New Poll: 74% of Palestinians Want PA President Abbas to Resign

September 22, 2022

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. (Photo: Kremlin, via Wikimedia Commons)

Over 70% of Palestinians want Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas to resign, Al-Risalah newspaper reported on Wednesday.

According to the news site, the poll was conducted between September 13-17, ahead of Abbas’ speech before the UN General Assembly on Friday.

74 percent of those polled said they did not want Abbas as their president, with only 23 percent saying they wanted him to remain in office.

In April 2021, Abbas postponed parliamentary and presidential elections, “until the participation of our people in Jerusalem is guaranteed.”



South Front

In the early hours of November 4th, the vote for the US Presidential Election is being counted between incumbent president Donald Trump, and former Vice President Joe Biden.

As of 9:00 Central European Time, Joe Biden is in the lead with 49.8% of the vote and 236 electoral votes, compared to Trump’s 213.

Despite the preliminary results, Trump came out after his Texas and Florida wins and announced that he had achieved victory in the Presidential Election.

Joe Biden With A Slight Lead Over Trump, As Preliminary Results Show Heavy Contention

To secure victory and 4 years as president, the necessary number of electoral votes is 270.

In terms of swing states, Trump currently leads in Texas and Florida, both of which provide the most electoral votes.

Trump is also in a slight lead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan and Georgia, but counts are not finalized yet.

Joe Biden takes away Arizona and New Hampshire.

These are no final results yet, and it is quite possible that they will not be provided on November 4th.

Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are expected to finalize their vote counting some time on November 5th.

From the preliminary results, several conclusions can be drawn.

First, there was a final burial of the residual respect for the “mathematical models” and polls of almost all American political technology and sociological companies, as well as trust in the “expert assessments” of the mainstream media.

Even if Biden wins, it will be a very tough win, just barely, as it seems.

And this does not fit with what the polls showed, especially since Biden lost miserably several states in which all mainstream polls gave him a colossal advantage, starting right with Florida, in which Trump received a record number of votes from “Latinos”, blacks and especially “Cubans”.

Polls missed all this or were originally aimed at purely manipulating the vote in order to suppress Trump voters.

In Ohio, judging by the exit polls (which actually give a very rosy picture for Democrats), 56% of workers’ union members voted for Trump, and this kind of hints at the fact that the American “deep electorate” is somehow not very enthusiastic about the LGBT-green-leftist agenda and accusations of racism. Polls also missed everything or were initially biased.

At the funeral of the industry of “polls and models” on Twitter, the button accordion was torn by Nassim Taleb personally, who three years ago publicly mocked the chief sociologist and modeler of the United States Nate Silver, and practice has once again confirmed his correctness.

The legendary “quantum” analyst of JP Morgan Marko Kolanovich joined the kicking of political charlatans, who also pointed out that all this pseudo-mathematical rubbish promoted by mainstream sociology was biased and unrealistic.

Now about bankruptcy. It is not yet completely obvious to everyone, but the most competent observers of international (and, in particular, American) political discourse – Chris Arnaid and Victor Marakhovsky – have already noted that the industry of “militant liberal irony” has suffered serious damage.

As Viktor Marakhovsky rightly noted “for a long time, the most promoted and, therefore, the most successful votes of Donald Trump were not at all the brightest and funniest ironists – but the most heart-rending, moreover, having the maximum number of “signs of voices that must be heard.” In other words, a crowd of hysterical minorities who are not very good at sarcasm simply because sarcasm is a product no, but still a critical analysis.”

Before everybody is the defeat of the “collective American Dudya”, and the victory will go to Biden (if at all) not due to total media domination and powerful propaganda, but thanks to the officials of the “deep state” who have stopped counting in key states and are now stuffing pre-prepared ballots for Biden in “voting machines” or in boxes for storing “mail ballots”.

It remains to find out whether another bankruptcy will be added to the funeral and bankruptcy – namely, the total loss of legitimacy of the American judicial system, which may and will have to determine the final winner of the electoral race.

More than 1000 people protesting US President Donald Trump descended on “Black Lives Matter Plaza” on the evening of November 3rd, just a block from the White House, while hundreds more marched through parts of downtown Washington, sometimes blocking traffic and setting off fireworks.

The demonstrations in Washington were largely peaceful, with people shouting, “Whose streets? Our streets!” and “If we don’t get no justice, they don’t get no peace!”

Groups of teenagers danced in the street as onlookers cheered. Large banners, including one reading “Trump lies all the time,” were unfurled.

The situation in the US is quite precarious, with either Presidential candidate winning having to deal with a largely divided population, with numerous issues.

It is, however, showing that the Trump administration, which evidently mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic, and several other issues, and has gathered so much American ire after months of Black Lives Matter protests, is still heavily contesting the vote.


استطلاعات الرأي حول الرئاسة الأميركية… ما لا يُقال

 د. منذر سليمان وجعفر الجعفري

لا تزال معظم استطلاعات الرأي تشير الى تفوّق ثابت للمرشح الديمقراطي جوزيف بايدن على الرئيس ترامب في معظم الولايات، وخصوصاً الولايات المصنّفة حاسمة، وتشتدّ ضراوة الحملات الانتخابية بين المرشحين في عدد من الولايات التي استطاع ترامب انتزاعها من الديمقراطيين في الانتخابات الماضية.

ولاية فلوريدا تبدو ساحة المنافسة الأشد، إلى جانب 4 ولايات تشهد تركيزا من طرفي السباق (مشيغان، ويسكونسن، بنسلفانيا، ومينسوتا).

الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية تحسمها بضع ولايات من مجموع الولايات الخمسين، نظراً إلى طبيعة العوامل المؤسّسة للنظام الانتخابي، وأهمية دور مندوبي الولايات للهيئة الانتخابية المكونة من 538 عضو، يوازي كامل عدد أعضاء الكونغرس بمجلسيه. وتؤدي استطلاعات الرأي دوراً يتعاظم طرداً مع توظيف المؤسّسات الإعلامية لنتائجها، والمبارزة بينها على نشر «توجّه سياسي معين» يؤثر في الناخب ويوجهه إلى زاوية معينة.

استطلاعات الرأي، بشكلها المجرّد، تعطي تصوّراً تقريبياً لمرشّح محدّد في الحالة الأميركية الراهنة، وتؤشر على مدى حجم الدعم والتأييد، بتوظيف جملة عوامل تستقي منها حيثيات تعينها على استنتاجاتها، كحجم أموال المتبرعين، للدلالة على مدى تأييد برنامج انتخابي معين.

وتشوب هذه الاستطلاعات عيوب كثيرة، بدءاً من تباين المنهجية المعتمدة وطبيعة العينة البشرية وتوزيعها الجغرافي وفوارق مداخيلها الاقتصادية ومعتقداتها الدينية والسياسية، والأهم ربما مدى صدقية إجابات تلك العينة، والتي تثار حولها راهناً تساؤلات حقيقية حول إجابات البعض بعكس قناعاته ومشاعره الحقيقية.

للدلالة على تمايز الاستنتاجات وتباين صدقيتها، نستدلّ بدراسة حديثة أجراها «معهد كاتو» المرموق بالقول إنّ «ثلثي (2/3) الناخبين يقرّون بمناخ سياسي مسموم وبعدم الإفصاح عن جواب صريح، ويدلون بإجابة مقبولة اجتماعياً عوضاً عن ذلك». وشاطر المعهد أحد مسؤولي مؤسّسة «نورث ستار اوبينيون ريسيرتش» الجمهوري جون مكهنري رأيه، معبراً عن قلق من «نماذج جوابيّة ملتوية»، موضحاً أنها تدل على «ميل قوي لدى مؤيدي الرئيس ترامب إلى عدم المشاركة في الاستطلاع أو الإجابة عبر الهاتف».

الأجواء المشحونة بالتحيّز والعنصرية ضد الآخر انعكست على معظم مراكز استطلاعات الرأي، بإجماعها على أن «المرشح الديموقراطي جوزيف بايدن يتفوّق على خصمه الرئيس ترامب بنسبة قوية ومتماسكة».

في ولاية مشيغان، على سبيل المثال، جاءت نتيجة الاستطلاع مؤيِّدة لتفوق جوزيف بايدن بنحو 8.6% على خصمه الجمهوري، بينما أفاد استطلاع آخر أجرته مؤسسة «ترافيلغار» بتفوق الرئيس ترامب بنسبة 2%، 49% مقابل 47% لخصمه بايدن. ويتكرر المشهد في الولايات الحاسمة الأخرى بشكل خاص، ولا سيما في ولاية فلوريدا، إذ جاءت استنتاجات المؤسّسة الأولى بتفوق ترامب بنسبة ضئيلة هي 0.4%، مقابل نتائج «ترافيلغار» بتفوق الرئييس ترامب بنسبة 2.3%، أو 49% مقابل 47%.

بيانات عيّنات الناخبين تشكّل حجر الرحى في الاستطلاعات كافة ، والتي تتكوّن من مزيج من المعلومات العامة الرسمية والبيانات الخاصة لدى الشركات التجارية، لا سيما شركات بطاقات الإئتمان.

تتضمَّن البيانات الرسمية، بحسب تقرير يومية «واشنطن بوست»، معلومات تتعلّق بعنوان إقامة الناخب وبريده الالكتروني ورقم هاتفه أو هواتفه وانتسابه السياسيي، سواء كان ديموقراطياً أو جمهورياً، وبيانات جمعها ناشطو الحملات الانتخابية مباشرة، والاشتراك في الصحف والمجلات، وهي ظاهرها بريء وطبيعي، بيد أن تسخيرها لأغراض انتخابية يتم عبر جملة دوائر تحصل عليها بشكل «قانوني» كمرشح معيّن لمنصب محدّد يستخدمها في حملات دعائية للتأييد وجمع أموال التبرعات، ومن ثم يجري تصنيفها مجدداً لخدمة أهداف الحملات السياسية المتعددة، وتباع بشكل علني لمؤسسات تجارية تبني عليها وتغنيها بمعلومات إضافية، وهكذا دواليك. مثال على ذلك شركة «اكسبيريان الضخمة التي تتحكّم بتصنيف «المستهلكين بناء على قدرتهم الشرائية، ونسبة المخاطرة في قدرتهم على دفع الالتزامات المالية الشهرية»، وتضعها بتصرف المؤسَّسات المالية والتجارية والإلكترونية مقابل أجر مادي (27 تشرين الأول/اكتوبر 2020)

وبناءً على تلك الآليّة من البيانات، وتعزيزها ببيانات إضافية محدّدة تصل لنحو 1،500 عنصر، مثل «الحالة الشخصية، وحجم الديون الشخصية، ونوع السيارة او السيارات المسجلة، وعضوية الأندية، بما فيها الرياضية، والخلفية الدينية ومدى الميل للتمسك بها، وأهمية عنصر الخصوصية لدى الفرد أو مدى ثقته بشركات التقنية المتطورة وبيانات الهواتف الشخصية»، يجري عرضها بتصرف الحزبين وفي السوق لمن يدفع أكثر، وتتبادلها المؤسَّسات التجارية وتلك غير الربحية المتعددة، لتشكل «صناعة البيانات» والاتجار بها.

حملة المرشحة السابقة للرئاسة عن الحزب الديموقراطي إليزابيث ووران تُبلغ الناخبين في بياناتها بأنها «قد تتشارك البيانات الخاصة بالناخب .. مع مرشحين آخرين ومنظمات وحملات انتخابية ومجموعات ناشطة أو مع قضايا نعدّها حليفة وتتقاطع معنا في الآراء السياسية».

اللجنة المركزية للحزب الجمهوري أبلغت طاقم الصحيفة أعلاه «بالافتخار لاحتفاظها بقاعدة بيانات عريضة تشمل أكثر من 3،000 بند لكلّ ناخب»، والأمر عينه ينطبق على الحزب الديموقراطي ،وربما بقدر أقل أو أكثر، وتوضع بمجموعها تحت تصرف المرشح وحملته الانتخابية، سواء لمنصب محلي أو فيدرالي.

خطورة التصرف غير المقيّد بتلك البيانات عرضتها القناة 4 البريطانية في شهر أيلول/سبتمبر الماضي، للدلالة على ما أسمته الفضيحة التي حامت حول شركة «كامبريدج اناليتيكا » لتقصيها قواعد بيانات الناخبين من «فايسبوك» وتسخيرها لتعطيل قدرة الناخبين السود (الأفارقة الأميركيين) على الإدلاء بأصواتهم في العام 2016، خدمة لحملة المرشح الرئاسي دونالد ترامب.

عودة إلى الأرقام والنسب الشعبية المئوية للمرشحين، يتفوَّق جوزيف بايدن بنسبة 69% على منافسه الرئيس ترامب بنسبة 14% من أصوات السود الأميركيين. وبين ذوي الأصول اللاتينية، يتفوَّق بايدن بنسبة 65% مقابل 31% لترامب. وبين الأسيويين الأميركيين، يتفوَّق أيضاً بايدن بنسبة 62% مقابل 33%، وذلك بحسب استطلاع أجرته مجلة المال والأعمال «فوربس Forbes))»، 31 تشرين الأول/اكتوبر 2020.

وتشير المجلة إلى تفوق الرئيس ترامب على خصمه بين الناخبين البيض الشباب بنسبة 49% مقابل 47%.

لمتابعة نتائج الانتخابات الأولية خلال ليلة الفرز، ينبغي استقاء المعلومات الموثَّقة من جهاز كلّ ولاية على حدة، ممثّلة بالموقع الرسمي لما يطلق عليه «وزير خارجية» الولاية، ولا سيما في ظلِّ تضارب التكهّنات من قبل المؤ سَّسات المختلفة ومحطات التلفزة ليلة الانتخابات.

يتميّز ذلك الجهاز المحلي بسيطرته على كافة البيانات الانتخابية، سواء المباشرة أو بالبطاقات المسبقة وعبر البريد، والتي يجري فحصها وتسجيلها تباعا، وفق القوانين المحلية لكل ولاية على حدة، ومن ثم تعلن النتائج الرسمية. وعند هذه النقطة الفاصلة، يستطيع المرء البناء على نتائج وبيانات موثّقة، والتي قد تجد طريق حسمها النهائي أما المحاكم العليا لكل ولاية ابتداء، ومن ثم المحكمة العليا الفيدرالية.

نسوق ذلك للدلالة على محورية ولاية فلوريدا في السباق الانتخابي الرئاسي, والتي عادة ما تشكل نتائجها هوية رئيس البلاد المقبل، نظراً إلى ثقلها الانتخابيّ الثالث بعد كاليفورنيا وتكساس، وامتلاكها 29 صوتاً في الهيئة الانتخابية.

التاريخ السياسي للكيان الأميركي يؤكد أهمية كسب ولاية فلوريدا في الحسم المبكر للانتخابات الرئاسية، والتي خسرها مرشحان عن الحزب الديموقراطي، واستطاعا الفوز بمنصب الرئاسة، وهما جون كنيدي في العام 1960 وبيل كلينتون في العام 1992.

فلوريدا تحتوي على نسبة عالية من الناخبين المسنين والمتقاعدين، (26% من المجموع العام)، يمارسون دورهم ككتلة متراصة لا يستطيع أي مرشح تجاوزها. وقد فاز بها الرئيس ترامب في العام 2016 بتأييد 17% من تلك الشريحة، وهو يحظى بتأييد 59% مقابل 38% لخصمه من ناخبي الفئة العمرية 70 عاماً. وكذلك، تتضمّن شريحة قوية من الناخبين ذوي الأصول الكوبية المعادين للنظام الاشتراكي ، وهم يصوتون بغالبيتهم لصالح الحزب الجمهوري، (17% من المجموع العام).

المرشحّ الديموقراطي بايدن يعوّل أيضاً على الفوز بولاية فلوريدا وثقلها الانتخابي، لاعتقاده بأنها ستعزز حظوظه بشكل كبير، وتعفيه من عبء المراهنة على كسب ثلاث ولايات مركزية متأرجحة: بنسلفانيا ومشيغان وويسكونسن. وفي حال فشله في كسب ولاية فلوريدا، وهو احتمال قوي، يتعيَّن عليه الفوز بالولايات الثلاثة المذكورة إضافة إلى ولاية منيسوتا. في المقابل، لا يوجد طريق فعلي لفوز ترامب اذا خسر ولاية فلوريدا.

نسب تأييد بايدن في ولاية ويسكونسن مقلقة، بحسب استطلاع «ترافيلغار»، الذي يشير إلى تقدم بايدن بنسبة 47.5% مقابل 47.1%. بعض الاستطلاعات الأخرى ترجّح تقدمه على ترامب بنسبة 6.4%.

ليلة الانتخابات

في ظل «الجو الانتخابي المسموم»، تشكّل شبه إجماع عام على محورية الانتخابات الرئاسية للعام الجاري، وكذلك عدم التيقّن من إعلان الفائز في الانتخابات مع إقفال صناديق الاقتراع في أقصى الولايات المتحدة، بسبب فارق التوقيت، بعد العاشرة ليلاً بتوقيت العاصمة واشنطن، وذلك لأول مرة.

الرئيس ترامب لا يترك مناسبة دون التصريح بأن الانتخابات ستشهد تزويراً، وخصوصاً إذا لم يربح. وقد تعهّد المرشحان مسبقاً باللجوء إلى القضاء لحسم نتائج الانتخابات والطعن في بعض البيانات لأسباب تقنية بمعظمها، لكنَّ بعضها يؤشر على مهزلة حقيقية. مثلاً، أعلنت «مقاطعة بتلر» في ولاية بنسلفانيا فقدانها قوائم الانتخابات المبكرة لنحو 40،000 ناخب يوم 29 تشرين الأول/اكتوبر الجاري. ومن غير المستبعد تبادل الاتهامات لإقصاء وإتلاف بضعة آلاف أو أكثر من البطاقات الرسمية، قبل احتساب القوائم النهائية وإعلان نتائج الولايات بشكل رسمي، وهذا سيستغرق زمناً غير محدد المعالم.

التحذيرات من الاشتباكات في الشوارع خرجت عن نطاق التهديد اللفظي المجرد، وخصوصاً لمجموعات عنصرية من اليمين المتشدد مدجّجة بالأسلحة، ما استدعى من الأجهزة الأمنيّة الإعداد لخطط طوارئ، ومنها العاصمة، التي ستغلق شوارعها المحيطة بمنطقي الكونغرس والبيت الأبيض.

يومية «واشنطن بوست» أوردت «حجم القلق السائد بين الأجهزة الأمنية الفيدرالية من إمكانية اندلاع اشتباكات عنيفة، وخصوصاً اذا استمرت عملية فرز البطاقات الانتخابية لبضعة أيام دون أفق لحسم النتائج»، في ظل اقبال غير مسبوق على شراء الأسلحة الفردية بلغ 18 مليون قطعة لهذا العام، بحسب بيانات مكتب التحقيقات الفيدرالي.

أجهزة الشرطة المحلية في مدينة بورتلاند في ولاية اوريغون، في أقصى الغرب الأميركي، حذّرت من «نيّة مجموعات يمينية مسلّحة من التجمهر أمام صناديق الاقتراع يوم الثلاثاء بأسلحتهم أمام العامة». انزلاق البلاد إلى مواجهات مسلّحة بؤرية، ولو بوتيرة مضبوطة، هي أشدّ ما تخشاه المؤسَّسة الرسمية بكلّ تشعّباتها، السياسيّة والعسكريةّ والاستخباراتيّة، وستبذل اقصى الجهود لمنعها من التطّور والانتشار.

في المقابل، تتأهب الاجهزة القضائية في الولايات، وعلى المستوى الفيدرالي، للبت بالطعون والطعون المضادة قبل حسم النتائج، على خلفية وعود قطعها المرشحان الجمهوري والديموقراطي بعدم التقيد بالنتائج الأولية. عند هذا المفصل، تبرز أهمية إصرار الرئيس ترامب وقادة حزبه الجمهوري على تعيين آيمي كوني باريت للمحكمة الفيدرالية العليا، كضمانة إضافية للتصويت لصالحه.

استناداً إلى تلك المعطيات، نستطيع القول إن إعلان نتائج الانتخابات الرئاسية الرسمية سيستغرق بضعة أيام وربما أسابيع، وبعدم رضا أي من الفريقين. اما الرئيس ترامب، وبحسب جملة من العوامل والظروف وجمهور مؤيّديه، فقد أبلغ موظّفي حملته الانتخابية مسبقاً بالتأهب للعمل المتواصل طيلة شهر تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر، وامكانية استمراره في عقد مهرجاناته الخطابية، والطلب من كبار معاونيه الإعداد للسفر المتواصل لحشد قاعدته الانتخابية، وذلك بحسب نشرة «بوليتيكو» (30 تشرين الأول/اكتوبر).

يبدو أنّ الرئيس ترامب غير مستعد لقبول الهزيمة. وربما تحصل مفاجأة تشير إلى فوز وازن لأحدهما، مما يقلص من فترة الغموض والتوتر والانتظار التي ستعقب يوم الانتخاب.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Normalization between some Arab governments and ‘Israel’: Facts and figures

By Khalid Qaddoumi

September 14, 2020 – 16:3

The term itself says that something is not “normal”. It needs to be normalized, or something that was a taboo is converted into permissible. This is the situation of the relations between Arabs and “Israel” since the Palestinians’ catastrophe (Nakba) in 1948 when the “Israeli” occupation started. Hence, no doubt this topic is controversial and paradoxical.

A few ideas on the subject is given below:

(1) Where has the normalization process reached after 42 years of the first attempt at Camp David 1978?

In 1978 the Egyptian government forged its official diplomatic relations with “Israel” brokered by the United States government. On the 20th of January 2000, The Economist published an article titled “Israelis whom Egyptians love to hate.” The article endorsed the negative “Israeli” character portrayed by the cinema producers in Egypt. “Their women are sluttish schemers. Their men scowling thugs, prone to blood-spilling and to strange guttural barking,” the Economist said. Irrespective of decades of relations, the Egyptians still have their “unwelcoming” attitude to the newly imposed and alien “friend.”

In 2016 another study was published where Dr. Abdulaleem, the senior advisor to the Center of Pyramids for political and strategic studies, said, “Egyptians are least interested in any sort of normalization with “Israel”. The paper mentioned that such a relationship is only at the security apparatus level and few desks at the Egyptian Foreign Ministry. It is a “cold peace,” it wrote.

Alzaytouna’s study center conducted an opinion poll in 2019 about the popularity of the relations with “Israel” among some Muslim countries. The poll concluded that only 3% of Egyptians, 4% of Pakistanis, 6% of Turkish, and 15% of Indonesians may welcome some sort of relations with “Israel”. Many conditioned it after a just solution for the Palestinians.

The study stated that such a process has nothing to do with any fair demands of the Arab nations nor brought any benefit for peace attempts or any economic interests for the nations that the politicians tried to market their causes.

After Israel protested over a contract to sell American F35 jets to the Emirates, the former chief of the “Israeli” army Gadi Eizenkot told “Israel Hayom”: “in the Middle East (West Asia) your new friends may turn to be your enemy. Hence, the “Israeli” surpassing quality power (over the Arabs) is highly essential.”

An obvious “Israeli” skeptical mentality and policy towards Arabs prevents any type of so-called normalization.

(2) Money talks, or something else?

If we agree to the mentioned pragmatic notion, one may expect some economic boost even at the bilateral level between the Emirates and “Israel.” On the 8th of September 2020, the Minister of “Intelligence” of “Israel”, Eli Cohen, said that “In three to five years the balance of trade between the Emirates and us may reach four billion dollars.”

 First, why should a minister of “Intelligence” announce such economic news?

 Second, let us compare this balance of trade with the balance of trade between the Emirates and a neighboring country like Iran. In that case, the figure may exceed 13.5 billion dollars. Here one may say that something else other than “Money talks.”

 Many analysts refer to such a process as an intense and vital need for the current leaders in “Israel” and the U.S. to get re-elected.

 Netanyahu is facing corruption trials, and many riots and rallies are being held against him that may qualify the situation for a fourth election. On the other hand, Trump faces a series of fiascoes at different levels; his government’s disastrous approach to the COVID- 19 pandemic that infected millions, the racial discrimination, and the people in the streets protesting the police behavior against the civilians.

Bibi and Trump initiated such a process to safeguard their own endangered political future. In conclusion, one cannot bet on the viability of such a deal.

Other analysts see this deal to jeopardize the security and stability of the region.
Some “Israeli” commentators have accused Netanyahu of forging new relations with “countries that have no geopolitical importance like Bahrain and the Emirates but at the same time are neighbors to Iran,” which may lead to more escalation and expected violence in the region.

(3) Finally, what such normalization can benefit the Palestinians as the victims who are supposed to wait for the fruits of peace out of this deal? On the contrary, all the Palestinians, irrespective of their political affiliations, have refused and denounced this deal.

Even those who tried to reach a peace with Israel based on the 1993 Oslo accords, unequivocally rejected the deal to the extent that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party describing the process as “betrayal.” 

Other Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who gathered lately in Beirut, announced their utmost discontent against the deal and consider it as a “reward for the “Israeli” criminals on their crimes.” 

The secretaries General of all Palestinian parties who convened in Beirut protested against the deal and called upon the Arab League to denounce it. 

In conclusion, the so-called “just solution” to the Palestinian issue cannot be achieved through such shortcuts of normalizations between Arabs and “Israel”. The Palestinians are the only side to decide their own destiny and no one else.

الاستطلاعات عدوّ ترامب الجديد


الثلاثاء 30 حزيران 2020

الاستطلاعات عدوّ ترامب الجديد
نفت حملة الرئيس بشدّة إمكانية انسحابه من السباق الانتخابي (أ ف ب )

بالرغم من مهاجمة دونالد ترامب للاستطلاعات التي أجرتها وسائل الإعلام الأميركية، أخيراً، فإنّ واقعاً جديداً فرض نفسه على الرئيس وحزبه الجمهوري، سببه تعاطي الإدارة مع «كورونا» والاحتجاجات… وترامب نفسهيواجه الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب تهديداً من نوع آخر، جسّدته موجة استطلاعات أجراها العديد من وسائل الإعلام الأميركية، أخيراً، من بينها شبكة «فوكس نيوز» المقرّبة منه، والتي أظهرت تخلّفه بشكل كبير عن منافسه الديموقراطي جو بايدن. وإن كانت هذه الاستطلاعات قد دفعت ترامب إلى وصفها بـ«الكاذبة»، إلّا أنّ ذلك لم يكن كافياً لإلغاء المخاوف التي تعتري الحزب الجمهوري بشأن المخاطر التي تصطدم بها فرص إعادة انتخابه.

وفق شبكة «فوكس نيوز»، فقد دفع هذا الواقع ببعض النافذين في الحزب الجمهوري إلى التساؤل عمّا إذا كان ترامب سينسحب من السباق الانتخابي، في حال لم تتحسّن أرقام الاستطلاعات. وبالرغم من تشكيك البعض في إمكانية حصول ذلك، فإن أحد هؤلاء النافذين قال للشبكة إنه «إذا استمرّت الاستطلاعات في التدهور، يمكنك أن ترى سيناريو حيث ينسحب»، بينما راهن آخر على أنّ ترامب «قد ينسحب في حال رأى أن من المستحيل أن يفوز».
الأسباب وراء هذه التكهّنات تعود إلى ما شهدته الأسابيع الأخيرة الماضية من انخفاض كبير لأرقام ترامب في الاستطلاعات، وسط الانتقادات التي طالت إدارته بشأن تعاملها مع جائحة «كورونا»، وردّ البيت الأبيض على التظاهرات والاحتجاجات، على خلفية مقتل جورج فلويد، في أواخر شهر أيار /مايو في مينيابوليس، عندما كان في عهدة الشرطة.

وفي هذا السياق، أظهر استطلاع أجرته شبكة «فوكس نيوز» أنّ الرئيس متأخّر عن بايدن بـ12 نقطة، بينما أفاد معدّل الاستطلاعات الصادر عن موقع «RealClearPolitics» بأنّ بايدن يتقدّم ترامب بحوالى 10 نقاط. وما يعطي هذه الأرقام أهمية أكبر، هو تقدّم بايدن في العديد من الولايات التي تشكّل ساحات معارك أساسية، بينما يظهر جنباً إلى جنب مع ترامب في ولاياتٍ طالما عُدّت معقلاً للجمهوريين، مثل تكساس.

أظهر استطلاع لـ«فوكس نيوز» أنّ ترامب متأخّر عن بايدن بـ 12 نقطة

وعن هذا الواقع بالذات، أوضح موقع «بوليتيكو» أنّ «انفجار» إصابات «كوفيد ـــــ 19» في ولايات «الحزام الشمسي» (المنطقة الممتدة عبر جنوب الشرق وجنوب الغرب من الولايات المتحدة) بات يشكّل عائقاً جديداً أمام آمال إعادة انتخاب دونالد ترامب، ما يفتح المجال أمام فرصة جديدة لجو بايدن والديموقراطيين في تشرين الثاني/ نوفمبر. وأشار الموقع إلى أنّ الحكّام الجمهوريين لولايات فلوريدا، وأريزونا وتكساس، اتّبعوا تعليمات ترامب القاضية بإعادة فتح ولاياتهم، بشكل سريع، بينما اعتمدوا نهجاً متساهلاً في إطار التباعد الاجتماعي. وبالرغم من أن من الصعب تقدير مدى خطورة الوضع بالنسبة إلى ترامب، فإنّ «بوليتيكو» لفت إلى أنّه «في حال خسر واحدة من الولايات الثلاث، تصبح إعادة انتخابه محكومة بالفشل».

في مقابل ذلك، نفت حملة ترامب بشدّة إمكانية انسحاب هذا الأخير من السباق الانتخابي، وانتقدت الاستطلاعات «التي اختزلت الناخبين الجمهوريين بشكل متعمّد». يأتي ذلك بعدما كانت حملته قد أصدرت مذكّرة، بعد الاستطلاعات الأخيرة، يوم الأحد، رفضت فيها الادعاءات بأنّ فرص إعادة انتخاب الرئيس كانت تواجه مشكلة. أمّا ترامب، فلم يلبث أن ردّ، في تغريدة عبر موقع «تويتر»، قال فيها: «آسف لإعلام الديموقراطيين الذين لا يفعلون شيئاً، ولكنّي أحظى بأرقام جيدة جداً في الاستطلاعات الداخلية للحزب الجمهوري». وأضاف: «تماماً مثل عام 2016، استطلاعات ذي نيويورك تايمز كاذبة! استطلاعات فوكس نيوز نكتة! هل تظنّون أنهم سيعتذرون منّي ومن مشتركيهم مجدّداً عندما أفوز؟ الناس يريدون القانون، والنظام والأمن».

مع ذلك، وفي ظلّ اقتراب الانتخابات الرئاسية، بعد أربعة أشهر، يتطلّع المهتمّون بشؤون الحزب الجمهوري وموظّفو حملة ترامب، إلى تحويل مسار الاستطلاعات السيّئة، عبر توجيه هدفهم إلى ما اعتبروه نقاط ضعف بايدن الرئيسية. من هذا المنطلق، تسعى حملة ترامب إلى التركيز على هفوات المرشّح الديموقراطي، إضافة إلى مهاجمته على اعتبار أنه «ناعمٌ» مع الصين، مشكّكين في صحّته العقلية، ومشيرين إلى أنه سيصبح رهينة يسار حزبه، إذا ما تمكّن من الوصول إلى البيت الأبيض.

كذلك، أفادت صحيفة «واشنطن بوست» بأنّ ترامب وفريق حملته يتجادلون حول كيفية إحياء جهود إعادة انتخابه الهشّة. وفي هذا الإطار، أشارت الصحيفة إلى أنّ عدداً من مستشاري الرئيس وحلفائه يدفعون بشكل خاص إلى إحداث تغييرات في حملته، بما فيها تغييرٌ كبير في الموظفين، وذلك بينما يسعون إلى إقناع ترامب بأن يكون أكثر انضباطاً في رسائله وسلوكه.

New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah

New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah

By Staff – Washington Institute

A reliable new Lebanese public opinion poll, conducted in November, showed that a large majority of the country’s Shia population retain positive views of Hezbollah even as major anti-government protests include many Shia participants for the first time.

According to the Washington Institute, David Pollock said this surprising finding casts doubt on speculation that Hezbollah might suddenly be in danger of losing its core constituency.

New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah

New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah

New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah

New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah

New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah

New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah


Why France’s 20- and 30-somethings hate the Yellow Vests

Why France’s 20- and 30-somethings hate the Yellow Vests

by Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker Blog

It’s a question which needs be asked, but we can’t wait for the French media to answer it because they have almost totally stopped reporting on the anti-government movement for several months.

The first poll on the Yellow Vests since late March (“!”, and then “?”) finally came out two weeks ago. It was so eagerly gobbled up by a French media hungry for objective knowledge on the Yellow Vests that as many as two media talked about it. I missed it because I have already wasted a minimum of 3 hours of my life doing fruitless Google news searches for “Yellow Vest poll”.

The headline of Ouest-France newspaper, by far the most read Francophone paper in the world, was typically “negative-no-matter-what”: “A majority of France have had enough of the Yellow Vests”.

That’s a pretty bold statement considering that this majority is just 52%, which must be within the poll’s margin of error.

The headline could have fairly been: “A majority of France still supports the Yellow Vests despite all the state repression and media negativity”. Considering what a historic anti-government movement this is – the French have just avoided a 9th consecutive austerity budget expressly because of the Yellow Vests – objective journalism would have prioritised the “support” angle and not the “oppose” angle.

More poll tidbits to munch on for those who care about public opinion (which means you are obviously not a Western politician):

Vesters are now openly opposed by retirees (63%), executives/management (61%) and technicians/professionals (58%). However, they are openly supported by workers (52%), rural citizens (47%), the National Front party (64%) and the (true, not far-) leftist Unsubmissive France party (80%). Per the pollers: “The Yellow Vests remain popular with those segments of the population which were at the origin of the movement.

One final poll petit-four: 93% of those who support Macron’s party are against the Yellow Vests, while another recent poll showed that 98% of Macronistas think he is doing a good job. What this reminds us is that there is a hard-core Macronista base for whom he can absolutely do no wrong. I assumed such adoration was limited to 60+ year old single women dreaming of a winter-spring romance (an incredibly winter-spring romance), but it is a solid quarter of the population. This rate of genuine support is actually unchanged since the election in 2017: a quarter of France just adores this guy, no matter what, and apparently no amount of violence can change that.

Let’s get to the point of this column

One segment of society which does not support the Yellow Vests is the 20- and 30-something crowd.

This is based on my regular attendance at Yellow Vest demonstrations, and also many months of informally talking with this age group (of which I am quite nearly a part of). I’d like to pass on what I think are the reasons for their opposition:

  • We must remember that the Yellow Vests are primarily a middle-aged phenomenon – the average of those marching is probably 50 years old. This age group is the one which is most motivated because they are nearing retirement and they see just how bad austerity will make things for them. This generation will not do anywhere as well as their parents, and they are rightfully upset – they really had no chance to “succeed”: they found jobs (or can’t find any job) which will provide the personal nest egg which is required in the Anglo-Saxon system, which is the system that neoliberal austerity seeks to disruptively impose on France. The main problem is that French wages have always been far lower, and taxes quite higher, than their Western counterparts because the deal was that they’d have low wages but a much better social safety net. This deal has been terminated during the Age of Austerity, and Macron’s absurd, inhuman “one-size-fits-all” pension reform is the coup de grâce. Therefore, this segment of society – not professional, working class, low savings, not university educated, not thrilled with their job but still as vital to the functioning of society as you or me – is leading the revolt because they know that if they don’t… they will be working their low-paying job until they are 64 or their knees give out (whichever comes first), and then have a pittance of a pension to boot.
  • What about the young adult Parisians? Firstly, this is an old persons’ town – you have to have money to live within its highway walls. But are you talking about those who were raised in Paris? I guess you mainly referring to those who grew up in the rich Western areas – that place I go and look at like a tourist (seems nice over there), with all their fancy little kids and quiet and trees. People who grow up in these areas are rich – these are the very Macronista urbanites who are young, terrifying and want to eat their elders. They view Macron as their leader, God and role model. So young adult Parisians manning the barricades? Fuggetaboutit. This holds true for all of France’s cities.
  • What about the working class adult urbanites? Like in my area? Do you mean the Chinese, the Hasidic or the Arabs? All of these worker bees crammed into small, noisy apartments were likely turned off by the immediate and totally false smear that the Yellow Vests were racist. Also, the working class is often quite busy working.
  • What about the poor city suburbs, surely they are sympathetic? Indeed, the poor Muslim, Arab and Black areas are all totally sympathetic to the Vesters. However, they are not stupid – they know that if they go to the Vester demonstrations in any city the cops will absolutely, undoubtedly wage police brutality on them first. This truth is so very, very, very self-evident to Muslims and people of Color that we cannot even imagine that many of you cannot accept this, and we just turn and walk away when we start getting blamed for not leading the Yellow Vest charge. People from these areas have been totally marginalised… but when you need cannon fodder, then we get an engraved invitation? LOL, thanks, but no thanks. Nobody cares about the opinion of these areas/groups anyway, but I can report that the Vesters do indeed have their sincere moral support. Finally, Muslims and Blacks probably compose around 5-8% of France – if they did join en masse only 1 out of every 20 Vesters or so would be a non-White, anyway.

And here is the main reason why French Whites – who are the majority among the 20- and 30-somethings in France – do not support the Vesters.

  • I was surprised at the immediate antipathy for the Yellow Vests among the young White French adults I talked with in Paris, but who are the young White French adults in Paris? These are the primarily the people from small towns who are creative types and who move to the urban areas in order to flee the small-town culture, people, mores and activities they found so very stifling. The Yellow Vests are a primarily rural movement, and – as I have described their primary social-class makeup – France’s young urbanites seem to view the Vesters as the older classmates/bullies who made fun of them for being arty and weird and urbanite-aping back in their small town – many 30-somethings in Paris moved expressly to get away from these types! Therefore, it is unthinkable for them to side with the Yellow Vests, and after only the very first couple of demonstrations Parisian young adults seemingly all turned against the Yellow Vests, in my experience. These Parisian young adults see a faded, generic, poorly drawn forearm tattoo on many a Vester, and then they look at their own fancy tattoo (a Chinese character, a magic symbol, or some emblem of personal motivation or social defiance) and they think: “To hell with those White Trash – I never got invited to their parties and I want to lead a different lifestyle.”

So there you have it in a nutshell. Many French people actually made the move to the big city from the small town because they fundamentally resent the people who primarily compose the Yellow Vests.

There are other reasons:

  • Paris attracts young adults from all over the world – where are they? The Western expatriates living in France feel similarly or even more hostile than their French counterparts, in my experience. Many absurdly view Yellow Vests as outright reactionaries, mainly because they have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about when it comes to “French culture + class struggle”. These Western White expats simplistically view Vesters as extensions of their own “Brexiteers”, “basket of deplorable American rednecks”, etc., and do not feel the need to dig any deeper than such a superficial comparison – many of these immigrants would have a hard time understanding even if they tried, such is their unfamiliarity with a class lens. Bottom line: they are not about to stop the “Western expat party” and get tear gassed for any Yellow Vest, that is certain.
  • France, contrary to Anglophone media claims, is not a socialist country: aristocratic snobbery permeates and runs amok in the culture here as only it can on the Old Continent. It’s worse in Paris, but “I reject you first” is the initial war a French person declares upon meeting someone. The young adult urbanites in France have not at all been inculcated with class warfare and class solidarity, but identity politics: they identify with their fellow “bobos” (bourgeois bohemians), hipsters, artists and pretty young people. Have a shoulder tattoo I can’t see and not a wrist tattoo? Not cool enough. Next please. Swipe left. Je m’en fous.
  • France was an individualist country even before the rise of neoliberalism, I imagine, but rapacious neoliberalism surely leads to a fundamental lack of sympathy: Young urbanites here simply cannot imagine – nor do they try to – the grim future which 50-year old Yellow Vesters know to be a rapidly encroaching fact.
  • Furthermore, young people are dumb, (If you were paying me for this I’d look it up and provide the link but you’ll have to just take my word for it): I read a recent poll which said that something like 10% of young French people think Macron’s radical reforms will not actually reduce their own pensions, LOL! Sure… you’ll be the one who is special. Vesters are old enough to know better to get involved with this movement.

Given all these facts, we must realise that these urbanites want revenge on the class which primarily composes the Vesters – they don’t want to see them win, and they have repeatedly told me they don’t want them marching anymore in their hipster paradise areas of Paris.

I use the strong word “revenge” because I have found this to be a hugely important motivator in Western capitalist society. These young (smug, stupid, classist, fake-leftist/rabid neoliberal) anti-Yellow Vesters want not only a huge chunk of the pie, but they also to show all the people they left behind what a big shot they lost.

This is not hyperbole – this is what “competition” truly is. Western society (being anti-socialist and rabidly individualist) is fundamentally predicted on competition, and thus these types of feelings can be found plastered on billboards as a form of encouragement.

Finally, it is not “cool” to be a Vester in the French mainstream, and 20- and 30-somethings in the West prize “cool” above all. If you think famous actors, musicians, artists, thinkers, ballplayers, etc. are showing up/have ever showed up to Yellow Vest demonstrations… you must think these people don’t fear losing their social status more than anything – then they would have to get a real job.

“But Ramin,” you object, “how can cool people not be at the Yellow Vest demonstrations when YOU are there?”

Thank you. It seems paradoxical, indeed, but there’s an easy explanation: I turn 42 next week.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of “I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China”.

The Russian pension chicken is coming home to roost… (UPDATED)

The Saker

The Russian pension chicken is coming home to roost… (UPDATED)

January 18, 2019

[This article was written for the Unz Review]

According to RT, citing a Levada Center poll,

Over 50 percent of Russians are disappointed in the government of Dmitry Medvedev, which, they believe, is unable to curb growing prices and provide jobs for people, a new poll has revealed.  Some 23 percent said they were absolutely sure that the government must resign, with another 30 percent telling Levada-Center that they were also leaning toward this opinion.  This means that a total of 53 percent would like the country to have a new cabinet. Trust in the government has crumbled since September, when only 23 percent advocated its resignation. Meanwhile, the proportion of people who believed the government should stay in charge was 40 percent, with 14 percent expressing full confidence in the cabinet, and 26 percent saying that resignation wouldn’t be the best idea.

Source: Jan 15th 2019 (details here:

This was very predictable and, in fact, I did predict just that when I wrote “A comment I just saw on the YouTube chat of the inauguration was succinct and to the point: “Путин кинул народ – мы не за Медведева голосовали” or “Putin betrayed the people – we did not vote for Medvedev”. This is going to be a very widely shared feeling, I am afraid (…) Medvedev is unpopular and that most Russians hoped to see a new face. Yet Putin ignored this public sentiment. That is a very worrying sign, in my opinion“.  In a subsequent article I wrote that “it is quite clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed, really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin (again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension. For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It will be interesting to see if Putin’s personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition“.

Think about it in this way: we know from ALL the past elections that the pro-Western segment of the Russian population is somewhere around 1-3% (that is why they cannot make it into the Duma).  But let’s generously give that hardcore, liberal, opposition 5%, for argument’s sake.  So if 53% of Russians want a new cabinet, and if 5% of Russians are hardcore pro-Western liberals, then who are the remaining 48%?

Or in this way: if 53% of Russians want a new cabinet, and if Putin’s approval rating is still somewhere in the 65% range, who are those Russians who like Putin but dislike the Medvedev government?

There is an easy cop-out argument which I´ve often offered to explain away this fact:

Levada Center is officially classified as a “foreign agent” under Russian law.  This makes sense: for one thing, Levada Center receives most of its financing from abroad, including the USA and even the Pentagon!  Furthermore, Levada is staffed by liberals (in the Russian meaning of the word which really means “pro-US”) whose biases are also reflected in their work.  However, while this is all true, Levada is still credible enough to be cited even by Russian officials.  Finally, the kind of results Levada publishes are often generally similar to the finding of the official VTsIOMpolling institution, not down to the percentage point, but often reflecting similar trends (check out the VTsIOM English language page here:  So the fact that Putin is much more popular than Medvedev or that the majority of Russian people are unhappy with the government really is not in doubt.

So regardless of the actual numbers, it is clear that the Russian government is only popular with those whom it allows to make a lot of money (corporations and various millionaires and billionaires) and that everybody else strongly dislikes it.

And yet, recently Putin was asked if he was happy with the government and his reply was “on the whole, yes“.

This type of political yoga is hard to sustain in the long term: if Putin is the champion of the interests of the common people, and if most common people feel that the government cares more for millionaires and billionaires, then how can the President say that he is “on the whole happy” with the government?

It is truly a crying shame that the basics of Marxism-Leninism is not taught in schools and colleges any more (even some self-described “Communists” are clearly clueless about what Marx, Lenin or even Hegel taught!).  Not because the solutions advocated by Marx and his followers are so universally effective, but because one can use the Marxist-Leninist conceptual toolkit to better understand the world we live in and, one can do this without necessarily endorsing the solutions offered by Marxism.  For example, in the West at least, very few people are aware of this very simple Marxist-Leninist definition of what a state, any state, really is.  According to Lenin, the state is simply an “apparatus of coercion and violence by which the ruling class governs the society“.  Specifically Lenin wrote:

In essence, the state is ruling apparatus created from the human society. When such a group of people appears, one which is only concerned with ruling over others, and which for that purpose needs a coercion apparatus which can force people to obey by means of jails, special units, armed forces, etc, – that is the moment when the state appears (Lenin, collective works, vol 39, page 69).

From a Marxist point of view, any state is always and by definition the dictatorship of the ruling class, which is a good thing, at least according to the Marxists, when this ruling class is the workers and people, and a very bad thing when the ruling class is the plutocracy.

In the post-modern West, where political discourse has been reduced to a particularly nauseating form of intellectual flatulence, the very notion of “class” and “class warfare” has been fully replaced with vapid (pseudo-) identity politics which completely obfuscate all the real issues and problems our world is dealing with.  Thus, by removing the concepts and categories needed to understand the nature of the struggle which is taking place internationally, but also inside each of the countries currently living under the AngloZionist yoke, the leaders of the Empire have deprived the people they rule over from the means to understand why and how they are oppressed.  All that nonsense about “gay” rights, gun control, #meetoo, the many sex scandals, the struggle for racial identity (White or Black or any other), abortion, drugs and all the rest of the crap we are fed on a daily basis by the AngloZionist propaganda machine are primarily a distraction to keep the eyes of the general population from the real issues.  In a way, this zombification and re-direction to fake topics serves exactly the same function as the red cape of the bullfighter: to keep the bull busy with trying to gore a harmless red piece of cloth while completely missing the real cause of his suffering and eventual death.

From that point of view, the Russian people are much better informed and have a much better understanding of what is going on.  For example, while in the West the people define “democracy” as “people power” (or something similar), in Russia the joke is that “democracy is the power of the democrats” which, in Russia, is a general codeword/euphemism for “pro-US wealthy liberal” who want to turn Russia into some kind of “bigger Poland” or something equally uninspiring.

Various pro-Western “intellectuals” like to say that this is an old Russian pathology: to say that the Czar (President) is very good, but his court (the Ministers) are bad and that this makes absolutely no sense. These are the folks who go as far as denying the existence of a struggle between what I call Eurasian Sovereignists (roughly Putin supporters) and Atlantic Integrationists (roughly Medvedev and the “economic block” of this government).

The folks who deny this remind me of something Berthold Brecht once wrote after the 1953 uprising in Berlin in a short poem entitled “The Solution”: (emphasis added)

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

This deep alienation from the Russian masses, this notion that the Russian people have, yet again, failed to heed the “wise words” of the “progressive intelligentsia” and other (mainly financial) “elites” has plagued the Russian ruling classes since Peter I and is still at the very core of their worldview.  Believe you me, the Russian “liberals” and the folks in the West who deny that there is any 5th column in Russia are psychologically and politically joined at the hip: neither one of them can accept this.  Furthermore, both the Russian “liberals” and the western believers in the values of “democracy” and “free market capitalism” share exactly the same worldview: they want the Russian people to become “Europeans” not in a geographical sense, of course (geographically speaking most Russian live in the European part of Russia), but culturally!  This is what the Popes wanted, this is what the French Freemasons wanted, this is what the Nazis wanted, and this is what the AngloZionists want.  That dream to turn Russians into Europeans while totally cleansing them from any “Russian-ness” is what united *all* the invaders of Russia over the centuries.

But the “stubborn” Russian people just don’t seem to “get it” and, for some totally mysterious reason, they always resist all these “benevolent” western attempts at “civilizing” them.

This is exactly what we see today: Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists try as hard as they can to *sovereignize* Russia; in other words, they want to make Russia *truly* Russian again.  Sounds basic, but that is categorically unacceptable to the Russian plutocrats and to their supporters in the West.  Thus any kind of defense of the Russian-ness of Russia is immediately and contemptuously dismissed as “national leftism”, “nationalism” or, God forbid!, “monarchism”.  And when the person trying to make the argument that Russia ought to be Russian uses Marxist concepts or categories, these arguments are also dismissed out of hand as an “outdated rhetoric of a system which has failed and discredited itself”.  What they fail to realize is to say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was due primarily/solely to the Marxist or Communist ideology is just as stupid as blaming the current collapse of democracy in the USA on the writings of the Founding Fathers rather than on the SOB politicians who are destroying this country day after day after day.  Tell me: when the USA finally bites the dust, will you simply declare that “democracy is dead” and that the “collapse of the USA proved that democracy is not a viable regime”?  So yes, the Soviet Union did indeed collapse, broken into 15 pieces by its own ruling elite (the Nomenklatura), but the ideas contained in the Marxist-Leninist ideology have not only not been “defeated” – they have not even been challenged (more on this issue here).

But, thank God! most Russians are still not willing to be incorporated into the “European cultural Borg collective“, at least not in the cultural sense.  And in spite of 300 years of oppression by various pro-western regimes (with various degrees of russophobia, not all were equally bad), the Russian people still want to remain Russian, not just by speaking a language, but by having a ruler and a regime in power which they feel defends their interests and not the interests of the ruling class. They want to live in their own civilizational realm, and not the kind of post-Christian intellectual desert the West has become.

Many decades of rabid russophobia by the rulers of the AngloZionist Empire have convinced the Russian people that they have no friends in the European or North American ruling elites and that true freedom comes through liberation, not submission.  That, and the appalling example of the consequences of the “Euromaidan” in the Ukraine.

At the end of the day, it is not about GDP or the availability of cheap consumer goods.  At the end of the day, it all depends on real, moral, ethical, spiritual and civilizational values.  This was true 1000 years ago and this is still true today.  At least in Russia.

It is very important to keep a close eye on this trend: the appearance of slowly but surely growing (truly) patriotic opposition (as opposed to the CIA-paid clowns in the Russian liberal camp).  As for the “official” opposition (LDPR, KPRF and the Just Russia), they might decide to grow a few teeth, initially small, baby teeth only, but if this trend accelerates, they might decide to look a tad more credible.  Until now the rather lame and ridiculous LDPR & KPRF parties are just a collective form of court jesters with no real opposition potential.  Just look at how the KPRF, thoroughly discredited by their crazy choice of the millionaire Grudinin for candidate, jumped onto the pension reform PR-disaster to suddenly try to launch a referendum.  This would never have happened in the past.

The political landscape in Russia is becoming more complicated, which is both good and bad.  It is bad because Putin’s personal political credit suffers, however modestly for now, from his continuous inability to purge the Kremlin from the 5th columnists, but it is also good because if things get bad enough Putin will have no choice but to (finally!) get rid of at least the most notorious 5th columnists.  But fundamentally the Russian people need to decide. Do they really want to live in a western-style capitalist society (with all the russophobic politics and the adoption of the terminally degenerate “culture” such a choice implies), or do they want a “social society” (to use Putin’s own words) – meaning a society in which social and economic justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal profits.

You could say that this is a battle of greed vs ethics.

The future of Russia, and much of the world, will depend on the outcome of this battle.

The Saker

UPDATE: well, just as I was mentioning that the fact that Levada Center and VTsIOM mostly agree, at least on trends, the Russian media is now reporting that the latter now also is reporting a drop in the popularity of Putin.  And just to make things worse, the Russian authorities have deported an (in-)famous anti-Nazi Ukrainian journalist, Elena Boiko, to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine in spite of the fact that Boiko had requested political asylum in Russia.  Now, Boiko is a very controversial person for sure (and, personally, not *at all* my cup of tea), but the sole fact that Russia would deport ANY anti-Nazi activist to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine is disgusting and revolting.  And, sure enough, the bovine-excreta is already hitting the proverbial fan as now members of the Duma, journalists and various personalities are demanding explanations for this absolutely stupid and deeply immoral act.  Sadly,  can only agree with Nikolai Starikov who speaks of a “liberal revanche” following the “Russian Spring” of 2014.  If this kind of nonsense continues we will see a further deterioration of Putin’s personal rating along with a gradual degradation of the Russian political environment.

The End of Zion

September 12, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon


By Gilad Atzmon

Before the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashana, the Hebrews are commanded to make an audit – an overview of their standing in the world. Haaretz, the paper of the so called ‘thinking Israelis,’ followed that Mitzvah, polling Israeli Jews on their attitudes toward Jewishness, Judaism, God and ‘the Jew.’

The Jewish God

The Jewish God is, without doubt, a spectacular invention. He (she or it) was invented by the Jews to love them especially. The Jewish God comes across as a jealous and vengeful character. He engages in genocidal projects, using WMDs of chemical and biological warfare as the early Egyptians could testify. Clearly the Jewish God would stand no chance at The Hague, but Jews seem to love their God, or more likely, are fearful of their own invention.

One may wonder why the Jews invented such an unpleasant deity. Couldn’t they contemplate a merciful and kind father instead? Initially, Zionism was a secular nationalist Jewish movement that tried to separate Jews from their evil God, to make them enlightened people. With that in mind, it is fascinating to examine what was missing from the Zionist secular ‘promise.’

Not a lot apparently.

According to Haaretz’ poll, “54 percent of Jewish Israelis believe in God, and another 21 percent accept the existence of an undefined superior power other than God.” These results resemble the American attitude toward God. A poll published by Pew Research a few months ago found that 56 percent of Americans believe in the original God of the Bible and another 23 percent in a superior force. It is worth noting, however, that unlike the Jewish god, the American God is largely Christian – kind and merciful.

believe in God?.png

Haaretz’ poll reveals the intimate relationship between right wing politics and Judaism. 78% of the Israeli right believe in God. Only 15% of the left are believers. This means that as Israel becomes more religious, the fate of the Israeli left is sealed. This is hardly surprising. Left is a universal attitude. Judaism is a tribal precept. Left Judaism is a contradiction in terms, the tribal and the universal are like oil and water, they do not mix. The Israeli left is destined to die out (assuming that it isn’t dead already).

For the Jew not the Many

The poll reveals that “Slightly more than half of Jewish Israelis believe that their rights to the Land of Israel derive from God’s divine covenant in the Bible.” I guess this doesn’t leave much hope for peace. “56 percent believe that the Jewish people are chosen people.” This leaves even less hope for peace. And to remove any possible doubt of a peaceful resolution anytime soon, Haaretz reveals that “Seventy-nine percent of right-wingers believe that God singled out the Jews… Seventy-four percent of right-wingers believe that Israel holds a divine deed for its land.”

jewish people?.png

The vast majority of Israelis appear to adhere to a rigid Judaic notion of choseness that is translated into an entitlement to someone else’s land.

I wonder what the 13% of Israeli ‘leftists’ who see themselves as ‘chosen’ understand left ideology to be. Is ‘for the Jew not the Many’ how they interpret social justice?

The Jewish Deity

In my latest book, ‘Being in Time,’ I argue that a cultural study of the Jews and their many religious precepts (Juda-ism, Athe-ism, Zion-ism,  Holocaust-ism, Moral Intervention-ism, everything-ism etc.)  reveals that Jewish religions can be characterised as a set of ideas that facilitate entitlements. The holocaust, thought by some Jewish scholars to be the most popular Jewish religion, is attached to a list of entitlements that are cultural, political and, of course, financial.  Zionism, another popular Jewish religion, holds that it was the ‘God of Israel’ that promised Palestine to the chosen people. But Jewish entitlement is not just an Israeli or Zionist attitude. When Jewish anti Zionists offer their political positions, they first declare their unique ‘Jewish entitlement’ to their beliefs. ‘As Jews we are there to kosher the Palestinian Solidarity movement.’ Many of the same Jews who ‘legitimised’ the Palestine plight, are busy these days giving a kosher stamp to Jeremy Corbyn. In general, the Jewish left’s entitlement has been exercised by disseminating ‘kosher stamps’ that paint ‘the Jews’ in a positive, humane light.

stems from.png

Israel seems to be divided on religious issues but the trend is clear. With 51 percent believing that the Jews’ right to Israel stems from God’s promise, regional reconciliation probably isn’t the next project in the ‘pipe line.’

Darwin didn’t make Aliya

The poll suggests that Israel is separating geographically and culturally: “eighty-five percent of Jerusalemites believe in God, compared with only 44 percent in Tel Aviv and the central region. Only a quarter of Israeli Jews fully keep Shabbat, but 66 percent keep it in Jerusalem as compared with just 15 percent in Tel Aviv or Haifa. Thirty-seven percent don’t believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor – a disturbing finding – but in Jerusalem the anti-Darwinians enjoy an absolute majority of 81 percent while in Tel Aviv they’re in a distinct minority ‘of only’ 27 percent.”

Israel is getting “Jewier”

Haaretz notes that “the most startling gaps are generational. In Israel in 2018, the younger the Jew, the more likely he or she is to be more religious, observant, conservative and willing to impose his or her beliefs on others. Sixty-five percent of the population would let supermarkets and groceries operate on Shabbat, but that position is supported by only 51 percent of people between 18 and 24, compared with 84 percent of those 65 and older.”

Haaretz points out that that the religious shift of young Israelis “stands in stark contrast to current trends in the United States and Western Europe, where millennials are ditching religion in droves.” In Israel, “younger Jews go to shul at twice the rate of their parents and grandparents, while in the United States and Western Europe the opposite is true.” In other words, “Israel is getting Jewier, at least for the time being.”

These results indicate that Israel is drifting away from enlightenment. Zionism promised to modernise and civilise the Jews by means of ‘homecoming,’ but the Jewish state has achieved the opposite result. While Israel has transformed itself into an oppressive dark ghetto surrounded by humongous concrete walls, it is actually the young diaspora Jews who are ditching the ghetto.


How The British Zionist Brigade Almost Saved The BBC’s Reputation

September 05, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

we are bbc Jews_edited-1.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Two days ago I found out that the BBC was planning to air – We Are British Jews. No doubt the British Broadcaster needs to fill the open void between the news about Corbyn being an ‘existential threat’ and the ex chief Rabbi’s ‘message of hope.’ The BBC’s website offered the following description of its expedition into the mysterious world of contemporary Hebrew Brits.  “Eight British Jews with a broad range of opinions, beliefs and practices, go on a journey to explore what it means to be Jewish in Britain today.” Being an investigative character, I decided to launch a 24 hour online FB poll. I posted the following text on my Facebook page:

“Do you remember that once upon a time the BBC claimed to be ‘impartial’? How balanced do you expect BBC’s We Are British Jews to be?”

Since the Facebook poll template only offers a binary option, poll participants were asked to choose either ‘Totally impartial…’ or  ‘Zionist to the core.’

I genuinely expected the results to be somewhat balanced. After all, the BBC is our national broadcast. It once enjoyed a great reputation. Some of the BBC’s journalists are still superb inquisitive minds. But many think that, of late, the corporation has not been doing its job. It is lame, slow and as the poll revealed, isn’t trusted by the public.

The reaction to the poll came pretty quickly. One hour in, 86 had voted. About half were my FB friends, the rest were unknown to me. The results ought to embarrass the BBC. 99% of poll participants expected the BBC’s program to be ‘Zionist to the core.’ Apparently, 85 out of 86 didn’t think highly of our national broadcaster.


I went to bed hoping that by the time I opened my eyes in the morning someone would have been brave enough to protect the BBC’s reputation. After all, Britain has been my home for 25 years, the BBC is my national broadcaster and I even pay my TV license to this corporation just to make sure that it remains ‘impartial.’ But when I woke up yesterday the situation hadn’t changed much. 18 hours after I launched my poll, there were more than 150 participants and only 2% expected the BBC to produce a balanced documentary about the Jews. Sad yet revealing, I thought.

2 :98.png

But, you will be happy to learn, the BBC does not stand alone. The Zionist brigade, or more precisely, a Facebook page called ‘Israel Advocacy Movement” decided to resurrect the reputation of our national broadcaster. This is how they introduced my poll to their ultra Zionist crowd:

“Disgraced antisemite, Gilad Atzmon, has just made a poll claiming the BBC is ‘Zionist to the core’. Let’s vote on his bigoted poll then circulate it far and wide so that their hatred can be challenged.”

That a Hasbara page lied is no surprise, deception is kosher within the Hasbara milieu. The poll didn’t ‘claim’ that the BBC was ‘Zionist to the core.’ Instead it invited people to vote on whether they expected a particular BBC program about Jews to be ‘balanced’ or ‘Zionist to the core.’ None the less, I was delighted to see Israel’s advocates rallying for the BBC because this group often accuses the BBC of being biased against Israel. The Zionists in Britain seem to have changed their spots once again. They are now committed to the defence of our National Broadcaster; in an affair that seems like a honeymoon verging on biological symbiosis.

Israeli advocacy.png

But the truth of the matter is that although the Israel Advocacy Group has more than 37.000 followers it only managed to pull in around 170 of their supporters. Within an hour they had managed to boost support for the national broadcaster. At one point it seemed 38% of the poll participants expected the BBC to produce a balanced program about Jews.  Needless to mention, the list of the BBC supporters resembled my Bar Mitzvah’s guest-list. But truth can’t be denied, there is at least one ethnic minority in this country that is united in its support of our national broadcaster.

At 8.56 PM, just 4 minutes ahead of the BBC broadcast, I closed the poll. The result was still depressing for the BBC, despite the intervention by the Israeli advocacy group, seven out of ten (68%) expected the BBC’s documentary to be ‘Zionist to the core.’ We may have wondered what it takes for a national broadcaster to become FOX News? Not a lot as we can see.

final 32.68.png

Of course I watched ‘We are British Jews’ last night with two other ex-Israelis. It delivered a pretty accurate picture of British Jewry. Not a flattering image I am afraid: a lot of kosher food, a lot of talking and preaching and all while eating. Except for one young woman (out of eight) who desperately advocated for the oppressed while appealing for universal ethics, the group was rabidly Zionist without really understanding the meaning of the Zionist call. In the eyes of the British Jews depicted, Zionism meant ‘Jewish right to self determination on their historic land.’ But in fact, no one denies the Jews their right to ‘self determination.’ But determining who you are at the expense of others, is where Zionism meets opposition and for crucial reasons. The so-called ‘Jewish historical land’ has been called Palestine for the last 2000 years and has been the home of the Palestinian people.

The BBC tried to deliver: it tried to be accurate and impartial.  But, unfortunately, it can’t. It has lost the talent and the ability. It may even be possible that with the new impediments on freedom of speech, the BBC, like other British media, can’t deliver the truth anymore. One example was the completely ahistorical depiction of the Palestinian plight–Gaza, for instance, was, according to the BBC program, a narrative of resistance that began with the Israel’s 1967 occupation. The 1948 mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the young Israel wasn’t even mentioned. The fact that Gaza is home to refugees from 1948 was never acknowledged. The Palestinian cause was depicted as merely a vague reaction to the IDF’s ‘tear gas and rubber bullets.’

So yes, as my Facebook poll clearly predicted, the first episode of We Are British Jews’ was ‘Zionist to the core.’ Whether it was consciously Zionist or not, is a different question.


Pakistan: At the Brink of Sovereignty By Zara Ali

May God protect Pakistan – Long Live Pakistan!

They did it again on July 25, 2018.  On the day of polls another mind-programmed mercenary of ISIS, the nefarious CIA creation – a militant proxy – slaughtered 31 and injured over 40 in a bomb blast in the vicinity of a polling station in Quetta – the capital of the province of Baluchistan.  The RAW link is almost always revealed behind terrorist activities conducted in Baluchistan irrespective of the affiliations of the myriad of proxy operatives on ground, hence it is not the least far-fetched that alongside Western Geo-political powers, namely Washington and London, Delhi must also be an accomplice in the unsuccessful effort to sabotage the General Election in Pakistan – this was the fourth major terrorist attack in less than a fortnight.  The polls went ahead as planned albeit the terrorists did succeed at making Pakistan pay a toll of up to 300 human lives.  Active terrorism was not the only method the Globalist Deep State opted for in a bid to sabotage the Election – the Western, Indian and Pakistan mainstream media engaged in a massive disinformation campaign with the intention to dispute the credibility of the polls as they essentially toyed about with the accusation made by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan – a so-called independent non-profit organization, like the Human Rights Watch, with links to the U.S. foreign policy elite and other interventionist/expansionist lobbies.  HRC of Pakistan claimed Military Intelligence interfered in the political process in order to sway the outcome in favour of Imran Khan.  Not to forget the argument the constitutional ousting and subsequent conviction of Nawaz Sherif also rendered the play-field less than levelled for the Sherif Family’s ruling political party i.e. the N-League.  Looking at the headlines that mainstream publications ran such as ‘the dirtiest election’, ‘Imran Khan near victory in Pakistan but some ask if he is playing fair’, ‘Khan is only a player in the circus run by the Pakistan’s military’, ‘from playboy to Prime Minister’, ‘Imran Khan is the worst pick for both Pakistan and India’, I wondered what caused such passionate criticism and why the undertone of an almost hysterical anxiety?  Yes, the Globalists most definitely did not want to miss the chance to malign the Pakistan Army as has been their long-running tradition – and the allegations associated with the occasion most certainly provided them with just about enough ammunition to open fire at one of the world’s most competent and professional armies, but what happened to the rather ‘dear image’ of the Oxford educated, charismatic star cricketer Khan – what sin did he commit to deserve such zealous criticism?

Had I not observed the Global mainstream media stripped off its mask and stand as awfully exposed as the Globalists’ dirty war in Syria has rendered it, perhaps it would not have been easy to see through the disinformation disseminated at such scale – fortunately, the diminished credibility of the global MSM overwhelmingly tended to betray the truth.  The truth of the matter being the result yielded by the 2018 General Election categorically depicts the much-anticipated, much-awaited, and also much-feared manifestation of a socio-political shift, making keen observers wonder if the nation has in fact hit the tipping point key to sustained change in the collective mind-set.  Those who harbour antagonism toward Pakistan are resentful while for the patriotic among the people of Pakistan the outcome of 2018 Election marks a historic victory – not that of Khan over his political opponents, but that of truth upon falsehood – albeit this is one of the first few steps Pakistan has ventured to take in this direction after almost 71 years of its inception.  As I implied in Pakistan: Hostage to Global Hawks and Native Vultureswe are unquestionably in the throes of a massive shift – a doctrinal shift toward a sovereign Pakistan – various internal and external factors have converged over a period of time and ripened for this to transpire – and no magnitude of opposition to the process, already set into motion, shall succeed in halting it.

Over the past decade the Pakistan Armed Forces’ core leadership appears to have succeeded in breaking the cycle of military coups thus permitting the rather lame democratic political process to continue regardless of its overwhelmingly detrimental effects on the foreign policy, economy and overall governance of the country.  Not that the incompetent civilian regimes did not furnish many a solid provocation over the past decade, which essentially jeopardised the State both economically and in Geo-political terms, the like of which could have aggravated a military coup in the past, however the resolve of the core military leadership to not involve the most powerful institution of the country in the internal power struggle has remained unshaken.  Despite many a speculation at many a point in time over the past two five-year terms of civilian regimes, which essentially served the Globalists’ agenda, the much anticipated ‘imminent’ military coup did not occur.  Instead the Pakistan Army, already stretched thin between the Eastern and Western borders, has been continually and successfully engaged in rooting out the menace of CIA-Mossad-RAW instigated terrorism from the country which has wreaked havoc since the Globalists’ invasion of Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11.  In more recent times the military core has indeed been observed as highly active in defining the priorities of the foreign policy in the context of a fast-changing Global Geo-political panorama and directing its focus toward seeking significant regional alliances with Moscow & Tehran in addition to Beijing while handling an embittered Washington deeply resentful of a soon-to-be vassal state slipping from its hands, however it cannot be denied the involvement of the military in matters of foreign policy by and large reflects the utter failure of the incompetent, disinterested, and treacherous civilian regimes.  Had the democratically elected past regimes not acted on behest of the Globalists and had the elected political leaders possessed the vision to shape and run the foreign policy of the country so as to serve Pakistan’s national interest, the military leadership may have abstained from filling in the vacuum thus created.  Nonetheless, essentially speaking the Army at this point in time is most definitely seeking to free itself from having to babysit the intellectually and morally destitute mainstream political leaders who have exhibited an immense capacity to cause serious harm to the national interest of Pakistan more than once over the past two decades in particular.

Parallel to the doctrinal shift observed in the outlook of the Pakistan Armed Forces, a socio-political shift has also come to grip the nation – Khan, after 22 years of struggle, has eventually emerged as the preferred leader of the people .  He has untiringly campaigned for a change in the prevalent socio-political mind-set, and has most definitely managed to break through the complacent attitude which had come to overtake the privileged and the under-privileged alike.  He has raised his voice against the well-established political status quo, exposed the fraudulent mainstream political leadership, made the common man aware of his rights, reminded people of the value of morals, ethics and service to the country, and borne the brunt of vehement animosity from his opponents in politics and the civil society but continued to pursue the dream of what he calls ‘A New Pakistan’.  And it is the very nature of Khan’s struggle that has come to convince a significant majority of the people, even sceptics like myself, of his strength of character and his ability to lead the nation out of the current quagmire – he is a breath of fresh air unlike any in the stinking swamp of mainstream politicians.  Unquestionably the role played by the Panama Leaks in Khan’s victory cannot be overlooked by any means, however to portray the constitutional ousting of the ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sherif from office in 2017 and his subsequent conviction for holding ‘assets beyond means’ in 2018 as part of an engineered design, is outright nonsense.  Khan’s drive against the menace of corruption most definitely exerted immense popular pressure upon the judiciary of Pakistan to undertake legal proceedings against the resourceful Sherif Family, a judiciary which had hitherto maintained a tradition of by and large following orders from the civilian and military regimes alike, however by no means can this be termed as ‘political revenge’ cooked up by the Army in cahoots with Khan and the Judiciary.  The truth of the matter is starkly singular: the Sherif Family simply found itself caught up in an unintended consequence of the Panama Leaks and came to reap what it had sown.  If at all the Judiciary has played a role in this respect, it is the momentous realization the institution must free itself from subordination of the military and civilian ruling elite with the sole aim of ensuring justice is delivered in deed – an extension of which we have witnessed in many other legal proceedings intended to address the phenomenon of rampant systematic injustice and institutional corruption.

The prospect of a sovereign Pakistan,ruled by a man of intellect and integrity, secured by a valiant army acting within constitutional bounds, and a judiciary committed to ensuring justice without prejudice, is what is exceedingly distasteful to the Globalist Deep State – after all that is not what a vassal state looks like.  Hence the extent of disinformation dutifully disseminated by the Global MSM as Pakistan headed to the polls.  Post-poll reporting has however reflected an interesting twist – essentially exposing the core motive of the Globalist Deep State still more.  The New York Times entices the authoritarian in Khan, prompting him to reshape the unfavourable image namely that of a country which harbours terrorists’ safe havens – since Washington and London insist on holding the Pakistan Armed Forces responsible for ‘manufacturing and exporting terrorism’ around the globe.  The Guardian warns Khan his real test lies in defying his own Military that would not permit him to fulfil the promises made to his people – Khan has won over Pakistan but real power is still with the Military & Pakistan’s military pose biggest challenge to Khan as voters hope for new era.  A quick glance at such post-poll op-eds quite categorically reveals now that Khan is set to be the next Prime Minister, the anti-Pakistan elements instead of taking to slander will rather seek to befriend him and cajole him into doing their bid i.e. cause a rift in the civilian-military relations, subjugate the Military, and eventually denuclearize Pakistan.  Well, perhaps they do not understand, Khan was not cast out of the same mould as the everlasting plenty of puppets who dance at the tune played by their masters.  He is a different breed – quite unknown to them thus far – and may just prove to be the answer to the prayers of the patriots who have grieved upon the misfortune of their country and nation for too long now.

May God protect Pakistan – Long Live Pakistan!

22 million Americans support neo-Nazis, white supremacists: Poll


Hundreds of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and members of the "alt-right" march down East Market Street toward Emancipation Park during the United the Right rally August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia. (Getty Images)
Hundreds of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and members of the “alt-right” march down East Market Street toward Emancipation Park during the United the Right rally August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia. (Getty Images)

Nearly 1 in 10 people in the United States say holding white supremacist or neo-Nazi views are acceptable, according to a new poll.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll released Tuesday found that 9 percent of Americans, equivalent to about 22 million people, call it acceptable to have a racist and xenophobic opinion.

A similar number, 10 percent, say they support the so-called alt-right movement, a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who support white nationalism.

The alt-right movement has gained increasing attention since President Donald Trump launched his election campaign and his time in the White House.

While Trump has sought to distance himself from the movement – which has been accused of racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – its members have rallied behind Trump and helped him get elected to the White House.

Fifty-six percent of Americans disapprove of how Trump responded to the deadly clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia, while 28 percent approve of his reaction in the new survey.

Read More:

The white supremacists, neo-Nazis and KKK members participating at the “Unite the Right” event in Charlottesville on August 12 were protesting against the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, which many critics believe are symbols of hate and racism.

A 32-year-old woman was killed and 19 others were injured when a 20-year-old Nazi sympathizer plowed his car into a crowd taking part in a counter-protest.

Human rights experts have warned about the rising racism and xenophobia in the United States, citing the rally in Charlottesville as the latest example.

Trump has come under increasing pressure over his stance on the racial violence, with many members of his own Republican Party and US business executives distancing themselves from him.

Jew Loving is the Way Forward

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

ERIC ZUESSE | 17.07.2017 | WORLD

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

The «Monthly Harvard-Harris Poll: June 2017» is the latest poll in that series, and it scientifically sampled 2,258 U.S. registered voters, of whom (as shown on page 30) 35% were «Democrat», 29% were «Republican», and 30% were «independent»). It indicates (page 24) that 37% «approve» and 63% «disapprove» of «the way the Republican Party is handling its job». It also indicates (page 25) that 38% «approve», and 62% «disapprove», of «the way the Democratic Party is handling its job». So: despite there being 6% more self-described «Democrat»s than «Republican»s, there was only 1% more disapproval of the Republican Party than of the Democratic Party; and, this indicates that there was a substantial disapproval of «the Democratic Party» by Democratic voters (more disaffection by them for ‘their’ Party, than Republicans have for theirs).

The answers to other questions in the poll also help to provide an answer as to why this is so, and why the voting public don’t hold either Party in high regard — why America’s supposedly ‘democratic’ (small-«D») politics is currently a contest between uglies, with neither Party offering anything like what the U.S. voting public want their government to do (i.e., it fits what this scientific study found actually to control U.S. politics):

(Page 27) 41% think «President Trump should be impeached and removed from office», and 45% think «no action should be taken» against him.

(Page 28) 36% think «the investigations into Russia and President Trump» are «helping the country», and 64% think they’re «hurting the country».

(Page 39) Of listed U.S. government officials, the highest percentage-favorable ratings were: Bernie Sanders (52%), Mike Pence (47%), Donald Trump (45%), Hillary Clinton (39%), Paul Ryan (38%), Elizabeth Warren (37%), Jim Comey (36%), Robert Mueller (34%), Nancy Pelosi (31%), Jeff Sessions (28%), and Rex Tillerson (28%).

(Page 40) The highest percentage-unfavorable ratings were: Hillary Clinton (56%), Nancy Pelosi (51%), Donald Trump (50%), Paul Ryan (45%), Mitch McConnell (42%), Jeff Sessions (41%), Mike Pence (40%), Jared Kushner (39%), Bernie Sanders (38%), Jim Comey (36%), and Elizabeth Warren (36%).

(Page 72) 48% think «President Trump colluded with the Russians during the election over the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta’s emails». 52% say «No» — Trump did not do that.

(Page 73) 54% say «associates of President Trump» did it; 46% say «No» to that.

(Page 74) 38% say «There is evidence» of such «collusion» by Trump; 62% say «No».

(Page 75) 54% say this is a «legitimate investigation»; 46% say it’s «fueled to create a cloud over the Trump administration».

(Page 79) 44% say «Keep the focus on the Russia investigation»; 56% say «Move on to other issues».

(Page 83) 73% say they are «concerned» that there has been «lost focus and energy by the administration and Congress because of the Russia investigation». 67% say they’re «concerned» about «future interference by Russia in U.S. elections».

(Page 95) 54% say «Yes» and 46% say «No» to «Do you think the so called ‘Deep State’ — the collection of intelligence agencies and holdover government workers from the Obama administration — is trying to unseat President Trump?»

(Page 96) When asked «Who do you think is more to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss of the election?» 67% choose «Hillary Clinton and her campaign team for running a weak campaign» and 33% choose «Forces like the Russians, former FBI director Comey, and the Democratic National Committee not having reliable voter data».

(Page 124) 74% «Favor» «Offering incentives for electric cars and renewable energy such as wind and solar». 62% «Favor» Setting much tougher emission standards for cars and other vehicles». 34% «Favor» «Putting coal, and all coal and clean coal plants, out of business». Today’s American public take global warming seriously — or at least more seriously than Republican public officials do..

(Page 133) 47% think it was «Right» and 53% think it was «Wrong» for Trump «to pull the United States out of the current version of the Paris Climate Agreement.”

(Page 151) 49% think «the media is being fair» to President Trump; 51% say «Unfair».

(Page 154) 21% «Favor «raising the U.S. government’s debt ceiling». 69% «Oppose».

(Page 155) 36% «Favor» «a government shut down» over the issue; 64% «Oppose».

What this poll found is basically the same thing that has been shown in many different polls. So: former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who was the last person who was able to win the White House without needing to rely upon billionaires in order to do it, was correct when he said that, «Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members». Anybody who refers to this government as being a ‘democracy’ is way behind the times, because it has been, ever since 1980, controlled by its aristocracy; it is an «oligarchy» instead of a democracy; it is a «regime» instead of a government that represents its public. This regime represents its aristocrats. And that is why the public’s disapproval of this country’s leaders is so high. That happens in a regime, not in a democracy. Both of America’s Parties represent this country’s aristocracy, not America’s public. The latest Harvard-Harris poll simply adds to the already-overwhelming evidence of this. But the basic evidence on the matter was the Gilens-Page study. In their section «American Democracy?» they said:

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of «populistic» democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

One of the aristocracy’s many magazines, The Atlantic, headlined on June 21st, «Is American Democracy Really Under Threat?» and tried to fool their readers to think the answer is no; but, of course, they were pointing, as ‘evidence’, merely to nominal adherence to ‘democratic’ forms, and ignored the actual evidence on the matter, such as Gilens and Page examined in depth, and such as the many polls that have also been referred to in the links here have additionally reinforced. None of this actual evidence was even so much as mentioned. The honest answer to the article’s title-question is not just «Yes» but more than that: their question itself is more like their having asked «Is there a danger of the horse being stolen?» after the horse was already stolen, and has for decades (since at least 1980) already been absent from the barn; so, that article’s very title is a deception, even without its text (which is written for outright fools who can’t recognize what constitutes «evidence» that is suitable for a given allegation). A better question would therefore be: Why do people still subscribe to vapid propaganda-magazines like that? All propaganda should be free of charge. But, of course, in a dictatorship like this, people pay even for the right to be deceived. It’s no longer free-of-charge. That’s just the way things are — really are. It’s shown in the data — not in anybody’s mere platitudes about the matter. People pay to embellish the lies that they already believe. Most people want that, more than they want to come to know the truth. The worse the truth is, the more that people crave the myth which contradicts it — they’ll pay good money to mainline that into themselves: evidenceless reassurances, such as that article. But anyone who takes that type of pap seriously, won’t be able sensibly to understand such findings as were reported in the latest Harvard-Harris poll.

60 Percent of Swedes View US as a Major Threat to World Peace

[ Ed. note – In a post I put up on Monday I wrote, “The US government’s unquenchable thirst for overturning other governments is the greatest threat to world peace today.” Apparently 60 percent of the people of Sweden agree with me. Below is a news story on a recent poll conducted in Sweden; the video above supplies an analysis on the conflict in Syria, but also mentions the poll. ]


The number of Swedes who believe the US is one of the major threats to world peace and security has jumped to 60 percent, an annual poll has shown, with officials noting a 6 percentage points jump since last year.

The biggest changes in the way the Swedes see the world’s civil preparedness, security policy and defense have occurred in their attitude towards the United States, the recent poll carried out by the Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) suggests.

The MSB poll was conducted from December 9-14, after Donald Trump’s win in the US presidential elections in November.

“That is a significant change,” MSB general director Helena Lindberg said of the jump from 54 percent in 2015 to 60 percent in 2016, according to Swedish daily Sydsvenska.

Swedes generally (73 percent) express great concern and fear over the current situation in the world, as well as their future. However, nine out of 10 Swedes confirm that Sweden is still “a good country to live in.”

At the same time, 58 percent of people believe that Sweden is likely to see a terrorist attack in the next five years, a slight uptick of 1 percentage point higher than in 2015.

Despite that, the proportion of those who believe that Sweden in five years will be a better country to live in increased from 2015’s 13 percent to 18 percent, while the proportion of those who think that living conditions will be worse decreased from 54 percent to 42 percent.

A political threat from another country seems likely to occur by 47 percent of Swedes, while propaganda or false information spread by foreign states looks probable to 44 percent.

Swedes’ negative perception of Russia has relaxed a bit, with 77 percent calling Russia a threat to the world peace – 5 percentage points less than last year.

More than half of the people who took part in the poll welcomed Sweden’s participation in the EU’s foreign and security policy work, saying it promotes peace and security inside the country. Among the factors affecting peace and security negatively, 55 percent named the influx of asylum-seekers.

More than 1,000 people aged between 18 to 74 took part in the survey.

‘Liberal Internationalism Has Become a Godless Religion’

Interesting discussion on what Trump’s victory may mean both for America and for Europe.

From the video description:

Guillaume Durocher is a French political writer and historian. He has lived in many European countries and worked in politics and journalism. He writes for several Alt-Right publications, including The Occidental Observer, Counter-Currents, and Radix.

We begin by discussing the results of the recent election. Guillaume compares Trump’s victory to Brexit, for the mainstream media – through its polls and pundits – failed to accurately predict either. We discuss what this means for not only America, but the West as a whole. Guillaume explains that the American nation-state is now run by a wildcard, and that if Trump drastically alters the course of America, Europe will follow suit.

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and the Opinion Polls

Global Research, May 26, 2016

There should be no sharp intake of breath on this. Reactionary politics and a certain voodoo mastery of reality was already perfected by Ronald Reagan when he secured the White House and ensured the irrevocable decline of an ailing empire. Making America great has remained the caption of failed politics, but it seems entirely at home in the Trump argot.

Which brings us back to that most inexact of sciences, if one can even call it that. Reading polls is much like reading tea leaves: such matter is often inscrutable, though people still make much of it. The United States first witnessed that now insatiable obsession in 1824, when the pundits suggested that Andrew Jackson was in the lead over John Quincy Adams.  On that occasion, the figures were accurate enough.

Behind such readings come the usual deceptions, hesitations and assumptions in population sampling. One does not want to come across as a barking racist, so it is best to keep silent.  Again, US politics familiarised itself with this phenomenon in what remains known more generally as the Bradley Effect.

In 1982, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American candidate, threw his hat in the ring in contesting the California governor race. All seemed to be going swimmingly in the polls till “social desirably bias” struck him down.

Pundits have attempted to find some means of relating the lessons of Bradley to the Trump phenomenon, though many of these are stretched.  The point on Trump, it has been contended, is that he has more appeal that is being measured or calculated, a reverse Bradley phenomenon.  Effectively, “social desirability bias” favours, rather than undermines him, with voters reluctant to concede they might back such a candidate.[1]

In December last year, polling and data firm Morning Consult studied the figures on Trump’s faring across telephone and online polling using a sampling of 2,500 Republican voters.  The study found that Trump performed “about six percentage points better online than via live telephone interviewing and that his advantage online is driven by adults with higher levels of education.”[2]

Such findings have convinced political scientists such as Ken Goldstein that Trump’s support is “understated when you go into the sanctity of the secret ballot.”  Like all polling figures, the last minute rush, the desperate re-think, and the appraisal as the candidate is selected at the ballot box, tend to elude such calculations.

Similarly to tea varietals, polls vary.  RealClearPolitics impressed media outlets such as the BBC, which insisted with a grave air that Clinton’s “double-digit lead, which she has held over the past several months, has vanished – and with it, apparently, Democrats’ dream of a transformational 2016 victory that would leave Republicans wandering in the wilderness for a generation.”[3]

Other polls, such as the Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Sunday, speak of 44 percent of the electorate wishing for a third candidate option.  But this is merely a sign that the current poll figures suggest a good degree of fear and loathing.

As Dan Balz and Scott Clement have put it, “Among those registered who say they favour Clinton, 48 percent say their vote is in support of the candidate while an identical percentage say their vote is mainly to oppose Trump.”  This point is mirrored on Trump’s side with 44 percent of backers claiming they are voting for the presumptive Republican nominee while 53 percent “say their motivation is to oppose to Clinton” (Washington Post, May 22).

Nothing could ever have been transformational about Clinton, a veteran political apparatchik who has a record sufficiently tarnished to warrant barring.  Her husband, on the other hand, managed to shape the United States in a manner few Republicans could have, giving it a true Tory savaging if ever there was one.Conversely, the suggestion that Trump could be devastatingly different is to ignore the various devastating administrations that have come before.  Such regimes wax and wane in their appalling effects, with some aspects contained by Congressional limits – when those on the Hill decide to wake up from their business slumber.

There is little doubt that the great problem for Trump – resistance from within the GOP movement – is faltering.  The figures, to end, show that.  The #NeverTrump movement has folded, and is now passing into enforced and collaborative amnesia.  Opponents have decided that Trump, bogus of intention or otherwise, is their figure of choice, the favoured bull in a doomed china shop.  Having made the political flip flop artful and, importantly, without lasting consequence, Trump has managed to stay essentially unburnt.

The dangers surrounding Clinton, however, are far more pronounced.  The fires are leaping, and there are Democrats who remain seduced by Bernie Sanders who, if he is worth his salt, should take the plunge as a true independent.  As for Clinton, there is no hint of Teflon coating on that side of the race.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email:





Jews vs. Non Jews in Israel: The New York Times’ Whitewash of Israeli Public Opinion Poll

Global Research, March 16, 2016
Jordan Times 14 March 2016
New York Times

This past week, the Pew Research Centre released the results of a massive poll of Israeli public opinion — focusing on their attitude towards religion, identity, values and political issues facing their country.

In the days that followed the release, a number of articles appeared in Israel and the US commenting on the study’s findings.

The strangest and most troubling of them was the piece titled “Deep Rifts Among Israeli Jews Are Found in Religion Survey”, printed in the New York Times on March 8, 2016.

Written by Isabel Kershner, the article was a transparent effort to combine straight reporting with tortured apologia.

Kershner began the piece with a simple recitation of a few of the poll’s findings: “A majority of Israeli Jews marry within their own religious or secular groups” and the different sub-groups “largely separate social worlds” and have “starkly contrasting positions on many public policy issues”, like whether West Bank settlements contribute to Israel’s security.

Kershner’s straightforward reporting ended, however, when she came to one of the poll’s more disturbing findings:

“nearly half of Israeli Jews said that Arabs should be expelled of transferred from Israel”.

Unable to allow that result to stand on its own, in the same sentence, Kershner added “although Israeli pollsters found the wording of the question problematic”.

The addition of that phrase was a classic example of deflection — a device often used in New York Times’ articles to sow doubt or confusion among readers so as to soften the blow of facts that are damaging to Israel.

Here’s how it works: first the “fact” is stated; then it is quickly followed (usually in the same sentence) by an unsubstantiated remark that questions the “fact”.

The reader is then left confused.

Kershner did not get around to explaining exactly what was “problematic” about the wording of the poll question until she meandered for several paragraphs discussing other results from the poll.

Then she returned to the “transfer” issue, devoting the last full one-quarter of her piece to quotes from Israeli pollsters telling us that “the phrasing of the question is very blunt” or that it is possible that Israeli Jewish respondents may have understood the question to imply that Arabs would “voluntarily” leave or be compensated for leaving [as if that would somehow make it better!].

Kershner quoted another pollster who agonised over the transfer question, saying: “I would feel uncomfortable incriminating the Israeli public based on one question,” adding her fear that this “one question” would “be used as a weapon’ by Israel’s critics”.

Actually, the question was quite clear. And it was not the only question in the poll in which Israelis displayed troubling views.

And, while I might quibble with the term “weapon”, it would be irresponsible not to raise serious questions about what this poll reveals about racism in Israel.

First, let’s look at the “problematic” question and ask whether it was too vague, too blunt or too unclear.

Here is what Israelis were asked: do you agree or disagree with this statement

“Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel?”

In response to this direct question, 48 per cent of Israeli Jews agreed, while 46 per cent disagreed.

Among Israelis who are religious and those who received a Jewish education, two-thirds agreed with the idea that Arabs should be expelled or transferred.

This is not the only disturbing finding in this poll.

Israeli Jews were also asked if they agreed with the statement

“Jews deserve preferential treatment in Israel”;

79 per cent agreed — including well over 95 per cent of those who are religious and those who received a Jewish education.

The bottom line is that Israel’s political culture has become increasingly intolerant.

With eight in ten Israeli Jews supporting preferential treatment for themselves at the expense of the 20 per cent of the population that is Arab, and with almost one-half of Israeli Jews calling for Arab citizens to be expelled or transferred, one can only conclude that this is a society and a political culture that is in trouble.

This dangerous reality needs to be confronted honestly and directly. Whitewashing the situation only allows the danger to grow.

The Times has done Israelis, Palestinians and its readers a disservice.

Le Figaro poll: Over 70% want Syria’s Assad to remain in power

31 Oct, 2015 12:53Syria's President Bashar al-Assad  © SANA


A recent poll carried out by France’s Le Figaro newspaper has indicated that at least 72 percent of respondents want Syrian President Bashar Assad to remain in power.

The survey, published on Thursday, asked“Should world powers demand Bashar Assad to leave?” At least 28 percent from 21,314 respondents have voted “Yes” so far, while the majority – 72 percent – have said “No”. 

READ MORE: Assad: ‘West uses terrorism as new instrument to subjugate Middle East’

The poll was conducted ahead of the Vienna talks, where 19 global powers gathered to find a solution for a nationwide ceasefire in Syria. The fate of Assad remained the stumbling block during discussions.

The US and its allies including Saudi Arabia repeatedly said the Syrian president, whose term expires in 2021, must resign.

“There is no way President Assad can unite and govern Syria,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said during the meeting, adding, “Syrians deserve a different choice.”

READ MORE: Vienna talks: 19 global powers to work to establish nationwide Syria ceasefire

However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the Syrian people “should define the future of their country… including Assad’s fate.”

Earlier in October, a member of Moscow’s parliamentary delegation told TASS that Assad had agreed to hold preliminary elections in the country, provided the move has the people’s backing.

Syria has been caught up in a civil war since 2011, when violent protests erupted as part of the so-called Arab spring. During the turmoil, Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIL/ISIS) militants managed to capture large amounts of territory in Syria and Iraq.

On September 30, Moscow launched a military operation targeting IS positions following a formal request from Assad.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian 


The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

No Left is Left

June 03, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

An Israeli poll released today examining the political attitudes of Israeli youth is instructive. Among Jewish youth polled, 52% defined themselves as ‘right wing’, 30% saw themselves in the ‘centre’ and only 9% identified with the ‘Left’ whatever that means in the Jewish state.

While 76% of Israeli secular Jewish youth said that they would agree to dwell with Arabs. In , only 36% of religious Jewish youth agreed to live with Arabs.

Not surprisingly, 68% of Israeli Arab youth are willing to live in Jewish neighbourhoods. The poll suggests that the vast majority of Arab Israeli youth actually feel that they are a part of Israeli society.

I would like to learn from  Ali Abunimah and  other supporters of the One State Solution how they intend to sell the idea of reconciliation and harmony to Jewish youth who apparently support the most severe measures of ethnic and racial segregation.

A few years ago I  participated in a One State Conference in Stuttgart.  In my brief presentation, I insisted that we can not effectively discuss ‘reconciliation’ or ‘solutions’ until we attempt to grasp the true meaning of Jewish culture, Judeo-centrism and Jewish exceptionalism. Ali Abunimah wasn’t happy with my contribution; he denounced my ideas and insisted that ‘politics has noting to do with culture.’  

Maybe, now that Abunimah and other well-intentioned souls see the above poll exposing the Israeli attitude to politics and Arabs, they will find the time and intellectual integrity to listen once again to my short talk in Stuttgart.  Hopefully, now Abunimah will understand what the Palestinians are up against and what the necessary steps are that will lead to the point where we will be able to examine the political questions of the ‘solution.’

%d bloggers like this: