Another Gaza Medic Killed On Duty By Israel As Society Asks, “Where Is The Justice?” — Rebel Voice

It was a difficult moment for the wife of Mohammad Al-Judaily when she heard that he had succumbed to his wounds. The paramedic was 37 years old when he was shot in the face by an Israeli sniper while providing first aid to participants in Gaza’s Great March of Return protests on 3 May.“At first,”… via […]

via Another Gaza Medic Killed On Duty By Israel As Society Asks, “Where Is The Justice?” — Rebel Voice

Advertisements

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

By Miko Peled
Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth hurts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a random statement

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

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

Russian Media’s Under-Discussed Zionization

By Agha Hussain
Source

Is an Israel-centric, Zionist-manufactured propaganda thrust taking place in Russia’s media right now? Would this make sense given the state of Russia’s foreign policy and foreign relations? Are certain propaganda themes with their roots in partisan Zionist politics and a well-documented record of being carried by pro-Israel lobbyists in foreign states being followed by Russian media right now?

A look at recent reporting by premier Russian media, combined with historical context about these themes and how they are tailored to match Israel’s strategic and soft-power objectives reveals realities that may surprise Russian media’s burgeoning community of alternate media admirers.

Russian foreign policy toward Israel and the Middle East: does Zionist propaganda in Russian media fit in?

Given the deep strategic alliance Russia has maintained with Israel both pre and post its September 2015 Syrian intervention, the possibility of a largely Israel-centric propaganda thrust in Russian media is real. As outlined and documented in detail by the author in this 1 January 2019 article, Russia’s ties with Israel involve striving to prop up an unrelentingly aggressive Israel against what are commonly assumed to be Russia’s closest allies such as Iran and Syria. Taking real steps to contain Israel’s rivals (mainly Iran) while doing nothing regarding Israeli aggression, Russia’s pro-Israel bias has become impossible to ignore.

Promoting hatred of Muslims on behalf of Israel: historical context and Russian media’s current conduct

A detailed report on the Council of National Interest (CNI) website’s staffhighlights prominent voices in the Western Islamophobia industry operating as part of a network of pro-Israel interests. CNI, whose Executive Director Philip Giraldi is a prolific writer on the working of the Israel Lobby within the US, pulls no punches in outlining how common themes of modern day Islamophobia (that Muslims are engaged in a secret Islamization of the West and that Israel is victim to radical Muslims and so on) find their origins in individuals who made it big thanks to the Israel Lobby. Names such as Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney and Rachel Abrams in the Islamophobia industry had more to do with promoting Israel’s supposed utility in ‘containing radical Muslims’ than they did in identifying a ‘Muslim threat’ to the West. They received ample reward from Israel and its lobbyists for their activities.

Decades ago, Norman Podhoretz, editor of the Commentary magazine from the 1960s to 1995 declared that ‘Islamofascism’ posed a deadly risk to the world and required a harsh response from the West. One of the earliest intellectual shapers of the band of Likudnik pro-Israel warhawks that came to dominate policy positions under Reagan and Bush Junior, Podhoretz’s career and work were dedicated to pushing for US militarism that achieved nothing for the US and everything for the Israelis. The fearmongering about a ‘Muslim threat’ was part and parcel of that objective.

Similar trends in the reporting style on Muslim-related events to those in the early 2000s Islamophobia surge can also be spotted in Sputnik and RT’s recent reporting. It is important to keep in mind that RT also shares a chief editor with Sputnik.

A notable theme in the Islamophobia industry was the portrayal of ‘Muslims’ as more or less a large homogenous group with a certain consistent, hostile stance toward the West. Given that it is ludicrous to suggest that ‘Muslims’ are anything remotely resembling a singular, coherent socio-political entity spanning all Muslim-majority states, the objective behind this crass generalization was fairly obvious: consider one Muslim state’s alleged crimes as those of all Muslims. Considering the speed with which the neoconservatives progressed from Iraq war hysteria to anti-Syria and anti-Iran hysteria, the benefit of this generalization paradigm to them and thus Israel’s geopolitics was obvious.

‘Illegal Muslim Migrant Jailed for BRUTALLY murdering His Christianised Wife’ went the title of a 6 April news report by Sputnik. The pointing out of the illegal immigrant status of the killer is relevant, since migrant crimes is a legitimate issue for discussion with socio-economic ramifications. However, the specific pointing out of the Muslim identity betrayed an ulterior motive similar to that behind the framing of the large ‘Muslim’ bogeyman by Zionists in the early 2000s Islamophobia surge discussed above.

Rather than use terminology which specified the source of the migrant crisis (NATO destroying Libya) and nudge the reader toward tracing Western aggression against Libya to its real roots, the usage of the ‘Muslim tag’ instead sought to give credence to the same fraudulent ‘Muslims attacking the West’ narrative spun by Israel Lobby-backed anti-Muslim activists and agitators.

Mentioning the ‘Christianization’ of the killer’s wife also clearly sought to play into the ‘Muslim vs Christian’ theme. The significance of this must not be missed, since portraying Muslims and Christians as each other’s enemies despite obvious religious commonalities (such as reverence of Jesus and Mary) has been a huge part of Zionist psychological warfare and propaganda. The ‘Judeo Christian values’ canard is used by the Zionists to this purpose to assure Christians in the West that it is their ally, not ‘the Muslims’. It also ties into the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ framework pioneered by pro-Israel partisan and Jewish Zionist scholar Bernard Lewis and incorporated fully into the early 2000s Islamophobia campaign.

Also aiming for this effect, clearly, was Sputnik’s 5 April report on a Russian family fleeing Sweden and seeking asylum in Poland due to Swedish authorities taking custody of their daughters. Emphasizing in the title that the family receiving custody of the children was Muslim and Lebanese, the report mentioned that the Russian father had no full employment and thus Swedish social services took his children to the Muslim family several hundreds of kilometres away.

It mentioned the Muslim foster father ‘admitting’ that social services paid for his trip to Poland to appear in the court which eventually granted the Russian family asylum, likely a subtle jab considering the ‘welfare leech’ narrative weaponized against Muslims since the migrant crisis took off. Despite mentioning the Russian father’s inadequate employment status at the start, Sputnik concluded the report by stating that the social services had ‘no specific reason’ for taking his daughters and did not speculate as to his own likely reliance on Swedish welfare for subsistence.

Postings on Jewish ‘victimhood’ related to Israel and Zionism have also begun to surface more gradually in Russian media.

Propagating ‘Jewish victimhood’ to whitewash Israel’s supremacist nature and forced Judaization of Occupied Palestine

A 28 April report by Sputnik following a synagogue shooting in the US described the backstory of a family of a survivor as having ‘fled rockets from Gaza’Another report on 29 April described rising migration from Germany to Israel by Jews due to ‘rising anti-Semitism’. It quoted one Jew as saying she is afraid of ‘Muslim anti-Semitism’ in particular. It also described the harassment of a Jewish girl in Germany embarking upon the Israeli government-sponsored migration to Israel for ‘wearing a T-shirt with the words Israel Defense Forces (IDF)’.

The pointing out of a girl being harassed for idolizing the IDF, which oversees war crimes against Palestinians and enforces Israel’s apartheid, sets in the victim’s seat in this context the Israeli military and Jews. Similarly, the report chooses to ignore that Israel’s subsidization of the migration of anyone in the world belonging to the ‘Jewish race’ (as Israeli authorities verify) to Occupied Palestine is part and parcel of its racial exclusivist policies. The Israeli preference to Jews over non-Jews in terms of property rights, state-provided housing and degree of voting rights as well as the racial colonies (i.e ‘Jewish settlements’) programme across Occupied Palestine was, quite obviously, not explored.

In addition, the report also cited the German right-wing Alternate for Germany (AfD) party as a cause for worry for Jews, leaving out the fact AfD focused on anti-Muslim rhetoric and supported German state attempts to curb ‘anti-Semitism’. Incredulously, Sputnik also declined to mention that the AfD, in fact, adores Israel.

Raising the spectre of ‘rising anti-Semitism’ is part and parcel of Russian media’s pro-Zionist drive. Nothing else but a heavy pro-Zionist tilt would explain media outlets that have occupied the limelight for their ‘alternate media’ status giving momentum to such a heavily fraudulent, Orwellian and mainstream media narrative as the ‘rising anti-Semitism’ canard.

Talk of ‘rising anti-Semitism’ has a long history of being exaggerated to suit ongoing Israeli political agendas such as pushing legislation in the West to criminalize public criticism of it. Countries such as France have already declared anti-Zionism to be anti-Semitism while the US has even appointed a ‘Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism’ at the State Department to counter ‘anti-Semitism’ worldwide.

Zionists in high places in Russian media

The Islamophobia industry in the US as described above took off in the early 2000s as part of a highly coordinated campaign. It coincided with dominant parts of the George W Bush government becoming occupied by the clique Podhoretz and his kind helped form (the neoconservatives).

With the US being railroaded into wars in the Middle East to benefit Israel, the Islamophobia surge fit in perfectly into the broader geopolitical context. Considering Israel’s well-fleshed out objectives in the region the neoconservatives strove toward stay unchanged despite significant setbacks in recent wars and conflicts, and considering the increased reliance of Israel on the Russians to ‘contain’ Iran, the foundations exist for similar media operations to the early 2000s Israel Lobby-led promotion of Islamophobia.

Is Zionist manoeuvring taking place in Russian media right now thus explaining it following traditional Israeli propaganda themes such as ‘evil Muslims’ and ‘Jewish victimhood’?

RT’s Middle East Bureau Chief since 2005 has been the Jewish and Zionist Paula Slier, tasked with covering Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and Afghanistan events. Working as a foreign correspondent, anchor and news editor, her profile page on RT states she has been ‘twice been recognized by Russian President Vladimir Putin for her “colossal input into the development of Russian journalism”’.

According to this post by the Jerusalem Post from 2006, Slier was ‘discriminated against’ by the South African Broadcasting Corporation on account of being a Jew and blacklisted in 2004 from being used by the SABC to report on Middle East conflicts. Slier at that time was working as an Israel-based freelancer as well as reporting live from live conflict zones for Russia Today (RT’s old name). As narrated by the Jerusalem Post, she decried the decision by the state-run SABC’s news head to blacklist her on account of ‘assuming’ she was a Zionist simply for being Jewish and deciding she was not an impartial reporter for the SABC, a traditional sympathizer with the Palestinian cause, to use to cover her region of focus.

Articles by Slier such as a fairly recent one from March this year titled ‘Is BDS a real concern for Israel?’ affirm her apologism for Israeli apartheid and belief that the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement, a popular grassroots activist-led international campaign to boycott Israel owing to its occupation of Palestinian territory, human rights violations and apartheid, ought to be combated since it rallies ‘attempts to de-legitimize Israel’. How a state built after a comprehensive, armed ethnic cleansing campaign of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine and which has carried out several territorial annexations throughout its history is ‘legitimate’ is not a question one may expect Zionists, whether ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ ones (tags Slier enjoys using) to ask themselves.

Slier still works out of Tel Aviv, Israel, at RT’s Middle East Bureau’s office building.Slier is also the CEO of Newshound Media, which according to a 15 March post to its Facebook page ‘arranged for’ Israeli Education Minister and Security Cabinet member Naftali Bennet to appear on RT and talk about ongoing hostilities with the Palestinians. This signifies Slier’s own personal connections to the Israeli state and, coupled with her Zionist disposition,  makes her an odd choice to be RT’s main official in the Middle East unless one takes note of Russia’s preference for Israel over the anti-Zionist coalition led by Iran and involving Syria and Hezbollah.

The fact that Russia has long provided a platform for voices which have been strongly critical of Israel and Zionism adds a particularly deceptive angle to the overall tilt of its media. If anything, the recent incorporation of key facets of Zionist propaganda into Russian media reporting hint that not only is Russia extremely close to Israel, but also that ties are intimate enough for Israel to begin to recreate with Russian media what it pulled off spectacularly well in Western media following 9/11.

The inadequacy of ‘Israel-Palestine conflict’ label

By Agha Hussain
Source

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

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

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

The Balfour Declaration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominally stateless yet geopolitical active

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there truly an ‘Israel-Palestine conflict’?

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

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

The Joke of the Century

By Jeremy Salt
Source

Mike Pompeo speaks with Benjamin Netanyahu a29fb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Israel Target Journalists? — Rebel Voice

Does Israel target journalists? This may appear to be the most redundant question ever asked. The behaviour of the Zionist state towards members of the Fourth Estate has been well documented by this time. They have been filmed attacking journalists with tear gas, armoured vehicles, nasty language, harassment and bullets. Now it seems that Israel […]

via Does Israel Target Journalists? — Rebel Voice

Israel Terror-Bombs Syria With Impunity

By Stephen Lendman
Source

Israel partners with all US wars of aggression, notably against Syria, ruling regimes of both countries waging war on the country without declaring it.

What’s been ongoing since March 2011 is all about seeking regime change, wanting Syria colonized and exploited, Iran isolated, the same objective in play against its government — part of the US/NATO/Israeli aim for regional hegemony, the rule of law ignored, the human toll of no consequence.

Russian good faith efforts since 2012 for peace through Geneva, Astana, and Sochi talks failed because the US, Israel, and their imperial partners reject diplomatic conflict resolution. 

It’s why US-led forever wars rage in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, no end of them in prospect.

Israel has been terror-bombing Syrian targets on the phony pretext of countering nonexistent Iranian and Hezbollah threats throughout much of the war.

The only threats the US, NATO, and Israel face are invented ones. Real ones don’t exist so they’re invented to unjustifiably justify naked aggression on nations and groups threatening no one.

Israel admitted launching hundreds of preemptive strikes on Syrian targets. Former IDF chief General Gadi Eisenhkot earlier said “(w)e struck thousands of targets (in Syria) without claiming responsibility or asking for credit.”

In response to two reported rockets from Syria striking illegally occupied Golan, falling harmlessly, Israeli warplanes terror-bombed Syrian targets pre-dawn Sunday.

Throughout the war, no evidence suggests Syrian forces ever targeted Israeli territory. Clearly they’d be nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Attacking Israel would escalate war Damascus is winning and wants ended. Clearly its forces had nothing to do with striking occupied Golan on June 1.

Most likely, US/Israeli supported terrorists were to blame for the incident, giving the Netanyahu regime a pretext for a terror-bombing attack even though it needs none to do whatever it pleases — with full US support and encouragement, with the UN and world community failing to hold it accountable.

According to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), on Sunday, “Syrian air defenses have confronted an Israeli attack targeted (on) sites in southwestern Damascus and Quneitra, a military source said,” adding:

“The aggression resulted in the martyrdom of three soldiers and the injury of seven others.” Reportedly most Israeli missiles were downed, some striking intended targets.

An IDF statement said Israeli warplanes and attack helicopters struck Syrian air defense, artillery positions, and “a number of observation and intelligence posts on the Golan Heights front.”

According to Israeli military-connected DEBKAfile, Israeli warplanes “struck Iranian-Hizballah concentrations (sic) near Damascus.

DF admitted that no combat operations were ongoing in the area from which rockets were launched at Golan, suggesting it was false flag attack, perhaps jointly US/Israeli planned to wrongfully blame Syrian forces.

The IDF claim about Syria attacking Israeli military targets is belied by no injuries or damage reported, two reported rockets falling harmlessly, likely in open areas.

If Syrian forces wanted to strike Israeli positions, why were only two rockets involved, why not multiple missiles able to hit targeted sites accurately.

The claim about a Syrian attack is clearly phony. The same goes for falsely blaming Damascus for CW incidents. No evidence throughout the war suggests its forces ever used these banned weapons.

Indisputable evidence proved US supported terrorists used them numerous times, nearly always falsely blamed on Damascus for what it had nothing to do with.

War launched by Obama, escalated by Trump, rages in its ninth year with no near-term prospect for resolution because Washington rejects it.

On May 20, nearly 400 bipartisan House and Senate members called on Trump to “(i)ncrease pressure on Iran and Russia with respect to activities in Syria…to counter Iran’s support for Hezbollah as well as Russia’s support for…Assad…”

They urged tougher (illegal) sanctions and other (hostile) actions on these countries and Hezbollah, claiming nonexistent threats.

They want endless war continued, not ended. So do Trump regime hardliners.

US aggression in Syria follows the same pattern as Afghanistan and Yemen, both wars ongoing since October 2001 — raging endlessly with no prospect for resolution any time soon.

%d bloggers like this: