Canada: Jewish National Fund under investigation for funding israel’s (apartheid state) crimes

Canada: Jewish National Fund under investigation for funding Israel’s crimes

Nora Barrows-Friedman
The Electronic Inifada

Canada Park

© Bukvoed
JNF Canada turned the land of three demolished Palestinian villages into a recreational area, Canada Park, with an adjacent settlement for Jews only
Pressured by human rights activists and a Palestinian refugee, the Canada Revenue Agency has begun an investigation into the Jewish National Fund of Canada over its use of charitable donations to build projects for the Israeli military and illegal settlements.

Uses of charitable donations to fund foreign militaries contravenes Canadian law.

JNF Canada’s parent organization, the Jewish National Fund (JNF), predates the establishment of Israel and uses tree-planting as a cover to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land.

After Israel’s establishment in 1948, the JNF took control of most of the land which had been confiscated from Palestinian refugees. In the 1950s, the JNF became a quasi-state organization, with a policy to lease land only to Jews on an openly discriminatory basis.

Documents show that the JNF has repeatedly used JNF Canada as a conduit to collect funds for its illegal projects, activists say. JNF Canada recently told public broadcaster CBC that it stopped funneling money to the Israeli military in 2016. However, acting as a conduit for its parent organization, funds continue to flow into projects connected to the Israeli military.

And the JNF remains involved in decades-old activities of land theft and expulsion of Palestinians, actions which also violate international law.

In addition to the formal complaint, activists have initiated a petition through parliament calling for JNF Canada’s charitable status to be revoked. It will be presented to parliament and the government will have to respond.

History of expulsion

The audit was launched following an October 2017 complaint filed by four human rights defenders with help from Independent Jewish Voices Canada, an activist group that has mobilized against the JNF Canada for years.

Amongst the complainants is Ismail Zayid, a retired physician now in his eighties who was expelled from his village, Beit Nuba, by Israeli forces during the 1967 War.

During the war, Israel demolished Zayid’s village along with the nearby villages of Imwas and Yalu, and seized the land. JNF Canada then turned the land into a recreational area, Canada Park, with an adjacent settlement for Jews only. Canada Park is inside the occupied West Bank, a fact recognized by the Canadian government.

Like millions of exiled Palestinians, Zayid and his family are barred from returning to their land simply because they are not Jewish.

Zayid began filing complaints with the Canadian government in the 1970s to demand action against the JNF for its role in the systematic expulsion, destruction and demolition of the villages, but told The Electronic Intifada that Canada has failed to hold the charity accountable for any of its illegal actions.

Charging JNF Canada with complicity in Israel’s land-theft policies dating back decades, the complaint explains that when the Israeli military demolishes Palestinian homes and agricultural land, the JNF – as it did with Canada Park – will “then come in and plant rows of trees to stake a claim on that land.” The JNF plants trees “further and further past where the internationally recognized boundaries are,” the complaint adds.

“To me, it’s extremely painful to see that the country that I came to with hope – Canada, as a liberal society that supports international law and human rights – would act differently on this issue,” Zayid told The Electronic Intifada from his home in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

“It’s not only the material loss of my home and my village and my property, but it’s the excruciating pain of the loss of my hope and my dreams,” he added.

Israeli military projects continue

JNF Canada has boasted of its missions to help with settlements and infrastructure for the Israeli army in the occupied West Bank.

It “contributed directly to the construction of at least one hilltop settler outpost that was declared illegal” by Israel itself, according to the CBC.

In 2014, JNF Canada’s Young Leadership Solidarity Mission helped build a house for the security guard at the Givat Oz VeGaon outpost, a colony led by extremist right-wing settlers who work for Jewish colonization and applying Israeli “sovereignty” over the occupied West Bank.

That outpost “received and ignored at least 18 demolition orders” from the Israeli government, CBC adds.

The Canadian branch of the charity has also sponsored the JNF’s projects for the Israeli army’s benefit, including road building and construction on air force bases.

In 2011, JNF Canada helped plant trees along the Gaza boundary to “not only block the vision of terrorists firing into Israel but [also to] provide pleasant scenery and shade.” A video promoting the project calls the tree-planting “similar to a military operation in every way.”

JNF Canada says that after being informed of the revenue agency’s rules regarding charitable donations, it stopped funding projects for the Israeli army after 2016.

“To be clear, we no longer fund projects located on IDF land and JNF Canada operates in accordance with [Canada Revenue Agency] regulations governing its status as a charitable organization,” JNF Canada CEO Lance Davis wrote in an email to the CBC.

But its parent organization solicits financial donations from abroad, including from Canada, to broadly fund its projects.

The JNF “appears to be carrying out the projects, which it views as its own projects, rather than the projects of independent branches of the organization abroad,” the complaint explains.

For example, in 2017, JNF Canada helped its parent organization build a “perimeter security road” in Netiv HaAsara, a Jewish town near Israel’s boundary with the Gaza Strip, to be used by Israeli patrol units.

perimeter road announcement

© netiv-haasara
JNF Canada’s 2017 Staff Mission report promotes its project to help build a road for Israeli patrols.
    Save

The town is a popular destination for war tourists to gawk at the besieged Gaza Strip from the comfort of tour buses.

JNF Canada also raises money for Brothers For Life, which aids wounded Israeli soldiers and sends former military personnel to lead guided propaganda tours in Israel to promote the army and Zionism, Israel’s state ideology, to tourists.

Furthermore, complainants argue that there is no transparency about where donations collected by JNF Canada are ultimately funneled, even though JNF Canada is only authorized to initiate and fund its own projects.

The JNF, the complaint says, “should be helping JNF Canada in carrying out its own projects, rather than viewing Canadian donors as ‘friends of JNF in Canada’ … who merely send money abroad” to support JNF projects.

Activists in the US have sued the Treasury Department over the JNF’s charitable status. Its charitable status has also been questioned in the UK and in the Netherlands.

In 2013, South Africa’s former ambassador in Tel Aviv publicly rejected a gift from the Israeli government of 18 trees planted in his name by the JNF on land violently expropriated from Palestinian owners.

“Feel good” ethnic cleansing

By using tree-planting and environmental initiatives to help Israel push Palestinians off their land and lease it to Jews only, JNF’s actions over the last century have been emblematic of Israel’s efforts at “greenwashing” its settler-colonial policies.

The JNF admits that it plants forests in semi-arid regions across Palestine where it is “especially difficult for a forest to grow” – including over the ruins of ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages.

Promoting an event with the hashtag #FeelGoodFriday, JNF Canada tweeted over the summer that its parent organization was collaborating with Bedouin communities in the Naqab (Negev) “to protect the environment.”

Yet this “collaboration” belies the JNF’s role in the ongoing displacement and demolition of Palestinian Bedouin communities in the Naqab region in order to make way for Jews.

In October 2012, JNF representatives accompanied Israeli police forces and interior ministry officials in a raid on the Bedouin village of Bir Hadaj and handed out demolition orders.

It has also aided Israeli government plans to expel villagers from Umm al-Hiran to build a Jewish settlement – named Hiran – in its place.

And since 2010, residents of al-Araqib have resisted the JNF’s plans to erase their village and plant a forest over its ruins. Israel has demolished al-Araqib at least 136 times.

Sheikh Sayeh Abu Madiam, the patriarch of the village, was recently sentenced to 10 months in prison for trespassing on his own land.

Canada protects JNF crimes

This is not the first time that the Canada Revenue Agency has nominally investigated the JNF Canada at the urging of activists.

But the Canadian government, in violation of its own laws, has protected the organization and has consistently ignored – or embraced – JNF Canada’s role in Israel’s violent and discriminatory practices.

Because Canadian politicians across the political spectrum have historically held close ties to the JNF Canada, activists will have to work hard to make sure their complaints are taken seriously.

“The formal political mechanisms are so dominated by the advocates of the JNF,” Rabbi David Mivasair of Independent Jewish Voices Canada told The Electronic Intifada. Mivasair joins Zayid in the complaint to the Canada Revenue Agency.

He said that filing the complaint and the petition is part of a strategy to push JNF Canada supporters to question the organization’s policies.

Mivasair hopes that some people “who give to the JNF without thinking about it” will recognize that supporting JNF Canada is just as harmful “as supporting the whaling industry, the tobacco industry, or the oil industry.”

“I’m hoping that this illegal and inhuman act of allowing our tax dollars to support a charity that is racist and applies discriminatory laws against even its own citizens ends,” Zayid said.

Advertisements

Why israel’s (apartheid state) Illegal Airstrikes in Syria Are a Sign of Weakness, Not Strength

Why Israel’s Airstrikes in Syria Are a Sign of Weakness, Not Strength

– Ollie Richardson

israeli jet

© СТАЛКЕР/ZONE

I will proceed from what seems to be an established fact (SANA confirmed) that on the night of January 11th Israel hit one depot at Damascus international airport. I.e., material damage. 12 projectiles were fired in total. Syrian air defences worked, and by all accounts they were as effective as they were in the previous Israeli bombing run (80% accuracy approx.).

Even if Israel had hit two warehouses or a local farm in addition, then it changes absolutely nothing. What the Syrian Army lost can be replaced with little risk; Iran has seemingly supplied the Syrian Army very well and continues to do so at will.

How many times has Israel hit targets in and around Damascus and its airport since 2015? The answer is “many”. And each attack resulted in more or less the same thing – small material losses. A few times troops were killed in a couple of cases, but this can hardly be described as large losses (yes, war entails human losses – shocking, isn’t it?).

There is some misunderstanding in regards to why Russia sent the S-300 to Syria and upgraded the Syrian Army’s air defence network, integrating it into its own network. Like with the S-400, there was the assumption that Israel would never bomb Syria again, or that a NFZ was created.

S-300 system

Schematic showing the range of equipment that forms the S-300 system

Like with the S-400, this is not the case at all. As I explained once upon a time in an older article, the deployment of the S-400 was the logical next step after establishing the Minsk Agreements and neutralising what the West was trying to do in Ukraine.

What was the West trying to do in Ukraine? Mainly: drag Russia into a fratricidal sabbath and signing the death warrant of the Russian nation. The collapse (coup) of the USSR was already a bullseye for the West, so managing (weaponising against Russia) “independent” post-Soviet states was the next task. Having created a paradigm whereby the West must pour money into a black hole, being unable to abandon the Banderist monster it created, Russia paved a safe road to Syria (Sukhois touched down at Hmeymim in September 2015). The West was frozen in time and vulnerable to an attack to its rear (collapse of the liberal order).

Incidentally, the Gilets Jaunes protests represents the first stage of this attack to the rear. But it’s not Russia who is behind it; the West is suffocating itself with its own hands – Russia merely created the conditions for such a thing to happen by deploying the S-400 and putting an end to the Skyes-Picot project, thus in turn preventing France from pillaging the Middle East anymore (Russia will toss France out of Africa later). As a result, the internal contradictions that form the equilibrium mood in French (EU) society were raised to the surface, similar to how Ukraine’s dark past (OUN-UPA, SS collaboration) came to the surface (the West assisted this process via the 2014 coup, but did not create it).

The S-300 deployment was needed by Russia in order to take the load off the S-400. I.e., to give Russia more room to manoeuvre in the diplomatic sphere (read more here). Reminder: the S-400 is much more than an anti-air system. It embodies the future of international relations and a transition away from “Responsibility to protect” (it’s ironic because in reality this doctrine enforces the opposite – shirking responsibility). In other words, Israel had carved out for itself room to manoeuvre in Syria that started to pose a danger to Russia’s (and thus International Law’s) “red line” zone in and around Hmeymim and Latakia/Tartus. What do I mean by “red line” zone? Russia was invited into Syria by Assad, and thus it must base its military somewhere. Much like how an embassy is a special kind of territory, a military base is also like a “state within a state”. Russian troops represent Russia’s signature, in the same way that Syrian troops represent Syria’s signature. In fact, the Kurds shot themselves in the foot when they tried to exit from the framework of the Syrian state, because they do not have the leverage to “go it alone” in the big world of International Relations. America has business partners, not friends.

There is another, more vivid interpretation of this “red line” zone: the clear framework, as defined by International Law, whereby Russia is RESPONSIBLE both in the media and before the UN Charter for its action or reaction. I.e., S-400 shooting down an Israeli jet means that the Russian state is responsible for it, and if the S-200 is fired, it means that the Syrian Army is responsible, respectively.

This is why Russia ALWAYS tried to find a way to use the S-200 in order to repel Israel (a few Israeli jets were shot down.. sorry… it was a “bird strike”). This liberates Russia from being blamed in the media and at the diplomatic level (not behind closed doors, however, as all parties understand how the great game works) in front of Israel, and thus gives Moscow more diplomatic room to manoeuvre and also limits consequences to the LOCAL environment (for example, Jews living in Russia will not be made to feel uncomfortable because the country they live in just attacked their “motherland”).

Does Netanyahu know that Moscow gave the Syrian Army the order to fire the S-200 at its precious jets? Of course, but in terms of International Law, it is not a Russian (re)action, it is a Syrian one. And if push came to shove and Assad was taken to the ICC, Syria can say that Israel violated its sovereignty, thus Damascus is also covered by the UN Charter (this didn’t work for Milosevic because Russia was not in a position to offer its allies leverage due to the treacherous Perestroika, which crippled Russia in all aspects).

However, there is a problem. Israel can violate International Law (at the local level, not globally and certainly not against a nuclear superpower) without consequence. I.e., the game is rigged. So, how can Russia push Israel back and coerce it into abiding by International Law? Here we have to be careful to not enter into a paradox: violating International Law (and thus severing diplomatic relations) in order to force a violator to abide by International Law. This is the equivalent of slitting your own throat.

Now let’s speak a little bit about what Russia is trying to globally:

We’ve all seen what the US & Co have done in our lifetimes, and even in the lifetimes of our descendants. A good “modern” example is Yugoslavia: the US definitively spat at the principals of the UN and grossly violated International Law, dropping depleted uranium without a UN mandate.

How the US managed to do this is a topic for another day, but what’s important is that the sovereignty of Yugoslavia was blurred via NGOs and aggressive media work, along with false justifications based on “Russell’s Teapot” concepts. This fact is still alarming even today. So it was learnt pretty quickly in Moscow (and by Putin) where all of this was going. The only way that Russia could survive amidst this post-Soviet onslaught was if it targeted the projected US’ weakness. And so today we have Kinzhal, Avangard, Kalibr, S-400, Pantsir, etc. The West has no answer for these weapons, and is unlikely to have even parity in the next 50 years. It’s like saying:

“You like to use aircraft carriers and your airforce to pummel weaker opponents, hijack their economy and hand it over to the IMF, and then integrate it into NATO to stop it escaping US hegemony? Okay, we’ll develop the necessary toolkit to hit you when the time is right.”

A common theme in everything that I have ever written – whether it be for Russian media or for English media or on social media – is that I place an emphasis on the (relative) long-term. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, not in 5 years, but in 20 years+. We are now in an epoch where social media is a far more important (in terms of time) battlefield than the zone of military operations of the ground. They, of course, work in sync, but the US understood that color revolutions are more efficient (consume less resources) and pose less risk for US troops.

Anyway, without wanting to digress, my point is that all actions/reactions must be slotted into an algorithm that produces multiple results based on different time periods in the future. A solution that brings fruits in 5 years but then a catastrophe in 10 years is no good. The Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) has a supercomputer, as I have mentioned many times in the past. Today we can say that the algorithm being used allowed Russia (and friends) to encircle the West. Russian media is, frankly speaking, kicking the MSM’s ass.

The algorithm is based on RISK. Russia must be allowed to make mistakes and suffer the consequences as a result. During WW2 the USSR turned a black situation into a victory (the ratio of destroyed Red Army tanks to destroyed German tanks looks alarming on paper, but finds understanding with a wide perspective). The victory was possible because of this same RISK. There was no safety net – Russians (Rus) either win or are exterminated.

And isn’t this true to life? We may consider ourselves to be so distant from our Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon ancestors, with our iPhones and e-cigarettes, but we haven’t changed at all. We still fight for survival, we are always ready to launch arrows and defend ourselves. It seems to me, based on things I’ve read from people who know Syria far better than I do, that Syria dug itself into a hole. Of course, takfiris/Muslim Brotherhood/Wahhabi/Zionist/Anglos took advantage of it, but Damascus tried certain domestic policies, and some worked, some didn’t.

The main problem now is that Syria has a demographic crisis, much like Ukraine. In fact, it seems that this is true for the entire Middle East. This didn’t just happen in 2011 because of terrorists. It is a process that started long before this. So, who is going to solve this crisis? Is it Moscow? Well, I think for many laypeople this would be the ideal scenario. After all, absolving oneself from responsibility is conformable. But what does this ultimately mean? Syria must remain a child who needs help from Daddy?

Surely Syria would like to look after itself and be self-sufficient, whilst at the same time enjoying profitable trade relations and military alliances with allies, where parties have equal status, and not like a vulnerable toddler surrounded by adults? Of course, China, Russia, and all Eurasian friends are going to help rebuild Syria, but at some point Syria will need to depend on its own economy and efforts. The Eurasian Development Bank isn’t an endless pool of funds, nor is Russia a bottomless pit of aid.

So let’s come back to the question asked earlier in this article. How can Russia help Syria, deter Israel, and at the same time preserve diplomatic and historical ties with both countries (only an idiot wouldn’t want to have more allies than enemies)? Simple: by enforcing rules that apply to ALL parties in Syria. By the way, I should make it clear right now that Russia isn’t interested in bombing Israel or any other lunatic actions. Westerners might have a hard time understanding why, but this is because the West has never truly experienced war, only Hollywood movies.

The deployment of the S-400 established the following rules (not an exhaustive list, but some examples nevertheless):

  • Russia’s military (re)actions are clearly distinguished from Syria’s;
  • Parties cannot bluff about what collective leverage (from all theatres of military operations around the world combined) they have or don’t have;
  • Russia controls the tempo (it’s economy is stronger than the other parties’ economies);
  • Donetsk, Lugansk, and Crimea are lost for the West (the Banderist abscess was isolated);
  • Nord Stream 2 is being built, end of discussion;
  • Association with jihadist groups in Syria now incurs losses and not profits (why would a client continue to fund something that evidently cannot achieve their aims and objectives);
  • Syria’s sovereignty is final, unless a party has the leverage to challenge this;

Let’s expand on some points:

  • As I mentioned earlier: for Moscow, separating Syria’s actions in Syria and Russia’s actions in Syria was a very, very important move. This allowed Moscow to participate in the proxy war without exposing its rear to a US attack (Navalny/Grudinin coup?)
  • The bias of the UN was removed in the grand scheme of things. The RISK paradigm enforced by the S-400 (Russia let Turkey make the anticipated mistake, allowing S-400 deployment) pushed the US to the North East (Washington’s “plan B”) and made the local chessboard easier to read.
  • Turkey’s sphere of influence (SOI) in Syria was isolated to Idlib (operation Annex Aleppo failed); Qatar and Saud were pitted against each other and removed from the game (lack of leverage); Israel’s SOI shrunk due to the strengthening of Hezbollah’s regional status and proximity to Israel’s Syrian-side borders. I.e., the rats started to scatter.
  • The Astana Agreement in many respects is even more genius than the Minsk Agreement. Russia found a way to exploit Turkey’s lack of leverage (after all, the US is ready to unleash a Gulen coup at any moment) and coerce it into reformatting the jihadist matrix (NGO network). As time progressed & the Syrian Army liberated more and more territory, the jihadist groups consolidated time and time again, and the list of terrorist groups became more and more truncated. This is a very interesting aspect of fourth generation warfare that deserves its own article. Anyway, fast forward to today, and there is only Al Nusra left (Zinki and Ahrar are non-entities, since Qatar and Saudi Arabia washed their hands of them). Although we can’t say for sure what “Nusra” (HTS) really is today (terrorists can just change flags and create new allegiances with Ankara’s help), they are the controlling force anyway.
  • Hopefully this helps to understand why Russia was happy to leave Idlib for later. Ankara knows all terrorists in Idlib by name, and they are a burden. Today a relationship with Tehran and Moscow can bring far more fruits than ties with Nusra can. Erdogan is a realist, he puts his finger to the wind. One more point about Turkey: Nusra’s magic capture of most of Idlib and the decimation of Zinki/Ahrar is not a coincidence, nor is it organic. It is Erdogan’s way of handing over Idlib to Assad and saving face amongst his electorate. Of course, he drives a hard bargain (Assad must bring the Kurds to heel and definitively end their separatist “Rojava”project), but it’s a good deal anyway since the big loser is the West and its MENA terrorist allies.
  • Russia indeed controls the tempo not only in Syria, but also in MENA. The little scare we had in the middle of 2018 when the West was close to bombing Syria again was successfully averted because Russia temporarily slowed the tempo down and managed to encircle the US in the media space (the DPR and LPR use the same strategy now to prevent Poroshenko from using the Donbass theatre to further impose martial law and cancel elections). Pay attention to how Russia jumped ahead of the MSM/NGOs in the social media time continuum. Moscow reported a lot that the White Helmets were filming a false flag. What happened here is extremely complex and needs a separate article (or even book!) about NGO media work.

So, knowing that the deployment of the S-400 reconfigured the parameters of SyrianWar.exe, it becomes (I hope) possible to at least understand that the situation is not at all black and white. After all, it if was, then there wouldn’t be a need for supercomputers in MoDs. The conversations that happen behind closed doors are not at all like the statements that are disseminated for public consumption. Not at all.

What’s the real reason Israel still bombs Syria?

Because it has to in order to “stay in the game”. But things aren’t like they were before. Now Tel Aviv must pass through this RISK paradigm and earn its place at the poker table. But is damaging 1 warehouse in Damascus (according to some social media “experts”, this symbolises the end of the Syrian state and Russia’s failure to defend its interests…) worth it?

It is here that we see the importance of having not just local, but also global leverage. The fact that Israel fights upstream and RISKS much more than what it can possibly hope to gain testifies that its position on the grand chessboard has weakened. Netanyahu was forced to call early elections. He is being investigated for fraud. Hamas and Hezbollah are now stronger than ever before. Iran is entrenching itself further and cementing solid ties with powerful countries. The UN demands to give Golan Heights back to Syria. etc. Another big blow for Tel Aviv is that Syria’s air defence were upgraded, and it is Tel Aviv’s own fault. Just like how Turkey blinked, Tel Aviv was involved in the Ilyushin catastrophe, and it must pay the price for it – but in accordance with International Law, not through reciprocal violations of the UN Charter!!!!!! The bear says jump, the snakes ask “how high?”. Syria’s Pantsirs (air DEFENCES) are watching…

Syrian air defences hit an Israeli missile

Syrian air defences hit an Israeli missile – January 12, 2019
    Save

So, too long; didn’t read?

Well think of it like this: Syria is well on the way to being a self-sufficient and independent (not in the American sense, where post-Soviet states are hijacked and turned into liberal springboards) nation, capable of defending itself. An adult. Wanting responsibilities, and not shying away from them. Meanwhile, Israel is dependent on Western aid and becomes more and more childish (Freud used the term “fixation”), incapable of growing up and becoming truly independent. A lot like the US actually, which is the bastard child of London, forever playing the victim and inventing “successes” on Blu-ray.

If you aren’t convinced by anything I said and think that Russia is “weak” or prefers to cower in a corner, then please remember the fact presented below.

soviets dead ww2

I think Syria understands the message now much more than ever before.

israel’s (apartheid state) Top Commander Finally Spills Secrets Of “Invisible War” In Syria

Israel’s Top Commander Finally Spills Secrets Of “Invisible War” In Syria

Source: ZeroHedge

For years Israel denied allegations that it had a role in funding and weaponizing the anti-Assad insurgency in Syria, and more often military officials responded “no comment” even when confronted with overwhelming evidence of Israeli weapons documented in al-Qaeda linked insurgents’ hands, but this all changed in a new British Sunday Times interview with outgoing Israeli army commander Gadi Eisenkot, who has finally confirmed the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) supplied weapons to rebels across the border “for self-defense,” and further perhaps more stunningly, has admitted to long waging an “invisible war in Syria” that involved “thousands of attacks”.

IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot 

The interview constitutes the first time that any current top Israeli military or government official has fully acknowledged sending anything beyond “humanitarian supplies,” such as medical aid to Syrian militants seeking to topple the Assad government; and yet it still appears the country’s military chief is slow playing the confirmation, only acknowledging the IDF provided “light weapons” — even after years of reporting has definitively uncovered an expansive Israeli program to arm dozens of insurgent groups and pay their salaries, includingknown affiliates of al-Qaeda in Syria.

This comes after the Syrian government has for years accused Israel of partnering with the west and gulf countries, such as the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey of funding and weaponizing an al-Qaeda/ISIS insurgency as part of covert regime change operations aimed at Damascus and its allies Iran and Hezbollah. Since then, countries like Qatar have come forward to reveal just how vast their covert role in fueling the Syrian war really was, which we covered in our story, In Shocking, Viral Interview, Qatar Confesses Secrets Behind Syrian War.

The Sunday Times relates a key confession that comes out of Lt.-Gen Gadi Eisenkot’s explosive interview as follows:

Eisenkot acknowledged for the first time, however, that Israel had supplied rebel groups in the border area with light weapons “for self-defence”.

Israel was a hidden player on a crowded Syrian battlefield.

Eisenkot positively boasted in the interview that “We operated in an area controlled by the Russians, sometimes attacking targets a kilometre or two from Russian positions,” in order to strike at Iranian assets in Syria.

The rare “confession” of sorts comes at a moment the White House says it’s moving forward on President Trump’s previously announced US troop pullout from Syria, something which has rattled Israel’s leadership, which has argued that Iran will become entrenched near Israel’s border as a result. Eisenkot’s words appear a warning to Iran that Tel Aviv aims to maintain operational capability inside Syria.

On this point the IDF chief admitted to “thousands” of attacks inside Syria:

“We carried out thousands of attacks [in recent years] without taking responsibility and without asking for credit,” he told the Sunday Times.

Given that prior military officials have typically put this number at “hundreds”, often from 200 to 400, this is an astounding admission that confirms Israel and Syria have been in a de facto state of open war since the first acknowledged Israeli airstrikes began in 2013.

Commenting on a prior report, The Times of Israel, summarized the timeline of Israel’s support to the anti-Assad insurgency as follows:

Foreign Policy said that Israel’s support for the rebel groups began in 2013, funding groups in places such as Quneitra and Daraa. It ended this summer as the regime’s forces advanced and made increasing gains in southern Syria against rebels. Syrian President Bashar Assad’s troops regained control of the border area in July.

The Syrian army said in 2013 that it had seized Israeli weapons in rebel hands.

The report said Israel sent the rebel groups weapons that included assault rifles, machine guns, mortar launchers, and vehicles. It initially sent the rebels US-made M16 rifles that would not identify Jerusalem as the source, and later began supplying guns and ammo from an Iranian shipment to Lebanon’s Hezbollah group that Israel captured in 2009, according to Foreign Policy.

But a number of analysts have suggested Israeli support to the opposition began even closer to the start of the conflict.

A prior Wall Street Journal investigation found that this relationship involved weapons transfers, salary payments to anti-Assad fighters, and treatment of wounded jihadists in Israeli hospitals, the latter which was widely promoted in photo ops picturing Netanyahu himself greeting militants. As even former Acting Director of the CIA Michael Morell once directly told the Israeli publicIsrael’s “dangerous game” in Syria consists in getting in bed with al-Qaeda in order to fight Shia Iran. 

Prior widely shared photo of Israeli soldiers speaking face to face with al-Qaeda fighters near the Israeli occupied Golan heights in Syria.

In recent years, multiple current and former Israeli defense officials have gone so far as to say that ISIS is ultimately preferable to Iran and Assad. For example, former Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren in 2014 surprised the audience at Colorado’s Aspen Ideas Festival when he said in comments related to ISIS that, “the lesser evil is the Sunnis over the Shias.” Oren, while articulating Israeli defense policy, fully acknowledged he thought ISIS was “the lesser evil.”

Likewise, for Netanyahu and other Israeli officials the chief concern was never the black clad death cult which filmed itself beheading Americans and burning people alive, but the possibility of, in the words of Henry Kissinger, “a Shia and pro-Iran territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut” and establishment of “an Iranian radical empire.”

What is clear, and now finally settled for the historical record, is that for years Israeli concealed its “hidden hand” in the proxy war while feigning merely “humanitarian aid” — something now fully admitted by Israel’s top military commander. In other words the humanitarian smokescreen was cover for a full-on covert war on Damascus, as we and many other independent outlets have reported many times, and for years. Yet another past “conspiracy theory” becomes today’s incontrovertible fact.

The moral travesty of israel (apartheid state) seeking Arab, Iranian money for its alleged Nakba

The moral travesty of Israel seeking Arab, Iranian money for its alleged Nakba

By Ramzy Baroud | Ma’an | January 15, 2019

The game is afoot. Israel, believe it or not, is demanding that seven Arab countries and Iran pay $250 billion as compensation for what it claims was the forceful exodus of Jews from Arab countries during the late 1940s.

The events that Israel is citing allegedly occurred at a time when Zionist Jewish militias were actively uprooting nearly one million Palestinian Arabs and systematically destroying their homes, villages and towns throughout Palestine.

The Israeli announcement, which reportedly followed “18 months of secret research” conducted by the Israeli government’s Ministry of Social Equality, should not be filed under the ever-expanding folder of shameless Israeli misrepresentations of history.

It is part of a calculated effort by the Israeli government, and namely by Minister Gila Gamliel, to create a counter-narrative to the rightful demand for the ‘Right of Return’ for Palestinian refugees ethnically cleansed by Jewish militias between 1947-1948.

But there is a reason behind the Israeli urgency to reveal such questionable research: the relentless US-Israeli attempt in the last two years to dismiss the rights of Palestinian refugee rights, to question their numbers and to marginalize their grievances. It is all part and parcel of the ongoing plot disguised as the ‘Deal of the Century’, with the clear aim of removing from the table all major issues that are central to the Palestinian struggle for freedom.

“The time has come to correct the historic injustice of the pogroms (against Jews) in seven Arab countries and Iran, and to restore, to hundreds of thousands of Jews who lost their property, what is rightfully theirs,” said Gamliel.

The language – “.. to correct the historic injustice” – is no different from language used by Palestinians who have for 70 years and counting been demanding the restoration of their rights per United Nations Resolution 194.

The deliberate conflating between the Palestinian narrative and the Zionist narrative is aimed at creating parallels, with the hope that a future political agreement would resolve to having both grievances cancel each other out.

Contrary to what Israeli historians want us to believe, there was no mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries and Iran, but rather a massive campaign orchestrated by Zionist leaders at the time to replace the Palestine Arab population with Jewish immigrants from all over the world. The ways through which such a mission was achieved often involved violent Zionist plots – especially in Iraq.

In fact, the call on Jews to gather in Israel from all corners of the world remains the rally cry for Israeli leaders and their Christian Evangelical supporters – the former wants to ensure a Jewish majority in the state, while the latter is seeking to fulfill a biblical condition for their long-awaited Armageddon.

To hold Arabs and Iran responsible for this bizarre and irresponsible behavior is a transgression on the true history in which neither Gamliel nor her ministry are interested.

On the other hand, and unlike what Israeli military historians often claim, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1947- 48 (and the subsequent purges of the native population that followed in 1967) was a premeditated act of ethnic cleansing and genocide. It has been part of a long-drawn and carefully calculated campaign that, from the very start, served as the main strategy at the heart of the Zionist movement’s ‘vision’ for the Palestinian people.

“We must expel the Arabs and take their place,” wrote Israel’s founder, military leader and first prime minister, David Ben Gurion in a letter to his son, Amos in October 5, 1937. That was over a decade before Plan D – which saw the destruction of the Palestinian homeland at the hands of Ben Gurion’s militias – went into effect.

Palestine “contains vast colonization potential,” he also wrote, “which the Arabs neither need nor are qualified to exploit.”

This clear declaration of a colonial project in Palestine, communicated with the same kind of unmistakable racist insinuations and language that accompanied all western colonial experiences throughout the centuries was not unique to Ben Gurion. He was merely paraphrasing what was, by then, understood to be the crux of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine at the time.

As Palestinian professor Nur Masalha concluded in his book, the ‘Expulsion of the Palestinians’, the idea of the ‘transfer’ – the Zionist term for “ethnic cleansing’ of the Palestinian people – was, and remains, fundamental in the realization of Zionist ambitions in Palestine.

Palestinian Arab “villages inside the Jewish state that resist ‘should be destroyed .. and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state,” Masalha wrote quoting the ‘History of the Haganah’ by Yehuda Slutsky. .

What this meant in practice, as delineated by Palestinian historian, Walid Khalidi was the joint targeting by various Jewish militias to systematically attack all population centers in Palestine, without exception.

“By the end of April (1948), the combined Haganah-Irgun offensive had completely encircled (the Palestinian city of) Jaffa, forcing most of the remaining civilians to flee by sea to Gaza or Egypt; many drowned in the process, ” Khalidi wrote in ‘Before Their Diaspora’.

This tragedy has eventually grown to affect all Palestinians, everywhere within the borders of their historic homeland. Tens of thousands of refugees joined up with hundreds of thousands more at various dusty trails throughout the country, growing in numbers as they walked further, to finally pitch their tents in areas that, then were meant to be ‘temporary’ refugee encampments. Alas, these became the Palestinian refugee camps of today, starting some 70 years ago.

None of this was accidental. The determination of the early Zionists to establish a ‘national home’ for Jews at the expense of the country’s Palestinian Arab nation was communicated, openly, clearly and repeatedly throughout the formation of early Zionist thoughts, and the translation of those well-articulated ideas into physical reality.

70 years have passed since the Nakba’ – the ‘Catastrophe’ of 1948 – and neither Israel took responsibility for its action, nor Palestinian refugees received any measure of justice, however small or symbolic.

For Israel to be seeking compensation from Arab countries and Iran is a moral travesty, especially as Palestinians refugees continue to languish in refugee camps across Palestine and the Middle East.

Yes, indeed “the time has come to correct the historic injustice,” not of Israel’s alleged ‘pogroms’ carried out by Arabs and Iranians, but the real and most tragic destruction of Palestine and its people.

Fed up with myths, these American Jews are challenging their israel (apartheid state) education

Fed up with myths, these American Jews are challenging their Israel education

They grew up on the myths of a heroic Jewish state, joined Zionist organizations, and learned the talking points. But something along the way made them question everything.

By Tom Pessah

Members of Jewish-American anti-occupation group IfNotNow protest Trump's decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, Washington D.C., May 14, 2018. (Gili Getz)

Members of Jewish-American anti-occupation group IfNotNow protest Trump’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, Washington D.C., May 14, 2018. (Gili Getz)

Some of the strangest encounters I had in the years I spent living and studying in the United States were with American Jews. I often felt like I had been dropped into a musical, with people expecting me to fit the mythical image of how an Israeli was supposed to behave. The only problem: I had no idea what my lines were supposed to be.

I was asked about my time in the Israeli army or about the ins and outs of Jewish religious practice. Pro-Israel students assumed I would be there to validate their advocacy.

Many of them were visibly disappointed when I didn’t play the part. Only gradually did I begin to understand how central Israel education had been in their lives, and just how big of a stumbling block it truly was.

To understand this process better, I spoke with four Jewish American activists, all of them in their late 20s and products of mainstream American Jewish education. Over the last few years they have all joined non-Zionist and anti-occupation groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow. Michal, Susannah, Malkah, and Aaron told me how their Israel education shaped their worldview, and what led them to challenge what they had learned about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

An editor’s note: Susannah and Malkah asked to use only their first names; the other two interviewees asked to use aliases, citing fears that using their real names could threaten their status in their communities and future job prospects.

Whether Modern Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative, all of the four interviewees said that Israel was an integral part of their experience in the Jewish community from a young age. None of them could remember a time when it wasn’t a part of their Jewish communal experience.

Illustrative photo of American Jews taking part in New York City's annual 'Celebrate Israel Parade.' (GIli Getz)

Illustrative photo of American Jews taking part in New York City’s annual ‘Celebrate Israel Parade.’ (Gili Getz)

“When I was younger I went to synagogue every week. Israel would inevitably be part of divrei tora (the Rabbi’s talk on topics relating to the weekly Torah portion – T.P.),” says Michal, a former Hasbara Fellow who would eventually be banned from entering Israel because she volunteered with Palestinian organizations in the West Bank.

“On Yom Kippur there was always a plug for Israel. During ne’ila (Yom Kippur’s concluding service – T.P.), in the midst of talking about our sins, being humble, and reflecting on what we’ve done wrong, there is this tonal shift: ‘Look at what we’ve done to create the State of Israel! and here – we’re going to pass around some pledges to give to Israel bonds.’ This is a deeply reflective and somber ritual, and you’re doing a complete 180 to advocate for Israel. This was every Yom Kippur and Shabbat — all the time. We would finish Adon Olam on Saturday morning and the senior rabbi would say from the stage: ‘we’re bringing in an AIPAC delegation and you can sign up.’”

For Susannah, who began in the Reform Movement and would eventually work for Jewish Voice for Peace, Zionism was also part and parcel of her Jewish upbringing. “You don’t really think about Israel and Zionism when you’re a practicing Jew in the Reform Movement. It’s just there.” It was at a summer camp organized by Young Judea, an American Zionist youth movement, where that conflation was most apparent. “It was straight up ‘America and Israel Forever.’ One of the most painful experiences to look back on now is that every morning we would wake up and go to the flagpole. You sing Hatikva and the Star-Spangled Banner. You stand there at attention in front of both flags along with the Israeli scouts who were there. I loved it, because it was just about singing and being with your friends. It felt like a source of pride.”

Illustrative photo of American Jews participating in the annual AIPAC conference in Washington DC. (Gili Getz)

Illustrative photo of American Jews participating in the annual AIPAC conference in Washington DC. (Gili Getz)

Into their teenage years, the aim of building an emotional connection to Israel was replaced by more straightforward advocacy.

“In high school we were encouraged to take part in programs to advocate for Israel,” Malkah explained. The David Project, one of the most well-known American pro-Israel organizations, sent her to a three-day training in Massachusetts, where she says she was exposed to a heavily anti-Muslim agenda. “One video was called Obsession, and it seemed like the main message was about Muslims wanting to violently take control of the world and how we would have to fight back against that.”

“I don’t remember any dissent or discussion,” she continued. “We were all just shocked by the horrible things we were seeing. You see a lot of really scary images in that movie. We didn’t have a lot of time to socialize, there were mainly these sessions and I took a lot of notes. They probably intentionally didn’t give us time to process – you’re being bombarded with someone else’s opinions.”

Malkah recalled coming home from the training and experiencing pushback from her family members who felt that the right-wing views she had been taught were bad for peace. “I’d come back and say everything is justified for national security reasons. My views shifted to the right of center after having had that experience.”

 

Yet taking part in more explicit

Hundreds fill New York City's Washington Square Park to protest President Trump's decision to ban Muslim refugees from entering the U.S., January 26, 2017. (Gili Getz)

Hundreds fill New York City’s Washington Square Park to protest President Trump’s decision to ban Muslim refugees from entering the U.S., January 26, 2017. (Gili Getz)

Israel advocacy also began to sow doubts about their ability to defend the cause.

It was expected in my high school that all the high-achieving students would be going on extra-curricular Israel advocacy programs,” said Aaron, who would later become heavily involved with JVP and now devotes his time to the International Socialist Organization. “All the training sessions were at the local Jewish Community Center. We were told it looked good for college admissions. The manhigim (Hebrew for “leaders” – T.P.) program was focused on preparing us to be advocates for Israel on campuses, which were presented to us as hotbeds of anti-Semitism. The program was mostly a rehearsal of talking points from a liberal Zionist perspective (Israel as a liberal democracy, etc.). I didn’t reject any of that, but I distinctly remember thinking ‘Wow, if we’re the people who will be advocating for Israel, then Israel is screwed.’”

“There was one session we were doing which was a mock debate with a supposed member of Students for Justice in Palestine,” he continues, “I got cast in the role of the anti-Israel debater. I pulled out the ‘key of my grandmother’s house in Yaffa,” he said, referring to Palestinian refugees, many of whom keep the keys to the homes they lost in the Nakba. “At that point the entire room just screeched to a halt and didn’t know how to respond at all. I was still a Zionist, and I was very disappointed that they had no real response to my challenge.”

“Later, a delegation from my high school was sent to an AIPAC conference in Washington, DC. While lining up to enter the conference, I saw the counter-protest and was expecting it to be vitriolic and anti-Semitic. Instead I saw casually dressed people and some Neturei Karta folks waving signs that said “Don’t Bomb Iran!” I remember thinking: “am I on the wrong side of this protest?” I’m here in a suit with a bunch of old men while across the street are some people dressed like I normally do waving signs I don’t really disagree with.”

For Michal, a pro-Israel program in Israel was the tipping point, and the first time she considered that not everything she had been taught about Israel was true. “Aish HaTorah, [the organization] that runs Hasbara Fellowships, were teaching us talking points: here is a template for advocating for Israel on campus, here are the points your opponents will use, and here is how you turn it around on them and humiliate people in the process. Then they would have us practice — one person would play the aggressive pro-Palestine advocate and we would have to use the arguments they gave us. I remember being so embarrassed because I just couldn’t do it. I’m a really bad bullshitter. They’re using the word ‘apartheid,’ and I’m supposed to say ‘there are Israeli Arabs in the cabinet.’ I couldn’t memorize all those steps and then spit them back out like I was supposed to do.”

“What tipped me off was when they took us to Hebron. You walk there and it’s a ghost town with [Palestinian] shops boarded up. There is a barrier in the main street that separates Palestinians from Israelis. And you have menacing settlers. Something felt off: it was the first inkling I had of ‘is this really necessary in order to have this miraculous Israel?’ I didn’t have the words then — it was just a feeling. I didn’t have enough information to understand where this feeling was coming from.”

“I studied Middle East studies in part to be a better Israel advocate,” Michal continued. “But after Hebron I started to think that maybe I shouldn’t be out to get my professors. Maybe I should listen to them. That started the process of actually learning about the occupation and Palestinian experiences and taking them seriously. I studied abroad in Jordan, and after graduating I spent a couple of weeks in the West Bank helping local Palestinian organizations. As a result I was banned from Israel.”

For Susannah and Malkah, one of the factors that turned these doubts into full-blown opposition to Israeli policies was the personal relationships they formed with Palestinians.

Police arrest a young American Jew during a sit-in organized by IfNotNow at the offices of the Anti-Defamation League in New York City to protest the institution’s support for Israel’s occupation policies. (photo: Gili Getz)

Police arrest a young American Jew during a sit-in organized by IfNotNow at the offices of the Anti-Defamation League in New York City to protest the institution’s support for Israel’s occupation policies. (photo: Gili Getz)

When Susannah’s university program required her to do a field study abroad, she chose to go to Israel. Not knowing a lot about local civil society groups, she decided to join the only group that responded to her inquiries — a commune where Jews and Arabs worked and lived together. There she met Ibrahim, a Palestinian from Jaffa who had a cousin in Gaza. Ibrahim witnessed the moment his cousin was killed, as Israel shelled Gaza University during Operation Cast Lead, which Susannah said “shook him to his core.” She would eventually fall in love with him. “That’s how you learn – you fall in love with a Palestinian.”

But personal relationships don’t have to be romantic. Deep friendships also have their effect.

“By 2014 there was a pretty strong push for divestment in my school,” said Malkah. “There were a lot of people in my undergraduate program who were Arab, and some of them were Palestinians. They had family immediately affected by Israel’s policies as well as family histories of expulsion. I remember sitting with them in the school lounge watching folks speak at the divestment hearings for hours, usually until two in the morning. I just sat there and watched people talking so passionately about the subject, and felt that the students who opposed divestment didn’t have compelling arguments. Having been in my high school and in the David Project made divestment a dirty word. But just being in that environment, listening to people talk and having relationships with people affected by these policies — that made a huge difference for me.”

What Happened To the Billions Germany Gave Israel?

By Hafsa Kara Mustapha
Source

Holocaust_Survivor_4ea8a.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Claims Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who will dare ask the question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who will speak up for them?

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

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

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

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

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

Riding the Tiger: Zionism, israel (apartheid state) and the Far Right

Source

18.12.2018
Much has been made in recent years by defenders of Israel of the purported estrangement of the political Left from the cause of Zionism. This perceived anti-Israelism, borne out of the Leftist view that Israel is a fundamentally unjust and inequitable colonial-settler state, is argued to extend further from an ideological animus to one of racial hostility; a state of affairs which has been expressed as “the Left’s Jewish problem”. One of the key manifestations of this hostility is claimed to be a putative alliance between the Left and political Islam. Jewish and Israeli critics have written perplexedly about a union between the “illiberal Left and political Islam”, and other times of the Left’s “hypocritical embrace of Islamism”. However, these critics are somewhat muted and even silent about the links between pro-Zionist Jewish organisations and individuals with extremists of the political Far Right.
Further, Israel has developed alliances and arrangements with several European parties of the Far-Right, a phenomenon that is redolent of the agreements reached between some within the Zionist movement and the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy prior to World War Two. These contemporary alliances with nationalist movements, many of which are overtly racially conscious and in most instances, avowedly anti-Muslim, raise three key problems.
First, is that such collaborations carry with them the risk of legitimising racist attitudes and philosophies.
Secondly, it brings into sharp focus troublesome parallels between political Zionism and white nationalist aspirations, and, thirdly, it can be argued that they contribute to facilitating the creation of a climate of racial and religious intolerance, which will in the long run produce negative, unintended consequences for Jewry.
“In working for Palestine, I would even ally myself with the devil.”
– Vladimir Jabotinsky
The rise of nationalist sentiment has historically being a thing of concern for Jewish diaspora communities. The inevitable emphasis by nationalist movements on having a shared cultural identity and what often tended towards an inevitable insistence on racial exclusivity, left Jews vulnerable to being designated as an alien people upon whom fear, hostility and contempt could be focused.
For instance, during the interwar years of the 20th century, many European countries experienced a surge in the numbers of political parties espousing nationalistic ideologies which were defined by anti-Semitism. The anti-Republican alliance prior to and during the Spanish Civil War was marked to a degree by anti-Jewish attitudes. And while Spain had a relatively small Jewish population, the larger Jewish communities in eastern Europe were victimised during a period of increased influence of Fascist parties such as the Iron Guard in Romania, the Arrow Cross Party in Hungary, as well as the ultra-nationalist parties which emerged in Poland after the era of the philo-Semitic Marshal Pilsudski. In Fascist Italy, the promulgation of the leggi razziali in 1938 followed the template set by the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier by Nazi Germany. These developments were, of course, part of the prelude that led to the catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War Two.
Today, nationalism and white identitarian-thinking is on the rise in both Europe and North America. Among the pot-pourri of political parties, pressure groups and media outlets are those designated as the ‘alt-right’ who espouse philosophies such as biological determinism, and who pronounce political agendas that aim to create white-only ethno-states. They are usually anti-immigration and invariably anti-Muslim. Some are avowedly anti-Jewish. Yet, while they are universally judged to fit into the far-Right of the political spectrum, there are significant links between many of these movements and Jewish individuals, Jewish organisations and the Jewish state of Israel.
While the record of historical and contemporary alliances and accommodations with extremist movements may ultimately be construed as a survival strategy for a people who have long perceived themselves as being constantly imperilled by the threat of periodic outbursts by other peoples who seek their destruction, these connections require scrutiny, not least because of the moral contradictions which they reveal.
What is more, the rationalising by some of the efficacy of such accommodations as the prudent exercise of pragmatism may come to be seen in hindsight as short-sightedness in circumstances where links can be made with situations where Jews as individuals and communities are harmed. For instance, if Jewish individuals or organisations co-operate with or otherwise give succour to white nationalist organisations on the basis of each having a shared hatred for Islam and its adherents, to what degree should there be a residual responsibility for acts directed at Jews in a climate of fomented hate?
They may also raise an uncomfortable analysis of a coherence in philosophies between the ideologies of groups deemed to be objectionable and that of the state which much of organised Jewry is pledged to preserve and protect. After all, it was Richard Spencer, an intellectual leader of the ‘alt-right’ who proclaimed his “great admiration” for Israel’s recently passed nation-state law. “Jews”, Spencer tweeted, “are, once again, at the vanguard, rethinking politics and sovereignty for the future, showing a path forward for Europeans.”
The implications of Spencer’s praise are not lost to the objective bystander. They speak of an ideological affinity which he has consistently alluded to. It was Spencer who while informing an audience at the University of Florida in October 2017 of the states from the past to the present which had influenced his thinking, offered a conclusion that “the most important and perhaps most revolutionary ethno-state, the one that I turn to for guidance, even though I might not always agree with its foreign policy decisions (is) the Jewish state of Israel.”
Spencer’s views about Israel and its state ideology were echoed by the far-Right Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, who in praising the passage of Israel’s nation-state law as “fantastic” and an “example to us all”, called on his countrymen to “define our own nation-state, our indigenous culture, our language and flag, define who and what we are and make it dominant by law”.
Many were simultaneously perplexed and repulsed by the presence of Israeli flags at rallies of Pegida, the German nationalist movement which is stridently anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant. This is a phenomenon repeated at rallies by offshoot groups in countries such as Britain and Australia where the flag of Israel has been waved alongside banners identifying with neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism. The blue hexagram and blue stripes of Israel have also been flown at demonstrations and meetings of the far-Right English Defence League (EDL), which for a period of time had a Jewish Division led by Jewish individuals respectively of Brazilian and Canadian origin.
In Germany, some members of the Jewish community offer vociferous support to the far-Right Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party. And as was the case with the EDL, it formed its own Jewish wing in October of this year headed by a female Jewish physician of Uzbek origin. The aims of the Jewish component is revealing.They are against the immigration of “Muslim males with anti-Semitic views”, and consider the AfD to be “defenders” of German Jews and Israel.
Some months ago, it was revealed that the Middle East Forum (MEF), a hardline pro-Israel think-tank had helped fund the legal expenses of Tommy Robinson, a former leader of the EDL, as well as the the costs of organising protests which had taken place in support of him while he was in jail for contempt of court.
The MEF issued a statement explaining that it had helped Robinson “in his moment of danger” in “three main ways”. These were firstly, by using “monies to fund his legal defence”, secondly, by “bringing foreign pressure on the UK government to ensure Mr. Robinson’s safety and eventual release”, and thirdly, by “organising and funding” a rally held on June 9th, 2018.
The MEF along with the David Horowitz Freedom Centre, which describes itself as a “right-wing Conservative foundation”, were both recently involved in attempts to organise a speaking tour of the United States by Robinson. Robinson is also employed by Rebel Media, which is run by Ezra Levant, a Jewish-Canadian who is often at pains to emphasise the boundaries between the sort of civic nationalism he purportedly represents and the race-based nationalism of white identitarians. Yet, what these Israel-supporting entities have in common alongside individuals such as Debbie Schlussel, Laura Loomer and Melanie Phillips is a raison detre to stoke up anti-Muslim sentiment. It is an objective that is consistent with an overarching aim of political Zionism.
Stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment has been an avowed goal of Israel for many decades. The rationale behind this strategy is based on the desire to reframe the conflict with the Palestinian people and the wider Arab world from one between a colonising power and a people with genuine grievances about being dispossessed of their land, to that of a conflict between two antithetical philosophies with Israel purportedly reflecting the Western value system that is ‘democratic’ and ‘tolerant’, and the majority Muslim Arabs reflecting ‘tyranny’ and ‘intolerance’.
In other words, it is intended to create a climate in which the injustice of dispossessing the Palestinians of a substantial portion of land upon which they lived for centuries is overshadowed. A corollary of this is to legitimise the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from what land they have left in the militarily occupied West Bank, which many Jews, regardless of their ideological inclinations or level of religious observance believe is the God-given land of what they refer to as Judea and Samaria.
Israel’s relations with far-Right governments in Europe is based on harnessing the fears and misgivings that they have about Islam to the disadvantage of Palestinian interests. Thus it is that Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s current prime minister, sees the Right-wing governments of Poland and Hungary as key allies among the member states of the European Union who are useful when it comes to blocking policies and initiatives which are favourable to the Palestinians.
It is an alliance which Israel has strenuously sought to preserve despite misgivings over the overt anti-Semitism that plays a part in the policies followed by the ruling parties of both countries, as well as the historical legacy of eastern Europe as the repository of the most virulent forms of anti-Semitism.
Indeed, the Christian nationalist anti-Semitism of Poland’s Law and Justice Party and Hungary’s Fidesz Party, both purveyors of what has been termed “Zionist anti-Semitism”, forms the basis of a consensus ad idem with the Jewish state. The mentality of Zionist anti-Semites, whose ranks have included the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Breivik, is to consider Israel to be the first line of defence against the Muslim hordes who in their thinking are primed to expand into Europe.
Netanyahu has praised Hungary for its abstention from the United Nations General Assembly’s overwhelming rejection of the United States’ recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It had, along with the Czech Republic and Romania, blocked an EU statement criticising America’s decision to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
But such alliances with anti-Semitic, far-Right and other extremist states and organisations are not new to adherents to the cause of Zionism. There is a well-documented history going all the way back to the deeds of the modern founder of Political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, as well as key Zionist figures such as Vladimir Jabotinsky and Avharam Stern.
Herzl, the founding father of modern Zionism, reached out to Vyacheslav von Plevhe, the Tsarist minister of the interior who is said to have been the brainchild behind the pogrom in Kishenev, Bessarabia during the Easter of 1903. Herzl’s goal was to convince Russia’s influential ministers to use the taxes collected from its Jewish subjects to fund emigration to Palestine and to finance any forms of negotiation with the Ottoman Empire over the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Eighteen years after Herzl’s meeting with von Plevhe in August 1903, Vladimir Jabotinsky met with Maxim Slavinsky, the ambassador of the pogromist Ukrainian leader, Symon Petlura in Prague. The idea was that Jabotinsky, the founder of the Haganah (the precursor of the the Israeli Defence Force), would organise a Zionist police force which would guard Jewish populations found in territories that Ukrainian nationalists could manage to reclaim from the Bolshevik Expeditionary Force which had run Petlura’s short-lived government out of Kiev.
Jabotinsky’s Ukrainian Pact of 1921 earned the scorn of many Jews who were aware that Petlura’s armies had been responsible for about half of the deaths of an estimated 60,000 Jews murdered in Ukraine between 1917 and 1921. But while his agreement had brought the disapprobation of members of the World Zionist Organisation, Jabotinsky, whose efforts on behalf of the allied cause during World War 1 had rendered him in the eyes of many Jews as an associate of the dreaded Tsarist government, would appropriate the words of Giuseppe Mazzini and boldly state “In working for Palestine, I would even ally myself with the devil.”
A deal with the devil is how many perceived -and still perceive- the agreement reached between elements within the Zionist movement and Nazi Germany. The Ha’avara (or Transfer) Agreement was achieved because of a coincidence of interests: The National Socialist aim of removing the Jews from Germany somewhat mirrored the Zionist goal of persuading German Jews to leave. And to Nazis such as Adolf Eichmann and Reinhard Heydrich, there appeared to be an inexorable logic to refer to themselves as “Zionist”.
Heydrich, a prominent leader of the SS is claimed to have remarked to his associates: “As a National Socialist, I am a Zionist”. And in a conversation with one Anny Stern, a survivor of Theresienstadt Concentration Camp, Eichmann, after ascertaining that Stern was a Zionist, told her “I am a Zionist too. I want every Jew to leave for Palestine.” Eichmann was quoted in a 1960 Lifemagazine article as informing Jews with whom he had dealings that if he had been a Jew, “I would have been a fanatical Zionist”.
The Ha’avara Agreement observed the following modus operandi: A German Jew would deposit money into a specific account in a German bank. The money would then be used to buy German goods for export, usually to Palestine. The Jewish emigres to Palestine would then receive payment for the goods which they had previously purchased after their final sale.
This occurred at a moment in time when the majority of world Jewry was embarked on a trade boycott against the Nazi regime, and the German Zionist-Nazi trade agreement arguably served to undermine this. It split the Zionist movement, and one consequence was the 1933 assassination of Chaim Arlosoroff in Tel Aviv soon after his return from negotiations in Germany.
While Jabotinsky had opposed any dealings with the Nazis and had sneered at Mussolini’s Fascist movement in the 1920s, as the 1930s progressed, he warmed to Italian Fascism which he began to perceive as “an ideology of racial equality”. In fact, he made an alliance between his Betar youth movement and the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini by establishing a naval training academy at Civitavecchia, a naval base north of Rome. Mussolini himself would tell David Prato, who later became Chief Rabbi of Rome that “For Zionism to succeed you need to have a Jewish state, with a Jewish flag and a Jewish language. The person who really understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky”.
Another Zionist leader who counternanced forming an alliance with Fascist Italy was Avharam Stern. Stern was the leader of the terror group known as Lohamei Herut Yisrael (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), which is better known today by the British designation ‘The Stern Gang’. The group was formed after Stern’s release from British custody in 1940 and was an offshoot of the Irgun, the main Zionist terror group in Palestine.
While other Zionists suspended operations against the British for the duration of the war against Nazi Germany, Stern refused to do this unless the British recognised the claim for a Jewish state on both sides of the River Jordan. In his thinking, only the defeat Britain in the Middle East by an outside power would bring about a Jewish state. To this end, he sought a pact first with Fascist Italy, and, after being rebuffed, he pinned his hopes on forming an alliance with Nazi Germany.
Stern was contemptuous of liberal democracy and imbued with a volkish-like racism. The proposed pact with Nazi Germany referred to the “establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis” in a new order in which there would be “cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed Volkish-national Hebrium”. The 1941 document, which was discovered among files in the German Embassy in Ankara, offered to “actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.”
That is the history. And the state which came into being in 1948 has continued to nurture alliances with a range of politically extreme forces. Apart from Israel’s arrangement with eastern European Christian Nationalist parties, there is evidence of links to far-Right groups in Ukraine and a long relationship with a litany of Islamist groups.
The United States-sponsored Maidan coup which culminated in the overthrow of the elected government led by Viktor Yanukovytch, involved the use of far-Right and ultra-nationalist proxies, most, if not all of whom were Banderovsti, the name given to contemporary disciples and worshippers of Stepan Bandera, the nationalist figure whose organisation was behind the slaughter of Jewish and Polish communities during the Second World War. During that conflict, Banderites were members of specially composed Ukrainian Waffen-SS units such as the Galician, Nictengall and Roland Divisions.
Yet, Israel supplies arms to the Ukrainian military which is composed of significant elements who honour Bandera’s legacy, and whose members are unabashedly anti-Semitic in attitude and ideologically neo-Nazi. According to the founder of the militia, Andriy Biletsky, who is now a Ukrainian member of parliament, “(Ukraine’s) historic mission at this critical juncture is to lead the final march of the white race towards its survival. This is a march against sub-humans who are led by the Semite race.”
Pictures of members of the Azov Battalion, a former volunteer militia that has since been incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard, posing with Israeli-made weapons incensed Israeli human rights groups who filed a petition seeking a court injunction to prevent arms exports to Ukraine. This is not the first time that the government of Israel has armed an anti-Semitic regime. Back in the 1970s, it supplied arms to the Argentinian military Junta which was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews.
It is also worth noting the involvement of Israeli citizens during the Maidan coup. Five Ukrainian Jewish emigres, who were former Israeli Defence Force soldiers, led a group of 40 street thugs in battles against the security forces of the Yanukovytch government. These street fighters belonged to the ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party whose leader Oleh Tyahnybok had in the past spoken about liberating Ukraine from what he described as the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia”. An article in April 2013 carried by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported a cadre of Svoboda thugs wearing white T-shirts emblazoned with the words “Beat the kikes.”
Tyahnybok would in the latter part of 2013 given a pledge to the Israeli ambassador that his party was no longer anti-Semitic. Similar assurances were given in February 2014 by the neo-Nazi Pravy Sektor group to the ambassador when its leader claimed that it had rejected xenophobia and anti-Semitism.
As to what motive Israel would have beyond financial gain and diplomatic influence in Ukraine, it may be that such support is predicated on a trans-generational Jewish antipathy towards Russia, a country with which it maintains a complex relationship. But as with its links to Polish and Hungarian ruling parties, it raises the disturbing issue of the Israeli state supporting governments which seek to minimise and even deny the historical role of their nations in the calamity that befell Jews in the 20th century.
Israel has also cultivated links with Islamic extremist groups. From funding the nascent Hamas organisation so that it would serve as a counter-weight to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), to funding, arming and medically treating militia men linked to al-Qaeda who are fighting the secular government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Israel has sought to bolster its geopolitical objectives.
While such scheming may be justified on the rationale that it operates on “strong survival instincts”, it again opens up the legitimate criticism of the policies of the Zionist state being prone to short-sighted expediency and to moral contradiction.
It accuses Hamas, a group elected to power in Gaza, of being a “terrorist” body when in fact it bears a huge responsibility for its genesis into a political and military force. Israel’s role in building Hamas was admitted to by Brigadier-General Yitzhak Segev, a military governor of Gaza in the 1980s.
Its support of Islamist groups in Syria, which was recently revealed not to be limited to those located near the Golan Heights, has helped prolong a particularly cruel conflict.
The initial position that it was offering medical aid to jihadists professing the ideology of those who are said to bear responsibility for the September 11 attacks for humanitarian reasons, was exposed as patently untrue. When Efraim Halevy, a former head of Mossad, asserted that it was always useful to “deal with your enemies in a humane way”, he was challenged as to whether Israel would support the treatment of wounded Hezbollah fighters. To this, Halevy responded that while Israel has been targeted by Hezbollah, it had not been “specifically targeted by al-Qaeda.”
It should also be noted that during the Soviet-Afghan War, Israeli military intelligence was responsible for arming and training the guerillas of Herzb-i-Islami Mujahideen, one of the most hardline of the anti-Soviet Islamist groups of that war. Led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the group splintered after the war and its remnants merged into al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
From the time of its creation, Israel has worked tirelessly through multifarious channels to ensure that it has the political, economic and military backing of the United States. It has an extremely well-funded and aggressive lobby working on its behalf. One of the most critically important alliances forged by Jewish organisations and the government of Israel in the realm of American politics is that with conservative Christian Christian evangelicals.
In Christian Zionism, political Zionism again has formed an alliance with an ideological partner which ultimately is antithetical to Judaism. For while many such as John Hagee, chairman of Christians United for Israel, pledge a love for Israel, the eschatological doctrine is premised on the belief that the Jews, who rejected Jesus, will be given a final opportunity to accept Christ as their saviour and will be put to the sword if they refuse.
Arthur Balfour, whose letter to Lord Lionel Rothschild, the leader of Britain’s Jews, provided a critical step towards the creation of a Jewish homeland, was what would be termed today a Christian Zionist. Such homeland made perfect sense to a man who recoiled from the idea of Britain accepting more Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe. Modern leaders of the pre-tribulationist, pre-millennial dispensationalists of the pro-Israel Christian Right have on occasion betrayed anti-Jewish sentiment. For instance, Pat Robertson, the founder of the strongly pro-Israel Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) once referred to the Jewish founder of the US Military Religious Foundation as a “little Jewish radical” for promoting secularism in the American military. Robertson had earlier claimed that Jews were too busy “polishing diamonds” to do weekend chores. His contemporary, the late Jerry Falwell once stated that “most evangelicals believe the antichrist will, by necessity, be a Jewish male”.
Yet, for Israel, nurturing American evangelicals has been a beneficial task because of the importance of the Christian Right in American politics. They have exercised influence on American foreign policy and have contributed millions of dollars to Israeli groups. Their practical use for Zionism is that they economically support those in Israel’s society who are most opposed to any form of concessions to the Palestinians and encourage the colonisation of Palestinian land by the most fanatical Jewish settlers.
While it is argued that this “long, uneasy love affair” may have peaked, the American evangelical Right is still viewed favourably by the Israel. In early 2018, Naftali Bennett, the leader of the Right-wing Home Party, expressed his happiness at the relationship and was quoted as saying: “We need to use the opportunity to the best of Israel’s national interests and security.”
In Donald Trump, the current American president, Israeli interests and security are assiduously catered to. The most pro-Israel president since Lyndon Johnson has recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and has moved his country’s embassy to that city. He has abrogated the Five Plus One Treaty in which the United States and other world powers reached agreement with Iran to monitor its nuclear development programme. Indeed, Trump’s overarching objective in cultivating an anti-Iranian Middle East coalition, at the heart of which are Israel and Saudi Arabia, is clearly designed towards staging a military attack on Iran.
So lauded have Trump’s efforts being that Binyamin Netanyahu compared him to Cyrus the Great, the ancient Persian King who enabled the return of Jews from exile 2,500 years ago. Netanyahu also compared Trump to Lord Balfour and President Harry Truman, the former being the instigator of ‘The Balfour Declaration’ while the latter provided Israel with de facto recognition after its declaration of independence in 1948. Balfour’s anti-Semitism is well known, and while Harry Truman was largely thought of as being a philo-Semite, a posthumously revealed entry in his diary recorded that he found Jews to be “very, very selfish”. “When they have power”, he continued, “physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment for the underdog”.
While in Trump, the Jewish state has found an extremely supportive ally in the White House, it is also clear that he has purposefully courted those among his countrymen who are sympathetic to the cause of white nationalism. In doing this, he resorted to using what were considered as anti-Semitic tropes during his campaign for the presidency. There were numerous examples of this. For instance, his comments before a gathering of potential Jewish donors at the Republican Jewish Convention about them not supporting him “because I don’t want your money”, more than hinted at the stereotype of Jews controlling electoral candidates. So too was his delay in disavowing the endorsement given to him by David Duke, the former Klansman who now styles himself as a white civil rights activist. He also posted a twitter meme of Hillary Clinton implying that what he captioned “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!” was backed by Jewish money. Then his final campaign advertisement, which juxtaposed images of Jewish figures in the financial world with rhetoric alluding to Jewish power (“global power structure”), effectively suggested that Jews were at the heart of America’s economic malaise.
Yet, this has not stopped influential Jewish figures such as Alan Dershowitz from offering Trump critical support because of Trump’s pro-Israel policies. Prime Minister Netanyahu has often voiced his support for Trump including his proposal to build a wall on the United States border with Mexico. “President Trump is right”, Netanyahu tweeted in January 2017. “I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea.”
Netanyahu’s comments came after the furore caused by using Israel as an example when forcefully putting forward his case that a wall be built on the US’s southern border. Trump’s proposal was criticised as being symptomatic of the intolerant streak running through many of his policies. Yet, many of his critics do not react in the same manner when attention is turned to Israel.
Contemporary Israel is not the bastion of tolerance which many of its advocates are fond of proclaiming. The coalition government which presently governs it is by common agreement the most Right-wing in Israeli history. It is a drift which several people foresaw in 1948 when Herut, the Right-wing nationalist party headed by former Irgun leader Menachem Begin was formed. This development was met with great dismay by many Jewish intellectuals including Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt who took it upon themselves to write an open letter to the New York Times to warn that Israel would head down a path which legitimised “ultranationalism, religious mysticism and racial supremacy”.
Israel maintains a brutal occupation of what is left of Palestine in the West Bank and continues the strangulation of Gaza via a blockade, showing no moral qualms when snipers of the IDF kill and maim unarmed Palestinian protesters with little chance of breaching the system of iron wiring and moats which surround them. The colonising of West Bank continues with Palestinian land being taken by force while plans for the fresh construction of settlements are given intermittently. The Jewish settlers are then given choice land on which to reside and their security as well as day-to-day living needs are catered to. For instance, they travel on roads reserved only for Jews and have access to water resources which are increasingly in short supply to the inexorably constricted Palestinian enclaves.
In contemporary Israel, which demonises African migrants as ‘infiltrators’ -a term consistently used by Netanyahu himself- a clear majority of the population oppose the accepting of refugees. African refugees, who at a peak population of 60,000 would amount to one per cent of the 8 million Israeli population, were, because they were black and non-Jewish, claimed to pose a threat to Israel’s Jewish character. According to Miri Regev, a Likud member of the Knesset who is now culture minister, they are like a “cancer in the body”. Although she offered an apology, a poll conducted soon after her statement by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) Peace Index in May 2012, found that 52% of Israelis agreed with her.
As of writing, fewer than a dozen African migrants had been granted asylum, and Israel has consistently sought ways by which refugees can be removed or otherwise persuaded to leave: by threat of jail, deportations to third party African states, and through a regulation whereby 20 percent of their wages are retained by the state until they leave the country. In 2012, set against a rise in widespread fear and animosity over migrants who were blamed for worsening the economy and crime rates, anti-black rioting broke out in Tel-Aviv. This involved acts of vandalism, looting and firebombing. No deaths were reported, but there were many injuries.
Anti-black racism has also been directed at Ethiopian Jews, many of whom live in poverty and are socially ostracised. Some years previously, it was discovered that the Israeli state had embarked on programme of secretly sterilising Ethiopian Jewish women. They are also subjected to harassment and brutality at the hands of police. In a notorious incident in 2016, an IDF soldier of Ethiopian ethnicity was captured on camera being violently assaulted by a police officer who had threatened to put a bullet in his head.
But the passage of the nation-state law, which one Arab member of the Knesset bitterly denounced as “the end of democracy”, and “the official beginning of fascism and apartheid”, is in many respects merely consolidating a long-existing state of affairs. After all, Israel’s identification as the Jewish state found quick expression through the passage in 1950 of the Law of Return. This has intrinsically meant that the needs of its non-Jewish citizens, the approximately 21 percent Arab minority, is less of a priority than those of its Jewish citizens, and, indeed, that of the Jewish diaspora. The discrimination against and the neglect of Arab-Israeli communities was acknowledged in the report issued by the Orr Commission in 2003.
The governing Likud Party, which first came to power in 1977, and which for a lengthy period of time has returned the largest number of seats in the Knesset, is an offshoot of Begin’s Herut party, the creation of which caused such consternation in the likes of Einstein and Arendt. Likud thus traces a direct line of influence to the Revisionist Zionism of Jabotinsky, who Mussolini referred to as a “fascist”.
The ‘Iron Wall’ mentality and its values permeate Israel today. After all it was, Yair Golan then deputy chief of staff of the IDF who at a speech at the Holocaust Remembrance Day in May 2016 likened “revolting trends” in Israeli society to that of pre-Holocaust Nazi Germany. And Moshe Yaalon, a former IDF chief of staff, who resigned from his position as minister of defence prior to being replaced by the hardliner Avigdor Lieberman, said that he was “fearful for Israel’s future” given this tilt to the Right.
Israel’s embrace of the global far-Right led by Likud’s Netanyahu thus cannot be characterised solely as an expedient manoeuvre that is a continuum of the Zionist mentality aiming to perform any bargain that advances the interests if its cause. There is also a marked coherence in ideology. When Netanyahu hails the electoral victory in Brazil of Jair Bolsonaro and refers to Bolsonaro as “a true friend of the state of Israel”, and the Italian far-Right politician, Matteo Salvini as “a great friend of Israel”, his gestures have not gone unrequited. Like Netanyahu, both are nationalist and xenophobic in both philosophy and policies.
And just as Avharam Stern contemplated an ethno-Jewish state forming a part of a New Order in the Middle East which would complement the racial New Order he expected to come to fruition in a Europe under Nazi domination, Netanyahu’s actions in highlighting the commonalities between Israel and the global far-Right provides evidence of an acceptance and welcoming of a new-era form of global ethno-nationalism.
It is something Israel has sought to impose on its neighbours in the Middle East via their balkanisation into ethnic and religious mini-states, albeit that its motivation for doing this is to promote its regional hegemony. The creation of Sunni, Shia and Christian mini-states would serve not only to weaken countries such as Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, but also provide a justification for Israel’s existence as an ethno-state.
The allure of ethno-nationalism to Right-wing secular and religious Jews is apparent to those in Jewish communities who have been dismayed by those Jews who offer support and succour to the extremist element of the European and North American extreme Right. Among American Orthodox Jews, the majority of whom voted for Donald Trump, there has been a noticeable spread of white nationalist sentiment. They, along with those neoconservatives such as Ben Shapiro, Joel Pollack and Dennis Prager, as well as those associated with the alt-right such as Laura Loomer who applaud and condone the typically derogatory statements directed at non-whites and Muslims by the alt-right are accused by their fellow Jews of creating the conditions which will have negative consequences for Jews.
These stances reveal a fundamental hypocrisy. For those Jewish individuals who claim to be supportive of European nationalism and North American white nationalism, so long as it is a “healthy” sort, it is often the case that they are contented only when vitriol is directed at others and not at Jews.
But even then, the support by some is not overridden by demonstrable anti-Semitism. Consider for instance the statement made by the co-leader of the German AfD who minimised the Nazi persecution of Jews when stating that the Nazi-era was a mere “speck of bird poo in over 1,000 years of successful German history”. And Ezra Levant was noticeably forgiving after Gavin McInnes, a contributor to Levant’s Rebel Media, once spoke about the Jews “ruining the world with their lies and their money and their hooked-nose bagel-eating faces”.
As noted earlier, the key reason why the embrace of the alt-Right and white nationalism by some Jews is considered to be a surprising development is because they have historically borne the brunt of attendant hatred and persecution from nationalist movements. Thus, Jewish communities have, for good reason, long being considered to be ineluctably hostile to nationalist movements, albeit that the extreme Right has traditionally maintained that leaders of organised Jewry conveniently do not extend their reservations to Jewish nationalism.
Jewish-American uneasiness about Donald Trump, whose recent statement that he was a “nationalist” was interpreted as a coded reference to the ideology of white nationalism, was expressed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) when Trump first referred to his election platform as being one of “America First”. The ADL urged him to drop his ‘America First’ campaign slogan on the grounds that it had an “anti-Semitic past”, owing to the stance of prominent members of the America First Committee such as Charles Lindbergh who asserted that Jews were pushing isolationist America towards military involvement in the European war that became World War II.
Some may be inclined to consider whether some Diaspora Jews have been lulled into a false sense of security. They have, after all, lived during an era when levels of anti-Semitism fell to record lows, are proud of their social and economic achievements, and consider themselves conservative and sufficiently distinct from the traditional extreme-Right conception of the Jew as a dangerous leftist radical. Importantly, most are white-skinned and of European (Ashkenazi) descent.
But this is, of course, not the equivalent of possessing anAriernachweis, and many would consider it to be a dangerous speculation to assume that Jewish communities will be unscathed when, amid great polarisations in society, campaigns of demonisation ensue and violence erupts.
Yet, for those Jews who support the sentiments of white nationalist hatred and contempt for non-whites, the remarks made by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch in a sermon delivered at the Stephen Wise Synagogue after the murder of of eleven worshippers at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, present a cautionary note: “Even if we are not the immediate target of prejudice, sooner or later it will come back to the Jews anyway,” adding poignantly, “Did anyone think that an atmosphere of intolerance would bypass Jews?…that we can mark the doorposts of our house and that the angel of death can pass over us?”
They are words worth ruminating over by those Jews, whether as representatives of the Jewish state or as individuals, who enthusiastically continue to ride the tiger of white nationalism.

Source

%d bloggers like this: