both Muslims and Christians. For Palestinians therefore to win both the humane and religious arguments, the endorsement of an Arab-Palestinian-Levantine identity and carrying its banner is one that cannot be refuted; because it is an all-inclusive definition; including Jews, and one that is moral and timeless.

But let us briefly examine the fundamentalist counter Muslim claim of the ownership of Palestine from a realistic vantage point. Are Muslims the rightful and exclusive owners of Palestine?

Back in 2011, I wrote an article titled “Palestine is not for Muslims”. I had it edited when the UN was voting for a Palestinian state, and now it is time to revise it.

The Quran is a Holy Book and not a real estate title deed. There is no mention of any land rights in the Quran. The city of Jerusalem (Al-Quds in Arabic) is not even mentioned in the Quran. There is however a mention of “Al-Masjed Al-Aksa” which Muslims believe to be in Jerusalem/Al-Quds. This does not make Al-Quds inherently a Muslim city, and even if it did, there is absolutely no reference in the Quran to any Muslim exclusivity.

Speaking of claims of exclusive ownership of Jerusalem, we cannot and should not ignore a time in history during which the Catholic Church was so desirous to take the city from the “infidels”. The “infidels” back then were the Muslims, not the Christians as per the current ISIS terminology; but the congruency in the ideologies behind the definitions is clear.

Speaking of ISIS, when Zionism established the state of Israel, the Zionist aggression was (and continues to be) practised equally against both Arab Muslims and Christians. The anti-Zionist resistance was the Arab Resistance, and it was comprised of both Christians and Muslims. When Fateh was established, it was then meant to be an armed struggle for the liberation of Palestine. George Habash, the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was a Christian.

Back then, the state of Israel was the ideological ISIS equivalent of the time, and the Palestinian resistance was a secular force trying to redeem freedom and secularism. In reality, the ISIS-like stance of Israel did not change at all.

To this effect, ISIS-minded Zionists regarded all Arabs as equally unequal to them, and when they were pillaging the Church of Nativity two decades ago, the West stood back and watched. The world seems to be totally at ease that the state of Israel continues to act as an ISIS; only of different denomination.

As Israel treated both Christian and Muslim Palestinians as second grade citizens, it was only natural for the anti-Israeli resistance to be nationally-based and driven. The slogan of those days was “Al-Quds lil Arab” ie Al-Quds belongs to Arabs. There was even a song with that title. The term Arabs meant back then referred to the inhabitants of the land; ie Muslims, Christians, as well as Jews who refute Zionism.

Suddenly, sometime in the 1980’s, a huge turn of events took place in Lebanon and Palestine almost at the same time.

The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon was soon followed by a resistance then named the “Lebanese Resistance”. Soon after Hezbollah rose to prominence the name changed to “Islamic Resistance”. In Palestine, Hamas rebunked the anti-Israeli resistance and turned into an Islamic resistance as well. All of a sudden, the struggle against Zionism changed course from a national secular Arab struggle into a religious one.

The biggest losers here are the Palestinian Christians as they are well and truly excluded by both Zionists and fundamentalist Muslims.

It is most ironic that Western Christian Zionists find it so easy to sympathize with Zionism, and at the same time manage to ignore the plight of Palestinian Christians. How ironic! The truth about Christian Zionists is that they are neither Christians nor Jews; they are Zionists, period.

When Islamists make claims of ownership of Palestine in general and of Al-Quds/Jerusalem to be specific, they would be using the same false argument of Zionists; only from their own equally unfounded perspective. Two wrongs do not make it right.

Fair and open-minded Palestinians, especially non-fundamentalist Muslims, need to realise that they have to make loud and clear statements to their policy makers that they refuse fanaticism and bigotry irrespective who the culprit is.

If we refute the ISIS mind, we must refute it in all of its forms, denominations and agendas. Justice cannot be selective any more than one wrong can be undone by another wrong.

Palestine is not for Muslims, nor is it for Jews or Christians; not exclusively. It is for all of them combined, but again not exclusively. Palestine is for its people, and they don’t have to belong to any of the Abrahamic religions. That land is for its people without any favouritism and exclusion. And, if any hard-line, orthodox, fanatic, violent, militant Zionist settlers don’t accept this, justice stipulates it is they who should be made to leave.

So back to President Putin and his hush-hush peace plan. Adversity often brings opportunities, and Putin is quite aware of the historical and geopolitical significance of the present moment.

Russia will most probably be trying to broker a two-state solution that is acceptable by all parties concerned. Realistically however, there is no lasting resolution that can be based on anything other than a one-state resolution in which all citizens have equal rights; just like any other self-respecting nation state. Any resolution short of this outcome is tantamount to endorsing an apartheid-type system.

This brings us back to the give-and-take concept for conflict resolution. Normally, in a negotiation situation, giving is seen to be for losers and taking is for winners, but reality can dictate pragmatic changes in direction; and it has, at least on the Palestinian side.

From the early days during which Palestinians expressed anger and frustration saying they wanted to push back Jewish migrants into the sea and restore the homeland from “water to water” (ie from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River), the Palestinian leadership had to learn from the humiliation of many defeats, numerous let downs from Arab states, the UN and the whole world, to accept to settle for the West Bank and Gaza in lieu of putting an end to armed resistance and acknowledging the state of Israel.

This Palestinian “acceptance” did not come easy and was not endorsed by all Palestinians, but when the PLO went to Oslo with this objective in mind with the expectation of a reciprocal “acceptance” from Israel, the final outcome was more than disappointing.

Israel reached its military height specifically on the 9th of June 1967; the day when Egyptian President Nasser made his resignation speech. At that point in time, Arabs were at their nadir, and with the most humiliating defeat they have endured in history, all they felt they could seek was a withdrawal of Israel to the pre-1967 war borders.

Slowly and gradually, Arabs had to go through the phase of denial of defeat that they were not prepared to accept.

They first demanded the UN for a resolution and managed to gain support for UNSC Resolution 224 which called for the unconditional Israeli withdrawal of Israel from the “occupied territory”. In this, Arab states accepted that the new definition of “occupied territory” meant what Israel managed to occupy during the Six-Day-War of 1967. This was a huge shift, because the original Arab definition of “occupied territory” meant all of Israel. But the Arab forced resignation to the status quo was not enough to persuade Israel into negotiating a land-for-peace deal. Israel was not prepared to give in order to take (peace).

The October 1973 War, aka Yom Kippur War, was a turning point in history. Even though the military gains of Egypt and Syria were not huge, they were big enough to change the course of events; at least psychologically. However, when Egyptian President Sadat signed a unilateral peace agreement with Israel, the Arab World fell into disarray.

In simple and short terms, Arab expectations were dwindling while the Israeli ones were escalating; despite the rise of the new form of anti-Israeli resistance spearheaded by Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas.

In simple and short terms again, though Israel’s refusal to relent has resulted in creating an Arab camp that is prepared to accept its agenda, it also created another camp that has vowed to fiercely resist any settlement that does not provide justice to the Palestinian people, and this latter group has become battle-hardened and prepared to fight and inflict serious damage to Israel’s might.

The most prominent player here is the Hezbollah military factor that rained rockets on Israel during the July 2006 war, even hitting a frigate, and sees itself more capable in any future escalation. Hezbollah is deeply embedded in the Lebanese society and cannot be uprooted. It sees time to be on its side and it is moving from strength to strength.

The axis-of-resistance is living in the euphoria of the outcome of the July 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, the many setbacks of Israel in Gaza and the victory of Syria against all odds.

The resistance side is waiting and poised for further confrontations. Hezbollah therefore will not easily accept any resolution that does not provide it with some real and tangible victory.

Meanwhile, Israel is tooth and nail still hanging on to the euphoria of the outcome of the 1967 Six-Day War. The Israeli side is not yet prepared to accept that time is not on its side. In a nutshell, Israel is not yet prepared to give so it can take (peace).

This will be Russia’s main obstacle in bringing all parties to negotiations on pragmatic grounds. Short of being able to convince Israel to give, Russia may find that the only way for this paradigm shift to happen in the Israeli psyche is through war; and in this case by a resounding Israeli defeat. This is perhaps why Russia is bolstering Syrian defences and specifically air defences. After all, if Israel loses its superiority in the air, and if its ground defences are unable to stop Hezbollah’s rockets, or at least some of them, then the new balance of power will no longer be on Israel’s side.

Now, will Netanyahu’s government, or any other future Israeli government for that matter, be prepared to take the risk of a new military confrontation with the prior knowledge that it has lost its upper hand in the fight? Will Israel accept to sacrifice its citizens in the hope that a new battle will restore its military superiority against all odds? To ask the question in a different way, what punishment does Israel need in order to be brought down to the negotiating table, the agenda of which is to find a way to establish a two-state solution let alone a one-state solution? But once again, Israel is not yet ready to give and take. It won’t return the Golan for any political gain, and it won’t even agree to lift the siege on Gaza.

At this stage, the best outcome to expect from Russian-mediated peace talks, with or without a war, if one is reached at all, is perhaps a two-state solution. This will be a huge step in the right direction, but in reality, such a resolution is nothing more than a disengagement. That said, Sharon’s wall has made it virtually impossible to draw practical border lines for a viable Palestinian state to exist, and thus created a nightmare for any future serious two-state-based peace talks. Whilst walls can be reconfigured, or even better torn down, in the long run, an apartheid two-state solution will always be morally wrong, and at best, should be regarded as an interim step towards establishing one state that ensures equal rights to all of its citizens.

The Zionist Circular Maze

December 07, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Israel-EU-flags-840x420.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

On Thursday Israel cheered as the EU called on its member states that have not yet done so  “to endorse the non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism employed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).”

Israel called this move a “breakthrough,” the European Jewish Congress hailed the declaration as  “unprecedented.”  Both are correct: the Europeans ‘adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is both a ‘breakthrough’ and ‘unprecedented.’ It confirms that Europe has explicitly abandoned its Athenian ethical ethos.

Rather than declaring its opposition to racism as a universal precept and denouncing all forms of discrimination and prejudice against any group or person of any X’ simply for being X’ (for example, a Jew for being a Jew, a Black person for being Black, a Gay person for being Gay, etc.), the EU has fallen into the most banal trap and subscribed to the primacy of Jewish suffering.

A lot has been written criticising the IHRA definition, how it stifles free speech and treats one particular group as exceptional but I think we have failed to address the most important question the IHRA raises. Why are Jewish institutions so enthusiastic about a definition that clearly extinguishes the Zionist promise to make ‘Jews people like all other people.’ The IHRA validates the vile antisemitic claim that Jews are somehow different than others, as no other people have advocated for nor benefit from an IHRA-like definition of prejudice directed solely against them. One should wonder why Jewish institutions see a need to impose such a definition on individuals, organisations, states and even continents.

The answer is circular. Jewish institutions need the IHRA definition simply because they have managed to impose such a definition —  since the acceptance of the IHRA definition points at boundless political power, the IHRA definition serves to target and suppress any exploration, discourse or even  discussion of such power.

This reflexive reasoning recalls the old rude joke; ‘why does a dog lick its testicles?  Because it can.’  Why does the Lobby impose the IHRA definition on us? Because it can.

I wish the effects were merely so simple. The dog joke is amusing because it hints that if men could indulge in a similar gratifying act, the world would be somehow calmer and friendly like the happy dog. The joke is basically a comical illustration of Freud’s pleasure principle. But the IHRA definition is neither funny nor pleasing. It is hardly gratifying for those who have endorsed it, and in some cases its adoption has involved a chain of abuse and harassment (in the British Labour Party, for instance). While the dog is thrilled or titillated by his own act, it is not clear whether Europeans and Americans are at all happy to have to endorse a ‘non legally binding definition’ imposed on them by a powerful foreign lobby. It is reasonable ask why the EU Council has adopted a non universal definition of racism. It has done so  because it doesn’t have another option.

This state of affairs is far from simple, harmonious or peaceful. It is in fact, pretty much a situation that incites instability, fear and anger.

Despite Netanyahu’s Pressure, EU Doesn’t Link Anti-Semitism to Anti-Zionism

European Commission in Brussels

December 7, 2018

The European Union issued a new declaration on Thursday that doesn’t link anti anti-Semitism to anti-Zionism.

The declaration adopts softer tone than the one originally proposed by Austria, which was promoted over the past few months by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu had requested that the EU adopt the working definition of anti-Semitism issued by the so-called International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental organization that was founded 20 years ago.

This definition states that some criticism of the Zionist entity could be anti-Semitic, such as: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

Some EU countries, however, were concerned that this definition could prevent criticism of Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories. A compromise was therefore reached and the final statement calls on member states to use the IHRA definition as a “guidance tool,” without making it obligatory, Israeli daily, Haaretz reported.

Thursday’s statement was issued by the European Commission in Brussels and approved by the forum of EU justice and interior ministers. It calls on EU members and the European Commission to take steps “to guarantee their safety and well-being” of Jewish communities and “take concrete steps to better protect the Jewish community in Europe and to continue their fight against anti-Semitism.”

The declaration also notes the “importance of education about and remembrance of the Holocaust,” along with a recommendation to adopt the IHRA definition.

SourceIsraeli media

Robert Faurisson and the Study of the Past

October 23, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

0.jpg

The history of ideas provides us with the names of those few men and women who challenged the boundaries of tolerance.  Professor Robert Faurisson was one such man. Faurisson, who died last Sunday at age 89, was a French academic who didn’t believe in the validity of parts of the Holocaust narrative. He argued that gas chambers in Auschwitz were the “biggest lie of the 20th century,” and contended that deported Jews had died of disease and malnutrition. Faurisson also questioned the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank many years before  the Swiss foundation that holds the copyright to the famous diary “alerted publishers that her father (Otto Frank) is not only the ‘editor’ but also legally the ‘co-author’ of the celebrated book” (NY Times).

In the France of the late 1960s-1970s Faurisson had  reason to believe that his maverick attitude toward the past would receive a kosher pass. He was wrong. Faurisson may have failed to grasp the role of the Holocaust in contemporary Jewish politics and culture. And he did not grasp that Jewish power is literally the power to silence opposition to Jewish power. 

In 1990 France made holocaust revisionism into the crime of  history denial.  Faurisson was repeatedly prosecuted, beaten and fined for his writings. He was dismissed from his academic post at Lyon University in 1991.

I am bothered by the question of why Jews and others  attached to their politics are desperate to restrict the story of their past. This question extends far beyond the holocaust. Israel has enacted a law that bans discussion of the Nakba – the racially motivated ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people that occurred a mere three years after the liberation of Auschwitz. Similarly, exploring the role of Jews in the slave trade will cost your job or lead to your expulsion from the labour party. My attempt to analyse the true nature of the Yiddish Speaking International Brigade in the 1936 Spanish Civil War outraged some of my Jewish ‘progressive’ friends.

Jean-François Lyotard addressed this question.  History may claim to relate what actually occurred, but what it does more often is operate to conceal our shame. The task of an authentic historian is, according to Lyotard, similar to that of the psychoanalyst. It is all about removing layers of shame, concealment and suppression to try to uncover the truth.   

It was the work of Faurisson that helped me to define the historical endeavour in philosophical terms.  I define history as the attempt to narrate the past as we move along. To deal with history for real, is to continually re-visit and revise the past in light of our cultural, social and ideological changes. For instance, the 1948 Nakba came to be thought of in terms of ethnic cleansing in the early 2000s when the notion of ‘ethnic cleansing’ entered our vocabulary (and our way of understanding a conflict) following the crisis in Kosovo. The real historian reevaluates the past and embraces adjustments that place our understanding of that past in line with our contemporaneous reality and terminology.

Professor Faurisson and the controversy around his work illuminates the distinction between real history and religion. While history is a vibrant dynamic matter subject to constant ‘revision,’ the religious approach to the past is limited to the production of a rigid unchanging chronicle of events. Authentic history invokes ethical thinking to examine the past in light of the present and vice versa, religious history often operates by denying or rejecting increasing ethical insight – it judges actions and events according to set predefined parameters. The question at stake is not what happened in the past but the freedom to research and evaluate the past without being threatened by ‘history laws.’ In the same manner I support ‘progress’ in cancer research, although I do not  produce scholarly comments on related scientific findings, I support the past being continually re-examined although I offer no  judgment of any kind regarding the validity of those historical findings. For history to be a valid and an ethical universal pursuit, history laws must be abolished.

In 2014 I met Robert Faurisson and discussed with him different questions about the meaning of history and what the past meant to him.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2e7359

Why Holocaust Education is Failing?

October 17, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Auschwitz-3.gif

 

 By Gilad Atzmon

Despite the vast amount invested in Holocaust education and in spite of the fact that the Holocaust is the only compulsory subject in the British national history curriculum, British pupils seem not to follow the message of the rigid topic. For some reason, they struggle to buy into the primacy of Jewish suffering. They show little interest and learn mostly nothing.  Yesterday’s Tablet Magazine article,  “The Failure of Holocaust Education in Britain”, produced a clumsy attempt to grasp the reason for the failures of Holocaust education.

UCL’s  Centre for Holocaust Education has recently conducted  the ‘world’s largest ever study of its kind, it interviewed over 8,000 pupils aged 11-18 in England. Andy Pearce who work as a researcher at the centre told the Tablet that apparently  25-30 years of Holocaust education “is failing to make an impact.”

Pearce reports that when students were asked who was responsible for the Holocaust, “Hitler dominated the answer.” This is presumably a ‘wrong answer.’ Pearce continues, “Incredibly when we asked them to tell us who the Nazis were, students responded by saying they were ‘Hitler’s minions’ and ‘Hitler’s paratroopers.’” Pearce wasn’t happy with this answer either. “There was no reference to the Nazi Party as a political movement. Students also told the researchers that most Jews were killed in Germany. There was no understanding of collaborating regimes and many believed that mass killing began in 1933.”

Pearce inadvertently provided some crucial insights into the systematic failure of ‘holocaust education.’ While Heidegger taught us that to educate is to teach others how to learn, indoctrination is a very different exercise. It teaches how to produce the ‘right’ answers. The Holocaust, as taught and preached, falls into the domain of indoctrination. It is not a subject matter that is open to discussion or revision. The Holocaust as a subject does not accommodate dilemma or confusion. It is treated like a religious text with a rigid structure that doesn’t allow deviation.

For history to be relevant it must contain a dynamic discourse with present day, historical and contextual connotations. If the Holocaust is to be a vibrant topic that is engaging and enlightening for young enthusiastic minds, then the Holocaust must be placed into a context, such as comparing Auschwitz to Gaza. Nuremberg laws must be juxtaposed with the Israeli National Bill and the Israeli Law of Return. For the Holocaust to win our kids’ attention they must try to address the most difficult of questions: How and why was it that just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the newly born Jewish State ethnically cleansed the vast majority of the indigenous Palestinians? For the Holocaust to garner universal interest, it must carry a universal message!

Apparently ‘Holocaust education’ in Britain and in the West in general is dependent on Holocaust survivors. Elli Olmer is an outreach teacher for the Holocaust Education Trust. She told the Tablet, “I love what I do and hope to do it for many years but it all depends on what happens after we lose our survivors.” Despite Israel’s scientific gains in life extending technologies, it seems survivors aren’t going to live forever. Moreover, many survivors complain that their ability to reach young audiences is fading for the obvious reasons. However, their approach that engagement with a chapter in the past can only be reached through personal experience with people who lived through that chapter shows that the Holocaust is understood by these so called ‘educators’ as an a-historical narrative.

Historians revisit Napoleonic wars without depending on ‘meetings’ with survivors of those wars. We believe that we can learn about  the Roman empire without expecting veteran Roman generals to visit our classes. Why then does the Holocaust needs its survivors? Why can’t the Holocaust be taught as a proper historical chapter through analysing texts and documents and encountering some opposing views? Because Holocaust education is driven by political interests and laws requiring such education are passed by means of emotional manipulation. It is there, of course, to serve Israeli and Jewish politics — the Holocaust is the raison d’être behind the Jewish state. But the Holocaust is also used to serve other global political trends such as (im)moral interventionism, pro immigration, anti racism, pro liberalism and so on.

The use of the Holocaust for political ends suggests that British youngsters may actually be more sophisticated than the banal minds that attempt to crudely indoctrinate them into submission. They sense that something about the holocaust education is not ‘straight forward,’ so to say. It is not taught as an open discourse, it is somehow different than other chapters in the past. It isn’t really open to discussion.

As could have been expected, Corbyn and the Labour party are dealt some of the blame. “The current debate over anti-Semitism in Britain’s opposition Labour Party and the views of its leader Jeremy Corbyn have also had a negative impact on Holocaust education in the classroom and made better teacher training even more imperative.”  Apparently, British youngsters do not live in a bubble. “Students now ask about Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism… Two to three years ago I would not have had pupils who would have heard the terms,” a teacher said.

The UCL team also examined what teachers hope to achieve by teaching the Holocaust.  “There is a belief that if we study the Holocaust it will stop it happening again.” The truth of the matter is that  there is more than one  holocaust happening at the moment: Palestine, Libya, Syria just to mention a few. The Holocaust will become a meaningful lesson when it is finally emancipated from the primacy of Jewish suffering and  when we return to empathy and compassion as a basic tenet of our culture. Unfortunately I do not see the Holocaust Education Trust leading us in such a direction.

Surprisingly enough, Mike Levy, a Holocaust educator based in Cambridge, admitted to the Jewish outlet  that there is “an atmosphere of fatigue in the air when it comes to talking about the Holocaust and that students and teachers want to learn more about other genocides and contextualize the Holocaust.” I  agree with Mr. Levy. Let’s expose our kids to Aleppo, Tripoli  and Gaza and show them the crimes that are committed by our own democratically elected governments.  Let them figure out for themselves who are the Nazis of our time.  I believe that this would be the first step in preventing the next Holocaust.

 

%d bloggers like this: