Apartheid Measure: «Israel» Denies HRW Staff Visas

Local Editor

The apartheid “Israeli” regime denied the new director of a prominent NGO – Human Rights Watch [HRW] – from a work permit, accusing the group of an “extreme, hostile and anti-‘Israel’ agenda.”

Human Rights Watch Israel and Palestine director Omar Shakir

The “Israeli” accusations against the organization, which documents human rights abuses around the globe, follows a growth in official hostility to local human rights activists under the right wing government of “Israeli” PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

For its part, HRW condemned the move as “ominous turn” adding it “should worry anyone concerned about ‘Israel’s’ commitment to basic democratic values.”

The new policy emerged after the “Israeli” regime’s authorities turned down a visa for its new “Israel” and Palestine director, Omar Shakir who is a US citizen. The rejection had been advised by the entity’s so-called Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In a letter rejecting Shakir’s visa application, the “Israeli” entity accused the New York based group of “public activities and reports [and being] engaged in politics in the service of Palestinian propaganda, while falsely raising the banner of ‘human rights.”

The group denied the claim pointing out it had written critical reports on human rights violations on both sides.

The denial of the visa was confirmed in a letter on February 20 when “Israeli” authorities informed it the request had been rejected because HRW is “not a real human rights group”, the group said in a statement. The entity’s so-called foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon confirmed the decision.

HRW, he said, had “demonstrated time and again it is a fundamentally biased and anti-‘Israeli’ organization with a clear hostile agenda.”

But Nahshon added that the group was not banned and its Israeli and Palestinian employees would still be permitted to work in Israel and issue reports.

Suggesting a wider policy, Nahshon said other organisations such as Amnesty International would be assessed on a case by case basis.

The right-wing “Israeli” regime has been accused of putting pressure on both international and local rights organizations.

For his part, Iain Levine, deputy executive director of program at HRW condemned the move, saying: “This decision and the spurious rationale should worry anyone concerned about ‘Israel’s’ commitment to basic democratic values.”

He went on to say: “It is disappointing that the ‘Israeli’ government seems unable or unwilling to distinguish between justified criticisms of its actions and hostile political propaganda.”

The latest moves come in the midst of a wider chilling of the atmosphere in the “Israeli” entity against human rights activists.

Commenting on the decision to deny his visa Omar Shakir compared the entity to a list of authoritarian regimes.

“We have little relations with governments in North Korea, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Cuba and Venezuela where there is zero appetite for human rights engagement,” Shakir said. “With this decision, ‘Israel’ is joining the list.”

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team 

24-02-2017 | 12:17

How Booking.com is aiding israel’s war crimes @bookingcom

How Booking.com is aiding Israel’s war crimes

Two years ago, I wrote an article exposing how Booking.com was offering hotel rooms in settlements that Israel has built in violation of international law. I also highlighted how the travel website was misleading clients by giving “Israel” as the address for hotels in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights.

A correction of sorts has been made since then. When I checked Booking.com earlier this month, I learned that it now gives “Israeli settlement” as the address for some of its accommodation listings.

The change was more than likely made in response to European Union guidelines.

Yet that does not alter the fact that Booking.com is still abetting Israel’s settlement activities – activities which constitute war crimes.

Take the Kalia Kibbutz Hotel. In 2015, Booking.com claimed that this hotel was in Israel. Today, the website states that it is “located within an Israeli settlement.”

It would not be clear to anyone unfamiliar with Middle East geography or politics that the hotel is situated on occupied Palestinian land.

Booking.com does not elaborate on what exactly “located within an Israeli settlement” means. It does not specify that the settlement has been built in violation of international law.

Unsuspecting tourists may simply think that the hotel is in an attractive location, a short drive from the Dead Sea.

The photographs of manicured lawns and a spacious swimming pool would not alert prospective visitors that by reserving a room here, they would be entering the scene of a war crime.

Deceptive

A 2013 United Nations report defined settlements as encompassing “all physical and non-physical structures and processes” built or undertaken to install, expand or maintain “Israeli residential communities” outside the “Green Line” – the boundary between Israel and the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Hotels located within Israeli colonies would appear to fall within that definition, as they are contributing economically to tourism activities in the settlements.

Other listings by Booking.com are arguably even more deceptive.

The website gives “Israel” as the address for accommodations in occupied East Jerusalem. This is despite the UN Security Council viewing Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem as a violation of international law.

For example, Booking.com offers its clients the opportunity to book chalets in Ramot, an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem. The website claims that the chalets are in Israel, without acknowledging that they are located in an illegal settlement.

Screenshot of Ramot hotel listing shows cabin-style building
Booking.com identifies a hotel in Ramot settlement as located in Israel when it is in the occupied West Bank.

Booking.com is headquartered in the Netherlands. It should, therefore, abide by Dutch and European Union law.

In November 2015, the EU published guidelines for firms doing business in the Middle East. They state that the Union “does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the territories” it has occupied since 1967 – the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Gaza and the Golan Heights – and “does not consider them to be part of Israel’s territory.”

The guidelines add that information published by firms about the origin of the products they sell “must be correct and not misleading for the consumer.” Labeling a product from an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as being “from Israel” would be misleading, according to the guidelines.

While the guidelines focus on goods, rather than services, there is nothing in them to indicate that hotels should be exempt from their provisions.

Giving “Israel” as the address for East Jerusalem clearly runs counter to what the guidelines stipulate.

Besides offering settlement hotels in the occupied West Bank, Booking.com is continuing to claim that the Rimonim Hermon Holiday Village is in Israel. In fact, the holiday resort is actually situated in the Golan Heights, an Israeli-occupied part of Syria.

Inadequate

Booking.com has not gone far enough by only partially complying with these guidelines.

All of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into territories that it occupies.

As the construction and expansion of Israel’s settlements involve war crimes, the EU should not simply be telling companies to use appropriate terminology. Rather, it should be banning the sale of goods and services to and from those illegal colonies. The EU should do so, mindful of how the UN has, in effect, defined businesses within those colonies as settlement activities.


Booking.com’s listing for Rimonim Holiday Village gives its location in Israel when it is in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

Two years ago, Booking.com tried to evade its responsibilities. A spokesperson for the firm told me it was “not up to us” to determine if Israeli settlements were “illegal, disputed [or] unrecognized.”

The corporation did not respond to more recent requests for comment. Danwatch, a Copenhagen-based research center, recently criticized the Priceline Group – the parent company of Booking.com – for refusing to address the “possible negative effects on human rights” from listing hotels in Israeli settlements.

Jeff Handmaker, a law lecturer at Erasmus University in The Hague, insisted that “companies cannot be disconnected” from their obligations under international law.

Handmaker argued that under the Dutch international crimes act, Booking.com could be sued for enabling violations of international law.

By continuing to offer services in illegal settlements, “Booking.com is – deliberately or not – actively facilitating the commission of war crimes,” he added.

The only acceptable course of action is for Booking.com to refuse all listings from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.

Nobody should be invited – knowingly or not – to holiday in an illegal destination.

Mieke Zagt is a co-founder and president of the Article 1 Collective, a human rights organization.

Theresa May’s IHRA used to silence critics of israel

Mrs May’s IHRA used to silence critics of Israel

The Facebook photo for International Apartheid Week, 2016

University cancels Israel Apartheid Week event

A University of Central Lancashire spokesperson said: “The UK government has formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s new definition of what constitutes antisemitism.”

By Rosa Doherty, Jewish Chronicle
February 22, 2017

The University of Central Lancashire has cancelled an event which was due to take place as part of “Israel Apartheid Week” activity on its campus.

The session was organised by the university’s Friends of Palestine group and was billed as a panel discussion looking at the boycott of Israel.

It was due to feature speakers including anti-Israel activist Ben White and pro-Palestinian academics.

But a spokesperson for the university said “Debunking Misconceptions on Palestine” contravened the definition of antisemitism adopted by the government and was “unlawful”.

In a statement on behalf of the university in Preston, Lancashire, the spokesperson said: “The UK government has formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s new definition of what constitutes antisemitism.

“We believe the proposed talk contravenes the new definition and furthermore breaches university protocols for such events, where we require assurances of a balanced view or a panel of speakers representing all interests.”

He added: “In this instance our procedures determined that the proposed event would not be lawful and therefore it will not proceed as planned.”

The talk was scheduled to take place as part of a week of anti-Israel events expected to be held at universities nationwide.

The North West Friends of Israel group welcomed the move. Co-chair Raphi Bloom said NWFoI had led a campaign to ban the event.

“Universities across the UK have signed up to the government’s definition of antisemitism and have a duty of care to their Jewish students – and staff – to ensure that they do not feel intimidated or abused on campus,” he said.



Prevent guidance says that support for Palestine is among views that ‘may be regarded as extremist but are not illegal’, London March, August 2014. Photo by PSC/Flickr

REVEALED: UK universities told to ‘manage’ Palestine activism

Prevent training package advises that events involving ‘vocal support for Palestine’ should be ‘risk-assessed and managed’

By Simon Hooper, MEE
February 22, 2017

British university staff are being advised to “risk-assess and manage” events on campus relating to “contentious” issues including Palestine and criticism of western foreign policy in the Middle East in order to demonstrate their compliance with the government’s Prevent counter-extremism strategy.

Critics fear that the guidance, which is contained in an online training presentation, is already stifling free speech and political expression, with one institution, the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), on Tuesday cancelling an event organised by a Friends of Palestine society because of concerns that it would not be “balanced”.

Other issues for which higher education institutions are being instructed to put in place measures to ensure that “extremist views” are challenged include opposition to Prevent itself following vigorous campaigning against the strategy by the National Union of Students (NUS) and the University and College Union (UCU), which represents more than 100,000 university staff.

“Vocal support for Palestine”, “Opposition to Israeli settlements in Gaza”, “Criticism of wars in the Middle East” and “Opposition to Prevent” are included in a list of “contentious topics” in the presentation on a website, Safe Campus Communities, created for university staff to help them fulfil their Prevent Duty obligations.

Since 2015 the Prevent Duty has required public sector workers by law to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.

UK councils link ‘empathy’ for Palestinians to terrorism threat

The creators of Safe Campus Communities, who include the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the government’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), told Middle East Eye the list was intended to promote free speech by encouraging universities to ensure that “topics that may be seen as controversial” could be “debated in a safe environment”.

Elsewhere in the training material, the topics are described as a “list of views that may be regarded as extremist but are not illegal”. Accompanying notes state that holding such views “may be legitimate provided they are not expressed or furthered by statements, deeds or actions which result in the harassment, intimidation or threats of violence against individuals or society itself”.


 

Prevent training_0The presentation states: ‘Holding these views may be legitimate provided they are not expressed or furthered by statements, deeds or actions which result in the harassment, intimidation or threats of violence against individuals or society itself’. Screengrab

The presentation advises institutions to take steps for events at which “extremist views are likely to be expressed” to ensure that such views are challenged by “inviting additional speakers with opposing views” and through “independent and effective chairing”.

“Relevant higher education bodies also need to risk assess and manage events where these or similar views may be expressed,” it says.

But critics fear that the guidance could lead to a culture of caution and censorship on campuses in which discussion of topics considered controversial is shut down.

On Tuesday, UCLan said it had cancelled a Friends of Palestine event scheduled to take place on 28 February as part of “Israel Apartheid Week” because of concerns that it would be antisemitic and unlawful.


Ben White testifies at the Russell Tribunal, NY City.

The event, titled “Debunking misconceptions on Palestine and the importance of BDS [the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement]”, was due to feature Ben White, an MEE contributor.

In a statement, UCLan said it believed the event would fall foul of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism adopted by the UK government last year.

The IHRA defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” including “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”.

“We believe the proposed talk contravenes the new definition and furthermore breaches university protocols for such events, where we require assurances of a balanced view or a panel of speakers representing all interests,” a spokesperson for the university said.

“In this instance our procedures determined that the proposed event would not be lawful and therefore it will not proceed as planned.”


Poster for Israeli Apartheid Week, provisionally 28th February- 6th March, 2017.

White told MEE: “It is clear from social media posts, as well as an earlier statement issued by the university, that officials caved to pressure from pro-Israel groups, and in so doing, threw their students – and their right to freedom of expression – under a bus.

“Israeli Apartheid Week is marked on campuses across the globe, and its importance is only underlined by the fact that the Israeli government – emboldened by the Trump administration – is so openly opposed to Palestinian self-determination.”

Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, told MEE it was absurd to single out support for a Palestinian state or opposition to Israeli settlements as controversial or extremist. He said,

“Given that all major political parties in the UK and the overwhelming majority of governments across the world support a Palestinian state and oppose settlements on the basis that they violate international law and are an obstacle to peace it is absurd to define these as extremist views.

“There is an urgent need for the relevant bodies to review these materials and ensure that any training offered to educational establishments truly reflects the stated intention to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression.”

The Safe Campus Communities presentation is the most substantial element in a “package of HE-specific Prevent training materials” produced collaboratively by HEFCE, the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, Universities UK and BIS, according to HEFCE’s website.

Since last year, the implementation of Prevent on campuses has been overseen by HEFCE and its counterparts in Scotland and Wales.

But the training material also acknowledges concerns about the government’s efforts to define extremism.

“It is the difficulty in defining what is and what isn’t extremist that has led people to be concerned that the Prevent duty constitutes a threat to academic freedom/freedom of expression,” it says.

“The government definition of extremism is considered by some to be somewhat vague.”

In a statement to MEE, HEFCE said the material in the presentation was intended to uphold free speech and was currently being evaluated.

Netanyahu Proves israel Is Corrupt To Its Rotten Core

Netanyahu Proves Israel Is Corrupt To Its Rotten Core

 

(RINF) – Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in danger of being brought down, possibly soon, over what initially appears to be little more than an imprudent taste for Cuban cigars and pink champagne.

In truth, however, the allegations ensnaring Netanyahu reveal far more than his personal flaws or an infatuation with the high life. They shine a rare light on the corrupt nexus between Israel’s business, political and media worlds, compounded by the perverse influence of overseas Jewish money.

Of the two police investigations Netanyahu faces (there are more in the wings), the one known as Case 1000, concerning gifts from businessmen worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, is most likely to lead to his downfall.

But it is the second investigation, Case 2000, and the still-murky relationship between the two cases, that more fully exposes the rot at the heart of Israel’s political system. This latter case hinges on a tape recording in which Netanyahu plots with an Israeli newspaper tycoon to rig media coverage in his favor.

Leads from both cases suggest that Netanyahu may have been further meddling, together with his billionaire friends, in the shadowy world of international espionage.

Cigars and champagne

Netanyahu’s appetite for a free lunch has been common knowledge in Israel since his first term as prime minister in the late 1990s. Then, he was twice investigated for fraud, though controversially charges were not brought in either case. Police discovered along the way that he and his wife, Sara, had horded many of the gifts he received during state visits. More than 100 were never recovered.

The clarifications that were issued more than 15 years ago, as a result of those investigations, make it hard for Netanyahu to claim now that he did not understand the rules. According to justice ministry advice in 2001, government and state officials cannot keep gifts worth more than $100 without risking violating Israeli law.

The gifts Netanyahu received from one of the Israeli businessmen involved in Case 1000, Hollywood film producer Arnon Milchan, amounted to as much as $180,000. Netanyahu has argued that these presents, ranging from cigars to jewelry, were expressions of a close friendship rather than bribes to him in his capacity as prime minister.

The problem, however, is that Netanyahu appears to have reciprocated by using his position as head of the Israeli government to lobby John Kerry, the then U.S. secretary of state, to gain Milchan a 10-year U.S. residency visa. He may have done more. We will return to that matter later.

Also being investigated are his family’s ties to a friend of Milchan’s, Australian billionaire James Packer, who made his fortune in the media and gambling industries. Packer has similarly lavished gifts on the Netanyahu family, especially Yair, Netanyahu’s eldest son.

At the same time, Packer, now a neighbor of the Netanyahus in the coastal town of Caesarea, has been seeking permanent residency and the enormous benefits that would accrue with tax status in Israel. As a non-Jew, Packer should have no hope of being awarded residency. There are suspicions that Netanyahu may have been trying to pull strings on the Australian’s behalf.

Many of these gifts were apparently not given freely. The Netanyahus asked for them. Indicating that Netanyahu knew there might be legal concerns, he used code words – “leaves” for cigars and “pinks” for champagne – to disguise his orders to Milchan.

Police are reported to be confident, after questioning Netanyahu three times, that they have enough evidence to indict him. If they do, Netanyahu will be under heavy pressure to resign.

Pattern of corruption

Disturbing as these allegations of corruption are, Case 2000 indicates that this is about more than one prime minister’s dubious ties to wealthy patrons.

David Ansalem, a political ally of Netanyahu’s, observed on Facebook recently: “In the past 30 years, no prime minister was free from involvement in [police] investigations.”

Ansalem was suggesting that Israeli bribery and fraud laws are too strict, and can easily catch out an unwary politician. But the reverse is more likely to be true: politicians are rapidly corrupted by their pursuit of power in Israel. In short, the corruption in Israel is institutionalized.

Netanyahu’s predecessor as prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was similarly the subject of several different investigations, and is currently serving a jail term for fraud over his involvement in a massive real estate deal when mayor of Jerusalem. He was also convicted of receiving cash in envelopes from a U.S. businessman, Morris Talansky, in return for political favors.

Before Olmert, Ariel Sharon was at the centre of many investigations of dubious financial connections with businessmen, including Israeli real estate magnate David Appel and the British Jewish businessman Cyril Kern. Sharon fell into a long-term coma, and later died, before the investigations could lead to an indictment.

This week a corruption investigation against Isaac Herzog, the opposition leader, was dropped, though inconsistencies in his testimony were sharply criticised by Israel’s attorney general. The investigation led to the indictment of Herzog’s campaign manager and a businessman.

Also this week, a former chief rabbi of Israel, Yona Metzger, was convicted of bribery and sentenced to three and half years.

20 super-rich families

Corruption is rampant in part because of Israel’s extreme concentration of wealth. This is a trend in much of the developed world, but its effects are accentuated in Israel by the small scale of the economy. Research shows that as few as 20 families control most of the country’s wealth, particularly in sectors like real estate, banking, retail, transport and homeland security. It seems some of these super-rich families expect to buy political influence as well.

But there is also a combination of conditions, particular to Israel, that blur the distinctions between the personal and institutional, and that have ensured corruption flourishes.

The climate was probably set in 1948, when Israel was established on the ruins of another society. The building by Israel’s elites of a new, supposedly more equal society in the agricultural communities of the kibbutz and moshav was possible only through the wholesale theft of Palestinian land and homes. The Absentee Property Law of 1950 sanctioned an orgy of plundering by Israel’s upper and middle classes. That foundational culture is hard to eradicate.

Further, Israel’s highly militarised society discourages resistance to authoritarian practices. A 2014 survey by the Israel Democracy Institute, for example, found that only one in three Israeli Jews regarded Israel’s democratic character as supremely important.

This trend is reinforced by the sanctity of Israel’s security sector, which includes not only the military, but the many intelligence services, including the Mossad spy agency, Israel’s arms manufacturers, homeland security and cyber warfare firms, as well as more conventional industries.

Trust in the Israeli military stands at 90 per cent, and half of the Jewish public believe the security services should be allowed to operate against terror without any legal oversight, according to a survey last year. The secrecy surrounding this sector – and the expansive definition in Israel of “terrorism” – inculcates a consensus in favor of concealment and a set of values in which corruption is likely to thrive.

Safeguards are further undermined by Israel’s fractured social structure – religious vs. secular, Ashkenazim vs. Mizrahim, veterans vs. immigrants, liberals vs. settlers. The resulting tribalism creates oppositional interest groups seeking favors and patronage rather than accountability and transparency.

Corruption is especially flagrant in land dealings, both in Israel and the occupied territories. In the Negev, in Israel’s south, for example, vast stretches of territory have been seized, often from Bedouin owners who are nominally citzens of the state, and reallocated as private ranches to Jewish families in a non-transparent planning process.

The institutionalization of corruption is evident in the behavior of leading officials, especially in the field of law enforcement. The police chief, Roni Alsheikh, and a supreme court judge, Noam Sohlberg, both have long records of lawbreaking, by living in settlements in the occupied territories in violation of international law.

Even more glaring is the fact that Avi Cohen, the government official in charge of monitoring and enforcing planning laws in Israel, chiefly against Palestinian citizens, lives in the West Bank settlement “outpost” of Palgei Mayim, which is in violation of Israeli law too.

The shadow economy

But the reach of Israeli corruption is global. As a self-declared Jewish state, one that formally regards every Jew in the world as being personally invested in Israel, a network of personal and financial ties that are intentionally opaque has developed between Israeli businesses and officials, on the one hand, and overseas Jewish organisations, donors, investors and criminals, on the other.

Israeli authorities are aware that criminal gangs with international connections, often in the former Soviet Union, recycle their money in the Israeli economy, often laundering it in real estate purchases. A leaked U.S. embassy cable in 2009 warned that Israel was in danger of becoming a “promised land” for organised crime.

The Haaretz newspaper observed recently that this underground economy had become so big – with an annual turnover reaching as much $39 billion – Israel could find itself on the same list as Iran as “one of the leading state financiers of global terrorism”.

Some of this shadow economy is authorised at the highest levels. Israel confers privileged status on international Zionist organisations like the Jewish National Fund and World Zionist Organisation that funnel in donations from Jews around the world. These “charitable” organisations enjoy semi-governmental status, even though they can operate outside Israel’s laws.

The WZO setttlement division, for example, secretly pumps money into illegal settlements in the West Bank, hiding the money even from Israel’s state auditors. Funds are moved around out of sight, leaving plenty of room for corruption among officials, in addition to the inherent illegality of the settlement enterprise.

And then there are the Jewish tycoons from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia who treat Israel as part of their philanthropic investment portfolio. Their reasons include ideological zeal to realise a Greater Israel, salving their consciences for not living in Israel, or extending their influence to the “safe haven” they or their family may need in times of trouble.

Most Israeli politicians rely on overseas Jewish funders. Netanyahu won his Likud party’s primaries in 2014 exclusively with the help of foreign donors, all but one of them American.

Personifying this unhealthy external interference in Israeli politics is Sheldon Adelson, the U.S. casino magnate who is Netanyahu’s main patron. Adelson has done much more than channel donations to Netanyahu’s campaign coffers. He created a newspaper to get Netanyahu elected and keep him in office.

The free daily Israel Hayom, founded 10 years ago, is now the biggest-circulation paper in Israel and is known locally as Bibi-ton, or Bibi’s newspaper, in reference to Netanyahu’s nickname. A recent investigation by Haaretz found that Adelson had sunk an astronomic sum into Israel Hayom – some $190 million in its first seven years alone – to keep it afloat.

At the same time, Adelson has been sponsoring Republican politicians, including the new occupant of the White House, Donald Trump, to ensure he has an outsize influence in the U.S. as well. Trump’s sudden conversion to Netanyahu’s pro-settlement agenda coincided with his need for Adelson’s support in the presidential campaign.

War against the media

Adelson and his Israel Hayom newspaper are at the heart of Netanyahu’s current troubles. The tapes in Case 2000 are audio recordings of conversations between Netanyahu and Arnon Mozes, the Israeli owner of the Yedioth Ahronoth media group, which includes the country’s largest paid-for newspaper. Mozes’ desperate need to save his business empire appears to have driven him into Netanyahu’s embrace.

Adelson and Netanyahu’s aim in establishing Israel Hayom in 2007 was not only to create a propaganda platform for Netanyahu. It was also intended to drive rival papers, especially Yedioth Ahronoth, out of business by forcing down their income from advertising revenue. U.S. businessman Adelson’s pockets are much deeper than those of Israeli businessman Mozes.

This was effectively a vendetta by Netanyahu and Adelson against Mozes for using his media empire, which once enjoyed near-monopoly status in Israel, to damage Netanyahu and support rival politicians. Yair Lapid, a former columnist at Yedioth, is today leader of the Yesh Atid party, a potential challenger to Netanyahu for prime minister. He has in the past received strong backing from his former paper.

In the tapes, Mozes and Netanyahu discuss a deal that would guarantee the Yedioth media group cheerlead for Netanyahu in return for his government passing legislation to limit Israel Hayom’s circulation and possibly force it to charge a cover price. The pair appear to have broken off contacts some time before Israel’s general election in March 2015.

Had the talks succeeded, Netanyahu would have enjoyed almost blanket support in the mainstream press. The holdout would have been the liberal, and very small-circulation, Haaretz daily.

Netanyahu was not prepared to rest there, however. After the 2015 election he appointed himself the communications minister so that he would have regulatory power over Israel’s broadcasters. Since then he has been waging a concerted battle to intimidate Israel’s two commercial TV stations, Channels 2 and 10. Even after the latest revelations, he remains in charge of the communications ministry.

From Hollywood to Mossad

Cases 1000 and 2000 share at least one figure in common. Milchan gave Netanyahu extravagant gifts over many years, but he is also reported to have acted as go-between, bringing arch-enemies Netanyahu and Mozes together. Milchan has his own financial stake in the media, in his case a holding in the Channel 10 TV station.

In addition, Milchan introduced Netanyahu to sympathetic businessmen, including his friend Packer, to discuss taking the ailing Yedioth media group off Mozes’ hands. Only last October he arranged for media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s son, Lachlan, to fly to Israel for one night for a secret meeting with Netanyahu.

Milchan is undoubtedly at the centre of the shadowy world of power and finance that corrupts public life in Israel. Not only is Milchan a highly influential Hollywood figure, having produced more than 100 films, but he has admitted that he is a former Mossad agent. He used his Hollywood connections to help make arms deals and secure parts for Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

One can only wonder whether Milchan was not effectively set up in his Hollywood career as a cover for his Mossad activities.

But Milchan, it seems, is still wielding influence in Israel’s twilight world of security.

Yossi Cohen was appointed head of the Mossad a year ago, after a government vetting committee accepted that he had no personal ties to Netanyahu. But Cohen forgot to mention that he is extremely close to Netanyahu’s high-flying friends – connections that are now under investigation.

Milchan set up a global security firm in 2008 called Blue Sky International, stuffed with Israeli security veterans. Packer soon became a partner. They developed close ties to Cohen, first while he was a senior official at the Mossad and later when he headed Israel’s national security council.

Before Cohen was appointed head of Mossad in December 2015, the pair had hoped to recruit him to their cyber-security operations. Cohen received several gifts from Packer, in violation of Israeli government rules, including a stay at one of his luxury hotels.

A source speaking to Haaretz said Blue Sky had “more than [a] direct line” to Netanyahu. They “would pull him out from anywhere, at any time, on any occasion.”

According to Haaretz’s military analyst, Amir Oren, the new disclosures raise serious questions about whether Milchan and Packer twisted Netanyahu’s arm to parachute Cohen into the post over the favored candidate. In return, Packer may have been hoping that Cohen would authorise exceptional Israeli residency for him, classifying him as a security asset.

Beyond this, one one can only speculate about how Cohen’s indebtedness to Milchan, Packer and Netanyahu might have influenced his decisions as head of the Mossad. It was only a few years ago that the former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, was reported to have wrestled furiously with Netanyahu to stop him launching a military strike on Iran.

Prosecution drags feet

It is unclear for the time being whether the revelations are drawing to a close or will lead deeper into Israel’s twin netherworlds of financial corruption and security.

But what has emerged so far should be enough to finish off Netanyahu as prime minister. Whether it does so may depend on the extent of Israel’s compromised legal system. Attorney general Avichai Mendelblit was appointed by Netanyahu and is a political ally. He appears to have been dragging his feet as much as possible to slow down the police investigation, if not sabotage it.

But the weight of evidence is looking like it may prove too overwhelming. As political analyst Yossi Verter observed: “There’s no way that a police commissioner … appointed [by Netanyahu] and a cautious attorney general, who in the past was part of his close circle and one of his loyalists, would be putting him through the seven circles of hell if they weren’t convinced that there’s a solid basis for indictment and conviction.”

The next question for Netanyahu is whether he will step down if indicted. He should, if Olmert’s example is followed. But his officials are citing a 1993 high court ruling that allows a cabinet minister under indictment to remain in office. Certainly if Netanyahu chooses to stay on, his decision would be appealed to the court again. However, the judges may be reluctant to oust a sitting prime minister.

The court of public opinion is likely to be decisive in that regard. A recent poll shows few Israelis believe Netanyahu is innocent of the allegations. Some 54 per cent think he broke the law, while only 28 believe him. Opinion, however, is split evenly on whether he should resign.

Where next?

If past experience is any measure, Netanyahu will try to turn public opinion his way by increasing friction with the Palestinians and exploiting the international arena, especially his relations with the Trump administration. He may be expected to encourage Trump at the very least to posture more stridently against Iran.

Nonetheless, most observers assume Netanyahu is doomed – it is simply a matter of when. The odds are on an indictment in late spring, followed by elections in the fall, say Israeli analysts.

At this stage, none of his political rivals wants to be seen stabbing Netanyahu in the back. Most are keeping quiet. But behind the scenes, political leaders are hurrying to forge new alliances and extract political concessions while Netanyahu is wounded.

Naftali Bennett, the settler leader, is pushing aggressively for annexation of Ma’ale Adumim, a large settlement strategically located close to Jerusalem, as a prelude to further annexation of parts of the West Bank.

Who might succeed Netanyahu? Yair Lapid, of the centre-right Yesh Atid, is heading the polls, but that may in part reflect the disarray in Netanyahu’s Likud party. In a sign of where the deeper currents in Israeli society are leading, a Maariv poll last week showed that settler leader Naftali Bennett would win an election if he were to head the Likud.

Netanyahu now needs the help of all the powerful friends he can muster. His biggest ally, U.S. casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, may not be among them. After the revelations that Netanyahu was conspiring against him with Mozes, Adelson has cut back on Israel Hayom’s circulation and is reported to be offering less favorable coverage of the Netanyahus.

That could prove the final straw, sealing Netanyahu’s fate.

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel

‘Fake news’? Time to choose: Corporate media fakes us into supporting israel’s Orwellian illegal War of Aggression on Gaza

‘Fake news’? Time to choose: Corporate media fakes us into supporting Israel’s Orwellian illegal War of Aggression on Gaza

Source: Carl Herman

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. And then you win.” ~ unsourced, and attributed to Gandhi’s analysis of British empire response to having their hypocrisy exposed: claiming to bring Christian love and progress while looting resources with forced local labor.

“When we now know that all claims for war with Iraq were known lies as they were told (and verbally explained here), and CNN provides similar innuendo for war by an unsourced alleged report with concerns of what might occur in the future allegedly stated by an unnamed US source reporting on an unnamed foreign source, this is propaganda and not news.” ~ My 2010 analysis of “fake news” reporting from CBS, ABC, CNN to lie Americans into illegal war on Iran.

The Washington Post added to President Obama’s rhetoric for Americans to be aware of “fake news”: easily refuted lies of omission and commission in media. This article series reveals the inversion of those claims: .01% “official” news by corporate media (six conglomerates) is easily documented as fake in our most important reporting.

‘Fake news’? Time to choose article series (links added as series progresses):

    • Corporate media fakes us into wars that aren’t even close to lawful, are Orwellian illegal Wars of Aggression (1 of 15)
    • Corporate media fakes us into Orwellian illegal Wars of Aggression with lies known to be lies as they were told (2 of 15)

 

  • Corporate media fakes us into ongoing bankster looting of increasing total debt impossible to repay, while ignoring solutions worth trillions (3 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us into their fake world never admitting to a history of their easily documented lies (4 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us into NOT ending poverty for less than 1% of ‘developed’ nations’ income, poverty-murdering ~1 million children every month, since 1997 killing more human beings than all wars & violence in all human history (5 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us into Kennedy assassination fairy tales ‘covering’ US .01% coup. Real leadership impossible today under similar threat; why Trump must act for full Truth or submit to be ‘Teleprompter Reader-in-Chief’ for rogue state empire (6 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us by ignoring King Family civil trial verdict that US government assassinated Martin with OVERWHELMING evidence, pretends to ‘honor’ Martin every January. Real leadership impossible today until .01% arrests ends ‘official’ fake news (7 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us into 2 central lies for more illegal war on Iran: ‘threat to Israel’ and ‘nuclear program’ EVEN AFTER 12 YEARS of anyone checking the facts soooo easily refuting these claims as known lies (8 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us into supporting Israel’s Orwellian illegal War of Aggression on Gaza. Trump initiates War Criminal career funding/cheering Palestinian genocide, war-mongering on Iran (9 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us into ignoring a simple definition: US is now a rogue state empire (10 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us into ignoring irrefutable US history: colonialism lying and looting goes from Native Americans, to Mexico, and to today’s O.I.L. (Operation Iraqi Liberation) (11 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us into obfuscation about Clinton Foundation $2 billion illegal looting (12 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us into obfuscation about Hillary/DNC election fraud that stole primary win by Bernie Sanders (13 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us into ignoring $6.5 trillion looted by Pentagon = ~$60,000 per average US household (14 of 15)
  • Corporate media fakes us into ignoring OBVIOUS American response: arrest .01% ‘leaders’ for Wars of Aggression, treason, Crimes Against Humanity, fraud and looting worth tens of trillions (15 of 15)

The totality of these article sections (among ~100 such game-changers) is a fundamental choice for Americans:

  1. Ongoing “fake news” to support US rogue state empire that after a jump the shark 2016 “election” (and here) approaches the tragic-comedy of imploding Roman empire, OR
  2. Truth documented with objective, comprehensive, and independently verifiable facts.

The Washington Post‘s unsourced “list” places us, Washington’s Blog, as their 7th example of “fake news.” Please take a few moments to read their sensationalistic description of our “Russian propaganda.” Please contrast that “reporting” and this also from The Washington Post, with actual content of this article series.

FisherOfMen’s revealing 14-minute video, beginning with CIA Director Colby’s testimony to the US Senate for the 1975 Church Committee admitting the CIA directs corporate media how to lie to the American public with “fake news” (six similar videos here):

3-minute video of Dan Rather’s fake news from November 25, 1963 to sell the lie that President Kennedy’s fatal head shot caused “violent forward motion” opposite to the fact his head was violently hit to cause backward motion (hat tip What Really Happened):

Corporate media fakes us into supporting Israel’s Orwellian illegal War of Aggression on Gaza. Trump initiates War Criminal career funding/cheering Palestinian genocide, war-mongering on Iran (9 of 15)

President Trump lies about Iran’s “nuclear program,” Israel’s genocide on Gaza

Read here for facts on Iran‘s verified compliance with all treaty-required safeguards for lawful use of nuclear energy, and that the 2005 speech cited as a “threat” to Israel is a “fake news” lie that no rational person can support upon reading a speech admonishing Israel to support Palestinian democracy or watch their nation go the way of Iran under the dictatorial and US-supported Shah.

Current US funding for Israel’s lie-started and Orwellian-illegal War of Aggression on Gaza is ~$10 million each and every day. Trump on Iran and Israel for five minutes, with his claim of Iran writing threats to Israel on missiles being, of course, based on zero evidence but endless repeats by Trump and corporate media:

The following is from my paper for the 2015 Claremont Colleges’ conference, Seizing an Alternative Toward an Ecological Civilization. This section is: Obviously unlawful Israel wars on Gaza (3 of 7)

https://player.vimeo.com/video/5341730

Israel’s War of Aggression on Gaza:

It’s worth ten minutes of reading to distinguish game-changing facts from constant media and “official” spin lying to justify unlawful War of Aggression by Israel on Gaza. Given the public’s general confusion, the following alternative media reporting is crucial to understand because it contrasts the lack of reporting from corporate media and US political “leadership.” This is a central cause of US political collapse because Americans have crippled capacity to access the most important and comprehensive facts:

  1. What is Hamas? Do they threaten Israel?
  2. Does Hamas shoot “rockets” at Israel?
  3. What does it mean Israel “occupies” Gaza? Is that legal?
  4. Are Israel’s armed attacks and military invasions of Gaza justified, or unlawful War of Aggression?
  5. Does Israel use unlawful weapons on Palestinians in Gaza?
  6. Can Israel target children, hospitals, schools, and other civilian-important infrastructure?
  1. What is Hamas? Do they threaten Israel?

Hamas is a political organization that won the most recent Palestinian elections in 2006 (new elections planned for 2014, then postponed); called “completely honest and fair” by President Carter. Historically, Hamas was initially encouraged and supported by Israel in effort to divide Palestinian government from unified voice in having a two-state peace between Israel and Palestine. However, peaceful coexistence with Israel is what Hamas proposes (and here), including a 10-year truce.

Americans receive rhetoric that Hamas threatens destruction of Israel, but without substantiation of this damning claim. This claim is often linked to Iran. One example of such rhetoric is US Senate Resolution 498: “Whereas Hamas is a United States-designated terrorist organization whose charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel…” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Consul General Aharoni make this claim on US television repeatedly, in the most demonizing language imaginable.

Hamas’ Charter reveals US/Israel lies in omission, and more rationally provide direct refutation of this claim. In the section titled, “Our Attitudes Towards:” Section F, “Followers of other religions: the Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement,” Article 31:

“The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region [Palestine], because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.

“They will not fight against you in a body, except in fenced towns, or from behind walls. Their strength in war among themselves is great: thou thinkest them to be united; but their hearts are divided. This, because they are people who do not understand.” (The Emigration – verse 14).

Islam confers upon everyone his legitimate rights. Islam prevents the incursion on other people’s rights. The Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long. “For the state of injustice lasts but one day, while the state of justice lasts till Doomsday.”

“As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly.” (The Tried – verse 8).

The charter continues argument that peaceful coexistence is possible despite a history from the Crusades forward to remove Palestinian political voice through foreign military invasions.

For current consideration that Hamas just wants Palestinian freedom and independence from Israel’s military occupation: What does Hamas really want? Israeli journalist Gideon Levy on ending the crippling blockade of Gaza.

In 2012, Israel assassinated Palestinian Ahmed Jabari, the second-in-command of those leaders in Palestine with military intent, while they were negotiating with him to end hostilities. If that had happened to Israel’s second-in-command of the IDF, Israel would use that rhetoric forever to justify armed attack upon Gaza, as would the US.

1b. Ok, so the threat to Israel is… ? The part of the 1988 Hamas Charter apparently referenced as a threat is a quote in the preamble from Hassan al-Banna in 1948:

“Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”

Let’s put the insertion of that quote into context; both from 1988 and 1948:

So, given the context that al-Banna was justified in opposing colonialism, spoke against the use of terror, made his quote in response to over 700,000 Palestinians removed from their homes when my own parents were in their early 20’s of age, and Hamas directly advocates for a peaceful two-state solution with honor to all religions, it seems most likely that this quote is being used as propaganda to demonize Hamas.

The term “eliminated” likely means political removal of control much like elimination of British political imperialism.

Importantly, we know for sure that US/UK/Israel openly lies that Iran threatens to “wipe Israel off the map;” directly refuted by the crystal-clear text in question by Iranian President Ahmadinejad in 2005 (more on Iran, and here).

This is game-changing history that proves US/UK/Israel LIES in the most egregious way to accuse another nation to wish destruction upon another nation!

Given this game-changing, objective, and easily verifiable history by taking five minutes to read a speech, we know US/UK/Israel official voice of another nation’s intent of destruction is unreliable testimony.

Another game-changer: Israel attacked the USS Liberty in 1967, despite her clear markings, five by eight foot US flag, and 10 hours of close-range Israel multiple aircraft observations. After the attack, Israeli helicopters with machine guns observed, pulled back, and allowed another attack by Israel fighter jets with torpedoes (apparently the helicopter mission was to kill survivors in the water after sinking the Liberty). Eventually, the US Navy responded with fighter jets forcing the abort of Israel sinking the USS Liberty with deaths of over 300 Americans (34 were killed, 171 wounded). The apparent motivation was for Israel to create a false flag attack, and blame Egypt to manipulate US support of their war.

Another: Israel planted bombs to kill Americans in Egypt in 1954. This false flag operation, known today as the Lavon Affair, was to incite US alliance with Israel against a political enemy of Israel.

Another: Israel soldiers dressed as Palestinians to hurl rocks at Israeli soldiers in 2005 to incite public opinion against Palestinians.

Finally: The US government assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to prevent his 1968 summer “Occupy DC” to demand the end of the Vietnam War. This is the legal verdict of the King Family civil trial with overwhelming evidence. If you are not familiar with this game-changer of government to protect their wars of choice, read this now.

Because the US/UK/Israel so brazenly lie and kill to justify military action, does it seem likely they would search for other “threats” to justify wanted wars, such as accusing Hamas of threatening Israel?

You’re welcome to your own conclusions; I’m just providing more comprehensive historical background than you’ll ever receive from US/Israel government and corporate media.

2. Does Hamas shoot “rockets” at Israel?

Again, the repetitive rhetoric of US/Israel government and corporate media make this claim, based upon Israeli government testimony. The “Qassam rocket” is a homemade projectile that appears to have killed 28 Israelis since 2004.

Israel’s publications admit they don’t know the source of the reported “rockets;” guessing 22% are from Hamas.

Hamas denies launching rockets, affirms a peaceful two-state solution, and we know that Israel violated the last ceasefire agreement (see “Hamas” section). Given a history of false flag attacks by Israel I’ll explain below, isn’t it possible that Israeli agents fire at least some of these rockets to provide political cover for Israel’s armed attacks?

If Israel is engaged in unlawful war on Gaza, such as subject to military siege by water and land as Israel does by sealing Gaza’s borders and imposing a naval blockade, then any Palestinian is lawfully able to act in defense of Israel’s war acts, including the shooting of homemade rockets.

3. What does it mean Israel “occupies” Gaza? Is that legal?

The UN International Court of Justice found Gaza is an unlawful military occupied territory by a hostile Israel against the will of Palestine (other historical examples of unlawful military occupations). Israel and the US reject this court’s jurisdiction.

The Israeli naval blockade is a universally-recognized act of war.

The military occupation to seal borders and navy blockade stops imports and exports, creating a type of concentration camp.

From Is Gaza still occupied and why does it matter?

Contrary to claims of humanitarian attentiveness, since 2007 Gaza has suffered a humanitarian crisis of staggering magnitude. Foodstuffs were restricted as a matter of policy, allowing in only so much (calculated in a ratio of gross calories to total population) to avoid massive malnourishment. The siege, enforced through a land-and-sea blockade and the aerial bombing of smuggling tunnels linking the Strip to the Sinai, deprived the population of access to medical supplies, building equipment, and all manner of essential goods.

The humanitarian impact of these deprivations intensified massively as a result of the wreckage and ruination of Operation Cast Lead, the full-scale military assault on Gaza in the winter of 2008-2009. By the summer of 2012, as the siege was entering its sixth year, the UN Office of Humanitarian Affairs reported that forty-four percent of Gazans are food insecure; a severe fuel and electricity shortage results in outages of up to twelve hours a day; and the economy has been so crippled that the GDP per capita is at least seventeen percent lower than in 2005 and the unemployment rate, especially for youth, is higher than ever.

UN human rights experts, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and other authoritative sources have condemned the siege as illegal. The crux of these condemnations is the fact that Gaza is still occupied.

And according to Hamas did not reject a ceasefire, Israel did:

It’s the siege, stupid. Talk to virtually anyone in Gaza and they will tell you the same. The siege is living death, slowly crushing the life out of Gaza. It has to end.”

4. Are Israel’s armed attacks and military invasions of Gaza justified, or unlawful War of Aggression?

With complete explanation and documentation from Given US/UK/Israel wars and lust for more, what do two ‘supreme Law’ treaties say about lawful and unlawful war?

The short answer is war is lawful only in self-defense from armed attack by another nation’s government, and lawful response is to arrest US/UK/Israel leaderships for unlawful Wars of Aggression.”

They are unlawful Wars of Aggression because Hamas claims it wants peaceful two-state resolution, argues against rocket attacks, and therefore by law this security concern should be applied to the treaty Israel accepts: the UN Security Council.

Despite the UN Security Council having just the one legal jurisdiction over government armed attacks to prevent the scourge of war, Israel has broken nearly 100 legally-binding UN Security Council Resolutions regarding Gaza.

A “rogue state” means a country that threatens peace, restricts human rights, sponsors terrorism, and seeks weapons of mass destruction. Including the fact that Israel has ~200 nuclear weapons, do the facts argue that not only are Israel’s armed attacks on Gaza unlawful, but their government’s actions meet the definition of a rogue state?

Israeli military armed attacks have killed over 600 Palestinians; including more than 100 children.

Unlawful War of Aggression is the worst act a nation’s government can take. Israel’s leaders, as well as those in the US and UK, should be arrested by their own militaries with broad public support for waging unlawful war on our world. In fact, military Oaths of Service require those arrests (4-part series on arrests with videos).

5. Does Israel use unlawful weapons on Palestinians in Gaza?

Yes. They’ve used white phosphorus upon Gaza civilians, a burning chemical agent that is an unlawful weapon (and here).

In 2006, 2009, and now in 2014, Israel is using DIME (dense inert metal explosives) that contain cancer-causing tungsten, and flechette shells on Gaza since 2002: thousands of metal darts.

White phosphorus is a banned incendiary weapon upon civilians, DIME and flechette shells are not banned, but the targeting of civilians with any weapon is unlawful.

Israel claims it does not target civilians. However, given its history of lying testimony and unlawful war, that testimony should be rejected.

6. Can Israel target children, hospitals, schools, and other civilian-important infrastructure?

No. Israel is violating war law by targeting children, hospitals, Gaza’s one electrical power plant, and other civilian infrastructure (here, here, here). Norwegian doctor, Mads Gilbert, on duty in Gaza documents:

The last night was extreme. The “ground invasion” of Gaza resulted in scores and carloads with maimed, torn apart, bleeding, shivering, dying – all sorts of injured Palestinians, all ages, all civilians, all innocent.”

The military occupation and blockade, along with bombardment, has destroyed Gaza water, electricity and food supplies. Protocol 1, Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, makes such civilian infrastructure unlawful targets.

Israel again claims, such as with their armed attacks upon the USS Liberty, any such targets are only damaged by accident. You can conclude for yourself the reliability of such testimony.

Please also consider this visual media on Gaza water (and here),and olive trees destroyed by Israel.

In recent history, the US targeted and destroyed Iraq’s water treatment plants in 1991 to cause civilian epidemics and disease. This would be most dangerous to children and the elderly, with ~500,000 child deaths resulting. This policy would blame Saddam Hussein as the cause for unclean water and epidemics. Is Israel following the same strategy to cause widespread suffering to obtain political control of Gaza?

More resources:

israel’s Killing & Detention Of Palestinian Children Reached New Heights In 2016

Israel’s Killing & Detention Of Palestinian Children Reached New Heights In 2016

Israel’s killings and detentions of Palestinian children, demolitions of their homes, and restrictions on their travel and economy all reached dramatic heights last year.

 

 

The father of two-year-old, Rahaf Hassan, weeps as he holds her body after she and her 30-year-old mother pregnant mother, Noor Hassan, were killed in Israeli air strike in the Gaza Strip (AP/ Khalil Hamra)

The father of two-year-old, Rahaf Hassan, weeps as he holds her body after she and her 30-year-old mother pregnant mother, Noor Hassan, were killed in Israeli air strike in the Gaza Strip. (AP/Khalil Hamra)

UNITED NATIONS — Israel’s attacks on Palestinian children increased dramatically in 2016, with Palestinian human rights groups and United Nations agencies documenting sharp escalations in killings and detentions of children in the occupied West Bank, demolitions of Palestinian property, and restrictions on Palestinians — primarily children — in the Gaza Strip.

Among other grisly benchmarks, 2016 marked “the deadliest year of the past decade for West Bank children,” according to research by Defense for Children International – Palestine.

On Dec. 23, the Ramallah-based organization reported that Israeli forces had killed 32 children in the Palestinian enclave, often denying access to responding Palestinian paramedics.

“Israeli forces have increasingly used excessive force to squash demonstrations since 2014,” Ayed Abu Eqtaish, director of DCIP’s Accountability Program, said in the organization’s report.

“Intentional lethal force now appears to be routinely used by Israeli forces, even in unjustified situations, with no accountability, putting more and more children at risk.”

With three more killings of Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip, the overall toll reached 35.

DCIP’s findings came just before New York-based Human Rights Watch released a compilation of statements by high-ranking Israeli officials encouraging military and security forces to kill Palestinians suspected of attacking Israelis, even when the Palestinians pose no threat.

After the detentions of two 14-year-old Palestinians on Feb. 18, 2016, transportation minister and cabinet member Yisrael Katz posted on Facebook: “The restrictions and codes are clear, but we cannot let attackers remain alive, risking the lives of Jews.”

Avigdor Lieberman, who now oversees Israel’s military forces as defense minister, posted in 2015 that “no attacker, male or female, should make it out of any attack alive.”

These statements by Israeli leaders incite occupation forces to violence, encouraging them to act as judge, jury and executioner, often with complete impunity, critics say.

“It’s not just about potentially rogue soldiers, but also about senior Israeli officials who publicly tell security forces to unlawfully shoot to kill,” Sari Bashi, HRW’s Israel advocacy director, said in the organization’s report released on Jan. 2.

“Whatever the results of trials of individual soldiers, the Israeli government should issue clear directives to use force only in accordance with international law.”

This incitement by Israeli leaders seems to have borne fruit in the wave of deaths inflicted on Palestinians by Israeli soldiers and security forces.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said on Jan. 20, 2016 that “some of these responses strongly suggest unlawful killings, including possible extrajudicial executions.”

According to DCIP, no Israeli forces faced trials for the killings of Palestinian children in 2016, and in fact, only one incident since 2014 has even resulted in an indictment.

 

‘They put me on the floor and stepped on my face’

Israeli soldiers check the IDs of Palestinians near an Israeli checkpoint near Nablus, in the Israeli occupied West Bank, Tuesday, June 3, 2014.

Israeli soldiers check the IDs of Palestinians near an Israeli checkpoint near Nablus, in the Israeli occupied West Bank.

West Bank children also faced a spike in military detentions, with those held by the Israeli army more than doubling in 2016.

According to the Ramallah-based Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, the number of Palestinian minors currently in military detention stands at 350.

These include five “administrative detainees,” held indefinitely without charge or trial, out of 19 children ordered into administrative detention by Israeli commanders since 2015.

Israeli military detentions often include torture and other abuses of Palestinian children, according to numerous reports by Palestinian and international human rights groups.

In a May 13 report, the U.N. Committee against Torture cited “allegations of many instances in which Palestinian minors were exposed to torture or ill-treatment, including to obtain confessions; were given confessions to sign in Hebrew, a language they do not understand; and were interrogated in the absence of a lawyer or a family member.”

On Nov. 30, Addameer released “Precarious Childhood: Arrests of Jerusalemite Children,” a 12-minute documentary on detentions of children in the occupied Palestinian capital.

Watch Precarious Childhood: Arrests of Jerusalemite Children:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/0uDPeeD_RPk?rel=0&showinfo=0
“I was at my cousin’s house, heading home, [when] a big white van came by,” Fadi-al-Issawi, a former Palestinian child prisoner, said in the video.

“I didn’t know what was happening,” he added. “Masked men suddenly opened the doors, and one guy charged at me [and] grabbed me.”

When the man fell on him, pinning him against a pile of stones, the attack fractured his wrist, Shadi said.

“I was interrogated from the morning until the evening every day, and there was a lot of beating,” Nadeem al-Safadi, another former child prisoner, said.

“They put me on the floor and stepped on my face.”

 

A nine-year backlog

Israeli border police check Palestinian's identification cards at a checkpoint in Jerusalem, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2015.Palestinian right's groups are calling for people to remember the longstanding occupation that has again sparked recent violence. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty)

Israeli police check Palestinian’s identification cards at a checkpoint in Jerusalem. (AP/Oded Balilty)

While transparent violence against children may at times draw relatively high attention, Israeli restrictions on Palestinian infrastructure and economic life can also have dire effects.

On Dec. 29, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that in 2016, Israeli forces had demolished or seized 1,089 Palestinian structures in East Jerusalem and elsewhere in the West Bank.

The operations displaced 1,593 Palestinians, including large numbers of children, and reduced the livelihoods of another 7,101, impoverishing entire families.

The figures marked the highest numbers of demolitions and displacements since the OCHA began recording them in 2009.

Meanwhile, Israel has tightened its closure of the Gaza Strip, particularly its restrictions on travel by Palestinians, including medical patients, and importation of building materials urgently needed after its 2014 military offensive against the besieged enclave.

As of Dec. 13, only 90 truckloads of cement were allowed by Israel to enter the Strip daily, despite a backlog demand of 577,000 tons.

At the current rate, it could take more than nine years of imports to meet the local demand, according to the OCHA.

Meanwhile 75,000 Palestinians, including an estimated 44,000 children, remain displaced following Israel’s destruction of their homes in 2014.

And the demands of Gaza’s overwhelmingly young population, which currently has a median age of 16.9 years, are set to surge in the coming decades, as a Dec. 5 report by the U.N. Population Fund estimated that local numbers would more than double through the births of new children by 2050.

 

‘They don’t have to pretend to care’

A Palestinian child looks at Israeli soldiers patrolling in the West Bank city of Hebron, Monday, Sept. 23, 2013. (AP/Nasser Shiyoukhi)

A Palestinian child looks at Israeli soldiers patrolling in the West Bank city of Hebron. (AP/Nasser Shiyoukhi)

Israeli measures undermining the physical security and well-being of Palestinian children come amid a renewed Palestinian uprising that started in October 2015.

But attempts to suppress Palestinian resistance cannot adequately explain many of them.

Instead, many observers see them as reactions to shifting political realities, both within Israel’s domestic landscape and among the international community.

“International attention, especially in the U.S. and Western nations, has been diverted away from Palestine to other critical areas such as Syria, Yemen and Iraq,” Jennifer Loewenstein, a senior lecturer in Middle Eastern Studies at the Pennsylvania State University, told MintPress News.

“In general, it has been an easy year for Israel to continue its expansionist goals unhindered by outsiders and, by definition, its sadistic treatment of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories and within Israel ‘proper,’” she said.

“In 2016, any remnant of the ‘peace process’ was dead with the U.S., [and] the Arab states were too caught up with Syria, Yemen and Iraq to care,” Bill Chambers, editor-in-chief of the Chicago Monitor, told MintPress.

“They don’t have to pretend to care about a peace process anymore.”

Others see the developments as reflecting a new norm in Israeli governance, dominated since 2015 by an electoral coalition that even U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry calls “the most right wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements.”

“The ‘greater Israel’ camp has decisively taken charge,” Mick Kelly, a leader of the Minnesota Coalition for a People’s Bailout, told MintPress.

“The ‘two-state’ solution, which was never just or viable, has been abandoned by the Zionists.”

Be Sociable, Share!

Terrorism: How the israeli State Was Won

Source

KingDavidHotelBombing

On December 14, Tom Suárez spoke at The House of Lords, London, at the invitation of Baroness Jenny Tonge. Drawing from his recently published book State of Terror, he addressed the centennial of the Balfour Declaration and his views on the way toward ending today’s Israel-Palestine “conflict”. The following are Suárez’s remarks. The book was reviewed here by David Gerald Fincham.

Good evening, thank you so much for taking time out of what I know are your busy schedules to be here now. My thanks to Jenny Tonge for making this meeting possible; and I would like to thank three people without whom the book would not exist: Karl Sabbagh, my publisher; Ghada Karmi, who inspired the book; and my partner, Nancy Elan, who was my constant alter-ego during my research and without whom I surely would have given up.

My work is based principally on declassified source documents in the National Archives in Kew. When I have had to rely on published works, I have trusted established historians who cite first-hand sources. Everything I will say here tonight is based on such source material.

Our topic is of course the so-called “conflict” in Israel-Palestine, a tragedy that has dragged on for so long that it feels static, indeed almost normalised. But unlike other deadly conflicts, this one is wholly in our power to stop—“our” meaning the United States and Europe. It is in our power to stop it, because we are the ones empowering it.

We are now approaching the centennial of the British Original Sin in this tragedy, the Balfour Declaration. The British role in Palestine was a case of ‘hit & run’: The Balfour Declaration, in which the British gave away other people’s land, was the hit; and thirty years later, Resolution 181—Partition—was the run, leaving the Palestinians abandoned in a ditch.

Zionism was of course among the incarnations of racial-nationalism that evolved in the late nineteenth century. Bigots were Zionism’s avid fans—it was the anti-Semites who championed the Zionists. Gertrude Bell, the famous English writer, traveler, archaeologist, and spy, reported, based on her personal experience, that those who supported Zionism did so because it provided a way to get rid of Jews.

The London Standard’s correspondent to the first Zionist Conference in 1897 I think described Zionism perfectly. He reported that

…the degeneration which calls itself Anti-Semitism [bear in mind that ‘anti-Semitism’ was then a very new term] has begotten the degeneration which adorns itself with the name of Zionism.

Indeed, most Jews and Jewish leaders dismissed Zionism as the latest anti-Semitic cult. They had fought for equality, and resented being told that they should now make a new ghetto—and worse yet, to do so on other people’s land. They resented being cast as a separate race of people as Zionism demanded.

They had had quite enough of that from non-Jewish bigots.

For others, the idea of going to a place where one could act out racial superiority was seductive. As the political theorist Eduard Bernstein put it at about the time the Balfour Declaration was being finessed, Zionism is “a kind of intoxication which acts like an epidemic”.

An Israeli soldier clears out of the way as a specially-built IDF vehicle begins to douse Bethlehem in “skunk spray”, chemical warfare intended to make life miserable for the civilian population. Photo: T Suárez

An Israeli soldier clears out of the way as a specially-built IDF vehicle begins to douse Bethlehem in “skunk spray”, chemical warfare intended to make life miserable for the civilian population. Photo: T Suárez

By the time the Balfour Declaration was finalised, thirty-plus years of Zionist settlement had made clear that the Zionists intended to ethnically cleanse the land for a settler state based on racial superiority; and it was the behind-the-scenes demands of the principal Zionist leaders, notably Chaim Weizmann and Baron Rothschild.

First-hand accounts of Zionist settlement in Palestine had already painted a picture of violent racial displacement. I will cite one of the lesser known reports, by Dr. Paul Nathan, a prominent Jewish leader in Berlin, who went to Palestine on behalf of the German Jewish National Relief Association. He was so horrified by what he found that he published a pamphlet in January, 1914, in which he described the Zionist settlers as carrying on

a campaign of terror modelled almost on Russian pogrom models.

A few years later, the Balfour Declaration’s deliberately ambiguous wording was being finalized. Sceptics—and the British Cabinet—were assured that it did not mean a Zionist state. Yet simultaneously, Weizmann was pushing to create that very state immediately. He demanded that his state extend all the way to the Jordan River within three or four years of the Declaration—that is, by 1921—and then expand beyond it.

In their behind-the-scenes meetings, Weizmann and Rothschild treated the ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Palestinians as indispensable to their plans, and they repeatedly complained to the British that the settlers were not being treated preferentially enough over the Palestinians. And they insisted that the British must lie about the scheme until it is too late for anyone to do anything about it.

In correspondence with Balfour, Weizmann justified his lies by slandering the Palestinians and Jews—that is, the Middle East’s indigenous Jews, who were overwhelmingly opposed to Zionism and whom Weizmann smeared with classic anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Palestinians he dismissed as, in so many words, a lower type of human, and this was among the reasons he and other Zionist leaders used for refusing democracy in Palestine—if the “Arabs” had the vote, he said, it would lower the Jew down to the level of a “native”.

With the establishment of the British Mandate, four decades of peaceful Palestinian resistance had proved futile, and armed Palestinian resistance—which included terrorism—began. Zionist terror became the domain of formal organizations that attacked anyone in the way of its messianic goals—Palestinian, Jew, or British. These terror organizations operated from within the Zionist settlements and were actively empowered and shielded by the settlements and the Jewish Agency, the recognized semi-autonomous government of the Zionist settlements, what would become the Israeli government.

TomSuarezIsrael There was no substantive difference between the acknowledged terror organizations—most famously, the Irgun, and Lehi, the so-called Stern Gang—and the Jewish Agency, and its terror gang, the Hagana. The Agency cooperated, collaborated, and even helped finance the Irgun.

The relationship between the Jewish Agency, and the Irgun and Lehi, was symbiotic. The Irgun in particular would act on behalf of the Hagana so that the Jewish Agency could feign innocence. The Agency would then tell the British that they condemn the terror, while steadfastly refusing any cooperation against it, indeed doing what they could to shield it.

The fascist nature of the Zionist enterprise was apparent both to US and British intelligence. The Jewish Agency tolerated no dissent and sought to dictate the fates of all Jews. Children were radicalised as part of the methodology of all three major organizations, and by extension, the Jewish Agency.

Britain’s wake-up call regarding the Zionists’ indoctrination of children came on the 8th of July, 1938. That day, the Irgun blew up a bus filled with Palestinian villagers. Now, this was not the first time the Irgun had done something of this sort, but this time the British caught the bomber. She was a twelve year old schoolgirl.

Teenagers, both boys and girls, were commonly used to plant bombs in Palestinian markets and conduct other terror attacks. Teachers were threatened or removed if they tried to intervene in the indoctrination of their students, and the students themselves were blocked from advancement if they resisted, even being taught to betray their own parents if those parents tried to instill some moderation. Jews who opposed and tried to warn of the emerging fascism were assassinated, and indeed most victims of Zionist assassinations—that is, targeted, rather than indiscriminate—were Jews.

From the beginning of World War II through to the summer of 1947, there were virtually no Palestinian attacks, even though Zionist terror against Palestinians continued. A British explanation for the Palestinians’ failure to respond in kind was that they understood that the attacks were a trap, intended to elicit a response that the Zionists would frame as an attack against which they would have to ‘defend’ themselves. This was a Zionist tactic noted by the British as early as 1918, and it remains Israel’s default strategy today, most blatantly in Gaza, but also in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As late as the fall of 1947, the Jewish Agency was concerned by the Palestinians’ failure to respond to its provocation, but when the end of 1947 came and the Jewish Agency could wait no longer for the civil war it needed, it was simply a matter of ratcheting up the terror.

Throughout the Mandate period, the takeover and ethnic cleansing of Palestine remained Zionism’s unwavering goal. As but one illustration, I will summarize a key meeting of twenty people held in London on the 9th of September, 1941.

“To be treated as most secret” is the red ink heading of the transcript. Present were Weizmann, who had called the meeting, David Ben-Gurion, and other Zionist leaders such as Simon Marks (of Marks & Spencer); and the prominent non-Zionist industrialist, Robert Waley Cohen. Discussing the path to the proposed Jewish State, the conversation ran along the lines of George Orwell’s still-to-be-published Animal Farm, in which all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Anthony de Rothschild began by stressing that there would be no “discrimination … against any group of its citizens” in the Jewish state, not even “to meet immediate needs”. Weizmann and Ben-Gurion also assured the sceptics: “Arabs”—Palestinians—would have equal rights. However, they clarified that within that absolute equality, Jewish settlers would have to have special privileges. Weizmann’s ‘absolute equality’ included the transfer of most non-Jews out of Palestine while permitting “a certain percentage of Arab and other elements” to remain in his Jewish state, the insinuation being as a pool of cheap labour.

Anthony de Rothschild’s vision of equality and non-discrimination was equally compelling: it “depended on turning an Arab majority into a minority”, and to achieve this, there would be “no equal rights” for non-Jews.

Cohen found the scheme dangerous, submitting that the Zionists were “starting with the kind of aims with which Hitler had started”. Cohen did not stop there: he suggested that if a state with equality for everyone were indeed intended, the state should be named with a neutral geographic term. He suggested … ‘Palestine’. The others were horrified at this idea, arguing that if the state had a non-Jewish name, “they would never get a Jewish majority”, in effect acknowledging the use of messianic fundamentalism as a calculated political strategy.

In another obvious but rarely spoken admission, Ben-Gurion clarified that the ‘Jewish state’ was not based on Judaism; it was, rather, based on being a ‘Jew’, that is, by the Zionists’ racial definition.

Asked about borders of his settler state, Weizmann continued in the same surreal manner. He replied that he would consider the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission four years earlier, in 1937, but that “the line” (the Partition) “would be the Jordan”. This was nonsensical: the Jordan was the Commission’s eastern border for the two states, and so Weizmann’s ‘partition’ meant 100% for his state, 0% for the Palestinians. He went further still: he would “very much” like to “cross the Jordan”, that is, take Transjordan along with Palestine.

At the end of the meeting Weizmann sought to put his proposals into effect officially in the name of all Jews worldwide. Those against his proposals were, in his word, “antisemites”.

Meanwhile, World War II was raging. What was the Jewish Agency’s reaction to the most terrible enemy Jewry has ever known? From the beginning, it was to lobby the Yishuv, the Jewish settlers, not to enlist in the Allied struggle against the Nazis, because doing so would not serve Zionism—even taking advantage of May Day 1940 to lecture the Yishuv to stay in Palestine rather than join the war effort. Another reaction was to conduct a massive theft ring of Allied weapons and munitions, “as if”, as one British military record put it, “paid by Hitler himself”.

1952: The IDF militarily commandeers the UN office dedicated to peace-keeping along the Armistice Line in order to block the exposing of its violations. (See Suárez, State of Terror, 301-303.) Photo: John Scofield

1952: The IDF militarily commandeers the UN office dedicated to peace-keeping along the Armistice Line in order to block the exposing of its violations. (See Suárez, State of Terror, 301-303.) Photo: John Scofield

Much has been written on the collaboration between the Zionists and fascists during the war, the best known of course being the Haavara Transfer agreement that broke the anti-Nazi boycott. One of the least known was Lehi’s attempted collaboration with the Italian fascists. In its nearly concluded ‘Jerusalem Agreement’ of late 1940, Lehi would help the fascists win the war, and in return the fascists would uproot any Jewish communities not in Palestine and force their populations to Palestine.

If this sounds like a scheme so extreme that only fanatical Lehi could have conjured it, it is essentially what the Israeli state ultimately succeeded at in the early 1950s—most catastrophically, when it conducted a false-flag terror campaign against Jews in Iraq to destroy that ancient community and move its population to Israel as ethnic fodder.

Violence targeting Jews was, and I would argue remains, a core tactic of Zionism. In fact, the single most deadly terror attack of the entire Mandate period was not the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 as is commonly thought. Even some of the Irgun’s bombings of Palestinian markets killed more people than the King David attack. But the most deadly single terror attack was the Jewish Agency’s bombing of the immigrant ship Patria in 1940, killing an estimated 267 people, of whom more than 200 were Jews fleeing the Nazis.

The Jewish Agency bombed the Patria because it was bringing the DPs to Mauritius, where the British had facilities for them. The Agency needed the DPs to be settlers in Palestine without delay, and was willing to risk the lives of all aboard in order to get the survivors to remain—which, indeed, they did.

In further violence against its Jewish victims, the Agency framed the dead for the bombing. It spread the lie that the DPs themselves blew up the vessel, that they committed mass suicide rather than not go directly to Palestine, posthumously conscripting the dead to serve the Zionist myth.

This was no aberration, but the driving principle of the Zionist project: Persecuted Jews served the political project, not the other way around.

Another major tactic of violence against Jews by the Jewish Agency and American Zionist leadership was the sabotaging of safe haven in order to force them to Palestine. As but one example, in 1944 US Zionist leaders sabotaged President Roosevelt’s provisional success in establishing a half million new homes for European DPs, most of these homes in the United States and Britain. When Roosevelt’s aide Morris Ernst visited the Zionist leaders in an attempt to save the program, he was, in his words, “thrown out of parlours and accused of treason”— ‘treason’, because he was Jewish, and the Zionists owned Jews.

Nor were those already settled safe. In 1946, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Yitzhak Herzog, conducted a massive kidnapping operation of Jewish orphans that had been adopted by European families when their parents perished years earlier. Removing ten thousand children from their homes was the number he cited to the NY Times as his goal. In the National Archives, I found a copy of his own record of the trip.

Herzog railed against the fierce resistance he met in every country by horrified local Jewish leaders who tried to protect the children. But Herzog used his political clout to circumvent them. In France, for example, facing the steadfast refusal of the Jewish leaders to betray the children,

Herzog met the Prime Minister of France from whom I demanded promulgation of a law which would oblige every family to declare the particulars of the children it houses, so that those of Jewish background could be exposed and put back in orphanages until they can be shipped to Palestine—quite a Kafkaesque twist on Passover for these children who had just been spared the Nazis.

Herzog’s justification for the kidnappings was that for a Jew to be raised in a non-Jewish home is “much worse than physical murder”. Yet even this ghastly justification fails to explain what was actually taking place, because at the same time Herzog was ‘rescuing’ Jewish orphans from this fate “much worse than physical murder”, his Jewish Agency colleagues were sabotaging Jewish adoptive homes in England for young survivors still in the camps. The real reason for all of it, of course, was that the children were needed to serve the settler project as demographic fodder.

To that end, the Jewish Agency had coerced President Truman to segregate Jewish DPs into Zionist indoctrination camps, despite objections that it echoed Nazi behaviour. For these people who had just survived the unthinkable, then severed from the rest of humanity into these brainwashing camps, there was no such thing as free thought.

The camps nurtured such fanaticism that it shocked a joint US-UK committee that visited in 1946. Before these camps, few DPs wanted to go to Palestine. But now the Committee found them in a delirious state, threatening mass suicide if they did not go to Palestine. Suggestions of new homes in the United States, which had always been the favored destination, were again met with threats of mass suicide.

DPs were also groomed to bring Zionist terrorism to Europe, bombing Allied trains and Allied facilities. The bombing of the British embassy in Rome in 1946, for example, was by DPs brainwashed in these camps, as was a near-catastrophe in the Austrian Alps in 1947 when DPs nearly blew a train off a steep trestle into a deep abyss, which would almost certainly have sent its two hundred civilians and Allied troops to their deaths.

German Jewish immigrants to Palestine during war were outraged by the Zionists’ exploitation of the Nazi horrors they had just fled. This outrage given voice by, among others, the prominent journalist Robert Weltsch, editor of Berlin newspaper until banned by the Nazis in 1938.

Weltsch warned that Zionist leaders

have not yet understood that the enemy seeks the destruction of the Jews … We who have been here only a few years, we know what Nazism is.

Zionists, rather, are “taking part in the crash of European Jewry only as spectators”, fighting the British and keeping Jews from joining the Allied struggle while getting comfortable and rich from their political project in Palestine. Recent immigrants from Germany and Central Europe, he said, have no representation among the Zionist ruling establishment. If they did,

we would have demanded that the Yishuv should put itself at the disposal of Britain for the fight against Hitler and Nazism.

But—and I am still quoting Weltsch—

They do not want to fight against Hitler because his fascist methods are also theirs … They do not want our young men to join the [Allied] Forces … day after day they are sabotaging the English War Effort.

These German Jewish immigrants were shunned by the Zionists, their publications and presses bombed. Even Kiosks were bombed for selling non-Hebrew papers to German Jewish immigrants.

In 1943, a man whom British records describe as “a Jew whose integrity is not open to question” risked his life to warn the British about the threat of Zionism. For his safety, he was referred to only by the code-name ‘Z’.

Z described Zionism as a parallel movement to Nazism. He warned that the Zionist indoctrination of Jewish youth was producing a society of extremists who will use any method necessary to achieve Zionist goals; and he pointed out that, as fascism in Europe has demonstrated, such a society is very difficult to undo once it has taken root. The result, I’m afraid, is what we, or more accurately the Palestinians, are facing today in the so-called ‘conflict’.

How trustworthy is this anonymous testimony? I found at the National Archives a private letter in which Z is identified — he was J.S. Bentwich, the Senior Inspector of Jewish Schools in Palestine.

Zionists would have got further towards rescuing the unfortunates in Axis Europe, had they not complicated the question by always dragging Palestine into the picture

—so judged a report by US Intelligence in the Middle East, dated the 4th of June, 1943, entitled “Latest Aspects of the Palestine Zionist-Arab Problem”. It described “Zionism in Palestine” as

a type of nationalism which in any other country would be stigmatised as retrograde Nazism,

and stated that anti-Semitism was essential to it. Whereas

assimilated Jews in Europe and America are noted for being … stout opponents of racialism and discrimination,

Zionism has bred the opposite mentality in Palestine,

a spirit closely akin to Nazism, namely, an attempt to regiment the community, even by force, and to resort to force to get what they want.

US intelligence assailed “the crude conception” being spread of the Palestinian people as “a nomad tent-dweller … with a little seasonal agriculture”, as being “too absurd to need refutation”. The report noted the irony that it was from them that Zionist settlers learned the cultivation of Jaffa oranges. Whereas the Palestinians were self-sufficient, the Zionist settlements exist on massive external financing, and should Jews overseas ever tire of supporting the settlers, “the venture will collapse like a pricked balloon”. The conclusion of this early US intelligence report was however naïve, or at least premature: now that the world “has seen the lengths to which the Nazi creed has carried the nations”, it reasoned that the Zionists “are due to find themselves an anachronism”.

After the war, the Jewish Agency discussed its enemies. They were democracy; the Atlantic Charter, which of course became the basis for the United Nations; Reconstruction; and the fall in anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism having always been Zionism’s drug, without which it would be irrelevant. The Agency sought to exploit anti-Semitism and blamed declining anti-Semitism in the United States on America’s so-called “democratic attitude”.

Nor was this merely a post-war abuse. Even as Jews were still being carted off to the death camps, the New Zionist Organization’s Arieh Altman was typical in arguing that anti-Semitism must “form the foundation of Zionist propaganda”, and the Defence Security Officer in Palestine, Henry Hunloke, reported that it was important for the Jewish Agency to “stir up anti-Semitism … in order to force Jews … to come to Palestine”.

Now, today, when anything approaching this topic is raised, it is twisted by some into the pejorative misstatement that the speaker—in this case, me—is blaming Jews for anti-Semitism.

NO. Rather, it is the simple fact that Zionism requires anti-Semitism, is addicted to it, and seeks to insure that it, or at least the appearance of it, never ends. One need look no further than the satisfaction among many Zionists today at the true anti-Semitism of the incoming US administration of Donald Trump, with Israeli journalists like Yaron London openly applauding this anti-Semitism as welcome news. More about that in a few minutes.

I also mentioned Reconstruction. As one former settlement member, a man named Newton, explained, Zionist leaders were afraid that with the improvement of conditions in Europe the pressure on Palestine would subside. Any improvement in Europe was an anathema to their plans.

The ethnic cleansing of Jaffa, 1948, as survivors are rescued by boats. Photographer unknown.

The ethnic cleansing of Jaffa, 1948, as survivors are rescued by boats. Photographer unknown.

What was the Jewish Agency’s reaction to Britain’s role in defeating the worst enemy Jewry has ever known? It saw an opportunity for extortion. The war had devastated Britain’s economy; but when Britain turned to the US for a long term loan to recuperate from its battle against the Nazis, the Agency tried to pressure Washington to deny the loan unless Britain acceded to Zionist demands. The loan was of course ultimately approved, but still in 1948 Zionists assailed US Congressmen for being pro- Marshall Plan, and the Truman administration itself dangled the loan in front of British officials when they tried to bring attention to Zionist atrocities.

By 1946, Zionist terrorism had become the defining daily challenge of life in Palestine, and one hundred thousand British troops proved unable to contain it. Anyone or anything that kept Palestine a functioning society was a target of the Zionists. Trains, roads, bridges, communications, oil facilities, and Coast Guard stations were constantly being bombed. Utility workers, telephone repairmen, railway workers, bomb disposal personnel were murdered. Police were long a favoured target and were gunned down by the dozens.

Among the smaller terror organizations that popped up was one specifically dedicated to Zionists’ long-running fear of Jews befriending non-Jews, the ultimate fear of course being polluting what for the Zionists was the pure Jewish race. As a sample of its methods, the terror group doused a disobedient Jewish girl with acid, severely injuring her and blinding her in one eye.

Zionist terror was aided by the Jewish Agency’s phenomenal intelligence network. The Agency had informers all the way to high-placed sympathetic US officials that fed them intelligence, such that the British learned not even to trust direct messages to US President Truman.

When the UN’s Palestine committee, UNSCOP, visited Palestine in the summer of 1947, the Agency had replaced the committee members’ drivers with spies; had replaced the waiters at the main restaurant they frequented with spies; and most productively, sent five young women to serve at what was called a “theatre network” of house attendants at the building where the members, all men, were being housed. The young women were required to be smart and educated, but above all, in the Agency’s word, to be “daring”. Whatever ‘daring’ meant, they extracted a wealth of information from the key people who were deliberating Palestine’s future.

suarez___kew__wo_275-79_img_2881__extract

Extract from Airborne Field Security, Report No. 54, week ending 19 November 47, regarding Jewish sex workers forced to be Zionist spies. National Archives, Kew, FCO 141/14286.

Jewish sex workers were involuntarily recruited as spies. They were told that upon the Zionist victory they would be executed for ‘sleeping with the enemy’, but might be spared if they cooperated now. The practice was so widespread that a standard questionnaire was printed up that the women were to fill out after each British customer. [note: see document detail, above]

To demonstrate the degree to which Jewish Agency plants infiltrated the government and everyday life, a couple of months after one coast guard station was attacked and bombed by the Hagana, it blew up again … but the British were baffled, because this time there had been no attack. They discovered that the construction crew that had rebuilt the station after the previous attack were Hagana, and had simply embedded explosives in the reconstruction, to be detonated when desired.

But the worst problem of infiltration was in the military service, where deadly sabotage by Zionist plants who had joined the forces led, tragically, to orders to remove all Jews from service in Palestine, because there was no way to tell the Zionists from the Jews.

By 1948, this problem spread to key medical personnel. After the Jewish Agency poisoned the water supply of Acre with typhoid in order to expedite the ethnic cleansing of this city that lies on the Palestinian side of Partition, the bacteriologist hired by the British proved to be a Hagana plant or sympathizer, an obstacle to the availability of the vaccine. [Note: see document detail, below. For the injection of typhoid into the aqueduct at Acre, see e.g., Ilan Pappé, Ethnic Cleansing, pp 100-101, and Naeim Giladi, Ben Gurion’s Scandals, pp 10-11]

Hagana biological warfare and the "obstructionist" attitude of the bacteriologist. Extract from telegram No. 1293, from High Commissioner Cunningham, "dispatched 1900 hrs. 8.5.48", and marked "IMMEDIATE. SECRET".

Hagana biological warfare and the “obstructionist” attitude of the bacteriologist. Extract from telegram No. 1293, from High Commissioner Cunningham, “dispatched 1900 hrs. 8.5.48″, and marked “IMMEDIATE. SECRET”. National Archives, Kew, WO 275/79.

Selling terror required effective marketing, and for that the Agency harnessed the plight of European Jews at the same time it was exploiting them. A very brief look at the iconic Zionist immigrant story is illustrative—that is of course the USS Warfield, renamed the Exodus for the obvious Biblical iconography.

The Exodus was sold to the world as the desperate attempt of 4,515 Holocaust survivors to reach their last hope of safety and a new life, their promised land. The British, instead, forced them back, not just to Europe, but to their ultimate nightmare: Germany.

That was the story the US and European public got.

In truth, the Exodus was a monstrous propaganda event, grand theatre, not for benefit but at the expense of Jewish survivors. The Jewish Agency knew that Exodus passengers would be turned back, for, among other reasons, their flooding of Palestine with settlers was a tactic to force its political goals. And remember that the entire Exodus cargo of immigrants equalled less than one percent of President Roosevelt’s resettlement plan that the Zionists sabotaged. The DPs themselves were products of the Zionist camps and had been rehearsed to repeat, as one witness described it, whatever Zionist mumbo-jumbo was demanded of them.

As for the return to Germany, it was the Jewish Agency, not the British, that forced the DPs back to Germany. Attempts were being made to find new homes for the Exodus passengers elsewhere—Denmark was one possibility—but this was sabotaged by Ben-Gurion, because it would spoil the Exodus plot.

There was in fact already an alternative to Germany. All the Exodus DPs had the right to disembark in Southern France rather than Germany, but the Agency used violence to prevent them from leaving. The Exodus show required the pathetic spectacle of their forced return to Germany.

The British decided to call the Agency’s bluff. They visited Golda Meir (then Meyerson), and spoke as though it went without saying that the Agency would do anything to spare the DPs the horrific return to Germany. They said that perhaps the DPs do not realize that they are free to disembark in southern France if they wish, or do not believe the British, and suggested that the Agency send a representative to tell them. Meir refused. To paraphrase Israeli Professor Idith Zertal, the greater the suffering of these survivors of the Holocaust, the greater their political and media effectiveness for the Zionists.

A few months after the Exodus affair, the UN recommended partition, with the assumption that a Zionist state would follow. This decision was directly influenced by the certainty of continuing Zionist terror if they did not, as was the disproportionately large land area the UN gave the Zionists.

According to British Cabinet papers, giving the Zionists so much land up front was an attempt to delay the Zionists’ expansionist wars. They knew they couldn’t stop Israeli expansionism, but they hoped to delay it. This appeasement of course failed: within a few months of Resolution 181, the Zionist armies were already waging their first expansionist war, confiscating more than half of the Palestinian side of Partition.

But in a consummately Orwellian irony, the fact that the British were occupying Palestine enabled Zionist leaders to juxtapose their settler project as a liberation movement against British colonizers, and thus for their 1948 terror campaign of expropriation and ethnic cleansing to be spun instead as a war of ‘independence’ or ‘emancipation’.

This so-called war of independence was in truth, to quote the British High Commissioner at the time, “operations based on the mortaring of terrified women and children”. Its broadcasts boasting of their successes, “both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany”. The Zionists were “jubilant” he reported, with “their campaign of calculated aggression coupled with brutality”.

British intelligence, meanwhile, reported that “the internal machinery of the Jewish State and all the equipment of a totalitarian regime is complete, including a Custodian of Enemy Property to handle Arab lands”.

In the Yishuv itself, “persecution of Christian Jews”, by which I assume they meant converts, “and others who offend against national discipline has shown a marked increase and in some cases has reached mediaeval standards”.

All this, to be sure, was before any Arab resistance.

Finally, on the 15th of May, 1948, Britain fled the scene of its crime, for which the Palestinians have been paying ever since. The post-statehood period continued full throttle with the same violent messianic goals, evolving with the new dynamics.

Now, there is no point in my having taken up your time here, no point any tree wasting its paper on this book, unless I thought that it had some value in the collective effort toward ending the conflict. So … How do I think that this book, how do I think my approach, might be constructive?

The historical record makes plain what should already have been obvious from the present reality—that Israel’s and Zionism’s pretenses regarding Jews and Judaism, and in particular its pretense of being a response to anti-Semitism and Jewish persecution, is a fraud. Indeed quite the opposite, it thrives by exacerbating and capitalizing on these, and has turned them into a cynical, deadly business.

Exposing this, in my opinion, is Israel’s—and the conflict’s—Achilles Heel. And this should be a simple case of the Emperor’s New Clothes—except that every time the child points out that the Emperor is naked, he or she is labelled an anti-Semite and silenced.

The IDF attacks the area between the 'Azza and Aida refugee camps, Bethlehem, as an ambulance tries to rescue victims. December, 2015. Photo: T Suárez

The IDF attacks the area between the ‘Azza and Aida refugee camps, Bethlehem, as an ambulance tries to rescue victims. December, 2015. Photo: T Suárez

The US and other governments empower the conflict for their own geopolitical reasons, but why do the publics of those allegedly democratic countries give their tacit acquiescence?

Israel has one of the world’s largest militaries, but its most powerful weapon, the one without which all its others would be impotent, is its Narrative, its creation myth, its auto-biography.

Under the Twilight Zone of this Narrative, Israel is not merely a political entity like any other nation-state, but is transformed into the Old Testament kingdom whose name it adopted for that strategic purpose, striking a powerful chord in the collective Western sub-conscious.

We all know the Narrative more or less, but in order for that Narrative to be ever-present, Israel has crammed it into a 3-word mantra: ‘The Jewish State’.

This phrase—Israel’s self-identity—is a unique construct in the modern world. It is qualitatively distinct from any other country’s relationship with any other religion or cultural group. Judaism is not Israel’s state religion in the sense of a national faith that any nation might adopt. Rather, it presents itself as THE Jewish state, the metaphysical embodiment of Jewry itself, of Judaism, Jewish history, culture, persecution, and most cynical and exploitative of all, the Holocaust.

No country claims it is the Catholic state. Costa Rica, for example, is a Catholic state; it does not suggest that it owns Catholicism, Catholics, or historic Christian martyrdom. We do not have the British government issuing guidelines as to when criticism of the Costa Rican government becomes anti-Catholic hate speech. Norway is a Lutheran state; Tunisia is one of several nations that maintains Islam as a national faith; Cambodia is a Buddhist state. Israel, in contrast, would never acknowledge even the possibility of another Jewish state because it has body-snatched everything Jewish, and holds it hostage to empower its crimes.

Criticise Israeli terror, you will instead hit this three-word human shield—‘The Jewish State’— that Israel hides behind.
What other country on this earth is permitted this perverse tribal claim over a religious or cultural group? This self-proclaimed exceptionalism should strike us as bizarre—even weird—yet we continue to be party to it.

We hear a lot about anti-Semitism these days, and there is of course anti-Semitism in the world, as there are all varieties of bigotry. But let’s just blurt out the obvious: Virtually all of the alleged anti-Semitism we hear about from the Zionists is a lie, smears calculated to silence anyone who seeks to end the horror.

TomSuarezIsrael This smear campaign has been compared to the McCarthy witch hunt of the 1950s, but it is in truth much worse, because whereas Communism is merely a political and economic theory that one can argue for or against, anti-Semitism is inherently evil. In other words, with McCarthyism, one could ultimately respond by saying, Well, let’s say I am a communist, so what?

Zionism’s abuse of anti-Semitism, its exploitation of Judaism and historic Jewish persecution for immoral ends, is profoundly anti-Semitic. Zionism, taken at its word, makes Judaism complicit in its crimes, and thus—taken at its word—succeeds where all the conventional bigots throughout the centuries were powerless.

Meanwhile, as we are seeing more bluntly than ever in the United States, true anti-Semitism is embraced by Zionists because it is invariably pro-Israel.

One hundred years ago, MP Edwin Montagu accused the British government of anti-Semitism for colluding with the Zionists. History has proven him correct. If Israel is forced to stop this anti-Semitic abuse, if it is forced to come out from hiding behind its human shield, the conflict will be seen for what it is and so could not continue. Israel-Palestine will become a democratic, secular country of equals.

And what more poetic year than the Balfour centennial for that to happen.

Thank you.

(Reprinted from MondoWeiss
%d bloggers like this: