Balfour’s Shadow – A Century of British Support for Zionism and israel

Balfour’s Shadow – A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel

Reviewed by Jim Miles

(Balfour’s Shadow – A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel.  David Cronin. Pluto Press, London. 2017.)

The Balfour Declaration, currently accepted by many as the founding legal statement for the establishment of Israel is really nothing more than a letter.  It was a letter of policy between government personnel and became a major part of foreign policy then, and its shadow effects have continued on rather effectively to now.  Balfour’s Shadow is a well written outline of the history of events after the letter: the immediate short term effects on British policy after WW I; the medium range policies that continued until after WW II; up to Britain’s current policy of advocating for and dealing with Israel.  It is not a pretty story.

The letter was not necessarily well intended.  Balfour himself was anti-Semitic.  Yet the letter offered support to the Zionists for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine.  Several factors accounted for this, one of them being this very anti-Semitism, as many British felt that Jews would never assimilate into their society.

Several other factors came into play:  Jewish support in the war effort was considered necessary;  the British wanted to protect the Suez Canal as the main route through to its then colonies of south Asia, mainly India;  and natural resources, oil, became a major interest after oil was discovered in abundance in the Middle East.  A colonial outpost would, Britain believed, help consolidate control of the region against Arab interests in an era when British racism ran rampant throughout its colonial networks.

From that beginning, Cronin highlights the major factors in the relationship between Zionists, Jews, and the British government.  He deals specifically with events pertaining to the government, and does not detail all that transpired during Britain’s occupation via the Palestinian Mandate.  But the general thread of the history is exposed throughout the work, accessible to both those with a strong background in the history and those just entering into the discovery process of Middle East history.  For the latter, Balfour’s Shadow provides enough detail that a reader should be motivated to research more information through other works (of which there are many).

In general, Cronin reveals that the methods used by the British to control the indigenous population of Palestine laid the foundation for the ethnic cleansing and later suppression of the Palestinian people.  Much history has been written about the Haganah, Stern, and Irgun ‘gangs’ fighting against the British, but the general trend of British behavior was to support the increasing settlement patterns, evictions, and land grabs of the Zionist settlers.

After the Nakba, Britain continued to supply Israel with military support ranging from hundreds of tanks, many planes, up to and including nuclear systems, in particular the sale of heavy water through Norway.  This period was a transition from British global power to U.S. global power: after the fake war for the Suez Canal and the later pre-emptive war of 1967, the U.S. had clearly taken the lead in supporting Israel. Britain however did not let go.

Indeed, Britain became one of the strongest voices in support of Israel as military trade and financial/corporate interests continued with mostly behind the scenes activities.  Additional information is provided showing how the British worked to sideline the PLO by effectively recruiting Arafat as leader of a recognized PLO ‘government’, leading to the false promises of the Oslo accords and the continued annexation, settlement, and dispossession of the Palestinians.

For contemporary events, Cronin highlights the bizarre career of Tony Blair.  At this point in time Blair was truly a “loyal lieutenant” for the U.S., adopting and promulgating U.S. policy for Israel and the Middle East in general.   Bringing the work up to current events, “Partners in Crime” outlines the corporate-military ties between Britain, Israel, and the U.S..  Most of the corporate interest is military procurement going both directions – hardware to Israel, spyware and security ware to Britain.  As always, these corporations (Ferranti, Affinity, Elbit, Rafael, Rokar, Lockheed-Martin) changed British views – at least of the elites – from tentative support to solidarity.  These friendly relations also helped tie Israel into the EU more strongly.

Today, official British policy remains as an ardent supporter of Israel, with a lasting pride in Israel’s founding.  The British colonial heritage rages on in the Middle East.

This is an excellent work most specifically for its focus on British attitudes concerning the development of Zionism/Israel, a history of war crimes and apartheid.  Kudos to Cronin for his extensive use of many personal diaries and notices and of official records from War and Colonial office files as well as Foreign and Commonwealth files for more recent materials.  It is concise and direct, an accessible read that can serve as a prerequisite for Middle East studies/Zionist studies and as a general guide to British policy for Israel.  [1]

– Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor and columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles’ work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

Notes: 

[1] Many books cover the development of Zionism and the creation of Israel.  For a more highly detailed development of the historical situation preceding and leading up to the Balfour letter itself, the best I have read is

The Balfour Declaration – The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.  Jonathan Schneer.  Anchor (Random House), Canada.  2012.

Advertisements

Making America great… again?

May 16, 2017

by Ghassan KadiMaking America great… again?

The more pre-election, post-election and even post-inauguration promises that President Trump breaks, the harder he makes it for himself to “Make America Great again”. But this narrative herein is not based on the political rhetoric and broken promises, rather, it is about a hypothetical scenario that questions if America is realistically able to bring Trump’s slogan to fruition.

“Make America Great Again” is a catch phrase that implies a restoration process of a bygone station of greatness. So before one explores the chances of success of such an ambition, one ought to go back to the basics of how and when America was great in the first place.

Admittedly, America has historically been a country of dreams for many. The pop culture of the 1960’s has even had songs about wanting to live in America and surfing USA. The dream has been realistic and fathomable, especially for Europeans who wanted to seek a better life, and thus the flow of migration began as soon as settlement began, and that flow was later on mirrored by the rest of the world, and it did not stop as yet.

But historically also, America was never a dream for its native people; quite the contrary. The influx of white migrants into America has resulted in one of the greatest, bloodiest and definitely the longest lasting genocides that spanned for over four whole centuries.

As for the young African men and women, even boys and girls, who were raided and stolen from their tribes and villages, taken away from their parents, loved ones and friends, to be sold and traded as slaves, put to hard labour, raped and killed, there was nothing for them to dream for at all in regard to America.

A dream for some and a nightmare for others, it would be hard to say that defining America as a dream has ever been a description that has been ubiquitously endorsed during its early-mid stages of nation-building. Did the global consensus change later on?

As the new nation that became known as the United States of America became independent in the late eighteenth century, another century later, it suffered from a brutal civil war and the new nation was not really able to stand on its feet and have its place on the global scene until the union was saved and Lincoln managed to pass his 13th amendment.

As a result, America prospered, and later on, late in the nineteenth century, America became the biggest global economy, and in hindsight, the few decades that followed up until WWI, America came the closest ever to being great at different levels. President Woodrow Wilson made it clear that the USA did not join the war for any gain of territory or to build an empire. He was instrumental in setting up the “League of Nations”, the predecessor of the UN.

All the while ignoring that the 13th amendment did not stop racial segregation and we shouldn’t, ignoring that racial inequality persisted and we also shouldn’t, was this short period, the few decades spanned in between the presidencies of Lincoln and Truman enough to classify America as a great nation?

To answer this properly, we must define greatness from a humane perspective. After all, if we allow ourselves to base greatness on wealth, we will have to accept that the Rothschilds, the Soroses and the Rockefellers are the greatest people on earth, but are they? Who is a greater person George Soros or Jonas Salk who invented the anti-polio Salk vaccine and donated it to the world and refused to take any royalties?

The real greatness of people and nations ought to be gauged by their contribution to humanity, easing its pain, spreading knowledge, spearheading liberation and enlightenment, and not by their wealth.

Or is greatness a subject of might?

The post-WWII era in which America was elevated to the level of the world’s first nuclear power and most powerful nation, has left behind a legacy of wars that began in Korea and went on unstopped to Syria and counting, and has left a trail of destruction, tens of millions of civilians killed, mostly from impoverished developing countries. Economies were destroyed, infrastructures decimated, which again begs the question, how and when exactly was America ever great?

Whilst America did offer great opportunity for a great number of select people for a great number of years, based on the proper and relevant criteria of greatness, it can be fair to say that America was never really great.

Surely, many people were attracted to America to go and live there and partake in the big “American Dream”, be able to buy a Chevy, buy a house in the suburbs and send their kids to the best schools and universities in the world, all the while have the best doctors and hospitals at their beck and call. But in reality, what is the percentage of Americans who were able to afford those luxuries even during the years of economic boom?

Whilst it might be true to say that in the 1950’s – 1970’s or so, America might have had a living standard that was higher than most other nations, the standard is shrinking at an alarming rate. With nearly 50 million Americans currently on food stamps, it becomes imperative to realize that today’s USA is a country that is wrought with poverty.

But poverty is not America’s only current problem, and when Trump claims that he wants to” Make America Great Again”, assuming he means it, one wonders if he is simply talking about rebuilding America’s financial prowess.

So if Trump’s take on greatness stops with money, how far can the best ever financial reform process go? Not that there is any sign of it coming from the Trump administration, not that we can see that he is keeping his word by putting America first and stopping all wars, but we must remember that we are looking at a hypothetical situation here, one that has nothing to do with Trump.

In other words, is America able to become great again if Trump was indeed serious about his promise?

The formal and declared American debt stands at nearly $20 trillion dollars, and if calculated on a per capita basis, the figure amounts to $60,000 per every man, woman, and child. But this debt is the tip of the iceberg. With collapsing infrastructure like roads, dams, river levees, schools, airports etc, the restoration of those public facilities constitutes overhead costs that are not budgeted for. They are simply ignored and allowed to decay and rot. These are referred to as “unfunded liabilities”.

It is hard to put an accurate figure on the value of those unfunded liabilities and the estimates vary greatly from a low of $150 trillion to a high of $350 trillion. At the higher estimate figure, the individual debt balloons to nearly $9 million, again, for every man, woman and child. But even at the lower end, the per capita figure is shyly short of $4 million.

When we make balance sheets we have to look not only at liabilities, but also at assets. The estimate of America’s total assets is another elastic figure that also varies from $300 to $550 trillion. That said, if the liabilities figure is indeed in the vicinity of the high $350 trillion figure and that of assets is in the vicinity of the low $300 trillion, then America could well and truly be literally insolvent.

We must remember here that even if the high $550 trillion figure is the correct figure of assets, it does not truly mean much because much of the sub-estimates are based on untapped natural and human resources and are based on today’s value of commodities that can easily crash.

Apart from material assets, there was a time when people around the world talked about “the latest thing from America”. America was the world centre of research and development and innovation in all fields of science and technology, but today’s America does not produce enough engineers, doctors and scientists who can bear the load of a techno-financial revolution that can take America out of the trouble it is facing. When we look today at developments such as China’s massive ultra-fast railway, we can foresee that we are not far from talking about “the latest thing from China”.

On the other hand, the slick, “low budget”, and highly advanced Russian military technology has given America a run for its money. The Russians have been playing their game very smartly, exposing the Americans to a taste of what’s up their sleeve, and –God forbid- in the event of a major escalation between the two super powers, America may find itself with bases and fleets exposed as sitting ducks facing an invisible enemy. It is highly likely that the Russians are not trying to “show off”; as it were, but they are sending strong and clear messages of deterrence to their “American partners”.

Back to economy, it seems likely, as a matter of fact we can safely say that it is highly probable that the demise of the American economy has gone too far and beyond repair. It is also possible that Trump has come to this realization after his inauguration, and that after reaching this realization, he made his U-turn on his promises on the basis that all he has left up his sleeve is a stash of nukes and a mighty war machine.

To reconsider the definition of greatness, does President Trump believe that might alone brings greatness and that by escalating the global bullying role of the United States of America he is going to “Make America Great Again”?

America is certainly a nation that has the highest military budget, largest navy and more off-shore military basis than the rest of the world combined, it has had the world’s biggest economy for many decades and continues to enjoy this status, but has never been a great nation that has spread knowledge and wisdom to the rest of the world. It has used its military might in the past to pillage poor countries and its current financial woes are literally impossible to resolve.

But when it comes to military matters, what is pertinent is that most, if not all, American military ventures have failed to achieve their objectives. After reaching a stale-mate in Korea, a total defeat in Vietnam, after two decades into the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, America is still incapable of gaining the upper hand on the ground.

So if the military is the only trump card left up Trump’s sleeve in order to “Make America Great Again”, on what grounds is he basing his assumption that he can confront and subdue Russia and China combined given that the 125,000 strong American army that invaded Iraq in 2003 was not even able to control the streets of Baghdad?

Ironically, Obama and Trump have both won their campaigns using slogans that are based on desperation; from “Yes We Can” to “Make America Great Again”, the slogans were effectively used to lure in voters who cognize that America is in deep trouble and needs a saviour. Obama has failed and left America with twice the official debt that he inherited on his inauguration day, and Trump will not be able to do much, because like a rusty old car, America is too far gone, and I feel sorry for the good people of America, and there are many of them, including some very good and dear personal friends.

Germany and NATO – Preparing for a Fascist Repression in Europe?

May 15, 2017

by Peter KoenigGermany and NATO – Preparing for a Fascist Repression in Europe?

While Washington is in turmoil, Trump’s firing of FBI’s Director Comey being hailed by some, condemned by others and questioned with innuendo by yet another group of critics, it looks like the U-turn The Donald has supposedly made a few weeks ago, is fizzling out – into a cloud of confusion and chaos. And who are the beneficiaries of this chaos? – The Neocon-Zion-Democrats, who else?

Is Trump becoming, or has already become a Banana Republic dictator? Should he be tried as war criminal along with Obama, Bush, Clinton and their illustrious predecessors, all the way back to JFK and beyond, including those who instigated world wars and conflicts around the globe for the last 200 years? Sadly, there is no justice left in so-called international courts of justice today. They have all been coopted by the hidden bloody fingers, pulling the strings on Washington and Brussels.

Is Trump’s government about to collapse from the pressure of the Neocon-Zion-Demo-Division of the Deep State? Speculations no end, with emerging suggestion that the controversial President had already committed enough unconventional deeds to be impeached; and Russiagate, one of them, is just not going away, despite all logic to the contrary. It is another reflection of the idiocy of the presstitute media. But they get away with it, as long as brainwashed masses still swallow the mass-media’s lies and deceptions in their comfortable armchairs. The swamp in Washington is steaming – and about to swallow politicians from all walks.

Will there be a nuclear war? Who will strike first? Western war-mongering Pentagon and NATO generals hope – that the US will launch a pre-emptive strike against Russia and /or China. It would most likely be triggered by a false flag. For example, North Korea is made believe having launched a (nuclear) attack on Japan. Speculations to this effect have already circulated.

But what if Russia’s early warning system which is based on top-notch technology, detects such an intended first strike and reacts instantly? An atomic WWIII – with full destruction and almost no survivors? All these realistic ideas are tossed up and down – leaving a public on either side of the Atlantic in fear. And we know that fear and confusion are the best weapons to panic and stalemate a population.

Who will survive? – Who will be next? And some even go as far as speculating, who may replace President Trump? – Most obviously, his Vice President, Mike Pence, who fits the neocons’ gambit very well. After all, they were the ones who chose him on Trump’s behalf.

That’s the state of things according to the main stream media. The US is crumbling and the West along with it. The crumbling is very loud. The softer noises are becoming undetectable.

On the European Continent, hidden from the common ear and eye, clandestine warfare against European citizens is planned by – the German Bundeswehr, NATO and other European armed forces. They are preparing for subjugating possible social upheavals, if necessary killing their own citizens – that’s what NATO-inspired Brussels is up to. And the leader, who else, is NATO-inspired Germany – the front runner of European puppets, a position for which France is now competing with Macron – and perhaps winning.

As reported by Susan Bonath, independent investigative journalist, working as a regular contributor for the German Die Junge Welt (The Youth World) – something horrendous is emerging in a small north-eastern town of Germany’s landlocked Federal State of Saxony-Anhalt. In one of Europe’s most modern military training camps, an entire ghost town is being built at the tune of several hundred billion euros. Most of the German (or European) tax-payers have never heard of it. By 2018 the facility will be ready for troop training to fight European citizens in European cities, should they dare to go on the barricades against the atrocities of their leaders and oligarchs.

The concept is only new to Europe. The US, for years, has been building hidden garrisons around ‘vulnerable’ agglomerations – New York, Detroit, Chicago – and many more – ready to strike if massive protests should break out. For last November’s US Presidential election, they have been put on high alert. In fact, intensive troop movements could be observed from the air.

With Macron’s ‘election’ to President of France – or rather the Rothschild shoe-in – to protect the financial oligarchs of France and Europe, to shield unfettered capitalism from social disturbances, Europe is fast moving towards a state of fascist repression, accompanied by a fascist economy, a double whammy for the rich, and a double barrier aimed at eliminating peoples’ freedom to live decent and happy lives.

In his victory speech, Macron said as a priority that France will be first in ’fighting terrorism’. This is unconstrained support to the continuation of the ‘false flag’ approach, killing a few of your own citizens or policemen, to justify further and further clamp-downs on civil liberties. France, under Hollande, Washington’s ultra-puppet, has Europe’s most solid track record for false flag attacks. France may become the first country in Europe to put a permanent State of Emergency – akin to Martial Law – into her Constitution. Where Hollande so far had failed, Macron may succeed. Such an example would most like make school throughout vassal Europe. The training facilities in northern Germany, supported by Madame Merkel, to oppress and kill protesting Europeans fall right in line with Macron’s Machiavellian philosophy.

On the other hand, Greece is the epitome of the killing of a nation by financial instruments. The Greek allow it for reasons beyond logic. Maybe for fear not obeying and choosing the only way out, GREXIT, might be worse than financial strangulation? – These are apparently the arguments voiced, but unsubstantiated, by former Greek Finance Minister Varoufakis, who is ever so much interested in staying in the limelight, influencing public opinion by his self-styled stardom. Is this caviar leftist supporting his country’s demise as a deterrent for others who might want to regain sovereignty from the bulldozers of Washington and Brussels?

George Orwell comes to mind, when he says, referring to James Burnham’s The Machiavellians – “a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud… Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud.”

This extends well to Globalization’s declaration of Justice: “All that’s yours is mine, and all that’s mine is mine.”

Wake up and beware, what’s brewing at the NATO-German urban training camp ground is a defense mechanism to assure the ruling class privileges will never be lost. Europeans – on the barricades now, before it’s too late!

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

Macron wins – the 24% who voted for him rejoice, the rest sigh

May 09, 2017

by Ramin MazaheriMacron wins – the 24% who voted for him rejoice, the rest sigh

Communist ideas have won concessions from industry, but they have been unable to stop high finance from exploiting workers.

That is the big battle today. Only revolutionary and heavily socialist countries like Iran, Cuba and China – as well as dictatorships like South Korea in the past – have been able to stop domination by international finance.

France, however, has fearfully rushed into the arms of the candidate who wants your wages to pay for bad loans: former Rothschild banker Emmanuel Macron.

It’s almost insulting to take orders from a 39-year old who didn’t come to power at the end of the gun or at the front of a massive revolution, because how can such a young person not be the puppet of older, richer interests?

There’s no way Macron is as smart, experienced and mature as he believes himself to be, or as they want us to believe. It’s “not polite” by French campaign standards, but I note that his record as Economy Minister produced only economic stagnation and record-high unemployment.

I talk to people in France about how they will vote all the time, even though it’s also “not polite” by French standards. Hogwash. Emmanuel only has two appeals: first, he is young and new blood in a country run by an aged, corrupt aristocracy, and second, he is not Marine Le Pen.

Of course Emmanuel won: Le Pen lost in 2nd round head-to-head polling at all times and against everyone. I mean in every…single…poll since polling began in January.

We were hoping against hope, and because hope was a terrible, incompetent, neo-fascist candidate – hope lost.

Huge change from 2012 – there is no joy in Mudville. I can assure you that France’s spirit of resistance was alive and well in 2012. Ahhhh, austerity was so young back then – it’s so firmly-rooted now.

Francois Hollande was elected on a promise to fight high finance, fight Germany, end austerity and renegotiate EU treaties. The French people were 100% correct to be so optimistic – who can live in cynicism?

But who could have expected that Hollande would make such an undemocratic U-turn? His U-turn threatened to destroy the European Union, which has only been given a stay of execution with Macron’s victory. Even though Hollande couldn’t even run for re-election, nobody with any sense of justice thinks that is fair reparations.

I must pause here for a word on civil war: France talks about the possibility of a civil war an inordinate amount. And I perceived this years before this election involving Le Pen.

In the US that’s relegated to beyond the suburbs…half the country, sure. Of course, the English say the same thing. The Spanish may split over Catalonia. Scotland may break off. Ireland remains divided. Italy barely has a government. Belgium didn’t have one for a year (such Parliamentary gridlock is France’s future).

Only the Germans are happy with their leadership. And why not: everyone in the West “admires them”. Not me – higher poverty rate than France, for starters.

My point is: Western society, and not just France, is fractured in a terrible, horrible way. The lack of unity – even if only perceived – is staggering for a region of the world enjoying such enormous relative prosperity. There is, clearly, a problem in their culture.

Cuba doesn’t have this problem. Nor China. Iran – once you get out of rich North Tehran – will almost certainly have a higher voter participation rate in their elections this month than France, and France’s is still among the highest in the West.

The fear of civil war is a major Western phenomenon, and it was a major reason why people voted for Macron/against Le Pen

What do you expect? You’re all divided into parts of unequal sizes

That’s what identity politics is: Is a Black’s ideas worth more than a Gay? Seems like a Transgender rules the roost in 2017, especially if he/she has to go to the bathroom.

Can the White Nationalists fly their flag at the statehouse or not? We better ask the opinion of the left-handed homemakers north of the Mason-Dixon but west of the Mississippi who prefer jam to Nutella on partially-cloudy days – I’m sure their lobby group is being formed.

Or you could just have what works: Class politics.

Us versus the 1 billionth percent, the 8 people who own half the world’s wealth.

Anyone who supported Le Pen was browbeaten with insults against their character, intelligence and morality. Identity politics are not only about inclusion – I am in this group – it is about exclusion: You have to be like this or you are not in this group.

And who doesn’t want to be in the group the entire media (no exaggeration) said was the “good” one?

Because France does not accept multi-culturalism, promoting assimilationism instead, identity politics in France has a different face. The “in group” here is simply “France”. That’s why Macron saved this big PR gun for the final week of campaigning: “The National Front is the anti-France party”.

It resonated, even though the National Front is the most hyper-patriotic party.

Anyway, I ardently supported Marine Le Pen for two weeks – between the two rounds of voting – does that make me anti-France? Or does it make me a fascist and a racist? I’d swear at you but this is a family publication.

Fascism is a real dirty word over here. It’s not that way in the US because American fascists won WWII and thus were never discredited, like over here. People here had relatives die fighting German, Austrian & Italian fascists.

The past is indeed history, and history is indeed past

France also succumbed to the idea that the fascists their grandfathers fought are the real problem, as if France fought a civil war instead of the Germans in World War II.

More than identity politics, Macron won because France was convinced that the father of Marine Le Pen is more important than her ideas to rectify the very different problems of 2017. But high-speed trading didn’t exist in 1941. There was no European Union. In 1941 there was actually a Left in the West, LOL.

“You don’t see it, Ramin,” they told me “the threat of the National Front.”

What I see is you guys taking a backseat to Germany.

But, I’m exaggerating: I see France colluding with the Germans. Again, just like in World War II.

That is EXACTLY what has happened! Check the data: Which banks are leveraged in Greece? German AND French are the top two. Who funds the European Central Bank? The main percentage comes from Germany, with France in a very close 2nd place – we are talking dozens of billions of much-needed euros.

Acting as if Germany pays everything, does everything, plans everything – this is an Anglo-Saxon view not based on reality. I assume it is related to the historical Northern European view of their genetic supremacy over everyone else, including Southern and Eastern Europe.

But, that’s just more identity politics. It ignores the class view, as usual. The reality is that French capitalism is hugely a part of the neo-imperialist project of the European Union to cannibalize other Europeans – it’s not all Germany.

Le Pen would get that – Macron would think I am speaking Greek. Oh well.

Crying ‘terrorism’ is not just for kicks and giggles

But let’s not insult everybody in France as being class ignoramuses – this is not America: the French got two such bad candidates by another primary tactic of high-finance: the security state.

The first round vote was on April 23, and I already wrote a column about how terrorism was in the headlines an inordinately suspicious amount in the week prior to that vote.

And in the 14 days since April 23rd France’s security state made sure terrorism-related raids and announcements were in the headlines almost every day. Should we be surprised anymore? I made a list:

April 24-26: Fourteen arrests made in France and Belgium on terrorism.

April 25: Five more arrests in alleged Marseilles planned terrorism attack.

April 25: National homage to the cop killed on the Champs-Elysees.

April 27: Raid on an alleged terrorist’s home in Réunion. Two cops shot.

April 28: Citing the war on terrorism, police will ban traffic information apps from warning of radar traps and other police stops.

May 2: Five arrests in anti-terrorism.

May 3: Judgment in a high-profile “apology of terrorism” case.

May 3: In the lone presidential debate Macron said that terrorism will be the “focus of his 5 years”. 30 minutes of terrorism discussion, which preceded the debate on the European Union.

May 4: National day of homage to all cops killed in France.

This is an incomplete list. I can assure you that the French anti-terrorism units do not work this often in normal times – we’d all be in jail if they did.

The canard of terrorism was employed by Hollande to undemocratically ram through right-wing economic measures designed to benefit the bondholder class. It was also used to put Macron in office and, as I listed, Macron plans to keep it there.

Ultimately, there is still no plan in effect to win concessions from high finance. Le Pen would not have provided a solution, but she would have at least been a monkey wrench; she would at least have provided a temporary respite; she would at least have provided the chance to discuss solutions.

Finance is international, but Europe requires a unique solution because the creation and support for the European Union means they have a uniquely European problem.

I have no ideas, and neither do the faux-left supporters of Macron. They just keep telling me: “We’ll take to the streets to fight austerity”. Hey, jerk, check the scoreboard – we did that all the time under Hollande: we lost.

Macron will continue the neoliberal policies which didn’t work while he was minster, and they will not work now.

Ultimately, the election of Macon just kicks the can down the road. Prior to the election this was repeatedly written by mainstream journalists to describe the necessary economic “reforms” France resisted implementing. Absurd, these “deforms”.

What is postponed are the revolutionary, pro-communist changes which put finally the people ahead of the financial class, which is the new aristocracy.

Postscript – the Macron Era, Day 1 of 1,826.25

The above was written on election night. I was planning to finish it in between my 10 scheduled live interviews for Press TV, but at this point in the column the Le Pen camp refused my entry to their headquarters, denying me a place to do some of those interviews and also to finish this column.

I wasn’t the only one – Le Monde, Mediapart and reportedly many other media were the victims of the Le Pen campaign’s allegedly accidental and regrettable choice to choose a small, swanky locale for their HQ.

Maybe such treatment was a harbinger of things to come and we dodged a bullet by avoiding the National Front and their anti-press neo-fascism?

Problem is, Macron banned Russian media a couple weeks earlier.

Problem is, prior to that Hollande took Press TV and all Iranian media off France’s state-run satellite Eutelsat, in a clear case of censorship.

Anyway, the day after the election Hollande joined Macron for the WWII Victory Day memorial and then immediately flew to Berlin to meet Merkel. Isn’t that fitting? And there were thousands already protesting Macron, with plenty of police brutality. I wanted to cover it but my cameraman begged off, citing fatigue. Honestly, I felt the same way.

Glass half-full: Macron is from the younger, less-racist generation. Maybe he’ll be able to take a firm stance on France’s xenophobic nonsense?

Problem is, his team threatened to close the nation’s Islamophobia watchdog, saying they are “in danger.” Pretty Le Pen-like, if you ask me, which is what I always said.

I really cannot even stomach reading the mainstream media’s take on France’s election, but people seem to be talking like Trump was avoided in France. People only say that because the economic angle – the class angle – is systematically repressed in favor of the economic angle.

Macron is going to wage an (economic) extremist war on the French public, and who can be excited about that? Nobody is excited about Macron here except unmarried, middle-aged women, who have finally found someone who won’t ignore them. I don’t want to rain on their honeymoon, though, so “Sweet dreams, ladies.”

Just do the math: 25% abstained and 12% submitted blank ballots (LOL, a record), meaning only 67% of the total electorate issued an acceptable vote. That drops Macron’s alleged final score of 66% down to 42% of the total electorate. Now subtract the 43% of Macron’s voters who say the voted to block Le Pen. That means only 24% of the total electorate voted for Macron’s personality or his policies.

Only 24% of France truly voted for Macron. So forget what the financial/foreign press says: there is no joy in Mudville, French democracy has struck out.

But the beat goes on. And for the next five years I’m covering the exact same news beat – Hollande (Jr.) and austerity.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

Je Suis Charlie to MacronLeaks? France’s ‘free press’ takes credibility hit

May 07, 2017

by Ramin MazaheriJe Suis Charlie to MacronLeaks? France’s ‘free press’ takes credibility hit

I don’t understand: I thought the French were passionately in love with liberty of the press?

That’s what they said when they just HAD to publish pictures of the Prophet Muhammad in Charlie Hebdo. And some of these pictures were absolutely pornographic, let’s not forget – they were not respectful, tolerant or even neutral. Heck, one showed Prophet Muhammad actually filming a porn movie.

But I thought it was a question of the responsibility of the press to be brave and publish what may get them in trouble? And the right to political speech? And of personal freedom?

That’s what was self-righteously proclaimed by one French media after another, after another, after another and after another to anyone who would listen around the world.

The common Frenchman, too: I’ve never seen more people in one place than the 4-million person demonstration in support of Charlie Hebdo. I asked some tough questions there in my work as Iran’s Press TV correspondent, despite the pleas of my cameraman to think of our own skin.

And yet it seems the first rule of MacronLeaks is: Don’t talk about MacronLeaks.

The morning after the hacked emails of the Macron campaign were released the French Electoral Commission menacingly warned that nobody was permitted to publish to the contents of the leaks. The leaks were tens of thousands of emails, notes, bills and internal discussions.

What was inside? Can’t tell ya – I’m a journalist.

It wasn’t as if the French people didn’t have access to this information: MacronLeaks are all over Twitter and social media.

So this 11th-hour election twist means that France is living in a state of forced denial, and this denial is forced by the state. A good word for that is “authoritarian”. Hey, due to the ongoing state of emergency (18 months and to be extended by either presidential candidate) this is officially a “police state dictatorship”, after all.

Authoritarianism has become old hat for us in France!

But if this was Russia and it was Vladimir Putin’s chosen successor instead of Francois Hollande and his chosen boy Emmanuel Macron, what would the French media be saying? Stupid question: They’d be screaming “censorship, censorship, censorship”.

It’s appalling: There hasn’t been ONE French media willing to courageously publish when no one else will.

Leaks just don’t sell as many newspapers as naked cartoons, I guess? What happened to the infamous French provocateur? I’d even settle for one of those annoying types right about now.

Imagine if Marine Le Pen was up 62% to 38% instead of Macron? I’m sure SOME media would have published LePenLeaks, and justified it by “standing up to fascism”.

But the French don’t stand up to capitalism. Certainly not when they seem about to elect Rothschild banker and pro-austerity Macron in about 8 hours. Certainly they don’t stand up for communism anymore.

But boy oh boy, don’t they talk a lot of stuff about their love of a free press? And when you don’t back it up….

Censoring will have the opposite effect of discrediting the media & the election

It’s crucial to know there is not one major media in France which is pro-Le Pen.

This is very different from Brexit, where newspapers made explaining the Brexit rationale a daily occurrence. It’s also different from the US, where Trump at least had Fox News to give his side. Seemingly everybody with power, money and influence – and I mean everybody – is against Le Pen.

Le Pen supporters already had cause to claim, 100% fairly, media bias: The MacronLeaks self-censorship will be also fairly viewed as just another step in this direction.

Whether you agree with the decision or not, the fact is that nearly 40% of voters are expected to vote for Le Pen. Add in some abstentionist sympathizers and we can accurately predict that half the country is going to view France’s media as being in total collusion against their candidate.

They are turning to the “Fourth Estate” for guidance and what they found at the top of the France 24 website was this story: Reproduction of whales and dolphins in captivity banned. How can France’s media not lose credibility with such nonsense?

That’s why Twitter Francais was full of condemnations like this one: “The oligarchy will be scandalized by its methods. This is why people go elsewhere than the mainstream for information. This is all that the journalists of BFMacron can do?” (BFM is one of the two top TV news channels here.)

The French establishment is trying to protect its election (or its preferred candidate, perhaps), but half the country is going to see this self-censorship as undermining the credibility of the election itself. Also from Twitter: The censoring of the French media on the MacronLeaks revelations before the decision of the French people is a reason to invalidate the vote.

This is the anti-Macron camp on Twitter, and they are right.

The pro-Macron camp on Twitter encouraged each other to post pictures of cats. This was in order to bog down Twitter in feline stupidity and not allow their fellow citizens to see what the future president was up to.

So why didn’t I publish the contents – I’m a journalist in France?

That’s an honest question, and I’ll give an honest answer:

That decision was above my pay grade.

Like many journalists, I am not in charge – I’m just a worker. I can decide for myself, but I cannot decide for my media. My views on it appear to be clear.

I think the point of view of Press TV is that: We have already been banned by France’s state-run satellite company during the Hollande administration…what do we need even more harassment for?

After all, I could barely find anybody in France to stand up for Iran’s right to freedom of the press at this censorship. Even the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders refused to give an interview to me to attack this ban and to defend Iran’s rights. LOL at that NGO’s “apolitical” reputation. LOL at their hypocrisy.

I’m not trying to sound “tough” – I was very conflicted about MacronLeaks and it’s not certain I would have revealed the contents if the choice was mine to make. What made it much harder was that, for sure, I would have been the first.

I am a foreign journalist – why aren’t the domestic media leading the way?

They have all the contacts, all the ability to fight in courts, all the language-skills to explain to a judge, all the reasons to defend their press. It is their country, after all – I’m not even a citizen.

So I understand Press TV’s view.

But there are certainly many French journalists who feel disappointed with their publishers and their colleagues, and they should feel that way.

Rules are made to broken – failing to do so leaves only questions

Ok, 36 hours is not much time to verify the veracity of the leaks, but I ask you: Which media refused to publish the allegations about conservative candidate Francois Fillon and “Penelopegate” over these very same alleged concerns?

Or which media refused to publish the allegations concerning Marine Le Pen and her EU ghost jobs scandal?

The answer is, “none”. So why is Macron getting preferential treatment?

If the answer is, “Because it’s too close to the election,” I find that very unsatisfying. Truth, justice, transparency and the peoples’ right to know does not have a date.

If the answer is, “Because it’s the law,” I find that unsatisfying as well. However, I did not realize just how anally-retentive about the law the French were until I moved here – it goes against the common stereotype. They have been, as we all inevitably are, greatly influenced by their neighbors, the anal-retentive kings – the Germans. France has not fallen far from that tree.

If the answer is, “Because foreigners are trying to influence our election,” I find that unsatisfying as well. Learning the truth about a candidate is the most important – have we not seen how badly Hollande lied and backtracked to the French? Learning the truth is the best safeguard to democracy – the source of the truth and their motives are totally irrelevant.

Macron and his team are asking to serve as public servants: How does transparency not trump their right to privacy? Mustn’t elected officials be held to a higher standard?

This censorship cuts both ways, including against Macron’s rights: By denying all discussion, how can Macron clear his name? Surely some will say that Macron is guilty by suspicion, and that is not fair either. Of course, with a 20+ point lead he just wants to tread water and say as little as possible – this has been his election strategy all this time, in fact.

Ultimately, it is the public which must be made king: Otherwise you have an oligarchy. The media’s complicity in the MacronLeaks affair will only increase accusations that this is the true nature of France.

Plenty of proof that France censors only when it wants to

The fact is that assuming these leaks were some sort of “disinformation campaign” is not based on any proof.

WikiLeaks, who was not behind the leaks, said that they appeared credible. When is the last time such a big leak proved out to be false? Whistleblowers like this have a very good record.

But if the whistleblower thought this would have an effect like in the United States, he was sorely mistaken. The French are not going to go hog-wild over conspiracy theories like the Obama Birther Movement in the US.

What’s more likely is that the whistleblower had the data, and realized he had no smoking gun. So he waited until the campaign ended, hoping that innuendo would do what his hacked data could not.

Am I even allowed to print that? Dear Paris prosecutors, please note I am only hypothesizing that there is no smoking gun, maybe there is!

I have had to make that same half-serious, half-pathetic plea for other cases in France recently: covering “apology for terrorism” cases. That’s another example – hundreds of examples – where France clearly cared nothing for freedom of speech: you had minors, drunks and mentally ill citizens accused by hearsay, jailed, tried and sentenced over just a few days.

French media doesn’t like to make a fuss about that, either.

Back to MacronLeaks: By releasing this so close to the election there’s a fair case to be made that this is not whistleblowing but manipulation, and those are two different things.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. But the first rule of MacronLeaks is that we can’t talk about them….

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

THE FRENCH ELECTION SIDESHOW: BOTH MACRON AND LE PEN ARE SUBSERVIENT TO WORLD ZIONISM

by Jonathan Azaziah

Let me go ahead and say this right off the rip before going even a millimeter further: Emmanuel Macron is scum. And not just run-of-the-mill, everyday, basic scum that you find across the political spectrum of a colonialist shitbucket like France either. He’s super-scum. Globalist. Member of the notorious Bilderberg Group. Supporter of even more criminal interventionism in Syria. EU stooge. Kisser of Merkel’s feet. Advocate of neoliberalism to the tenth power. And the kicker – an open agent of the Rothschild Octopus who has actually been groomed for power by the parasitic, globe-holding, Jewish supremacist clan of capitalist carnage from his early days as a banker. Based on these truths, it can at least be rationalized why many in the Resistance Camp would cautiously embrace Macron’s opponent Marine Le Pen, who on the mere surface, is anti-NATO, anti-EU, anti-globalist, anti-Wahhabi, pro-Russia and has stated that Syrian President Dr. Bashar al-Assad “must stay” as a counterweight to ISIS. But Le Pen’s words, which, as campaign rhetoric, are tantamount to nothing more than hot air, should not be trusted. Because digging deeper, far beneath the aforementioned surface, one finds that the same Jewish-Zionist powers who are backing Macron are in fact backing Le Pen too. It’s the Hegelian dialectic, the same, tired, false right-left paradigm, repackaged to the “Goyim” with a globalist vs. anti-globalist flavor.

Perhaps what Marine Le Pen possesses even more than her bombast is her ambition. She’s had her sights on leading France for well over a decade and she knew that to even be in the running, she’d have to kneel before the real rulers of the French state: World Zionism. She was a devoted member of the Delegation For Relations With ‘Israel’ from ’04-’09, going to bat for the Zionist tumor at every opportunity. Still though, she needed to take it up a notch. Enter Louis Aliot, Le Pen’s partner and one of the National Front’s (FN) vice presidents. A Zionist Jew with ties to the usurping ‘Israeli’ entity and a facilitator of growing Jewish membership in the FN, Aliot is personally responsible for purging the organization of Anti-Zionist/Anti-Judaic activists and paving the way for a Jewish wing of the FN to go into full effect led by Michel Thooris, a hardcore Zionist Jew who wants to formally annex the occupied West Bank and who is close to genocidal warlord Avigdor Lieberman. Aliot also sued French Anti-Zionist thinker Alain Soral and is at the forefront of several Zionist-sponsored censorship initiatives vis-a-vis pro-Palestine activism. Le Pen’s relationship with Aliot and subsequent “house-cleaning” at the FN opened up the door for her to receive the backing of Gilles-William Goldnadel, president of the France-‘Israel’ Alliance and one of the most prominent movers and shakers of French Jewry.

Even Le Pen’s father, the notorious Jean-Marie, got swept up in the mix and to this day, there remains the overt appearance of a rift between them. But since Jean-Marie is now towing the new FN line, this can clearly be seen for the farce that it is. While his reputation as an “anti-Semite” and a “maverick” proceed him, the fact is, Jean-Marie was an occupation soldier in Indochina and an intelligence officer in Algeria, committing unspeakable crimes in both nations, and remains, ’till this very moment, a proponent of colonialism. Like father, like daughter, because Marine herself is an upholder of France’s hideous colonialist past and perhaps it this mentality that has led her into defending the ‘Israeli’ disease as it bombed babies in Gaza during Operation Mighty Cliff in ’14, slamming all attempts to boycott the artificial Zionist regime, going on record to show her support for the JDL, a Jewish terrorist organization that has murdered innocents on several continents, and routinely engaging in oratories that stray from anti-Wahhabism and wade deep into the waters of the Zionists’ anti-Islam doctrine, thus furthering the neocons’ “clash of civilizations” agenda. Under Le Pen’s leadership, Freemasons, including those of the ultra-influential Great National Lodge of France, are also flocking to the FN and bringing all their money and vast political clout with them. Valerie Le Dougouet, a prominent initiate of the Grand Orient de France, the largest French Masonic organization, is a vital backer of Le Pen’s. And who brought him into the fray? None other than Louis Aliot.

Reports were abound at the end of 2016 that Le Pen’s campaign would run out of cash to carry on. Yet, she’s not only still in the race after making it out of the first round but in a very good position to defeat Macron this coming Sunday. Now, rumors are swirling in Anti-Zionist circles that the money that kept her afloat came from gazillionaire Ukrainian Jewish-Zionist oligarch Vadim Rabinovich, founder of the European Jewish Parliament who Le Pen warmly met with in ’15, as well as the Zionist-normalizing UAE, who Le Pen heaped praised on for “fighting fundamentalism”. This would explain why Russia, despite Le Pen’s overtures, didn’t give the National Front candidate any funds, as the Federation did not want to be caught up with such shadiness. Murky indeed, as there’s another possible source of money and the link can be found with her niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, a rising star in the National Front and frequenter of pro-‘Israel’ events staged by CRIF and LICRA, the two most powerful Jewish Lobby groups in France.

The reason that the Zionist Power Configuration in Paris is so warm towards Marion and thus, getting warmer towards Marine, is because Marion is the daughter of infamous “journalist” and Mossad spy Roger Auque. Hizbullah had detained Auque 30 years ago on suspicions that he was spying for the ‘Israeli’ enemy and the Resistance is now vindicated as it was finally revealed to be exactly the case in Auque’s posthumous autobiography. Auque performed services for the CIA and the DGSE too, but it was his activities with the Mossad, including the pursuit of Hizbullah Commander Hajj Imad Mughnieyh (R.A.), that made him so dangerous. Mossad is a family business of course and it stands to reason that Auque’s handlers set their sights on Marion as soon as she was of age and since a Marine Le Pen presidency will only boost Marion’s own ambitions, it’s more than likely that Mossad is pumping a steady flow of cheddar into the National Front to protect its asset(s). One only has to read Victor Ostrovsky’s two tremendously juicy exposés of Mossad as well as “Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad” by Gordon Thomas to know that wrapping politicians in Western states around their fingers is among the subversive things that Mossadniks do best.

In short, we have the “left” candidate who is wholly subservient to the Rothschilds and we have the “right” candidate who is wholly subservient to Mossad. Same Yahoudling demons. Let the rise of Donald Trump serve as the best lesson to how the game is being played now. World Zionism is trotting out candidates who claim to be “anti-establishment” and use large chunks of the lingo of “anti-establishment” crusaders, all to continue business as usual in the establishment for years to come, with magniloquent tirades against “Islamism” and/or “radical Islamic terrorism” and/or “jihadists” being spewed out with regularity while ‘Israel’ continues to be armed, financed and sheltered from Gentile criticisms. No matter who ascends to the French presidency on May 7th, France’s colonialist aggressions will go on; France’s ever-expanding prison-industrial-complex that targets Black-Brown-Muslim youth will go on; France’s weapons sales to the most despotic regimes, chief among them Saudi Arabia, will go on; France’s indentured servitude to ‘Israel’ will go on; and France’s current state as a nation under the rule of a hostile Jewish “elite” will go on.

Some say “anyone but Macron”. Others say “anyone but Le Pen”. Rightists cry out “Antifa!” Leftists cry out “fascism!” Analysts shout about “pragmatism”. But how things look and how things are… represent two starkly contrasting realities. A servant of ‘Israel’ pretending not to be one is a servant of ‘Israel’ nonetheless. And make no mistake, anyone mouthing off about “Islamists” 24 hours a day, 7 days a week but simultaneously never making a peep about the Jewish gangster “state” is a tool of “Tel Aviv” and its global agenda. Until we speak this unfiltered truth about who and what really dictate Western elections and who and what REALLY drive the wars on the Arab-Islamic world, nothing will change for the better in the Global North or the Global South. Call a thing… A THING… And knock the six-pointed-star-encrusted controllers off of their “chosenite” perches. No Macron. No Le Pen. No more kowtowing to Organized Jewish Interests. No more of this anti-human, pro-Satan system. No more of this “left-right” sideshow. Burn it… Burn every last goddamn part of it to the goddamn ground.

Emmanuel Macron & the Friends He Made on the Way to Elysée Palace

Darko LazarThe politically correct Pope Francis recently offered his two cents on France’s presidential election. During his flight back to Rome earlier this month, he told reporters that he knew one of the candidates was an extreme far-right conservative, but that he didn’t even know who the other candidate was or “where he came from”.

French Presidential candidate Emanuel Macron

Shortly afterwards, posts started popping up on social media networks, suggesting that the famously astute Jesuit couldn’t possibly be in the dark about Emmanuel Macron.

Perhaps the modern and emancipated pope felt that it wasn’t in his best interest to claim that France’s presidential frontrunner came straight from hell, as details about Macron’s backers and associates continued to shock the public.

“En Marche” or “Move on”?

Macron’s team is a reflection of the politics that the centrist candidate propagates – progressive ideas about multicultural societies, globalism, open borders, welcoming more migrants [cheap labor], and of course, a stronger Brussels.

His right-hand man, Pierre Bergé, who was ‘married’ to the late fashion icon Yves Saint Laurent and inherited his business empire, finances many of the world’s ‘progressive’ battles, longing for the day when religious occasions like Christmas and Easter will simply be referred to as winter and spring ‘holidays’.

Moreover, if statements by Macron guru and Elysée Palace insider Jacques Attali are anything to go by, the French have a rather peculiar future to look forward to.

In a 2014 interview with Italy’s La Repubblica, the French economist, philosopher and sociologist painted a picture of a world in which “human reproduction will be the job of machines”, and where a “surrogate mother can be anyone, even a person in the same family”.

Meanwhile, the head of Macron’s campaign and media tycoon, Bernard Mourad, served as a virtual guarantee that his candidate would enjoy an unprecedented level of positive media coverage.

Mourad, who was born to a Lebanese father and a Moroccan mother of Jewish descent, previously chaired the Altice Media Group, which controls a number of radio and television stations, as well as 60 dailies and magazines, including leading publications like Libération.

With the latter in mind, there is nothing particularly groundbreaking about this candidate or his agenda. As a matter of fact, analysts have pointed to the striking similarities between Macron’s ‘political ideals’ and those outlined by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, including the name of his En Marche party, which appears to be little more than a translation of Soros’ Move On organization.

The Gulf Connection

Reports claiming that Macron’s campaign received some 30% of its revenue from Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf were quickly debunked.

The mainstream media could finally claim a victory in the “fake news” war, and justifiably ignore meetings between Macron and members of the Saudi and Qatari royal families.

A March 2016 private encounter between Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Nayef and Macron was deemed unworthy of coverage by the mainstream press.

Equally ‘uninteresting’ was the news that Macron’s signature during his stint as France’s Minister of Economy and Finance approved the sale of 10 billion euros’ worth of arms to Riyadh.

On his watch, in fact, Saudi Arabia became the biggest single destination for French weapons systems. In 2015 alone, French commercial contracts with the Saudis reached a whopping USD 11.5 billion.

Macron’s lucrative links to the Qataris were also ignored.

The favorite in the race for France’s top job also happens to be a member of a small, informal club of Franco-Qatari investors and patrons.

In April 2016, Doha’s envoy to Paris described the 39-year-old as “a friendly, creative and innovative personality… the future is therefore his and I wish to Minister Macron all the successes in the service of his country and the strengthening of the relations of France with the friendly countries.”

And judging by the perks that the Qatari royal family enjoys in France, the Gulf monarchy certainly falls into the category of “friendly countries”.

Aside from purchasing billions of euros worth of trophy assets, ranging from the Champs-Elysees shopping mall to the Lido cabaret, the Qataris have also secured tax breaks in France. The concessions provide the Qatari investors with exemption from taxes on profits made when they eventually put the properties they purchased up for sale.

Similar investments, coming from the chief financiers of Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”] and al-Qaeda, have helped to radicalize Muslim communities across France, whose young men were used to fill the ranks of militant groups fighting in Syria.

As such, one of En Marche’s co-founders, Mohamed Saou, who also enjoys close links to radicals in the Muslim Brotherhood, became an easy target for Le Pen’s campaign.

Macron responded in an interview with Beur FM radio, during which he said that Saou “did one or two things that were more… radical…. but he’s a good guy otherwise”.

Behind these good guys and slogans of a multicultural world without borders are very dangerous agendas and policies, laying bare the notion that when it comes to foreign policy, there is clearly little divergence between En Marche and the worldview of George Soros and his empire.

Source: Al-Ahed News

06-05-2017 | 10:14

%d bloggers like this: