Rebranding Nazism

May 09, 2022

Source

by Roddy Keenan

As a teacher of history, the topic of Nazi Germany is always one which generates numerous questions from students. How were the Nazis able to convince the public to vote for them? How did they convince the people to go along with their fascist agenda and barbaric policies? How was the Holocaust allowed to take place?

Despite discussing the role of propaganda and censorship, as well as the fear of opposing the Nazi regime, one still finds students often somewhat bemused. Moreover, many invariably argue that nowadays, due to social media, the Internet, and other methods of communication, the evils of Nazism could never succeed in flourishing again.

However, that is about to change. One only has to look at the manner in which the Azov Battalion, a fully-fledged Ukrainian Nazi militia, with significant influence, has been whitewashed in the space of ten weeks. Whereas prior to February 24th 2022, they were recognised as a neo-Nazi battalion, these fascists are now being portrayed as valiant defenders of an oppressed people, fighting bravely against insurmountable odds.

In the past, we have become only too well aware of the role played by the media and big tech in propagandising and manufacturing consent. Whether it’s the mainstream media parroting establishment talking points, Facebook, Twitter and Youtube censoring dissenting views, or Paypal denying media outlets access to their own accounts apparently due to their political stances, Western disinformation full-spectrum dominance appears to be at its zenith.

Yet, the perennial Western purveyors of fake news, such as The New York Times, CNN and the BBC, declare themselves to be gatekeepers of truth, integrity and morality. And this, despite their lies which facilitated the slaughter and deaths of over a million men, women and children, in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

But still it goes on, right up to the present. From the Ghost of Kiev to Snake Island, the Collective Western media has acted as stenographers for the Western and Ukrainian regimes. The examples are too numerous to mention, but the media coverage of the air strike at a railway station in Kramatorsk provided a striking example of the overt and cynical propaganda role the western media has played throughout this conflict.

The missile strikes that killed over fifty people and injured more than one hundred were initially widely reported, with images on front pages across the Western media. However, within forty-eight hours the story had disappeared and barely received a mention. This was due to an Italian news team identifying one of the missiles as being of the type used by Ukrainian forces. The narrative of Ukrainians killing civilians obviously didn’t fit into the propaganda of the Collective West, and consequently, the dead and injured found instant irrelevance.

Now the Western media has turned its malevolent myth-making to the Nazi Azov battalion in the Ukraine. An overtly Nazi formation, descended from the Fascist Banderites of World War 2, it is now being staunchly defended by the Collective West.

Interestingly, it had been previously accepted that the Azov were a far-right, Nazi militia, and indeed, their presence and influence was widely viewed as a dark force within the Ukraine. It’s fascist rituals and regalia, worship of the fascist Stepan Bandera, and its adherence to Nazi ideology, left nobody in any doubt that these were committed fascists, and they were commonly described as neo-Nazis in numerous Western media outlets.

However, since February 24th there has been a stunning shift.

Now, the fact that the Azov battalion is a Nazi organisation is glossed over. The BBC, a propaganda arm of the British State, ran a nine-minute puff piece, arguing, almost pleading, that the Azov fighters were not fascists, but simply a battalion integrated into the Ukrainian army. Meanwhile, MSNBC interviewed Azov Nazis teaching elderly women how to use weapons, and newspapers from the Financial Times to the New York Times are now portraying the Azov as brave defenders of the Ukraine.

An obvious aim of this shameless media operation is to delegitimise the Russian claims of denazification, by arguing that there is no Nazi problem in the Ukraine. Even on the rare occasion that the media refers to the ideology of the Azov units, and indeed, the presence of other fascist and far-right groups such as C14, Right Sector and Svoboda, it claims they have minimal impact on the politics of the Ukraine, pointing to their weak electoral performances. What they fail to point out, is that the mainstream’ parties are implementing policies that the fascists support. Moreover, the notion that parliamentary representation is a metric of influence is absurd when one looks at the likes of Al Qaeda and Isis.

In fact, a leader of the fascist group C14, Yevhen Karas, described the 2014 Maidan coup as a ‘victory of nationalist ideas’. He went on to assert that without the influence of fascist groups, Maidan would have been nothing but a ‘gay parade’.

But this is now an inconvenient truth for the Collective West. Consequently, Azov and their fellow travellers are no longer Nazis or fascists. Instead, they are merely ‘misunderstood patriots’.

Of course, this is nothing new. When it comes to hypocrisy, the Collective West has it in spades. Whether it’s supporting the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, ISIS and AL Nusra in Syria, or the fascists in Ukraine, the Collective West has shown itself to be devoid of any morality when it comes to serving their own interests.

Now, just as Isis and Al Nusra are ‘moderate rebels’, the fascists of Azov are well-meaning nationalist warriors.

So, according to our so-called liberal democracies, even though there might be bad Nazis, there are also good fascists, whose adherence to Nazism is just an ideological quirk. Obviously, those who are on our side are the good Nazis. And it’s the Collective West that always gets to decide who is who.

But one thing is now evident – the blatant manner in which Nazism has been made palatable due to an unrelenting, systematic propaganda campaign, will answer those questions posed by students regarding how German Nazis were able to attain power in 1933 and to subsequently pursue the policies that they did.

‘Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds’, I was once told many years ago.

The events of the past months have proven just how accurate that old adage is.


Originally from Ireland, Roddy Keenan is a teacher and freelance reporter based in the UK. Roddy specialises in international politics and is the author of US Presidential Elections 1968-2008: a narrative history of the race for the White House’.

No Putin ‘apology’ to Israeli PM found in Kremlin transcript

Tel Aviv earlier claimed that President Putin apologized for the remarks of his foreign minister, in which he suggested Adolf Hitler may have had ‘Jewish blood’

May 06 2022

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) speaks with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett during their meeting, in Sochi, on October 22, 2021. (Photo by Yevgeny BIYATOV / Sputnik / AFP) (Photo by YEVGENY BIYATOV/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images)

ByNews Desk

Moscow did not explicitly confirm or deny a claim made by Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on 5 May, in which he said that Russian President Vladimir Putin apologized to him for the controversial comments made by the Kremlin’s top diplomat earlier this week.

Bennett claimed that during a phone conversation with Putin, the Russian leader had offered an apology over a claim by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that Adolf Hitler possibly had “Jewish blood.”

Hours later, the Kremlin issued a statement that included the full content of the conversation, making no mention of an apology.

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov also commented on this, saying that the conversation that took place between the two leaders was “exactly as disclosed” in the official statement.

Peskov did not directly affirm the absence of an apology in the Kremlin statement he referred to, opting for a more subtle approach.

“The [Israeli] prime minister accepted the apology of President Putin for comments by Lavrov and thanked him for clarifying the president’s view of the Jewish people and the memory of the Holocaust,” Bennett’s office said on 5 May.

Ties between Moscow and Tel Aviv have soured significantly since the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine.

On 4 May, the spokeswoman for Russia’s Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, said that Israeli mercenaries have been fighting side by side with the Ukrainian neo-Nazis from the Azov Battalion.

“There are mercenaries from Israel fighting alongside the extremist Azov Brigade … Israel will not be able to ignore this, especially with the presence of videos and materials documenting this,” Zakharova told Sputnik.

She also said that this collaboration could not be happening without Israel’s knowledge, and that Tel Aviv was aware of footage documenting the situation.

On the same day, the Kremlin welcomed an official delegation from Palestinian resistance movement Hamas, led by the deputy head of the organization, Musa Abu Marzouk.

Recent reports indicate that Israel is also considering an increase in its military support to Ukraine, at the request of the US.

Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, following Kiev’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements and Moscow’s recognition of the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.

At the time, Russian President Vladimir Putin said one of the goals of the special military operation was to “de-Nazify” Ukraine.

Are Western Spooks Backing a New ‘Ukrainian White Helmets? Al Mayadeen investigates

4 May 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen

Samir Mustafa 

A new attempt is made by Western mercenaries to fuel the fight in Ukraine further under the guise of “humanitarian assistance,” former Western soldiers and mercenaries are at the forefront of such operations.

Are Western Spooks Backing a New ‘Ukrainian White Helmets? Al Mayadeen investigates

A British mercenary with alleged ties to the US intelligence services is working to establish a version of the pseudo-humanitarian White Helmets in Ukraine. 

Macer Gifford, who has previously fought with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syriac Military Council is crowdfunding for supplies which he says are bound for the frontline.  

“On the 27th of February, President Zelensky formally called for International Volunteers from around the world to assist his country. The people of Ukraine need our support and they need it NOW!,” his appeal page declares. 

British volunteer fighter Macer Gifford in Raqqa, Syria on August 19, 2017. Getty Images

Gifford aims to raise at least £15,000 that he says will enable him “to create a fast response medical team, staffed by international volunteers, that will deploy to the frontline within the next month.”

He plans to emulate his experiences in northern Syria where as well as fighting ISIS, he established a medical team and provided training to mercenary forces and locals there. But he is clear that this will not merely be a humanitarian mission.

“The terrain, the particular needs of the Ukrainian military, and the enemy that we’ll be fighting mean that we’ll have to bring the very best equipment with us,” he writes, indicating that he is recruiting people to take part in combat against Russia. 

His own Twitter page appears to support this, sharing posts on how to sign-up for the Ukrainian armed forces following Zelensky’s plea for international support. He made similar appeals during a BBC radio debate with one of the leaders of Britain’s Stop the War Coalition John Rees who described the call for volunteers to fight as “ludicrous” and dangerous.  

Gifford’s organization aims to join the fight against Russia under the guise of humanitarian intervention, a model that has been used before.“I want to be absolutely clear here, the ambition is to create a Ukrainian version of the White Helmets,” Gifford states, a reference to the notorious group operating in Syria.

Also known as the Syrian Civil Defence force, the White Helmets poses as a humanitarian organization, however, is linked to both jihadist groups and western military and intelligence services. Set up by former British Army officer James Le Mesurier it has received millions in funding from the US, British, and other western governments, acting as a front for regime change operations.

Predictably, criticism of the White Helmets is dismissed as propaganda and smears led by the Syrian and Russian governments. But the White Helmets operate in jihadist-held areas and have its buildings situated next to the Islamists headquarters in many Syrian cities. 

The group has been involved in a series of controversies and some of its members have been shown to be supporters of Al Qaeda and other Salafist organizations. It has been accused of staging chemical attacks, most notably in Douma, to pave the way for western military intervention in Syria. 

Fears that a White Helmets-style operation could be deployed in Ukraine for similar purposes have long been praised by critics. Gifford – whose real name is Harry –  hails from a wealthy part of rural Cambridgeshire. Prior to his military adventurism, he served as a Tory councilor and city currency trader.

He has openly boasted of meetings with the US and British intelligence services and has briefed government officials on the situation in Syria, pleading for increased military support. Using his connections he tried to drum up support for the YPG and attended meetings with financiers in Switzerland, the FBI in New York, and inside the British parliament.

“I’ve been to the Carlton Club [a private Conservative club in central London], you would not believe, so many times,” he said. 

“But it’s important to get the message across. It’s so intensely frustrating to be out there, to be on the frontline and see the success and then see politics hold back people’s hand,” he told The Guardian newspaper in a 2016 interview. 

Gifford now openly encourages British military volunteers to follow him and join “the defense of Ukraine.”

His Twitter feed sees him glorify what he describes as “a British sniper” posing with a weapon and fatigues bearing the logo of what appears to be the ultranationalist Right Sector. 

Photographs appear to show members of his organization delivering training to Ukrainian soldiers in an unknown location. In video footage, he claims that he and his partner are off to train the Ukrainian police force. 

His operation works under the name Nightingale Squadron, its flashy logo emblazoned on the side of an expensive Landrover Freelander vehicle seen loaded with aid packages. 

While to westerners the name may seem innocent enough, it has chilling connotations for those in Lviv, evoking the name of the unit that collaborated with the Nazis, sending tens of thousands of Jews to their deaths during the Holocaust. 

The Nachtigall Battalion/Nightingale Battalion was founded in 1941 and came under the control of Stepan Bandera’s Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists. 

Most of its members formed the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, while 14 of them joined the SS Galicia Division in 1943.

The Simon Wiesensthal Centre says the Nightingale Battalion was in Lviv and collaborated with the Nazis between June 30 and July 3 of 1941 when 4,000 Jews were massacred. Its descendants can be found in the far-right forces now operating in Ukraine that have been involved in the massacre of Russian speakers and pogroms against Jews. 

Gifford shot to prominence in Britain having served in northern Syria in the fight against ISIS. 

A notorious self-publicist who seeks to further his career in politics, Gifford published an “Andy McNab-style” book, Fighting Evil in 2019 describing his experiences in the region. 

His treatment is a stark contrast to the working-class volunteers, many of whom served alongside him in Raqqa and other key battles on the frontline. 

The large majority have faced arrest, surveillance, and the threat of prison on their return to Britain while Gifford has escaped similar scrutiny.

By contrast, Gifford roams freely between parliament, TV studios, and radio stations that fall over themselves to amplify his voice. 

Many of his YPG peers have privately voiced suspicions that Gifford is a state agent.

He certainly fits the mould and has the contacts. Politically right-wing with conservative values, he can be relied on to trash the antiwar movement and opponents of the Tory government along with the political establishment.

And there are obvious similarities between Gifford and the man he seeks to emulate, White Helmets founder Le Mesurier who died in suspicious circumstances in Istanbul in 2019. 

In many ways, he is the perfect candidate to establish a “Ukrainian White Helmets” which those on the ground have long-suspected of being an international operation. 

Other former YPG fighters are also getting in on the act. Gifford’s comrade in arms, former British paratrooper and veteran of the Afghanistan war Daniel Burke, has set up a similar operation which he announced last week.

He has established what he described as an NGO named “Dark Angels of Ukraine,” although the background to this is unclear. 

Burke, who was discharged from the army for fighting, said he had set up the NGO “because other NGOs or international military units tend to go to war against each other to show who is best.”

Dark Angels of Ukraine exists to provide humanitarian relief and training to the military and is already known to be operating inside Ukraine. The activities of the unit, which appears to be made up of military veterans include “moving logistical requirements such as food, water, and medicine to refugee centers and military units.” Their vehicle rescued a couple stranded somewhere in Ukraine and enabled them to return to France.

“It was on this trip that we had christened our truck the “Dark Angel” since our backgrounds as veterans lends our expertise to the Territorial Defence Forces,” the fundraising page says.

The group is there to “protect the freedoms that we all hold so dearly from our homelands here in Ukraine,” it declares. 

Burke is in many ways the opposite of Gifford. 

A trained soldier he was motivated to join the fight against ISIS in Syria after the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing in which 22 people died following an attack on an Ariana Grande concert. 

During his time in Syria, Burke photographed and retrieved documents and hard drives that he passed onto the British counter-terror experts, and maps, which he handed to US special forces.

This led to accusations by the YPG that he was a British spy and he was interrogated for days before he eventually convinced them otherwise. 

Unlike Gifford, Burke came to the attention of security services, spending eight months in prison after he was charged with terror offenses, although his case was later dropped.  

According to social media networks, many former YPG volunteers have joined the ranks of the international mercenary fighters in Ukraine. 

It is not clear exactly how many have traveled to the country, however, Nottinghamshire care worker Aiden Aslin – also known as Cossack Gundi – surrendered to Russian forces in Mariupol last month.

He insists that he is not a foreign mercenary and, like fellow Brit Shaun Pinner, was a member of the regular Ukrainian armed forces having signed up in 2018. 

Russia claims that thousands of foreign mercenaries have entered Ukraine and accuses NATO and the west of shipping weapons and equipment via civilian rail and transport networks. 

As the war drags on, the profits of the arms companies continue to rise and western efforts to weaken Russia continue while peace looks to be further away than ever.

“It is quite conceivable for a Ukrainian White Helmets to play the same role as its Syrian counterparts; a major anti-Russian propaganda offensive, staged events, and the triggering of incidents to pave the way for NATO intervention.”

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RBC TV channel, Moscow, March 16, 2022

March 17, 2022

https://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/minister_speeches/1804655/

Question: Initially, the in-person talks were held in Belarus followed by online talks. You met with Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba in Antalya, Turkey, on March 10. What’s your take on the negotiating process?

Sergey Lavrov: I did not fly to Turkey in order to forestall the Belarusian negotiating track agreed upon by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky which is now being implemented via video conference. President Zelensky asked President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to speak with President Putin in order to set up a meeting between Dmitry Kuleba and me in Antalya, since we both planned to take part in the Antalya Diplomacy Forum.

Based on this request, President Vladimir Putin instructed me to hold a meeting and find out what Dmitry Kuleba has to offer (which is what I asked him to do). He stated that he did not arrive there to reiterate public statements. This statement got my attention. Dmitry Kuleba failed to vocalise any new ideas during the 90-minute conversation in the presence of Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu, despite multiple reminders to the effect that I wanted to hear things that had not been said publicly. I did my part and made myself available to listen to what he had to say. Anyway, we had a conversation, which is not a bad thing. We are ready for such contacts going forward. It would be good to know the added value derived from such contacts and how the proposals to create new channels of interaction correlate with the functioning of an existing and steady negotiating process (the Belarusian channel).

I’m not going to comment on the details, which are a delicate matter. According to head of the Russian delegation Vladimir Medinsky, the talks focus on humanitarian issues, the situation on the ground in terms of hostilities, and on matters of political settlement. Overall, the agenda is known (it was repeatedly and publicly announced by President Vladimir Putin in his elaborate remarks) and includes matters of security and saving lives of the people in Donbass; preventing Ukraine from becoming a permanent threat to the security of the Russian Federation; and preventing the revival in Ukraine of neo-Nazi ideology, which is illegal around the world, including civilised Europe.

I base my opinion on the assessments provided by our negotiators. They state that the talks are not going smoothly (for obvious reasons). However, there is hope for a compromise. The same assessment is given by a number of Ukrainian officials, including members of President Zelensky’s staff and President Zelensky himself.

Question: President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky said that the positions of Russia and Ukraine during the talks have become more “realistic.”

Sergey Lavrov: This is about a more realistic assessment of the ongoing events coming from Vladimir Zelensky. His previous statements were confrontational. We can see that this role and function has been reassigned to Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, who started saying that Russia’s demands are “unacceptable.” If they wish to create additional tension (as if the current tension were not enough) in the media space, what can we do?

We saw a similar tendency with respect to the Minsk agreements. Dmitry Kuleba was riding ahead on a dashing horse, along with those who were hacking the Minsk agreements into pieces. He publicly stated that the agreements would not be fulfilled. I would give negotiators an opportunity to work in a calmer environment, without stirring up more hysteria.

Question: President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky said that they are “reasonable people” and they realise that they are no longer welcome in NATO. What made him change his rhetoric? NATO aspirations are stated in one of the articles of the Ukrainian Constitution. They have been saying it all along that Kiev actually wants to be part of the alliance.

Sergey Lavrov: The rhetoric has changed because more reasonable thinking is paving its way to the minds of the Ukrainian leaders. The issue of dissolving the Soviet Union was resolved in a very odd manner: very few parties were asked; the decision was split “between three,” so to speak, and it was done. Later, certain common ground was achieved in the form of the Commonwealth of Independent States. It is good that the other former Soviet republics were shown some respect, at least post factum.

In the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, adopted before the Belovezh Accords, it was stated in black and white that Ukraine would be a non-aligned and militarily neutral state. In all the subsequent documents characterising the formation of Ukrainian statehood, the declaration was always listed among fundamental documents. After the anti-constitutional coup in February 2014, the Ukrainian Constitution was amended to include statements on continuous movement towards NATO (in addition to the European Union). That undermined the integrity of the previous process and the fundamental documents that the Ukrainian state is based on – because the Declaration of Sovereignty and the Act of Ukraine’s Independence are still listed among the founding documents of the Ukrainian state.

This is not the only inconsistency. The provision of the Ukrainian Constitution on ensuring the rights of the Russian and other ethnic minorities remains intact. However, a huge number of laws have been adopted that run counter to this constitutional provision and flagrantly discriminate against the Russian language, in particular, against all European norms.

We remember that President Zelensky recently said that NATO must close the sky over Ukraine and start fighting for Ukraine, recruiting mercenaries and sending them to the frontline. That statement was made very aggressively. The reaction of the North Atlantic Alliance, where some clear-headed people still remain, had a cooling effect. This reasonable approach in the current situation deserves to be welcomed.

Before the final decision was made to begin the special military operation, President Vladimir Putin spoke about our initiatives concerning the security guarantees in Europe at a news conference in the Kremlin, explaining that it is unacceptable that Ukraine’s security be ensured through its NATO membership. He clearly said that we are ready to look for any ways to ensure the security of Ukraine, the European countries and Russia except for NATO’s expansion to the east. The alliance has been assuring us that we should not be worried as it serves a defensive purpose and nothing threatens us and our security. The alliance was declared as defensive in its early days. During the Cold War, it was clear who was defending whom, where and against which party. There was the Berlin Wall, both concrete and geopolitical. Everybody accepted that contact line under the Warsaw Pact and NATO. It was clear which line NATO would protect.

When the Warsaw Pact and later the Soviet Union were dissolved, NATO started, at its own discretion and without any consultations with those who used to be part of the balance of power on the European continent, working its way to the east, moving the contact line further to the right each time. When the contact line came too close to us (and nobody took our reasoning seriously in the past 20 years), we proposed the European security initiatives which, to my great regret, were also ignored by our arrogant partners.

Question: Many people in Russia and Ukraine are asking themselves whether the situation could not have been resolved peacefully. Why didn’t this work out? Why did it become necessary to conduct a special operation?

Sergey Lavrov: Because the West did not want to resolve this situation peacefully. Although I have already discussed this aspect, I would like to highlight it once again. This has absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine. This concerns the international order, rather than Ukraine alone.

The United States has pinned down the whole of Europe. Today, some Europeans are telling us that Russia started behaving differently, that Europe had its own special interests differing from those of the United States, and that we have compelled Europe to share the United States’ fervour for the cause. I believe that what has happened is entirely different. Under President Joe Biden, the United States set the goal of subordinating Europe, and it has succeeded in forcing Europe to implicitly follow US policies. This is a crucial moment, a landmark in contemporary history because, in the broad sense of the word, it reflects the battle for a future international order.

The West stopped using the term “international law,” embodied in the UN Charter, many years ago, and it invented the term “rules-based order.” These rules were written by members of an inner circle. The West incentivised those who accepted these rules. At the same time, narrow non-universal organisations dealing with the same matters as the universal organisations were established. Apart from UNESCO, there is a certain international partnership in support of information and democracy. We have international humanitarian law and the UN Refugee Agency dealing with related issues. The European Union is setting up a special partnership for dealing with the same matter. However, decisions will be based on EU interests, and they will disregard universal processes.

France and Germany are establishing an alliance for multilateralism. When asked about the reason for setting it up at a time when the UN – the most legitimate and universal organisation – embodies multilateralism, they gave an interesting reply that the UN employed many retrogrades, and that the new alliance prioritised avantgardism. They also stated their intention to promote multilateralism in such a way that no one would hamper their efforts. When asked what the ideals of this multilateralism were, they said that they were EU values. This arrogance and misinterpreted feeling of one’s own superiority also rule supreme in a situation that we are now reviewing, namely, the creation of a world where the West would a priori manage everything with impunity. Many people now claim that Russia has come under attack because it remains virtually the only obstacle that needs to be removed before the West can start dealing with China. This straightforward statement is quite truthful.

You asked why it was impossible to peacefully resolve the situation. For many years, we suggested resolving the matter peacefully. Many reasonable politicians from the US and Europe responded in earnest to Vladimir Putin’s proposal at the 2007 Munich Security Conference. Unfortunately, decision-makers in Western countries ignored it. Numerous assessments by world-famous political analysts, published in many leading US magazines, such as Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs, and European magazines, were also ignored. A coup took place in 2014. The West unconditionally backed Ukraine and the coup’s perpetrators who had gained power in Kiev. The West emphatically refuses to set any framework in relations between NATO and the territory of Russian interests. These warnings were also voiced but were disregarded, to put it mildly.

You should read the works of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who said back in the 1990s that Ukraine would become a key issue. He said openly that a friendly Ukraine would make Russia a great power, and that a hostile Ukraine would turn it into a regional player. These statements concealed geopolitical implications. Ukraine merely acted as a tool for preventing Russia from upholding its legitimate and equal rights on the international scene.

Question: Not long ago, I heard the current adviser to the President of Ukraine, Alexey Arestovich, speak. A couple of years ago, he said that neutral status was too expensive for Ukraine. “We can’t afford it,” he said. What do you think about this statement? Is that true? Following up on what worries ordinary Ukrainians – security guarantees – what is Russia ready to do? What kind of guarantees can it provide?

Sergey Lavrov: Neutral status is being seriously discussed in a package with security guarantees. This is exactly what President Vladimir Putin said at one of his news conferences: there are multiple options out there, including any generally acceptable security guarantees for Ukraine and all other countries, including Russia, with the exception of NATO expansion. This is what is being discussed at the talks. There is specific language which is, I believe, close to being agreed upon.

Question: Can you share it with us yet or not?

Sergey Lavrov: I’d rather not, because it is a negotiating process. Unlike some of our partners, we try to adhere to the culture of diplomatic negotiations, even though we were forced to make documents public that are normally off-limits. We did so in the situations where our communication with the German and French participants of the Normandy format was misrepresented to the point where it was the opposite of what really happened. Then, in order to expose the culprits before the international community, we were forced to make things public. No attempts at provocation are being made now as we discuss the guarantees of Ukraine’s neutrality. Hopefully, the first attempts at a businesslike approach that we are seeing now will prevail and we will be able to reach specific agreements on this matter even though simply declaring neutrality and announcing guarantees will be a significant step forward. The problem is much broader. We talked about it, including from the point of view of values such as the Russian language, culture and freedom of speech, since Russian media are outright banned, and the ones that broadcast in Ukraine in Russian were shut down.

Question: But they can always tell us that they are an independent country and it’s up to them to decide which language to speak. Why are you – Russia and Moscow – forcing us to speak Russian?

Sergey Lavrov: Because Ukraine has European obligations. There is the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. There are multiple other commitments, including in the Council of Europe, which we are leaving (this has been announced officially). However, we will never renounce our obligations regarding the rights of ethnic minorities, be they linguistic, cultural, or any other. We will never “withdraw from the documents” that guarantee freedom of access to information.

In the 1990s, everyone was rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the Soviet Union becoming an absolutely obedient and obsequious partner of the West. Back then, we did our best to show that perestroika and new thinking were opening up a groundbreaking chapter in the history of our state. We signed everything that the West wanted us to sign at the OSCE, including the declaration proposed by the West and supported by us which contained obligations to ensure freedom of access to information in each country and to transboundary information sources. Now, we are unable to get through to the West so that it itself starts fulfilling this obligation, which they themselves initiated.

This Russian language-related requirement is enshrined in the obligations. Ukraine did not turn them down. Can you imagine the consequences of Finland banning the Swedish language? There are 6 percent of Swedes in Finland, and Swedish is the second official language. Or, Ireland banning English, or Belgium banning French? The list goes on and on. All these minority languages ​​are respected, regardless of the fact that they have a parent state, whereas our case represents an exception. This is a case of outright discrimination, and what is known as enlightened Europe is just keeping quiet about it.

Question: We have decided to withdraw from the Council of Europe before being expelled. Why?

Sergey Lavrov: By and large, this decision was formulated long ago. Not because of a series of suspension and reinstatement of our rights, but because that organisation has fully degenerated. It was established as a pan-European organisation of all countries, with the exception of Belarus which was given observer status. We did our best to help Belarus participate in several conventions, which is possible in the Council of Europe. In general, Belarus was considering the possibility of joining it.

However, over the years the Council of Europe has turned into a kind of OSCE, (excuse my language), where the initial idea of interaction and consensus as the main instruments of attaining the goal of common European cooperation and security was superceded by polemics and rhetoric, which was becoming increasingly Russophobic and was determined by the unilateral interests of the West, in particular, NATO countries and the EU. They used their technical majority in the OSCE and the Council of Europe to undermine the culture of consensus and compromise and to force their views on everyone, showing that they have no regard whatsoever, do not care one iota for our interests and only want to lecture and moralise, which is what they have actually been doing.

Our intention to withdraw matured long ago, but our decision to withdraw has been accelerated by the recent events and the decision enforced through voting. The Parliamentary Assembly issued recommendations for the Committee of Ministers, which has voted to suspend our rights. They told us not to worry, that we would only be unable to attend the sessions but can still make our payments to the budget.  This is what they have openly said.

The Foreign Ministry pointed out in a statement that our withdrawal from this organisation will not affect the rights and freedoms of Russian citizens under the European Convention on Human Rights, from which we are withdrawing as part of our withdrawal from the Council of Europe. First of all, there are constitutional guarantees and guarantees under the international conventions to which Russia is a party. These universal conventions are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which the United States has not signed); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the US is not among its signatories) and many other conventions and covenants most of which have been incorporated into the national legislation. Our lawyers are working with the Constitutional Court and the Justice Ministry on additional amendments to Russian laws to prevent any infringement on the rights of our citizens as the result of our withdrawal from the Council of Europe.

Question: Several counties have been trying to develop dialogue between Moscow and Kiev. France was the first to do this, followed by Israel, and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu will come to Moscow today. Turkey has stepped up its activity. Why are these three countries so active on this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: They are not the only ones to offer their services. The President of Russia had a telephone conversation with President of the European Council Charles Michel yesterday. He has had contacts with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, President of France Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister of Israel Naftali Bennett. My foreign colleagues have contacted me as well. For example, Switzerland, which has traditionally posed as a country where compromises are reached, is ready to mediate.

In this context, it is strange that mediation services are being offered by the countries which have joined the unprecedented sanctions against Russia and have proclaimed the goal (they make no bones about stating this openly) of setting the Russian people against the Russian authorities. We take a positive view on the mediation offers coming from the countries which have refused to play this Russophobic game, which are aware of the root causes of the current crisis, that is, the fundamental and legitimate national interests of Russia, and which have not joined this war of sanctions. We are ready to analyse their proposals. Israel and Turkey are among these states.

Question: Do they come with proposals, asking if they could help establish dialogue?  Or how is this taking place in reality?

Sergey Lavrov: This happens in different ways. Right now, I cannot go into detail, but both want to help achieve accord at the talks conducted via the “Belarusian channel.”  They know the state of the talks, what proposals are on the table, and where there is a bilateral rapprochement.   They are sincerely trying to speed up the rapprochement. We welcome this, but I would like to stress once again that the matter of key importance is having a direct dialogue between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations and  solving what we consider fundamental issues related to the effort not only to ensure the physical security of people in eastern Ukraine and for that matter in other parts of Ukraine, but also to enable them to live normal, civilised lives in the country that has a duty to ensure the rights of  those who are known as ethnic minorities, rights that have been trampled underfoot in every sense.

Let us not forget about the tasks of demilitarisation. Ukraine cannot have weapons that create a threat to the Russian Federation. We are ready to negotiate on the types of armaments that do not present a threat to us. This problem will have to be solved even regardless of the situation’s NATO aspect. Even without NATO membership, the United States or anyone else can supply offensive weapons to Ukraine on a bilateral basis, just as they did with the anti-missile bases in Poland and Romania. No one asked NATO. Let us not forget that [Ukraine] is perhaps the only OSCE and European country that has legislatively legalised the neo-Nazis’ right to promote their views and practices.

These are matters of principle. I hope that the realisation of their legitimacy, justifiability and key importance for our interests and therefore the interests of European security will enable those, who are graciously offering their good offices, to promote relevant compromises in contacts with Ukraine, among others.

Question: We have named certain countries that are helping to settle this crisis. Has the United States offered any services in this connection, like “let us help to establish contacts?” After all, it is no secret to anyone that Russia-US relations were at a very low level. Now they have hit rock bottom, haven’t they?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, there is such a figurative expression. Of course, the situation is unprecedented. I can’t recall anything like the frenzied policy that Washington is conducting right now. To a considerable extent, this policy is generated by Congress whose members have lost all sense of reality and are throwing all conventions to the winds. I am not even mentioning the diplomatic proprieties that have long since been abandoned.

The United States certainly has played the decisive role in shaping the position of the Kiev authorities. The Americans have maintained a huge “presence” in Kiev’s “corridors of power” for many years, including the uniformed agencies, the security service, and the top brass. Everyone knows this. The CIA and other US secret services have their missions there.

Like other NATO members (the Canadians, the British), they have sent hundreds of their instructors to train combat units not only within the Armed Forces of Ukraine but also in the so-called volunteer battalions, including Azov and Aydar. However, some seven or eight years ago, in 2014, immediately after the coup d’etat, the Azov battalion was officially struck off the list of recipients of US aid.  This was done precisely because it was regarded as an extremist, if not terrorist, organisation. Today, all pretences have been removed.

Now any person or group in Ukraine that declares Russia its enemy is immediately taken under the wing of overseas and Western patrons.

They are talking about the supremacy of law and about democracy. What supremacy of law, if the EU, in violation of its own law on the inadmissibility of arms supplies to conflict zones, takes the decision to do the opposite and send offensive arms to Ukraine?

We do not see any sign that the United States is interested in settling the conflict as soon as possible. If they were interested, they would have every opportunity, first, to explain to the Ukrainian negotiators and President Zelensky that they should seek compromises. Second, they need to make it clear that they are aware of the legitimacy of our demands and positions, but do not want to accept them, not because they are illegitimate but because they would like to dominate the world and are unwilling to restrain themselves with any commitments to take into consideration the interests of others. They have already brought Europe to heel, as I have said.

The US has been telling Europe for years that Nord Stream 2 could undermine their energy security. Europe responded that they should find out that on their own. They took the decision and their companies invested billions of euros. The Americans were claiming that this was contrary to the EU’s interests. They offered to sell them their liquefied gas. If there are no gas terminals, they should be built.  The Germans told me this a few years ago. It was during President Trump’s administration. Europe was complaining that this would considerably increase gas prices for their consumers. Donald Trump replied that they were rich guys and will compensate the difference from the German budget. That’s their approach.

Today, Europe was shown its place. Germany eventually said that its regulator was taking a break, and this precisely defines the FRG’s place in the arrangements that the Americans are making on the world scene.

Question: Has Germany become a less independent state under the new chancellor? Would it have acted the same under Angela Merkel?

Sergey Lavrov: The Nord Stream 2 was commissioned, albeit temporarily suspended afterwards, under the new chancellor. I hope that experience will bring an understanding of the need to uphold national interests, rather than to fully rely on the overseas partner who will make all the decisions for you and then do everything for you as well. Clearly, the enormous number of US troops on German soil is also a factor that interferes with independent decision-making.

Articles are being published to the effect that the “politics of memory” is vanishing. It has always been considered a sacred thing in Germany and meant that the German people would never forget the suffering they brought during World War II, primarily to the peoples of the Soviet Union. After I read this, I realised that many people are aware of it. These are open publications. German political scientists are talking about this and, of course, ours do so as well. Several years ago, I spotted something that was probably the early phase of this emerging trend. We were holding ministerial and other consultations with the Germans (I’m talking about foreign policy talks) at the level of department directors and deputy ministers. I never saw this at the ministerial level. The thought that was conveyed to us during the talks was that “we, the Germans, have paid our dues to everyone and owe nothing to anyone, so stop bringing this up.”

Speaking of the Germans, there is a thing that is worth mentioning. We are now talking a lot about attributes of genocide or racial discrimination. Take, for instance, the siege of Leningrad. For many years and with all my colleagues, starting with Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Guido Westerwelle, Heiko Maas, and most recently Annalena Baerbock, I very persistently, with each of them, raised the topic of paying compensations to the Leningrad siege survivors. The German government has made two one-time payments but only to Jewish survivors. We asked why only Jews, because many ethnic groups, including Russians and Tatars, lived in Leningrad and continue to live there. Many of them are still alive. How are they supposed to understand the fact that only the Jews have received some kind of help from the German government when at the time they were boiling shoes, burying children and transporting corpses on sleds together? The payments in question are not big. But, first, for many of them they matter, and second, they serve as the recognition of the fact that everyone has been impacted by the siege. Their answer was interesting. The Jews, they said, are victims of the Holocaust. These payments cannot be made to other survivors, because they are not Holocaust victims. Our attempts to reach out to the German legislators and politicians and tell them that the siege of Leningrad was an unparalleled event in the history of WWII, where there was no distinction between Jews, Russians or other ethnic groups, failed. We reached out to Jewish organisations. It is a matter of honour for them as well. We will continue this work going forward. January marked yet another anniversary of the lifting of the siege of Leningrad. The President of Russia signed an executive order on one-time payments to all siege survivors, including the Jews. We have not seen any sign of conscience awakening in Germany so far.

To be continued…

The Central Myth of Zionism: Jews Have No Future in the Arab and Muslim World (Updated)

Net 5 Nov, 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen

Samuel Geddes

The loss of 100 or so citizens to Iran, Iraq, Yemen, or Morocco would at best be terrible public relations for “Israel”. The loss of 100,000 or more would be existentially disastrous. 

Flourishing communities such as those in Iraq, Iran, and Yemen were, for much of history, the centers of the Jewish world and deeply enmeshed within the societies that surrounded them. One of the most effective lies of the Israeli propaganda has been to posit the irreconcilability of Jewish and Arab identities as if it is impossible to be both. The existence of hundreds of thousands of Jews with origins from Morocco to the Gulf demonstrates otherwise. 

Throughout the decades in which Arab leaders, in particular, pledged their opposition to the existence of “Israel” and its further colonization of Palestine, they have neglected to use one of the most powerful weapons at their disposal. Had Arab leaders in Iraq, Yemen or the states of the Arab Maghreb wished to truly damage the viability of “Israel”, they could easily have opened the way for their historic Jewish populations to return, trading in their Israeli passports and citizenship for that which they, their parents or even grandparents lost.  

The tactical argument

By this point, it has become clear even to the mainstream western opinion that the two-state solution envisioned by the Oslo Process is not even a remote possibility. Rather than the self-determination of an Arab state on the territories occupied in the Six-Day War of 1967, the central issue of the conflict has shifted to the political equality of all Palestinians within the territory of Mandate Palestine. The achievement of this goal would instantly nullify the concept of a “Jewish State” as Jews within the entire territory are already outnumbered by Palestinians, a demographic imbalance that will only grow with time.

Consequently, in terms of alleviating the colonial pressure on the Palestinians, as well as amplifying their demographic, and by extension political advantage, it makes complete sense for the surrounding countries to voluntarily reabsorb their Jewish former citizens, thereby removing them from the arena of conflict. 

In the case of Yemen, we are speaking of roughly 430,000 people. Of Iraqi Jews, between 200,000 to 600,000, Iranian Jews number 200,000 to 250,000, and Moroccans some 473,000. Were these communities to return to their homelands in any significant number it would be a catastrophic erosion of “Israel’s” demographic position, as well as its pretensions to being central to the identity of all Jews everywhere.

The loss of 100 or so citizens to Iran, Iraq, Yemen, or Morocco would at best be terrible public relations for “Israel”. The loss of 100,000 or more would be existentially disastrous. 

Perhaps surprisingly given the intensity of its opposition to the Zionist state, the Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the regional countries best placed to facilitate this. Since the success of the 1979 revolution, Judaism has received official recognition along with other minority religions such as Christianity and Zoroastrianism, including political representation in parliament.

The Iranian leadership has consistently made clear the distinction it sees between Jews, an ethnoreligious community, and Zionists, purveyors of a racist political ideology. Still, the country’s Jewish citizenry is a fraction of its pre-revolutionary size. Despite this, the future large-scale and permanent return of Iranian Jews is entirely conceivable if Tehran goes to the necessary lengths to assure them that their cultural, religious, and political freedoms would be guaranteed. 

Iran would likely be apprehensive about repatriating hundreds of thousands of its former citizens, their children, and grandchildren, in light of the ongoing Israeli campaigns of sabotage and assassination against its nuclear program and other targets. In the long run, however, even a relatively small demographic decline would dramatically constrain the military and covert power of the Israelis, hamstringing their capacity to attack their neighbors. 

A population drain of this kind could well lead to a self-reinforcing cycle, whereby other Israeli citizens witnessing outmigration may also choose to emigrate to countries where their long-term future is better guaranteed. 

The moral case

This is also a question that may force itself on the governments of the region whether they choose to address it or not. 

The Jews of the Arab and wider Islamic world to a significant extent continue to hold on to their eastern cultural heritage. To those governments and movements opposing the colonization of Palestine, this fact represents a unique advantage to be exploited. As both the global and regional environment becomes more hostile to “Israel”, its behavior could become yet more erratic and desperate. By offering resettlement to their former Jewish communities, regional countries would both give them a peaceful way out and demonstrate that Jews do have a future in the region outside of occupied Palestine. Such a gesture would demonstrate to many the futility of sacrificing themselves for a colonial project that will inevitably fail.  

Prior to the conflict, the Arab and Islamic world had nothing approaching the levels of persecution and discrimination as those suffered by the Jews of Christian Europe. In the aftermath of the Second World War and the exposure of the Holocaust to global awareness, the west could have earnestly confronted its own deeply rooted anti-Semitism. Instead, it chose to cynically back European Jewish ethnonationalism in Palestine.

For those struggling to end the colonial project in Palestine, an essential element of the strategy must be to demonstrate to enough Jewish Israelis that their own survival is not tied to the survival of “Israel” and that being a Yemeni, Iraqi, or Moroccan Jew does not exclude a person from membership of the Arab nation. 

As well as the enormous economic benefits to be had from the reintegration of hundreds of thousands of highly educated and productive people, the value of the societal and cultural enrichment that would follow would be incalculable. 

The peaceful repatriation of North African and Middle Eastern Jews to the countries of their birth or recent ancestry may seem like an idealistic pipe dream but it would not entail the creation of a radically new social dynamic. Rather it would be a return to the religious, cultural, and ethnic pluralism which has predominated in the region for so much of its history. 

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Why Not Question “the Holocaust” in Schools?

 OCTOBER 26, 2021

By Philip Giraldi

Source

There has been major pushback against a Texas state education official who said that if schools are adhering to a new state law that mandates teaching alternative points of view on controversial issues having a course and a book on the holocaust, for example, would suggest providing material that reflects other interpretations of that historical event. The comment came from a Texas school district administrator named Gina Peddy in the Carrollton Independent School District in Southlake, which is in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, who was in a training session explaining to teachers her directive regarding which books can be available in classroom libraries. She told teachers that if they have books about the Holocaust in their classrooms, they should also have books that offer “opposing” or “other” viewpoints on the subject.

Reportedly a staff member who was present secretly made an audio recording of the training session which was then shared with NBC News, which broke the story.

The Texas law was and is intended to lessen the impact of the current “woke” campaign by progressive educators to rewrite American and international history to reflect the dark side, notably by emphasizing issues like slavery and oppression of minorities. Texas legislators insist, not unreasonably, that presenting an essentially negative view of American history as envisioned by Critical Race Theory (CRT) must be balanced by having a curriculum that also includes discussion of the many positive achievements of the United States of America. In the recording, Peddy, the school district’s executive director of curriculum and instruction, told the teachers that the new law applies to any “widely debated and currently controversial” issues. She was quoted as saying “And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust, that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.”

Predictably, on such a hot wire issue Peddy has had little or no support from her peers either locally or in the education establishment. The school district Superintendent Lane Ledbetter posted on Facebook an “apology regarding the online article and news story.” He said Peddy’s comments were “in no way to convey that the Holocaust was anything less than a terrible event in history. Additionally, we recognize there are not two sides of the Holocaust. We also understand this bill does not require an opposing viewpoint on historical facts.”

Clay Robison, a spokesman for the Texas State Teachers Association, responded “We find it reprehensible for an educator to require a Holocaust denier to get equal treatment with the facts of history. That’s absurd. It’s worse than absurd. And this law does not require it.” Republican state Senator Bryan Hughes, who wrote the bill that became the law, denied that anyone should come up with alternative views on what he called matters of “good and evil” or to remove books that offer only one perspective on the Holocaust.

Jews in Peddy’s school district and elsewhere in both Texas and nationally have inevitably also risen to the bait, denouncing any attempt made to challenge what they view as an issue fundamental to their understanding of their place in the world and in history. One Jewish former student Jake Berman asserted that “The facts are that there are not two sides of the Holocaust. The Nazis systematically killed millions of people.”

Ledbetter, Robison and Hughes should perhaps consider that they are suggesting that their new law should only apply on “controversial” racial issues, not on other historical developments and it is curious that educated people should consider a multi-faceted transnational historical event that has inter alia a highly politicized context a “fact.” The holocaust narrative in and of itself is the creation of men and women after the fact with an agenda to justify the creation and support for the State of Israel and should be subject to the same inquiry as any other facet of the Second World War and what came after.

The tale of “the holocaust” is essentially a contrived bit of history that serves a political objective wrapped up in what purports to be a powerful statement regarding man’s inhumanity to man. Jewish groups generally speaking consider the standard narrative with its highly questionable six million dead, gas chambers, extermination camps, and soap made from body fat to be something like sacred ground, with its memorialization of the uniqueness of Jewish suffering. Serious scholars who have actually looked at the narrative and the numbers and sequences of events are not surprisingly skeptical of many of the details.

As a first step, it is helpful to look at controversial Professor Norman Finkelstein’s carefully documented book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Finkelstein, to be sure, believes there was something like a genocide of European Jews and even lost some family members due to it. He does not, however, necessarily believe many of the details provided by the standard narrative and official promoters of that story to include the numerous holocaust museums. In his view, powerful interests have hijacked “the Holocaust,” and use it to further their own objectives. He wrote “Organized Jewry has exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel’s and its own indefensible policies. Nazi genocide has been used to justify criminal policies of the Israeli state and US support for these policies.”

And there is also a money angle, as there often is. Per Finkelstein, Jewish organizations in the US have also exploited the situation of the dwindling number of aging holocaust survivors to extort “staggering sums of money from the rest of the world. This is not done not for the benefit of needy survivors but for the financial advantage of these organizations.”

As taking courses in the holocaust are mandated in the public school systems of twenty states (and soon to be more due to pressure from local Jewish groups) and is used to validate the billions of US taxpayer dollars given annually to the state of Israel it would seem that supporters of the narrative should have the confidence as well as sufficient integrity to defend their product. But that is, of course, not the case. They would prefer to have their chosen narrative unchallenged, raising the usual claims of anti-Semitism and “holocaust denial” to silence critics. One of the “textbooks” frequently used in public schools that mandate holocaust education is Night by Elie Wiesel, whom Finkelstein has dubbed “the high huckster of the holocaust.” “Night” claims to be autobiographical but is full of errors in time and place. It is at least in part a work of fiction. Similarly, the “Diary of Anne Frank” was published after editing by her survivor father and parts of it have been challenged.

As a general rule, contentious issues where advocates attempt to silence opponents by claiming that what they are promoting is based on fact and cannot be challenged should be challenged. In Europe, powerful Jewish constituencies have even made it illegal to criticize or deny the holocaust narrative. In America, that day may soon be coming as Jewish groups increasingly seek to criminalize questioning of the factual basis of the holocaust as well as any criticism of Israel.

The Nakba and the Polish Law

 BY GILAD ATZMON

1589885470.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

Source: Almayadeen.net

Israel seems upset by a new Polish law that sets a 30-year deadline for Jews to recover seized property. The legislation is yet to be approved by Poland’s senate, yet Israeli officials already refer to it as the “Holocaust law.” They insist that it is ‘immoral’ and ‘a disgrace.’

Last week Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Yair Lapid insisted that the bill “is a disgrace that will not erase the horrors or the memory of the Holocaust.”

The Nakba and the Polish Law

I fail to see which part of the legislation interferes with the memory and the horrors of the holocaust. I actually think that the crude attempt to squeeze billions of dollars from Poland in the name of a human tragedy may have a detrimental impact on this historical chapter and the way it is memorized.

The Poles didn’t approve of the Jewish ‘State’ interfering with their internal affairs. On Friday, Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki hit back at Lapid, stressing, “I can only say that as long as I am the prime minister, Poland will not pay for German crimes: Neither zloty, nor euro, nor dollar.”

Poland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs echoed Morawiecki’s position, arguing that Lapid’s comments were misguided. “Poland is by no means responsible for the Holocaust, an atrocity committed by the German occupant also on Polish citizens of Jewish origin.”

During the weekend, the crisis seemed to escalate. On Sunday, Poland and Israel summoned the other’s ambassador for meetings as the rift between the two countries didn’t seem to subside.  

I am not in a position to judge what is right and who is wrong on restitution matters. Suppose the Polish new legislation is “a horrific injustice and disgrace that harms the rights of Holocaust survivors and their heirs,” as Lapid says. In that case, we should also expect Lapid to vividly support the Palestinians, their right of return, and their right to be compensated for the colossal crimes committed against them in 1948 and thereafter. 

In 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinians (the vast majority of indigenous Palestine) were ethnically cleansed by the newly born Jewish State. This catastrophic racially driven crime (that included a long list of massacres) is called the Nakba. It took place less than four years after the liberation of Auschwitz. 

During the 1948 war and shortly after, young Israel wiped out Palestinian cities and villages. It then used legislation to prevent Palestinians from returning to their homes and applied any possible means to plunder their properties, dispossessing those few Palestinians who clung to their land. Yet, Israel never admitted its original sin of ethnic cleansing. 

Applying to a moral cause, Israel claims to represent Jewish demands for restitution in Poland. I wonder, shouldn’t the same rule be applied to the Palestinians? Shouldn’t Israel put the same moral law into play and acknowledge the Palestinians’ right to their land, villages, cities, fields, and orchards?

While in Poland, it was Nazi Germany that brought a disaster on the county’s Jewry. In Palestine, young IDF and Jewish paramilitary groups committed colossal crimes against the indigenous population. While Nazi Germany ceased to exist in 1945, the IDF is still with us. The Labour party (which formed the first Israeli government directly) is still active and is even a member of the current governing coalition. The Likud Party, being the offspring of the Irgun and the Stern Gang (both complicit in some of the most brutal massacres in Palestine), is, by far, the biggest party in the Israeli Knesset. The Israeli and Zionist institutions that were responsible for the 1948 crime have never ceased to exist. They have never owned their crimes, let alone repented. 

Holocaust survivors have been compensated by different means for the crime that was committed against them by Europeans. Israel benefitted from a large reparations deal with the German government. The Palestinians, however, are still living in open-air prisons and refugee camps, subject to blockades and constant abuse.    

The time is ripe for Israel to own up to its horrendous past. By now, Israel should accept that the Palestinian cause is not fading away or evaporating into thin air. If Israel seeks to reconcile with the region, it must first apply to itself that moral code that it demands Poland to follow. 

Donate

Defamation (השמצה‎‎) anti-Semitism

Posted May 30, 2021

Source

Must Watch

Documentary examines anti-Semitism, and its affect on Israeli and U.S. politics.

Defamation (השמצה‎‎) is a 2009 documentary film by award-winning filmmaker Yoav Shamir. It examines antisemitism and, in particular, the way perceptions of antisemitism affect Israeli and U.S. politics. Defamation won Best Documentary Feature Film at the 2009 Asia Pacific Screen Awards.

See also

“I’m hopeful now, and I haven’t been hopeful in a long time. What’s happening now is putting a check on Israel. They have a problem now.”

Jewish-American political analyst Dr Norman Finkelstein speaks to MEE about his views on Israel’s latest offensive in #Gaza pic.twitter.com/Xw3ZOwT7on— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) May 16, 2021

Now it’s ‘antisemitic’ to say that Israel practices ‘apartheid’

Jonathan Cook: Jewish groups that aid Israel’s war crimes can’t deny all responsibility for those crimes

2010: Canada’s Secret Trial, ‘Who is Ernst Zundel?’

By VT Editors -May 1, 2021

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

March 19, 2010

VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE NAME OF HUMAN RIGHTS

First they came for the holocaust denialists and I did not speak out as I was not a holocaust denialist….

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

In Europe and Canada, saying that any commonly held belief taught in Israel about the holocaust may be incorrect can land you in prison for up to 20 years.  If you say only 5,999,999 Jews died, you go to prison.  If you say they were shot, not gassed, you go to prison.  In a world where the only part of the nightly news that can be believed is the sports scores, Americans are infamous for lying about the weather as are Italians, Ernst Zundel was sent from Canada to serve 5 years in prison in Germany for doubting the official version of the holocaust.

WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE?

Many Germans would like to find a version of history where they don’t seem barbarous.  Should that be a crime?  Palestinian who suffered hundreds of thousands dead at the hands of Israel say it is done because Jews use the holocaust as an excuse for murder.  Iran just loves starting trouble.  They are like that.  Is asking questions about history a crime?  Are there really well financed attempts to prove that the holocaust didn’t happen for the reasons Israel says, “So it can happen again?”  Is sending people to jail in violation of common sense and honor worth defending any idea?  Didn’t we end up doing things like this in the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church went on a several century murder rampage?

WHAT DOES ANYONE KNOW?When in Germany, I look across the street.  A synagogue was there.  Now the leader of the church choir lives there.  He took me thru the 500 year old building.  There is a small plaque on the sidewalk.  No Jews remain.  Now they visit on vacation, buy wine, eat cake at the outdoor cafes and never see the sign for the missing synagogue.  At the end of the street there used to be a Nazi Party headquarters.  In 1944, an American plane, maybe a B-26, came down the river.  No more building.  Nothing else was hit.  This guy was some pilot!

IS IT WORTH IT?

Saying large numbers of Jews and many other people weren’t enslaved and murdered by the Nazis is offense and wrong.  It is also stupid.  Stupid and criminal are not the same thing.  Saying it is OK to do something wrong to someone else, let’s say, the Palestinian, because the Germans were bad is wrong too.  We all learn this as kids.

We can’t fix what happened.  I expect everyone to learn, to prepare and if wise, arm themselves to the teeth until mankind proves themselves less toxic.  This is common sense.

HYPOCRITICAL CANADA

If Canada loves the Jews so much, Hitler would have sent them all to Canada, a country nearly empty, long before the killing started.  Hitler asked, Canada and so many other countries refused.  Ask any Jew, they know the list.  Jailing Ernst Zundel is so much easier than living with the truth.

Too little, too late.

The issue here is secret trials with secret witnesses and secret charges.  Canadians love bashing the United States for our Bush era fling with fascist tyranny but easily forget their own.  When remembering offenses, perhaps one could remember the offense against Ernst Zundel, done in the name of liberalism and political correctness.  Anyone who would send Ernst Zundel away would, if pushed, start transporting Jews “east.”

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.

What was said about Ernst Zundel, Canadians used to say about the Jews until it became “illegal.”

The Jewish Takeover of Canada: The Case of Arthur Topham

By Lasha Darkmoon –

October 10, 2014

Has Canada been taken over by Jews? It would seem so, if the relentless persecution
of Canadian patriot and freedom fighter Arthur Topham 
is anything to go on.

. . . by Lasha DarkmoonIT’S TOO LATE TO CRY — IT’S ALREADY HAPPENED

Canadian patriot and freedom fighter Arthur Topham is to be hauled before the Canadian courts next year on trumped-up charges. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Arthur is an innocent man. His trial date has now been set. He will appear in court on 26 October, 2015, and his trial will last for two weeks until 6 November.

If found guilty, this man who has said and done nothing that you and I have not said or done a thousand times, will be torn from the embrace of his wife, his family and his friends and be thrown into prison. It will be a major miscarriage of justice if this should occur.

The forthcoming trial of Arthur Topham (pictured) is therefore much more than the trial of one man. Canadian justice will itself be on trial.

arthur topham

What is Arthur’s alleged crime? Arthur’s only crime is that he is a political dissident who has chosen to exercise his democratic right to free speech. He has spoken out eloquently about the war crimes of the state of Israel and published books on his website which are regarded as offensive to many Jews. To criticize this privileged ethnic group in Canada or to question its cherished assumptions, is, it seems, strictly taboo. This is classified as “hate speech”.

At no time has Arthur advocated breaking the law. He has never incited anyone to violence. He has merely utilized his pen to express his political views in a rational and civilized way as any political dissident anywhere in the world would do.

If Arthur had been an American or British citizen, he would not be facing a possible prison sentence right now, and this is because whatever Arthur has said or done is not regarded as a crime in the United States or Britain.If Arthur is to be condemned in a Canadian court for “hate speech”, it will only be because Canada has now fallen under the dominant influence of a powerful ethnic group who have somehow managed to turn Canada into an Israelified police state.

Yesterday I received an email from an old friend of mine. His name is Felix Dean. He is a retired Canadian professional who dearly loves his country, just as Arthur Topham does. Unlike Arthur however, Felix can no longer bear to live in Canada. He feels that Canada has rapidly morphed into a police state under the malign influence of organized Jewry. So Felix now resides in self-imposed exile within “the civilized confines of Europe,” to quote his own words.

This is what Felix has to say about his Canadian compatriot Arthur Topham:

“To the best of my understanding, Arthur Topham’s cardinal sin is not what he said, but the fact that he PUBLISHED it. There is an individual by name of Richard Warman, the rabid Zionist attack dog whose only reason for living is to destroy truth tellers like Arthur. Warman is actually of German ancestry, not a Jew as far as I know, but he is a classical cult zombie, someone so thoroughly brainwashed and programmed for bloodshed that I cannot but regard him as little better than a Manchurian candidate of the worst sort.”

richard warman

Strong words, friend Felix. It distresses me to know that Canadian justice is now apparently relying on the evidence of Manchurian candidates. Has it really come to this?

It would appear that this man Richard Warman (pictured), an ardent Zionist with a reputation for being a “serial complainant”, has a personal grudge against Arthur Topham and would like to see him go to prison.

Though non-Jewish himself and with no official position, Warman is constantly to be seen filing complaints against critics of Big Jewry. It was he who tried to get David Icke into trouble recently, accusing Icke of unspecified “hate crimes”. Apparently mentioning “Jews” in the same breath as “lizards” is deeply disturbing to Mr Warman and could indirectly lead to a second Holocaust.

Needless to say, Warman is relatively small fry: a pest and a nuisance rather than a serious threat to champions of free speech. Arthur’s main adversary is a powerful Canadian Jew, Harry Abrams, British Columbia representative of B’nai B’rith Canada. It was he who in 2007 registered a section 13 complaint against Arthur as follows:

“This concerns a complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission seeking relief for discriminatory publication under prohibited grounds caught by Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The premise of this complaint is a contention that Arthur Topham of Quesnel, British Columbia, Canada, and his internet publication known as Radicalpress.com contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.”

Cut out the legal jargon and it boils down to this: Arthur is a criminal because he has given offense to the Jews.

In 2012, Harry Abrams filed a second complaint against Arthur with the British Columbia “Hate Crimes” unit, alleging that:

“Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 28th day of April, 2011 and the 4th day of May, 2012, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

Impressive legal jargon reducible to the age-old whine: “This man is saying bad things about Jews and must be stopped!”

This is the charge Arthur is now fighting, and this is the question the Canadian courts must decide: is it permissible to contradict a Jew in any way, thereby hurting his feelings, and will you be sent to prison if he complains about you?

An instrument of oppression and a serious threat to free speech in Canada
An instrument of oppression
and a serious threat to free speech in Canada

A few more quotes from the email of my Canadian friend Felix will help to fill in the picture:

“Arthur had a brave and noble defender in his lawyer, Douglas Christie, who originally defended Ernst Zundel and other political dissidents. Christie unfortunately succumbed to liver cancer a few years ago, a true hero in every sense of the word.

Consider that all these guys are real Canadians, whose ancestors were the original pioneers and frontiersmen of our beloved country. These great Canadians earned combat medals, they fought and died in wars on behalf of Canada, and then what happens? These troublesome Jews show up and proceed to grind all our Canadian patriots to dust and ashes, as if they owned the world and all the surrounding planets.

No part of Canadian history holds any value for these alien interlopers. They respect none of our traditions. It is thoroughly disgusting.

You and I have said things that are hundreds of times more offensive to “the Jews” than Arthur Topham has, and yet no one is threatening to throw us in prison! So why do they pick on Arthur? It’s because Arthur has made a name for himself (through Christie) in the mainstream press. Ordinary Canadians know all about him and therefore he must be made a very public example of — his head must be paraded through the streets on a spike!

Arthur most certainly needs defending. In fact, I believe his wife is Jewish. Not that this will help him in any way.”

I was deeply moved by this eloquent email from my friend Felix, himself a Canadian citizen, as I say, who has chosen to leave Canada and live abroad because of the takeover of his country by an increasingly obnoxious, in-your-face Jewish minority. This natural aversion to being bossed around by pesky Jews naturally means that Felix is now regarded as an “anti-Semite” — a term which, according to B’nai B’rith Canada, can now be applied to four million Canadians.

It is amazing to think that even a man with a Jewish wife such as Arthur Topham should be regarded as a dangerous anti-Semite by B’nai B’rith Canada. Consider this sobering fact: not a SINGLE Canadian citizen has been named as a victim of Arthur Topham’s political activities. Who has complained to the police about Arthur Topham? Only TWO individuals out of 36 million Canadians: one a non-Jewish serial complainant, Richard Warman, already mentioned above, and the other a powerful Jew representing B’nai B’rith Canada, Harry Abrams. It is Harry Abrams who is currently leading the witch hunt against Arthur Topham.

The glib assumption that B’nai B’rith Canada, spear-headed in the British Columbia region by Jewish commissar Harry Abrams, represents Jewish interests in Canada and speaks for all Canadian Jews, is an assumption that cannot be granted. There is one Jew who certainly does not feel that B’nai B’rith Canada speaks for all Jews, and that is Arthur Topham’s Jewish wife.

I venture to say that Arthur’s Jewish wife is only one among thousands of Jews in Canada who are utterly appalled by the flagrant war crimes committed by the Jewish state in Gaza only quite recently. These Jews do not feel that B’nai B’rith Canada, with its undeviating loyalty to Israel, represents their interests in any way.


For the record, Arthur Topham’s Jewish wife is totally aware of Arthur’s political activities and is behind her husband 100 percent of the way in whatever he has said or done. Raised in a secular household of Russian Jews, Topham’s wife has no time for Zionism. She is a practicing spiritual healer, with clairvoyant abilities, who uses traditional medicines in her healing ministry. Ever since she was a child, I am told, “she has followed the Red path of the Native American Indians and never could relate to her Jewish background.”

Naturally, Arthur’s Jewish wife does not, unlike B’nai B’rith Canada, regard it as a crime that Arthur should have published The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on his site.

That B’nai B’rith Canada should actually go to the absurd length of suggesting that Arthur Topham should be sent to prison for, among other things, publishing the Protocols on his website—a book that anyone can buy anywhere—is a sure sign of desperation as well as malevolent overkill.

Apart from the Protocols, there are other books Arthur has published on his website which, according to B’nai B’rith Canada, he should not have published and which mark him out as a dangerous criminal who is a threat to Canada’s 375,000 Jews. These are books widely available not only on the internet but in major libraries and specialist bookshops, e.g., Eustace Mullins’ The Biological Jew and Elizabeth Dilling’s The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today.

Elizabeth Dilling’s book, incidentally, happens to be a meticulously researched exposé of the Babylonian Talmud, revealing in quotation after shocking quotation the bizarre mindset of Talmudic Jewry. Here are a few examples of what will be found in the Jews’ holiest book:

(1) “When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.

(2) “A Gentile girl who is three years old may be [sexually] violated.”

(3) “If a Jew is tempted to do evil, he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.”

(4) “Jesus is in hell, being boiled in hot excrement.”

B’nai B’rith Canada is naturally incensed that the official Jewish hatred of non-Jews should be so openly revealed. They would prefer to see their hatred of the non-Jewish majority kept carefully under wraps. It follows that this highly repressive Jewish organization would not only like to see Dilling’s book banned, but they would also like to see Arthur Topham given a stiff prison sentence for daring to draw attention to the book on his website.

The unbelievable chutzpah of B’nai B’rith Canada was perhaps even more flagrantly on display when they raised objections to Arthur Topham’s republication on his site of Theodore N. Kaufman’s hate-filled 1941 book Germany Must Perish! Written by a mentally deranged American Jew, this disreputable book called for the TOTAL EXTERMINATION OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE BY FORCIBLE STERILIZATION OF EVERY SINGLE GERMAN MALE!

In order to highlight the enormity of what this psychotic Jew was actually suggesting, Arthur employed the ingenious device of republishing the book on his website with a few significant alterations. First, he changed the title to Israel Must Perish! Then he substituted the word “Israel” for “Germany”, “Jew for “German”, and “Netanyahu” for “Hitler”. This at once transformed Kaufman’s hateful book into a Swiftian satire.

The point Arthur Topham was making was unmistakable. If it is permissible to call for the mass extermination of the GERMAN people by enforced sterilization of every single GERMAN MALE, then it was equally permissible to call for the extermination of the JEWISH people by the enforced sterilization of every single JEWISH male. The logic was impeccable.

Such perfect logic, however, was displeasing to B’nai B’rith Canada, Driven to desperation, this Jewish organization then resorted to dirty tricks. First it alleged, falsely, that Arthur had actually published a real, hard copy book called Israel Must Perish! He had done no such thing.

Secondly and even more egregiously, it made out that Arthur was himself advocating the genocide of the “whole Jewish population.” He was doing no such thing. It was Detective Constable Terry Wilson of British Columbia Hate Crimes Unit who told Arthur in person that B’nai B’rith Canada was attempting to make this defamatory and unprovable allegation.

Kaufman’s “hate-filled screed titled German Must Perish! [Arthur reveals on his website] “was promoted by the most prestigious mass media publications in the USA when it appeared in 1941 prior to America’s entry into the conflict. Magazines like Time and newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post lauded the idea of absolutely destroying the German nation and the German race as a whole, referring to this grotesquely contemptible concept as a “SENSATIONAL IDEA!”

5

The implacable Jewish hatred for the German people, oozing from every line of this nauseating book and easily demonstrated by its hysterical call for the mass “castration” of every single German male in the world by sterilization, was, you will regret to learn, not confined to one or two crazy Jews in Brooklyn. It was official government policy in an America already to a large extent dominated by its Jews.

In September 1944, the savagely vindictive Morgenthau Plan for Germany was unveiled. The evil brainchild of two Jews in the American administration, Harry Dexter White and Henry Morgenthau, this malevolent plan for postwar Germany amounted to little more than the mass castration of the German people—humiliation and punishment ad infinitum.

As the German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels put it, “Hate and revenge of truly old-testament character are clear in these plans dreamed up by the American Jew Morgenthau. Industrialized Germany should be literally turned into a huge potato field.” This comment has naturally been dismissed as contemptible nonsense by the court historians and their Jewish mentors, given that Goebbels said it. Therefore to quote it as an indictment of Morgenthau is—you guessed it—”anti-Semitic”.

However, US Secretary of War Harry Stimson is not so easy to dismiss. Stimson’s final assessment of the Morgenthau Plan was that “it is Semitism gone wild for vengeance.” Morgenthau, he added, “was so biased by his Semitic grievances that he really is a very dangerous advisor to the President.” In his diary he wrote tersely: “Objective of punishment is prevention but not vengeance. Reason why Jew is disqualified.” (See here)

Needless to say, Stimson has himself been dismissed as an anti-Semite for saying this. De Judaiis nil nisi bonum.

Both Roosevelt and Churchill were to put their initials to the revengeful Morgenthau Plan. Helpless puppets of the powerful Jews who jerked their strings, it seems that neither world leader had much choice in the matter. Both lived to to regret their actions. Roosevelt later said “he had no idea how he could have initialled this.” Churchill was to parrot his words, “I had not time to examine the Morgenthau Plan in detail. I am sorry I put my initials to it.” (See here)

In his 1956 book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed was to refer to the Morgenthau Plan as “The Talmudic Vengeance.” (Title of Chapter 42). An apt description, which perhaps helps to explain why Douglas Reed is another writer whose works organized Jewry would like to see banned, along with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Elizabeth Dilling’s exposé of the Talmud, The Jewish Religion.

Conclusion

To summarize: Arthur Topham has said nothing that you or I have not said repeatedly, day in and day out. If Arthur is guilty of “hate speech”, then we are all guilty of hate speech. If Arthur is to be consigned to a Canadian prison for his views, then we all deserve to join him there and be allocated adjoining cells.

If Arthur is guilty of speaking out against the state of Israel, especially after its recent war crimes in Gaza, then we are ALL guilty—for there is not one of us who has not cried out in revulsion against the wanton mass murder and maiming of Palestinians, most of them women and children, whose only crime is that they happen to own the land the Jews covet.

Let this be noted: Canada, now almost completely under the Jewish yoke, would like to criminalize EVERY SINGLE CRITICISM OF THE JEWISH STATE. Merely to give offense to a Jew, to hurt his feelings by disagreeing with him, will soon earn you a stiff fine or a prison sentence. Here is what B’nai B’rith Canada would like to see incorporated into Canadian law:

“We must repeat again and again these basic facts — TO BE ‘anti-Israel’ IS TO BE ANTI-SEMITIC. TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL, ISRAELI PROFESSORS and ISRAELI business, these are not political acts, these are acts of hate, acts of anti-Semitism! Anti-Israel hysteria is anti-Semitic hysteria. They are one and the same.”

The above statement was made in 2009 by Yuli Edelstein, Israeli Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, The capital letters are his. (See “Criminalizing Criticism of Israel in Canada”)

Dare to express pity for this little girl and demand the punishment of the Israeli soldier guilty of doing this to her
and you will soon face criminal proceedings in Canada

Here is the picture of an Israeli woman, an atrocity tourist who claims that the sight of Palestinian children being killed gives her exquisite pleasure, almost bringing her an orgasm:

Dare to criticize this sexually perverted Jewess
and you will soon be accused of “anti-Semitism” by B’nai Brith Canada and sent to prison

Can Canadian justice sink any lower? Do Canadian citizens really want to live in a totalitarian police state run by Jews? I don’t think so. Canadian justice must not be used as an instrument of oppression by a rabid and out-of-control Jewish minority.

B’nai B’rith Canada clearly does not represent the interests of most Canadian Jews, as it mendaciously claims. I know many Jews in Canada who totally reject being represented by this hate-filled organization. One such Jew is Arthur Topham’s beloved wife. If B’nai B’rith Canada has its way, her husband will be thrown into prison on trumped-up charges.

The witch hunt against Arthur Topham by B’nai B’rith Canada must stop.

If you are concerned for Arthur Topham
and would like to see him treated fairly
PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

ABOUT VT EDITORS

VT EditorsVeterans Today

VT Editors is a General Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff. All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff

editors@veteranstoday.com

The Failed Saudi War

The Failed Saudi War

By Ahmed Fouad

Throughout history – from the ancient empires and the priests of the pharaohs, to modern times, via pictures and screens – countries and regimes worldwide have been striving to justify the wars they wage and give various reasons for resorting to arms, as well as, trying to mark every single fault of their enemy, giving their soldiers and officials the grounds for heroism.

Inside and outside Yemen, the hopeless Saudi-American war is marching towards its sixth year, with an unprecedented intention to a bloody failure and complete fall. Saudi Arabia and its allies are increasing their craziness, trying to divert attention from the crimes against humanity by committing more horrible crimes. The pretext here is: national security, the concept that Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Cairo are always hanging on to. They are all fighting Yemenis to protect their national security while they are groveling to Netanyahu! The war against Yemen is the same as any war that happened in history; not more than leaders seeking a “monumental” and peerless military achievement that would legitimize their victory. During a historical crisis that all Arabic regimes are experiencing, the Zionist entity became their friend, ally and brother, in the face of people who are materially the poorest in the Arab Region and Arabian Peninsula.

Starting with the western media, the American primarily and the European secondly, Gulf regimes fought the first battle, led by bin Zayed and bin Salman, to buy consciences and stances, succeeding to make the war against Yemen tenable through the world. It wasn’t harder in the Arab World as Qatar joined them with its channels at the beginning of the war, then it encouraged other countries such as Egypt and Sudan to join the alliance.

At the beginning of the war, more than 5 years ago, all stances were ready to be sold, and the money of Al Saud and Al Zayed was ready to buy them. They succeeded to mark their missiles, tanks and warships by “morality” and direct them towards a defenseless nation.

The leadership of the aggression alliance achieved what appeared to be the media victory, in the inauguration of its military campaign against Yemen. All voices that had been opposing the war were silent, or silenced.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates tried so hard to conceal their intervention in Yemen using the moral cover in a region which, looking at everyone and everything in it, seems like a slaughterhouse. No matter how much they might try to beautify themselves, they will never seem peaceful. As it proceeded, the war continued to exhaust the capacity of the two states, which everyone thought endless.

As the years went by, Saudi Arabia squandered its affluent treasury, including the wealth and capacities, for the sake of the alliance and the Arab fascist regimes, and it didn’t stop squandering in the fear of a remarkable Yemeni victory that would firstly deprive it from the opportunity of enthroning the heir presumptive; secondly give Yemen the opportunity of looking at historical demands concerning regions that the Yemenis consider to be unfairly taken from them in earlier stages; and most significantly, grant Yemen the ability to demonstrate its powerful model that just beat all the Gulf states.

The Saudi treasury, that today seems to be in miserable conditions, is deepening the woes of Al Saud. Just before the war against Yemen, at the end of 2014, all the external debts owed by the SA were around $12 billion, worth nothing for the world’s richest state.

Only 5 years later, these debts increased by 1400%, according to data from the World Bank, which unmasked a record high in the debts owed by Saudi Arabia that reached $150 billion in 2018, then $183 billion at the end of 2019, and it goes on and on. It is the Yemeni victory, not the defeat of Saudi Arabia that would haunt rulers in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.

As the war progressed, the Gulf media failed, in parallel with the military failure, to continue marshalling opinions that convict Yemenis and their armed forces. The available pictures of mass destruction in Yemen shows the scale of the Arab crime, whether by contributing or staying silent. International actors finally started to draw attention by sharing chilling reports about the humanitarian situation in all Yemeni regions. Nothing could be more evident than the UNICEF’s report concerning the disaster, as it says that “Every single hour, a mother and 6 children are killed throughout Yemen, and because of the maritime and airborne barbaric blockades of Yemen by the alliance, health services have completely collapsed, and it is difficult to obtain medical supplies or buy and import medicine and equipment!”

Since the war has been prolonged, it is obviously an end in itself. It uses the importation of arms, in a region that doesn’t fear any external or internal threats, as a large door for commissions and enormous profits. And with the drain of the war, all Gulf people’s properties became under the control of Western arms furnishers. The treason is now completed. On the economic side: the war caused the waste of enormous opportunities in an era where petroleum is missing its decisive influence and its incomes are declining, and on the social side: the abundant arms like a sword hanging over the heads of those who refuse to be loyal to furnishers, or think outside the box to which they are supposed to stick.

Only now, all imaginations that anyone could control Yemen over have become a well-established fact, more than being a future expectation. Today, everyone knows and conceives that the end will not be in Sanaa or Aden; but the beginning of the end will be in Jizan and Najran, and the absolute end will be in Riyadh.

Related Videos


A large popular reception in celebration of the freed knights

A large public and official celebration at Sana’a airport – tears wash away the torments of years and separation
Prisoners of the forces of aggression waving thanks when leaving

Related News

More on the Anti-Semitism Scam: Jewish Students Get Protected Status

By Philip Giraldi

Source

boy 1235707 1280 ea8d3

In both the United States and Europe there has been an increase in the passage of laws that are intended to protect Jews. Indeed, one might say that one of the few growth industries in Donald Trump’s United States has been the protection of Jewish citizens and their property from a largely contrived wave of anti-Semitism that is allegedly sweeping the nation. Even while potentially catastrophic developments both in the Middle East and the United States continue to unfold, the threat of anti-Semitism continues to find its way into much of the news cycle in the mainstream media.

A survey conducted last month in all fifty states was released with the headline “First-Ever 50-State Survey On Holocaust Knowledge Of American Millennials And Gen Z Reveals Shocking Results. Disturbing Findings Reveal Significant Number Of Millennials And Gen Z Can’t Name A Single Concentration Camp Or Ghetto, Believe That Two Million Or Fewer Jews Were Killed And A Concerning Percentage Believe That Jews Caused The Holocaust.”

The survey is based on the premise that detailed knowledge of the so-called holocaust should be an essential part of everyone’s education. Currently, 12 states already require holocaust instruction in their public school curricula, though that includes five of the six biggest states, and recently passed federal legislation will eventually fund holocaust education everywhere in the U.S.  But, of course, the real back story that one must not mention is that the standard holocaust narrative is at least as much fiction as fact and it is employed regularly to create special benefits and protections for both Jews in general and also for the State of Israel. That is why the usual sources in the media become outraged whenever it seems that the propaganda is not effective.

The ignorance of the holocaust story inevitably received wide play in the mainstream media but there are a number of things that all Americans should know about the anti-Semitism hysteria that drives the process. First of all, the extent to which there is actual anti-Semitism and the background to many of the incidents has been deliberately distorted or even ignored by the press and by the government at all levels. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews for either their religion or their ethnicity, but many of the so-called anti-Semitic incidents are actually related to the policies advanced by the state of Israel. Organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which have a vested interest in keeping the number of anti-Semitic incidents high, deliberately conflate the two issues in their reports.

In its 2018 report, ADL reported “1,879 acts,” in the United States during the course of the year. It is not a particularly large number given the size and population of the U.S. and also with respect to what is included. There were certainly some physical attacks, including two shooting incidents at synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, but most of the incidents were much less kinetic, including shouting and name calling on university campuses between groups supportive of and opposed to Israel’s repression of the Palestinians.

Europe is way ahead of the game when it comes to punishing so-called holocaust denial or anti-Semitism, which now includes any criticism of Jews and/or of Israel. As one critic put it, Europeans generally can exercise something like free speech, but the speech is limited by certain rules that must be observed. Three weeks ago, the French nationalist writer and critic of Jewish power Hervé Ryssen was jailed for the fifth time for the crime of “hate speech.” He faces up to 17 months in prison for having been found guilty of “…insult, provocation, and public defamation due to origin, ethnicity, nationality, race, or religion.” In 2016 he was imprisoned for 5 months, in 2017 for 6 months and in 2018 for one year on similar charges. He also had to pay a 2000 Euros fine to the National Bureau of Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism. In January 2020, Ryssen was found guilty of “contesting the existence of crimes against humanity,” i.e. questioning the so-called holocaust which labels him as a négationniste, a “holocaust denier.”

Ryssen has written numerous books on Jewish power in Europe and on Israel. His scholarship has rarely been questioned, but his willingness to speak out sometimes boldly on issues that are forbidden has put him in prison more often than not. Curiously, the French law against vilifying ethnic groups and religions has de facto only rarely been applied to protecting either Christians or Muslims. Satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo continues to “blaspheme” against both religions without any intervention from the authorities, but it is careful not to make fun of Jews.

The United States is clearly moving in the direction of France, at least insofar as the Jewish community and Israel are concerned. But it is also refreshing to note that a revived progressive wing of the Democratic Party is engaging in a bit of pushback. Three weeks ago, 162 Democratic congressmen plus one Republican and one independent actually voted against an amendment intended to “Protect Jewish Students from Antisemitism at School.”

The vote took place on Sept. 16th, and was over a Republican proposed amendment to the  Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act (H.R.2574). The amendment designated anti-Semitism to be a form of discrimination included in the bill and would allow private citizens to file lawsuits claiming damages under the Civil Rights Act’s Title VI, focusing particularly on education programs. In spite of the considerable level of opposition, unfortunately the amendment still passed by a vote of 255 to 164.

According to the Concerned Women for America  (CWA), a group that lobbied for the added language, “The amendment ensures that recipients of federal education funding act against anti-Semitism in our communities. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) on college campuses is one of the ways such discrimination is being displayed.” The bill allows suits directed against any program receiving federal money if it can be claimed that one is the victim of discriminatory practices that negatively affect a protected class more than another class. Previously, the protected classes were identified as “race, color, or national origin,” but Jews and, by extension, Israel are now also protected. The specific additional language that was inserted was: “In carrying out the responsibilities of the recipient under this title, the employee or employees designated under this section shall consider antisemitism to be discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin as prohibited by this title.”

In practice, the new legislation will mean that Jewish students or their families or proxies can use Civil Rights legislation to sue educational institutions if they are made uncomfortable by the presence of critics of Israel. The real targets are groups like BDS, which have obtained some traction on university campuses and have been targeted by both the Israeli government and domestic Israel Lobby organizations. But, of course, the real danger is that once protected status is granted to one chosen group that promotes the interests of a foreign government there is no control over how “hate speech” will be defined and the consequences for American fundamental liberties will be catastrophic, moving far closer to the European model of freedom limited by “rules.”

Millennials and the Holocaust

 BY GILAD ATZMON

palestine-holocaust-humiliation.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

What is it that causes some to constantly measure how much they are hated?  What kind of people demand their host nation be intimately familiar with their past?  We learned this week that once again, some Jews are upset by the fact that a considerable segment of the American people refuse to see the past exactly as they themselves see it. 

The Jewish Forward reported over the weekend that  “survey results on Holocaust knowledge in America are in, and the findings are terrifying. Not only do they show a shocking level of ignorance, but they reinforce findings about all adults, as well as trends throughout western Europe.” Those Americans who worry that Americans are uniquely ignorant should be relieved. Americans are only just as ‘ignorant’ or maybe as ‘rebellious’ as Europeans. 

It seems that despite intensive Holocaust indoctrination and the fact that Holocaust museums and monuments have mushroomed all over the USA, fewer Americans are interested in their Jewish neighbors’ historic suffering and the question is, what can be done about it?  Perhaps they will have to erect  a holocaust museum on every American street corner. Maybe they can solve this acute educational problem by attaching a large and heavy iron Star of David to the back of every millennial. 

The Forward reports that two-thirds of young Americans didn’t know how many died in the Holocaust. For some peculiar reason it is very important to most Jewish institutions that everyone parrots the ‘six figure.’ This is peculiar, as the notion of a genocide is within the realm  of the categorical rather than the numerical.  But if these institutions insist upon reducing the holocaust into a materialist quantified figure I am inclined to ask how many Jews know the exact number of Ukranians who were starved to death in the Holodomor?  How many Jews have even heard of the Holodomor? Which Jews know about Stalin’s Jews as Israeli leading columnist Sever Phlocker identifies them. Do contemporary Jews know about the impact of the Yiddish Speaking Spanish International Brigade on Catholic Spain in 1936? How many Iraqis died in the Neocon ‘war against terror’? I ask because Haaretz Writer Ari Shavit  wrote in 2003 that  “the war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish.” If Jewish institutions want everyone else to understand  the holocaust in numerical terms, maybe it would be reasonable to expect Jews to know the numbers of colossal crimes against humanity perpetrated largely or partially by Jews. 

The Forward is upset by the fact that nearly half of millennial Goyim couldn’t name a single death camp. In return I ask  how many Jewish millennials know about Deir Yassin or can name a single Zionist massacre in Palestine in 1948 or before? How many Jewish millennials know about the Sabra and Shatila massacre?  Or the  Kefar Qana Massacre?  What do they know about the malnutrition in Gaza caused directly by years of blockade imposed by the Jewish State?  

Apparently “11% of respondents harbor ‘intensely’ antisemitic views by agreeing to six or more anti-Jewish statements. That’s 28 million Americans” the Forward writes. I was curious to find out what are those “intensely” anti-Semitic views. Apparently the survey refers to the following list produced by the ADL in early 2020.   

ADL.jpg

According to the ADL, back in January  “44 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that ‘Jews stick together more than other Americans,’ 25 percent agreed that ‘Jews always like to be at the head of things’ and 24 percent believed that ‘Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America.’

Americans should be thrilled by the ADL’s findings and the recent study of millennials’ attitude to Jews.  These  studies  suggest that despite the tyranny of correctness,  Americans , at large and millennials in particular, aren’t blind to the reality in which they live. They still think independently and authentically.  Yet, despite the fact that almost half of Americans admit to being aware of Jewish clannish exclusivist culture, America is kind to its Jews as peace and harmony are embedded in its Christian ethos. Yet one issue must be raised. If the ADL and the recent holocaust study represent Jewish American attitudes to their gentile neighbours,  it may reveal that 2% of the American population disapprove of  the legitimate views of 44% of Americans as ‘antisemitic.’  Nearly half of the Americans are castigated as ‘racists’ for noticing the generally accepted notion that “Jews stick together.”  By doing so the ADL & Co actually confirms that from a Jewish perspective  it is ‘all about the few not the many.’ 

Admittedly, the situation is potentially volatile. Still, if fighting antisemitism is so important for American  Jews maybe people like Alan Dershowitz who struggles desperately to clear his name of underage sex allegations are not the best candidates to preach to Americans about who they should read and what history and education are all about.

 Watch Alan Dershowitz preaching to the American people  about history and morality: https://youtu.be/PkS2wonicuI

Thanks for supporting Gilad’s battle for truth and justice.

My battle for truth involves a serious commitment and some substantial expenses. I have put my career on the line, I could do with your support..

Denote

Saudi Arabia Commits another Massacre in Yemen’s Al-Jawf, Kills Civilians at Their Homes

Saudi Arabia Commits another Massacre in Yemen’s Al-Jawf, Kills Civilians at Their Homes

By Staff, Agencies

Saudi-led military aircraft carried out new deadly strikes in Yemen, targeting a residential area in the northern province of al-Jawaf, as part of the Riyadh regime’s ongoing aerial bombardment campaign against its crisis-hit southern neighbor.

Yemen’s al-Masirah TV network cited locals as saying that the Saudi warplanes struck two houses in al-Masafa al-Marazeeq area of the al-Hazm district on Wednesday afternoon, leaving nine civilians, including two women and a boy, dead.

Seven other people, including 5 children and two women, sustained injuries.

Earlier in the day, Saudi-led warplanes launched five airstrikes against al-Aqsha’ area in the same district of Jawf province. There were, however, no immediate reports of casualties.

Separately, the Saudi warplanes also pounded an area in the Kitaf wa al-Boqe’e district of the mountainous northwestern province of Sa’ada. The number of casualties was not immediately known.

Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia has been conducting a bloody military aggression in Yemen with help from its regional allies, and using arms supplied by its Western backers. The aim of the war has been to bring Yemen’s former president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, back to power and defeat the Ansarullah revolutionary movement.

Yemeni armed forces have been boosting their military capabilities and responding to the attacks using domestic missiles and drones, and targeting sensitive oil installations and military sites deep inside the Saudi territory.

More than 100,000 people have already lost their lives as a result of the military aggression in the past five years.

The war has also destroyed, damaged and shut down Yemen’s infrastructure, including a large number of hospitals and clinics.

The Yemeni population has been subjected to large-scale hunger and diseases aggravated by the naval blockade imposed on the country by the coalition of aggressors.

Related

Poles Got Upset by Putin’s Words, Accusing Russia of Anti-Semitism

February 09, 2020

Source

by Ruslan Ostashko

Translated by Sasha and captioned by Leo.

Not only the Russian president’s speech at the Holocaust Memorial in Israel caused bad pain in the hinds of the Euro-Ukros and our native liberal wish washers, it also offended the Poles when Putin reminded the world of their nationalists’ inhuman policies.
The Russian leader’s visit to Israel has now ended a few days ago but the behinds in the post-Soviet area are still burning, not only those of the Moscow ‘creatilibs’ and the Kiev Euro-Ukros. The thing here is that, in effect, in his speech before the Jews, Putin reminded them that they never got any compensation for the European, Polish and Baltic nationalist active participation in the Holocaust.

Vladimir Putin: “The crimes committed by the Nazis, their well-thought-through, pre-planned, Final Solution, for the Jews that is, my respectable colleagues, one of the darkest and shameful pages in the newest world history. But let us not forget that this crime had accomplices. They often exceeded their masters in cruelty. Not only the Nazis serviced the death factories, concentration camps. But also their accomplices in many European countries did it as well. More Jews were murdered in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union, where these bandits operated, than anywhere else. Thus around 1.4 million Jews perished in the Ukraine. 220,000 Jews were murdered in Lithuania. This – I wish to draw your attention to, dear friends – this is 95% of the pre-war Jewish population of that country. 77,000 [killed] in Latvia, and so on. Only a few hundred of Latvian Jews survived the Holocaust.”
It is no secret to anyone in Israel who is the subject here. And, what is most important, while Germany has paid money in full for Hitler’s crimes, neither Poland, nor Latvia, nor the Ukraine paid a penny for the deeds of those who they regard as their ideological forefathers. In Poland these were the nationalists from Armia Krajowa, who were subordinate to the [Polish] exile government in London. Not only these Polish-brewed Nazis actively counteracted the red partisans from Armia Ludowa, they also killed Jews.
Source – Reedus. “In 2018, a book by a journalist Wojciech Lada ‘Criminals from Armia Krajowa’ was released in Poland, which informs of multiple instances of killings of Jews by units belonging to this organisation.” According to the author, members of Armia Krajowa usually explained their crimes with the fact that the Jews sympathised with the Soviets and helped the communists – and hated the Poles. Often they spoke of liquidation of Communist Jewish gangs.”

Behold a couple of examples of the Polish Nazis’ crimes (*Graphic images used in the video from 3:38-4:07*): “Members of the ‘White Colours’ unit of Armia Krajowa Legions infantry regiment marked history with infamous deeds. Upon the order from the unit commander Lieutenant Kazimierz Olchowik, alias ‘Zawisza’, on 17 August, 1944, eight militiamen killed 50 Jews, including women and children, which had escaped from the labour camp in the town of Skarżysko-Kamienna. Their belongings were given to Zawisza and the bodies remained unburied. This group of Jews was hiding in the forests not far from the village of Siekerna, Świętokrzyskie Voivodship. They were seeking help and wished to join the partisans from the Armia Krajowa. A year earlier, partisans from the special unit of Sector II of Armia Krajowa in Cmielów Precinct shot 7 Jews, who were hidden by a Polish woman Maria Szuba. The killing was done in her presence. Before the killing, the Poles demanded money from those Jews.”
There. While the normal Poles hid Jews, the Polish Nazis killed those they discovered, including women and children. When asked what was the difference between Armia Krajowa and Zondercommando SS, Polish authorities and journalists begin drooling uncontrollably. And then they invent this move. They start writing that Poland has no anti-semitism but it exists within the damned Muscovites.

Source – Telegram channel “Horde”: “It’s rather complicated over there. And now there is Putin on top of that. This is why the Polish magazine ‘Polityka’ decided to serve Putin a cruel retaliatory blow and describe the Russian anti-semitism. Because anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe, in America, while, according to the Jewish organisation themselves, it is all quiet in Russia.”
Indeed, on one hand, admits the periodical, “according to all the research Russia is not an antisemitic country.” However “Polityka” bravely assumes: “What if in Russia they are ‘the wrong’ Jews?” The ‘other’ ones have left while the inattentive and indifferent ones stayed.

Source – Telegram-channel “Horde”: “For instance, in 2018 an unknown vandal drew a swastika on the monument to Armenian-Russian friendship in Novokuznetsk. The ‘normal ones’ would have shouted foul because it is obvious anti-semitism. But the Russian Jews never even noticed. The Russian Jews also lack sensitivity to everyday Judeophobia. Where the informed Europeans would run circles around the issue, draw the society’s attention, the Russian Jews don’t care, explaining that ‘it’s a trifle and nothing to make noise about’ (27%) and ‘I’ve solved it myself’ (23%).”

Get it, right? Russia is so insidious that it has bred a special sub-species of Mordor Jews, whom nothing can move. And it did it apparently solely in order to get back at the Poles, whose folklore still has an amulet called “A Jew with a Coin.” This is what written about it in the ‘respectable’ Wikipedia, which we cannot suspect of Russophilia.

Source – Polish article, “A Jew with a Coin” in Wikipedia: “According to the Polish anthropologist and ethnographer Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, the image of an elderly Jew in Polish cultural consciousness has features of an alien community which is not an integral part of Polish national self-identification. The combination of a greedy Jew and coins is associated for Poles with the ancient negative stereotype of the Jewish people who allegedly have a ‘magic ability’ to manipulate and govern the money that does not belong to them, gaining a considerable profit from it.”

“According to the Polish anthropologist Bożena Umińska-Keff, the image of an old Jew is a reflectorial expression of negative emotions which evokes the traditional Polish anti-semitism and exits within the system of viewing a Jew as blood-sucking, oppressive magician.”

It is the Poles who view the Jews negatively which is admitted by the Polish anthropologists themselves, but anti-semitism is supposed to be in Russia, who, on top of that, have bred for themselves the aforementioned sturdy and able to refrain from making a scandal sub-species of Jews. Probably from the descendants of those whom the Armia Krajowa failed to kill, those who managed to find the normal Soviet partisans and escape the Hitlerites. How can one listening to all of that have a normal attitude towards the Polish government and the state governed by them? It is a rhetorical question. Russia is a multinational country. And although we do have inter-ethnic frictions, no one in our society, except a miserable handful of marginal elements, makes Nazis into heroes.

The Poles, as well as the Balts and Ukrainians have different norms. They “zig” with one hand, praising those who partook in the Holocaust and other Hitler’s crimes, and with the other they argue that the local Nazi varieties fought against the Germans for independence, having suffered cruelly from the damned Soviet regime. In my mind, we have nothing to talk about with these melted brains. Russia should sever diplomatic relations with all the countries that make heroes of the Nazis and forget about their existence. They will soon be dealt with by the keen-on-profit Israel supported by the USA. And then they will find out what it means to be down and out.

Interview poll of Russian people on the street, by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Do you believe that the Poles view the events of WWII different than the Russians?

Middle-aged woman – “I think yes. If it is presented over there in this way, it means that the new generation thinks so. I believe that the Poles who are now 60-70 do not think that way. At least those who grew up in the “Social Camp” (Mix of the words ‘socialism’ and ‘concentration camp.’)”

Young man – “Well, every nationality has its own view, I guess. The Russians… I won’t distinguish them according to their ethnicity, because back then, there was no such difference. There were only Russians. As for Poles, I don’t know, maybe they have their own view – most likely.”

Young woman – “I believe that people view it according to their mentality and upbringing. I believe that people view it according to their mentality and upbringing. It seems everyone views it differently because of the differences in mentality, depending on how people were brought up, with what values, and what values they have now.”

Middle-aged man – “Naturally it is obvious from their declarations in the past years, particularly lately. The Poles… their leadership… their authorities they are trying to overturn history. It’s their attitude to our country, our Russia.”

Middle-aged man – “I don’t know about the Poles as a nation, we are talking about the politicians. Politicians view it differently, the way that is profitable for them at the moment. And in the most of European countries… Well, maybe not in the most of European countries, but in Poland and Ukraine they definitely view it differently. This is more profitable for them.

Old man – “I think every nation has its own views on its own history and on the history of the nations around. That’s firstly. Secondly, I think every Pole… something in his soul remains after ‘Poland from Sea to Sea’, from the Polish Commonwealth. Naturally they’d like to return to the past condition. And so certain moves are being used for that end.”

Young man – “I think it is so. In particular, in my perspective, the well-known Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact allows the Poles to think rather bad. It is unconditional that the results of the war… it was a big victory. Yes, it is unquestionable achievement of our fathers and grandfathers. But the problem is that, as a result, we have this: we moved the conflict to the Polish territory. This is what it turned to be.”

Afterword by Ruslan Ostashko to his PolitRussia YouTube channel subscribers:

Dear friends, we are very grateful to you for your support for our channel. Thanks to your financial aid we are able to have a really independent editorial policy and make videos that you like. Although this does not change the fact that you may disagree with our authors and keep robust discussion in the comments section. Personally I see it as absolutely normal. We are living people who express their personal views on the subject at hand. And it is very cool that our audience has their own views and we are having active arguments and discussions in the comments section.

The future of our country is not in the view of one big official but it is rather in the ability to listen and hear the many. I regard everyone who donates funds for our work as our share holder. This money is your investment. The investment in the future of our country, in the coverage of very different events. It is an investment into education of our youth, in the substantiated thrashing of the liberals on YouTube, the platform they always regarded as their realm. It is an important and needed work which we do together with you. We think it is appropriate not only to share with you our successes and plans, but also the difficulties we face. This allows us to search for solutions together, overcome the complications in our editorial work and move forward for the good of our Motherland.

Before the New Year I shared a pleasant news with you about opening of our channel in Spanish language which was supposed to work for the audiences in Latin America. This is an important and promising region where our country can strengthen its influence and collect quite real bonuses for us all. Now, with a deep regret I must state that we are halting this channel’s work. It is due to financial complications. One sponsor helped us to open and develop this channel. He deeply believes in the importance of that region and that is why he was ready to invest his own money in development of this channel. Now, however he encountered financial difficulties of his own and ceased financing of the channel. Well, at least there is a silver lining. This story nudged me to the thought that we can develop particular topics and sections if this particular topic finds a particular sponsor.

Your current support is directed at maintaining our editorial work within the range that we determine ourselves among our team. It is important for us to maintain a balance of topics which ensure a large volume of views and, accordingly, a large income from the ads: Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states etc., and the topics which are really important for the life in our country. Unfortunately the internal topics do not get as many views as we would like them. This is why you often write in the comments that it wouldn’t be too bad to pay more attention to those topic rather than to, let’s say, Ukraine. Now I wish to ask you. Perhaps among our subscribers we could find medium and large investors from 100k rubles ($1,560.83) a month, who are ready to invest their money in particular topics and sections or even open a separate channel?

Regional problems, corruption in particular organisations, inequality of rights of men and women during divorce – the topics are plentiful. Such investments would allow us to direct particular resources to these topics. Let’s think about it together. If there are such investors among our subscribers, please write to me privately in the social networks or to ruslan@politrussia.com. And I wish to tell to the rest of our viewers that even a transfer of 50 or 100 rubles can be a great help for our office to remain afloat. There are many of us. Let us not forget about that. The bank details can be found at www.politrussia.com and in the description to this video. Thank you. You are the best.

Addressing the Lies Spread about Gilad

 BY GILAD ATZMON

For more than a decade and a half I have been subjected to a relentless and sometimes violent smear campaign. I have been accused of all sorts of ‘hate crimes’ including the totally ludicrous claim that I advocate the ‘burning of synagogues,[ ‘incitements of violence,’ and have routinely been labelled, among other slurs, a ‘notorious anti semite’ and a ‘Holocaust denier.’ Of course, if any of these accusations had merit, I would have spent time behind bars. The truth, as should be embarrassing for the name callers, is that I have never been charged with  hate speech or any other crime. No law enforcement authority anywhere has ever even questioned me about anything I wrote or said. I perform and teach all over the world, including in Germany and Austria, where ‘holocaust denial’ is vigorously prosecuted.

My detractors boast that they intend to ruin my reputation, smear and impoverish me and any others they deem improperly critical of Israel. I should have written this piece long ago but I found it demeaning to deny baseless accusations founded on lies and misquotes. For the record, I am not an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, nor a conspiracy theorist. 

My detractors are now terrorizing the extended music community in an attempt to accomplish their insane mission.  I defy the idea that we live in a ‘post truth era.’ Athens, for me, is a core of inspiration and truth seeking and is my life time adventure. Here, in response to the fabrications attributed to me by various Jewish institutions such as the JC and the CAA,   are the actual statements I made. 

Gilad on Burning Synagogues: Rationality vs. Justification

Zionist pressure groups have claimed that I advocated burning  synagogues. The origin of this preposterous assertion is a misquote attributed to me in a Guardian article in 2005. According to the Guardian “Gilad Atzmon, a pro-Palestine advocate, gave a talk to students this month, arguing: ‘I’m not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act.’”  A week later the Guardian agreed to publish my letter in which I explain and refute this claim. “Your quote …[of me] is inaccurate and taken out of context. By no means did I justify any form of violence against Jews, Jewish interests or any innocent people. In the School of Oriental and African Studies we were debating the question of rationality of anti-semitism. I claimed that since Israel presents itself as the ‘state of the Jewish people’, and bearing in mind the atrocities committed by the Jewish state against the Palestinians, any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right.”

At the time, pro Zionist online discussion groups complained that the police failed to charge me with incitement of hatred. The reason for that  is obvious, there was no evidence, I never advocated burning synagogues. I have always opposed any form of violence against Jews or anyone else!  The British authorities understood that I was discussing the ‘discourse of rationality’ (Reasoning) and not the ‘context of rationalisation’ (Justification).  Horrendous war crimes are grossly unethical but may also be rational. The decision to nuke Hiroshima, for instance, was a rational decision although insanely immoral. The same applies to Israel shelling Gaza with white phosphorus. A calculated military decision was made to engage in these vile war crimes.  Examining the rationale for such crimes may be our best hope to prevent them. Rationality and morality are categorically distinct concepts as my actual words made clear.   

Is Gilad a ‘Holocaust Denier?’

I have been accused of being a ‘Holocaust denier’ or a Holocaust revisionist.  This is simply false. I have never denied the Holocaust nor have I written a single revisionist text as I am not an historian of any sort.  I guess no need to  mention once again that my mother’s family suffered enormously in that terrible period. 

I am a philosopher. As such, I argue that this chapter in our past should be treated not as a religion or dogma, but must, like all other past events, be subject to scrutiny and open discussion. If history is the art of narrating the past as we move along, then revising our understanding of  the past is the true meaning of the historical endeavour. In my work I argue that engaging in a discourse of history that is open to revision is at the core of the ethical insight.

It is also crucial to mention that the notion of ‘holocaust religion’ was actually coined by the legendary Israeli philosopher prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz back in the 1970s. Leibowitz was followed by Adi Ophir, another prominent Israeli philosopher who offered his own criticism of the Holocaust religion in his paper On Sanctifying the Holocaust: An Anti-Theological Treatise.

Did Gilad really say that Hitler was right after all?

My  words as they appear in my 2011 book, “The Wandering Who?”  shows that I said the opposite: even the thought by some that Hitler might have been right is presented as an unacceptable scenario. 

“We, for instance, can envisage an horrific situation in which an Israeli so-called ‘pre-emptive’ nuclear attack on Iran escalates into a disastrous nuclear war, in which tens of millions of people perish. I guess that amongst the survivors of such a nightmare scenario, some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might have been right after all.’ The above is obviously a fictional scenario, and by no means a wishful one, yet such a vision of a ‘possible’ horrific development should restrain Israeli or Zionist aggression towards Iran.” (The Wandering Who? pg 179)

As you can read, my actual words are diametrically opposed to the manufactured misquotes attributed to me by various Zionist pressure groups. I used the extreme example of a nuclear war to argue that Israel should finally seek peace with its neighbours to deny anyone the thought that Hitler was right after all. 

Did Gilad ask Jews to apologise for the Holocaust?

In 2014, in the light of huge anti Jewish protests in Paris, I wrote a piece titled Holocaust Day – The Time Is Ripe For A Jewish Apology.  In the article I briefly elaborated on historical hatred of Jews and the Zionist promise to prevent the Jewish fate by ‘fixing’ the Jews and making them ‘people like all other people.’ I closed the article with the following paragraph.  “Many Jews around the world are commemorating the Holocaust this week. But if I am correct, maybe the time is ripe for Jewish and Zionist organisations to draw the real and most important lesson from the Holocaust. Instead of constantly blaming the Goyim for inflicting pain on Jews, it is time for Jews to look in the mirror and try to identify what it is in Jews and their culture that evokes so much fury. It may even be possible that some Jews would take this opportunity to apologise to the Gentiles around them for evoking all this anger.”

Nowhere in the article did I suggest Jews apologise for the Holocaust. I accept that my words may be infuriating to those who are contemptuous of conciliatory efforts. I reckon that it would not be such a bad idea for Campaign Against Antisemitism to apologise to Labour members and Jeremy Corbyn whom they smeared mercilessly. The British Chief Rabbi could join them, as might the editors of the three British Jewish papers who literally referred to Corbyn as an ‘existential threat’ and practically equated him with Hitler. Such a peace-seeking approach on the part of some Jewish institutions will help to diffuse the anger these bodies engendered  during the GE 2019 amongst many segments of the British Left.  

Is Gilad a “promoter of classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories?”

According to the ADL, I’m an “outspoken promoter of classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and a fierce critic of the State of Israel.” I am indeed a fierce critic of Israel and  I am outspoken. But not only do I not promote ‘antisemitic conspiracy theories,’ as I repeatedly state throughout my entire body of work, ‘there are no Jewish conspiracies. Everything is done in the open’ and in front of our eyes. 

What I do observe is that  we cannot speak about any of that: Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power. The Israel Lobby dominates American foreign policy, it pushes for a conflict with Iran. Similarly, the Congress’ performance of one standing ovation after the other for Netanyahu wasn’t a secret ritual. In Britain, Jewish institutions such as the Jewish papers, the Chief Rabbi and a Jewish charity declared an open war on the opposition party and its leader. None of that was ‘conspiratorial’ or secretive. We are dealing with mainstream news, yet we dare not talk about it let alone criticise it.

 Evoking animosity in others

In 2013 I was interviewed by Swiss writer Alimuddin Usmanani who asked me to define what it means to be a Jew. My answer was short and conclusive: “To be a Jew is to evoke animosity in others.” My answer was provocative and at least as challenging as the official Tikun Olam’s answer to the same question, i.e., ‘to be a Jew is to fix the world.’ However, while there are no statistics that show that Jews are actually engaged in fixing the world, my critics within the CAA, the ADL, The Jewish Chronicle and other Zionists institutions publish polls on an almost  daily basis that suggest that Jews are hated globally and locally.

The ethos that drove early Labour Zionism both ideologically and politically was the acceptance that, for one reason or another, Jews can’t assimilate  and would be safer somewhere else where they would become, through political training, into ‘people like all other people.’ I do not say that Jews should be hated. Rather like those early Zionists, I contend that Jewish institutions must self-reflect. Instead of accusing Goyim, Brits, Labour members, Americans, etc. they should engage in a true introspective process. Crying about antisemitism and/or terrorising jazz clubs and music venues won’t solve the Jewish problem, it will make it worse and the situation is clearly deteriorating as the ADL/CAA/CST statistics on anti semitism reveal.   

Is David Duke a humanist?

I oppose all forms of biologically oriented politics. I oppose all forms of politics that are defined by race, gender or sexual orientation. I contend that politics ought to unite us as equals rather than divide us on the basis of biology. David Duke and I hold distinctly opposite positions on this and other fundamental issues.

In March 2014 I gave an interview to larmurerie.fr/ I can’t trace the original French article but a  Google translation of the French original exists on my site. I was asked by the French Journalist the following question: Many French people share your opinion. For example, there is a French thinker, Hervé Ryssen, who uses the same metaphor as you when you talk about the mirror, saying that when a Jew accuses you of being an anti-semite, you just have to read the mirror image of the argument to reveal his racism towards goyim.”

My answer was as follows. “I actually use the word projection, but the mirror image is no doubt similar. And projection, by the way, is something that Freudtaught us about. You know, we have to admit that some of the most interesting humanists in the history of the West are Jews: Christ, Spinoza, Marx were Jews. Why is that?…Now there is something very interesting and it’s again the first time I’m saying it. The left is devastated by David Duke for instance. He was in the KKK when he was young. But here is something quite amazing: I read him and I was shocked to find out that this guy knows more about Jewish identity than I do! How could a supposedly ‘racist’ Gentile who probably never entered a synagogue knows more than I do about Judaism? The reason is in fact very simple: he is a proud white man. He’s interested in nationalism, in the culture of his own people, so he understands things that I am not even allowed to think about. Believe it or not, even as a Jew, I wasn’t allowed to think of myself as a racist. I was a racist, maybe I am still one, but I was not allowed to acknowledge it. Once he acknowledges that he’s talking about white people’s rights, in a way he thinks like Avigdor Lieberman! But in fact, he is way better than Lieberman. David Duke is a humanist because he says, «I want to celebrate my right and you should celebrate your rights»  whether you are Muslim or black or whatever. He believes that all people should celebrate their rights, this is his current philosophy. Avidgor Liberman is not a humanist, because he wants to celebrate his rights at the expense of other people.”

In my book. Humanism is primarily a universal adventure. Duke, today, is no doubt a separatist. He prefers to see people  living in partitioned enclaves, he opposes immigration and his political thought is racially oriented, yet, if I understand it correctly, he believes that all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, skin colour or religion should enjoy such a right. At least in comparison with the right wing Zionist philosophy that adheres to the idea that one people should celebrate their self determination on the expense of another people, Duke’s current offering is more ethical, universal and humane. I understand that some Jews may be upset by the comparison, however, the way to deal with disagreement is to produce a counter argument rather than terrorising the music community.  I myself hold completely opposing views to Duke’s on the matter: I believe that people should learn to live together and seek harmony. This is why I left Israel. However, despite of my disagreement with Duke on some fundamental and crucial issues, in consistance with the Western intellectual tradition, I take pride in making an effort to understand positions before I criticize them. 

Does Gilad Hate Jews?

As I have stated time and time again, I have never criticized Jews or anyone else as a people, a race, an ethnicity or a biology. I challenge my detractors to produce a single reference in my work that contradicts this. No one has ever produced the goods. In my work there is no hatred whatsoever, against Jews or anyone else. Many years ago, I accepted that some Jews regard me as a ‘self hater’ yet, I fail to see how me hating myself is so unsettling for other Jews.   

In 2014 I produced a statement that some mistakenly saw as an admission of ‘Jew hatred’ and racism. At the time, I engaged in a brief twitter exchange with @OnePoundOne, an Israeli nationalist who frequently urged the murder of Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs.

On one occasion @OnePoundOne insisted  that ‘as a Jew’ I should support his violent anti Arab/Muslim rampage. I replied:

“@OnePoundOne 1. I am not a Jew anymore 2. I indeed despise the Jew in me (whatever is left) 3. I absolutely detest the Jew in you.”

@OnePoundOne’s twitter account was suspended shortly after our exchange for spreading hate speech and advocating violence.

suspended.jpg

Despite the suspension of @OnePoundOne’s account, some examples of his hateful communications survive on the internet in the form of screenshots.

onepound threats.jpg

I have never before publicly addressed the criticism over my answer to @OnePoundOne. Anti-Semites are people who hate Jews for being Jews. Anti-Semites do not accept that Jews can stop being Jews and morph into something else.  My response to @OnePoundOne dismantles this racist doctrine:

1.  I suggest that one can choose to stop being a Jew. In this view, Jewishness is a cultural or religious construct and is not either racially or biologically determined.

2. To the extent I myself retain that culture, I admit that I detest that cultural aspect in myself.

3. Further, I rejected any cultural impetus that may exist in @OnePoundOne’s hateful statements that called for violence against Arabs, Palestinians and Muslims ‘as a Jew’.

But there is a fascinating intellectual exercise to apply here that helps explain my reaction to @OnePoundOne’s vile incitement of violence. Replacing the word ‘Jew’ with ‘Protestant’  in my answer to @OnePoundOne would read as follows: “1. I am not a Protestant anymore 2. I indeed despise the Protestant in me (whatever is left) 3. I absolutely detest the Protestant in you.” While  some might find this offensive, it is not racist as Protestantism is a belief system rather than a racial identification. If we proceed with this exercise and replace the word Jew with a biological category such as skin-colour or race, the statement collapses instantly as ‘I am not  Black anymore’ is a meaningless statement for someone who is Black. Similarly, ‘I am not Caucasian anymore’ is just as silly and hollow. In other words, my answer to @OnePoundOne could never be grasped as a ‘racist’ offensive statement as it defies the idea that Jews are actually a race, as I myself managed to stop being one.

I am afraid to inform my detractors once again, that at least intellectually, I operate as a philosopher. If they want to fight my ideas, they will first have to invest some energy in understanding what I am saying. 

Look at these clueless British students recycling misquotes without verifying their authenticity or their meanings:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYecmT2GhHQ

Final words on the matter

I accept that my deconstruction of Jewish Identity politics upsets some Jews: no one likes to be scrutinized or criticized. But my work is limited to questioning politics and culture. I  have never criticized Jews or anyone else in racial, biological, physiological or ethnic terms. I dig into ideology, politics and culture assuming that these three must be subject to criticism. The fact that I am smeared and defamed for doing so, only suggests to me and others that in the eyes of some self identified Jews, their politics, ideology and culture are beyond criticism. In fact, this is exactly the supremacist view I deconstruct in my work.

I would expect that by now, considering their relentless efforts to destroy me, my detractors would have managed to spot a single incriminating line in my work so they don’t have to keep fabricating quotes and taking words out of context while terrorizing jazz clubs in between. So far they have failed to do so. This raises the assumption that their insane campaign against me, one that reflects very badly on my detractors, suggests that I have something very important to say.

I honestly believe that if my detractors would engage with my writing instead of attempting to burn my books, anti-Semitism wouldn’t be an issue in Britain or anywhere else. Jews would enjoy their lives and live in harmony with their neighbors.  I guess that in the minds of some Zionists crucifying me is the way forward. Some people must be foolish not to see that they turn me into an intellectual martyr, a Jazzus figure.   


My battle for truth and freedom involves  some expensive legal services and security expenses. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

US Returns to Ashes of 1945

by Finian Cunningham

US Vice President Mike Pence used his speech at the Holocaust memorial last week to bang a war drum at Iran. It revealed a deplorable lack of dignity and understanding of the event, despite Pence’s efforts to appear solemn.

But not only that. It showed too how out of touch the United States – at least its political leadership – is with the rest of the world and a growing collective concern among others to ensure international peace.

Maybe that’s why Britain’s Prince Charles appeared to snub Pence, declining to shake his hand while attending the commemoration of the Holocaust and 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Charles warmly greeted other dignitaries, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and France’s Emmanuel Macron. It was curious how he blanked Pence.

But there again, maybe not that curious. Pence and the Trump administration seem to be hellbent on starting a war with Iran. A war that would engulf the entire Middle East and possibly ignite a world conflagration.

Washington’s wanton threats of violence against Iran and its recent assassination of one of Iran’s top military leaders stands as a shocking repudiation of international law and the UN Charter. It’s the kind of conduct more akin to an organized crime syndicate rather than a supposedly democratic state.

The UN Charter was created in 1945 in the aftermath of the Second World War precisely to prevent repetition of the worst conflagration in history and all its barbaric crimes, including the Nazi Holocaust. Over 5o million people died in that war, and nearly half of them belonged to the Soviet Union.

The prevention of war is surely the most onerous responsibility of the UN Security Council. Yet the United States is the one power that routinely ignores international law and the UN Charter to unilaterally launch wars or military interventions. Washington’s threats against Iran are, unfortunately, nothing new. This is standard American practice.

Britain's Prince Charles speaks to U.S. Vice President Mike Pence during the World Holocaust Forum
© REUTERS / RONEN ZVULUN

Snub or No Snub? Netizens Laugh Off Prince Charles’ Explanation After Not Shaking Hands With Mike Pence

When world leaders addressed the Holocaust memorial held in Israel last Wednesday it was obvious – albeit implicitly – from their words that the US has become an isolated rogue state owing to its inveterate belligerence.

Putin, Macron, Prince Charles and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier all invoked the need for collective commitment to international law and peace. They implied that such a commitment was the best way to honour those who were killed in the Holocaust and the Second World War; the surest way to prevent the barbarity of fascist ideology and persecution ever to be repeated.

Those speakers one after another denounced the ideology of demonizing others which fuels hatred and wars. How pertinent is that to the way Washington routinely demonizes other nations and foreign leaders?

In sharp contrast, when the American vice president made his address, his apparent solemnity was contradicted by a blood-curdling call to arms against Iran, which he accused of being the “leading state purveyor of anti-semitism”. Pence urged the whole world “to stand strong against the Islamic Republic of Iran”, spoken as if he was spitting out the words like venom.

There is little doubt that Pence was formulating a rationale for military confrontation with Iran. That has been the consistent policy of the Trump administration over the past three years.

It was no surprise that Pence’s speech was in sync with the usual bellicose rhetoric from Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu towards Iran. But what was arresting was just how out of sync Pence and the Trump administration are with the rest the world.

US Vice President Mike Pence speaking at the fifth World Holocaust Forum, 23 January 2020.
© SPUTNIK / ALEXEY NIKOLSKY

World War II for Dummies? US Vice President Hails Liberators of Auschwitz Death Camp, ‘Forgets’ to Name Them

It was an odious spectacle to see Pence don a somber face as he talked about the victims of the Holocaust, while his own state wages war against any foreign nation whenever and wherever Washington deems. At an event that was supposed to reflect on the horror and evil of war, Pence showed he had no understanding or self-awareness.

That’s what is perplexing about many American politicians. They seem ignorant of history (Pence gave no acknowledgement to the Soviet soldiers who liberated Auschwitz and other death camps); they are consumed by self-righteousness and arrogance like a puritan preacher without an ounce of humanity.

Anyone who reflects on the horror of war would surely be advocating the respect of and adherence to international law, commitment to peace, and the earnest pursuit of dialogue and partnership among nations.

Russia’s Putin has repeatedly called for the members of the UN Security Council to urgently get together in order to guarantee a multilateral commitment to peace. Putin has also repeatedly appealed to the United States to get serious about negotiating renewed arms control treaties. Washington has ignored those latter calls.

Participants in the Jewish event of Holocaust remembrance walk in the former Nazi German World War II death camp of Auschwitz shortly before the start of the annual March of the Living in which young Jews from around the world walk from Auschwitz to Birkenau in memory of the 6 million Holocaust victims, in Oswiecim, Poland, Thursday, May 2, 2019

© AP PHOTO / CZAREK SOKOLOWSKIIf One’s Outraged by Words About Polish Anti-Semitism, One Should Delve Into History – Ex-Polish MP

The American national myth, evolved over recent decades since 1945, views itself as “exceptional” from all other nations. That translates as the US presuming to be “superior” and “above the law that others are bound by”.

Mike Pence’s menacing words and attitude at the Holocaust memorial showed a disturbing and pernicious disconnect with the need for preventing war and genocide. It was a disgraceful dishonouring of victims.

Out of sync with the world, the US has returned to the ashes and lawlessness of 1945.

The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

On Holocaust Memorial Day US Embassy Falsely Claims America Liberated Auschwitz

By Alan Macleod

Source

he United States Embassy in Denmark has apologized for a statement it made earlier this week that incorrectly claimed that it was American troops that liberated the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. In fact, Red Army troops reached its gates on January 27, 1945. “We acknowledge the important contributions of all Allied Forces during WWII and remember the 6 million Jews who perished during the Holocaust,” the correction read.

U.S. Embassy Denmark

@usembdenmark

I går skrev vi ved en fejl, at Auschwitz-Birkenau blev befriet af amerikanske soldater. Det var selvfølgeligt sovjetiske soldater. Vi anerkender alle de allierede styrkers vigtige bidrag under Den Anden Verdenskrig og mindes de 6 millioner jøder, der døde under Holocaust.

U.S. Embassy Denmark

@usembdenmark

Yesterday, we inadvertently wrote that US troops liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau. It was of course liberated by Soviet troops. We acknowledge the important contributions of all Allied Forces during WWII and remember the 6 million Jews who perished during the Holocaust.

The incorrect statement was immediately met with scorn online from those who felt this was another example of Soviet erasure and an insult to the enormous sacrifice the U.S.S.R. made to defeat fascism in Europe. Users replied with pictures of Red Army troops liberating the camp. Those same people would likely be unimpressed at the news that Wikipedia has been removing those same pictures, a fact discovered by Lithuanian journalist Vladimir Vodo. While the encyclopedia’s administrators argued that they might not technically be in the public domain, erasing images of the Russian liberation of Auschwitz on Holocaust Memorial Day is not an optically wise move.

The Soviet Union is responsible for killing about four of every five Nazis during the conflict and suffered around 95 percent of all Allied Army casualties. The scale of their loss was enormous; the current Russian government estimates the Soviet losses at 26.6 million dead – around sixty-three times the total American sacrifice in both Europe and the Pacific. Even comparatively tiny states like Latvia and Lithuania lost a similar number of people as the entire United States. 

This is far from common knowledge in America; a 2015 poll found that just 11 percent of Americans knew that the Soviet Union contributed the most to the defeat of Nazi Germany, with the large majority who answered picking the U.S. as the most important nation. This finding was replicated all over Western Europe, except in the United Kingdom, where Britons incorrectly believed they primarily defeated the Soviet Union.

This, argued Vox’s Dylan Matthews, is part of a “successful 70-year campaign to convince people the USA and not the USSR beat Hitler.” He notes, for instance, that in 1945, 57 percent of French citizens recognized the U.S.S.R. to have contributed the most to the effort to beat Nazi Germany. This, despite the fact that the French had virtually no contact with the Soviet Union, and that both the U.K. and the U.S. fought bitter and protracted wars across most of Northern France. By 2004, however, only 20 percent knew the U.S.S.R. was the most important in Germany’s defeat, with 58 percent choosing America. Decades of Cold War hostilities meant that any sympathetic portrayal of Russians for their suffering was politically inexpedient. Therefore, the 26.6 million dead were consigned to the trashcan of history.

Fear and mistrust of Russia continue to this day as its president Vladimir Putin is widely accused of being the mastermind behind Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory. Generalized anti-Russian xenophobia is common in popular culture in a way that would not be tolerated for other groups. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for instance, claimed that Russians are “genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate” and “gain favor,” while media in 2018 was full of scare stories about Russian anchor babies in the U.S. Despite the fact that Putinism is an expressly anti-communist, neoliberal ideology, commentators feel free to use words like “Russian” and “Soviet” interchangeably, describing senior Putin officials as communists, drawing from a deep well of resentment built up over the past 100 years. The latest Gallup poll found that the majority of Americans see Russia as a “critical threat” and 73 percent see the country unfavorably – a figure three times higher than during the last days of the Cold War.

Located in southern Poland, Auschwitz is the name given to a complex of dozens of concentration and extermination camps where over one million people were exterminated, the majority of them Jews. The incorrect statement was immediately met with scorn online from those who felt this was another example of Soviet erasure and an insult to the enormous sacrifice the U.S.S.R. made to defeat fascism in Europe.Other groups exterminated there, however, included Soviet prisoners of war – a practice only ended by the arrival of the Red Army. All but 92 of the estimated 15,000 Soviets who entered the camp were exterminated. As with their comrades who liberated it, their memory is politically inconvenient for the powerful.

العيسى و”الهولوكوست”.. هكذا يصبح التطبيع مع “إسرائيل” فريضة!

 23 كانون الثاني 19:56

العيسى رفض التعليق على إعلان ترامب القدس عاصمة لـ”إسرائيل”، قائلاً: الرابطة ملتزمة بالسلام وليست هيئة سياسية

عباس الزين

الأمين العام لـ”رابطة العالم الإسلامي” محمد العيسى، هو الشخصية التي يسعى من خلالها ولي العهد محمد بن سلمان، إلى جعل التطبيع مع “إسرائيل” أمراً واقعاً عبر استخدام الذرائع الدينية للعلاقة مع اليهود، وجاءت زيارته إلى معسكر “أوشفيتس” في بولندا ضمن مسارٍ واضح الهدف، بدأ منذ استلامه منصبه.

محمد العيسى، من جديد… منذ سطوع نجمه في السنوات الأخيرة، بالتوازي مع وصول محمد بن سلمان إلى السلطة، كان واضحاً المسار الذي خطّه أمين عام “رابطة العالم الإسلامي”. إبرازه وإعطاؤه هذا الزخم الإعلامي لا يمكن فصله عن المسار السياسي الذي اتبعه بن سلمان، والهدف؟ تهيئة الأرضية للوصول إلى مرحلة “التطبيع” الكامل مع “إسرائيل”.

العيسى الذي كان وزيراً للعدل في الحكومة السعودية عام 2007، يشغل منصب عضو هيئة كبار العلماء منذ 2016، إلى جانب منصب الأمانة العامة لرابطة العالم الإسلامي التي تتخذ من مكة مقراً لها، منذ عام 2017. واظب خلال السنوات الأخيرة على أمرٍ محدّد لا يمكن إلا أن يؤدي إلى فتح باب التطبيع مع “إسرائيل” من خلفية دينية، وتحت ذريعة “حوار الأديان”.

البداية “الرسمية” لهذه المهمة بدأت عام 2017، عندما زار محمد العيسى، في تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر، يرافقه السفير السعودي في فرنسا محمد الإنكاري، أكبر كنيس يهودي في باريس. حينها، أعلنت الصحافة الإسرائيلية الخبر، ووصفتها بـ”الزيارة التاريخية”. وبينما واظب الإعلام الإسرائيلي على التشديد أن العيسى مقرّب من بن سلمان، فإنه ذكر أيضاً أن الزيارة التي تمت بدعوة من الحاخام الأكبر ليهود فرنسا حاييم كورسيي، وحاخام كنيس باريس الكبير موشي صباغ، “مؤشر جديد على دفء العلاقات بين إسرائيل والسعودية”، كما قالت صحيفة “جيروزاليم بوست”.

لم يكتفِ العيسى بالزيارة تلك، بل إن مراسل صحيفة “يديعوت أحرنوت” حاوره على هامش مشاركته في مؤتمر بالأكاديمية الدبلوماسية العالمية في باريس، حيث قال رداً على سؤال عمّا إذا كان “الإرهاب الذي تنفذه مجموعات ومنظمات باسم الإسلام ضد إسرائيل وأهداف يهودية، وتربطه بالصراع الفلسطيني الإسرائيلي، يقع في إطار الإرهاب الذي تعارضه بلاده لأنه يسيء للإسلام”، رد العيسى بأن “أي عمل عنف أو إرهاب يحاول تبرير نفسه بواسطة الدين الإسلامي مرفوض”. 

وتابع: “الإسلام غير مرتبط بالسياسة، وهو ديانة سمحة وتفاهم ومحبة واحترام الآخر”.

ونشرت الرابطة على حسابها في ـ”تويتر”، بتاريخ 17 تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر 2017، صورة لأمينها العام وهو يرعى ندوة بعنوان “حسن الجوار والعيش المشترك” في مدينة ميلوز الفرنسية، بمشاركة الحاخام الصهيوني إلي حيون، وهو حاخام مدينة ميلوز الفرنسية، وعضو في جمعية “الحوار اليهودي-الإسلامي”.رابطة العالم الإسلامي@MWLOrg

معالي الأمين العام يرعى ندوة: “حسن الجوار والعيش المشترك” في مدينة ميلوز الفرنسية، بمشاركة عمدة المدينة، وكبير الرهبان الحاخام إلي حيون، ورئيسة جمعية المحبة الإسلامية المسيحية بيانرس فاسر، وممثل الكنائس فانسون ماري.

عرض الصورة على تويتر
عرض الصورة على تويتر
عرض الصورة على تويتر

١٤٧المعلومات والخصوصية لإعلانات تويتر١٠١ من الأشخاص يتحدثون عن ذلك

بعدها بأيام، وفي تصريحات خاصة أدلى بها العيسى، عقب محاضرة ألقاها في  باريس، قال الأخير ” إن “أي عمل عنف أو إرهاب يحاول التستر وراء دين الإسلام لا مبرّر له على الإطلاق، ولا حتى داخل إسرائيل”، وفق ما ذكرته صحيفة “معاريف” الإسرائيلية، التي اعتبرت أن العيسى ومنذ تعيينه في رئاسة “رابطة العالم الإسلامي” ينشر في العالم “صورة جديدة للإسلام السعودي”.

يذكر في هذا السياق، أن زيارة العيسى إلى باريس حينها، تزامنت مع اللقاء الشهير الذي أجراه موقع “إيلاف” الإخباري السعودي، مع رئيس أركان جيش الاحتلال الإسرائيلي، غادي آيزنكوت، الذي أعلن فيه عن “توافق تام ومصالح مشتركة بين إسرائيل والسعودية”.

وفي 26 كانون الثاني/يناير 2018 كشف روبرت ساتلوف، المدير التنفيذي لـ”معهد واشنطن لسياسات الشرق الأدنى”، عن زيارةٍ قام بها إلى السعودية في كانون الأول/ديسمبر عام 2017. ويذكر ساتولف أنه ترأس وفداً من “الرؤساء العلمانيين لمركز الأبحاث لشؤون السياسة الخارجية” الذي يديره، إلى الرياض. ومن بين كبار المسؤولين الذين التقى بهم خلال زيارته التي استغرقت ثلاثة أيام الأمين العام لـ “رابطة العالم الإسلامي” محمد العيسى.

يتحدث ساتولف عن الترابط الوثيق بين السياسة والدين في المملكة، لتكون مدخلاً لما وصفه بـ”ملاحظة مثيرة للإعجاب” أثارها العيسى. ويقول  إن العائلة المالكة تعتمد على “حماية الأماكن المقدسة في مكة والمدينة كمصادر رئيسية لشرعيتها”. 

ويتابع: “لكن في اجتماعنا أثار العيسى ملاحظة مثيرة للإعجاب. ليس فقط من خلال تأكيده على التزامه الراسخ بالتواصل الديني – وهو أمر غير عادي بالنسبة للسعودية – وتحدّثه باعتزاز عن زيارته الأخيرة إلى كنيس يهودي في باريس، إلّا أنّه رفض أن يلتقط الطُّعم عندما سُئل عن رأيه حول اعتراف الرئيس ترامب بالقدس عاصمة لإسرائيل”. 

كان ساتولف يتوقع أن يبدي العيسى قوته في الجواب، ويَعِظ حول علاقة المسلمين بالقدس ويشجب قرار الرئيس الأمريكي بالاعتراف بسيادة الدولة اليهودية في أي مكان في المدينة، لكن كل هذا لم يحصل. العيسى اكتفى بالقول: “الرابطة ملتزمة بالسلام وليست هيئة سياسية”! حيث وضع هيمنة “إسرائيل” على مدينة القدس أولى القبلتين وثالث الحرمين الشريفين بالنسبة للمسلمين، في سياق سياسي، لا علاقة لـ”رابطة العالم الإسلامي” به.

عندما عاد ساتولف إلى واشنطن راسل العيسى وشكره، وطلب منه إذا ما جاء إلى واشنطن أن يزور المتحف التذكاري لـ “المحرقة” في الولايات المتحدة، ولقاء مديرته سارة بلومفيلد. 

وهذا ما حصل فعلاً، خلافاً لتوقعات ساتولف أيضاً. إذ توجه العيسى بـ رسالة  إلى “المعهد” بذكرى “المحرقة” في 25 كانون الثاني/يناير عام 2018، تبعها في كانون الثاني/ يناير العام 2019  بمقال رأي في صحيفة “واشنطن بوست” أدان فيه “الجرائم البشعة” التي ارتكبها “النازيون”، ولما بات “تقليداً سنوياً” في ذكرى “المحرقة”، وقال  إن “المسلمين حول العالم يتحملون مسؤولية تعلم الدروس من المحرقة”.

وبعدها، توجه العيسى في أيار/ مايو من العام 2019 إلى واشنطن، وزار متحف “تخليد ذكرى المحرقة”، بناءً على دعوة “المعهد”. معهد واشنطن@mahadwash

بيان من الأمين العام لـ #رابطة_العالم_الإسلامي الدكتور #محمد_العيسى في المملكة العربية #السعودية حول ذكرى “الهولوكوست” (“المحرقة اليهودية”) – #اليهود #المسلمون http://washin.st/2BuKJOq 

عرض الصورة على تويتر

٦المعلومات والخصوصية لإعلانات تويترمشاهدة تغريدات معهد واشنطن الأخرى

واستضاف “معهد واشنطن لسياسة الشرق الأدنى” العيسى، خلال تلك الزيارة، حيث تطرّق الأخير في كلمته عن رأيه بـ”السلام مع إسرائيل” قائلاً: “متى حصل هذا الحل، سنذهب سوية لنبارك هذا السلام هناك. سيكون سلاماً شاملاً”. واحتفت صفحة “إسرائيل بالعربية” الرسمية والتابعة للخارجية الإسرائيلية، خلال تلك الفترة، بزيارةٍ أُعلن عنها لوفدٍ يهودي سيتوجه إلى السعودية بناء على دعوة من “رابطة العالم الإسلامي”، في كانون الثاني/يناير العام 2020.إسرائيل بالعربية@IsraelArabic

للمرة الأولى سيزور وفد يهودي المملكة العربية السعودية بناء على دعوة من رابطة العالم الإسلامي حسبما أعلن أمين عام الرابطة الشيخ السعودي محمد بن عبد الكريم العيسى الذي قال إن الزيارة ستقام في يناير/ كانون الثاني 2020.

فيديو مُضمّن

١٬٦٤٩المعلومات والخصوصية لإعلانات تويتر٢٬٨٧٣ من الأشخاص يتحدثون عن ذلك

وخلال زيارة العيسى عقد الأخير اجتماعاً مع جيسون غرينبلات، الذي كان حينها الممثل الخاص للمفاوضات الدولية للبيت الأبيض، والمعني الرئيسي إلى جانب غاريد كوشنير بتنفيذ “صفقة القرن”، حيث ثمّن غرينبلانت خلال اللقاء موقف “رابطة العالم الإسلامي” من إدانة  “الهولوكوست”. 

وتواصلت خطوات “التطبيع” برعاية العيسى تحت ذريعة  الحوار بين الأديان،  وفي أيلول/ سبتمبر العام 2019، استقبل ولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان، وفداً من الرموز الإنجيلية الداعمة “لإسرائيل” يرأسه الكاتب الإسرائيلي جويل روزنبرغ، في ثاني زيارة يقوم بها إلى السعودية. روزنبرغ قال، إنه بحث مع إبن سلمان “قضايا الإرهاب والسلام والحرية الدينية وحقوق الإنسان”.Saudi Embassy@SaudiEmbassyUSA

HRH Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman welcomed @JoelCRosenberg, and his accompanying delegation of Evangelical Christian leaders to Jeddah #SaudiArabia. https://www.saudiembassy.net/news/crown-prince-receives-delegation-evangelical-leaders …

عرض الصورة على تويتر
عرض الصورة على تويتر
عرض الصورة على تويتر

١٦٣المعلومات والخصوصية لإعلانات تويتر١٠٢ من الأشخاص يتحدثون عن ذلك

على هذا النحو، تبدو الزيارة التي قام بها العيسى، خلال الأيام المقبلة، إلى معسكر “أوشفيتس” في بولندا كجزء من إحياء ذكرى “الهولوكوست”، غير مفاجئة وفي سياقها الطبيعي والواضح، ولا تشكّل صدمة من جهة كونها تطبيع مع منظمات وجمعيات صهيونية، تأخذ من “الهولوكوست” غطاءً لها، وذلك استناداً إلى مسارٍ طويل بدأه العيسى منذ استلامه المنصب. مسار إذا ما استمر على وتيرته فإن نهايته ستكون زيارة “كنيس” في مدينة القدس المحتلة، تحت الذريعة ذاتها، “حوار الأديان”.

وفيما لا تزال السعودية توارب، حول طبيعة تلك الممارسات وخلفياتها، وأهدافها الحقيقية، فإن الطرف الإسرائيلي يُظهِر الأمور بشكلٍ أوضح، بدءاً من احتفاء الإعلام الإسرائيلي بخطوات العيسى بشكلٍ مستمر ووضعها في إطار “تطبيع العلاقات السياسية” بذرائع دينية، عبر إعلاء شأن العيسى أحياناً كما فعلت “القناة 12” التي وصفته بـ”رجل الدين المسلم الكبير”، خلال حديثها عن زيارته، وصولاً إلى التعليقات الرسمية التي تصدر عن المستوى السياسي في تل أبيب والتي كان آخرها تصريح  زعيم حزب “أزرق أبيض” الإسرائيلي بيني غانتس، الذي اعتبر زيارة وفد سعودي لمعكسر “أوشفيتس”، إشارة إلى عملية “تغيير مهمة في الشرق الأوسط، وفرصة كبيرة لإسرائيل”.

لا يهم ما تقوله السعودية، وكيف تظهر هذا الأمر، وما تقدمه من ذرائع حول “حوار الأديان” الذي توجّه وبشكلٍ مريب خلال السنوات الماضية باتجاه اليهود حصراً، بقدر ما يهم كيف تنظر “إسرائيل” لهذا الأمر، باعتباره باباً من أبواب تطبيع العلاقات معها، عدا عن رفع الغطاء الديني عن حركات المقاومةـ ضدها، الأمر الذي ظهر في تصريحات العيسى المتكررة بما يخص “العنف داخل إسرائيل”.

لذا، فإن العيسى وبتوجيهٍ من إبن سلمان كما هو حال جميع الإجراءات المشابهة داخل المملكة وخارجها، لم يسعَ فقط إلى إباحة العلاقة مع “إسرائيل” تحت مزاعم دينية و”حسن الجوار”، بل الأهم وفق المفهوم السعودي للدين، هو تحريم المقاومة بعد تجريمها.

واللافت أن خطوات العيسى بهذا الاتجاه، جاءت في الوقت الذي باتت فيه معظم حركات المقاومة ضد “إسرائيل” في العالمين العربي والإسلامي على “لائحة الإرهاب” السعودية. وهذا يوضح المسارين السياسي والديني اللذين تربطهما السعودية بعضهما ببعض تنفيذاً لأجندتها الخاصة.

فيديوات متعلقة

لمتحف إسرائيلي…. رجل أعمال لبناني الأصل يتبرع بمقتنيات هتلر!

رجل أعمال لبناني الأصل يتبرع بمقتنيات هتلر لمتحف إسرائيلي

 الرئيس الإسرائيلي رؤوبين رفلين، يستقبل رجل الأعمال السويسري من أصل لبناني عبد الله شاتيلا، الذي اشترى مقتنيات الزعيم النازي أدولف هتلر، وتبرع بها لمؤسسة “ياد فشيم” لتخليد ذكرى “ضحايا المحرقة”.

تحدث موقع صحيفة “معاريف” عن استقبال الرئيس الإسرائيلي رؤوبين رفلين، اليوم الأحد، رجل الأعمال السويسري من أصل لبناني عبد الله شاتيلا، الذي اشترى مقتنيات الزعيم النازي أدولف هتلر، قبل أسبوعين، ومن ثم تبرّع بها لمؤسسة “ياد فشيم” لتخليد ذكرى “ضحايا المحرقة”.

وقدّم الرئيس رفلين، الشكر لشاتيلا، وقال إن مساهمته “تعتبر مساهمة عظيمة للغاية خصوصاً أنها تأتي في وقت يحاول فيه أشخاص إنكار الحقائق التاريخية”. مشيراً إلى أن “منح هذه المقتنيات لمؤسسة ياد فاشيم، سيساعد على نقل تراث الكارثة التي لحقت بأبناء الشعب اليهودي إلى الجيل الجديد”.

 وأضاف الرئيس الإسرائيلي أن “عبد الله شاتيلا بعث رسالة واضحة للعالم أجمع، تبين كيف يجب أن نكافح عمليات الكراهية والتحريض ضد الآخرين، إنه عمل إنساني حقيقي”.

وإذّ أعرب شاتيلا عن شعوره بانفعال بالغ لزيارة “إسرائيل”، قال إنه “جدّ مسرور لذلك، وإنه لشرف عظيم بالنسبة له أن يتواجد في القدس”، مؤكداً أن هذه “الخطوة تبعث برسالة كبيرة للعالم، مفادها أن محرقة كهذه لن تتكرر ثانية”.

المصدر : وسائل إعلام إسرائيلية

British Historian Norman Davies reveals how the anti-Polish narrative of the Holocaust began

davies art.jpg

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

In my book  The Wandering Who, I delved into the fascinating and well accepted notion that historical thinking is foreign to Judaic thought. It is a recognised  historical fact that Jews didn’t produce any historical texts for almost 2 millennia or more precisely, in between Flavius Josephus (37 CE – circa 100 CE) and Heinrich Graetz (1817[1] –1891). Within the context of Judaic Rabbinical discourse, the religious text effectively replaces historical and temporal thinking. The present and the future are realised and interpreted in the light of the Biblical canonical narratives.  Hitler, Stalin and Corbyn for instance, are reduced into ‘Amalek figures.’ Those western leaders who serve Jewish interests fit nicely with the Judaic notion of the “Sabbos Goy.” From a Judaic perspective, Jewish suffering is regarded as inherent in Jewish destiny and experience, it is implied by the Biblical narrative and it is, to a certain extent, accepted.   

In 19th century Europe, following the rapid process of Jewish emancipation that resulted in vast secularisation and the decline of the hegemony of the Rabbinical authorities, assimilated Jews felt a growing need to understand their past, present and future within a historical context. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand argues, this process involved, inter alia, a lot of imagination: the Jews invented large parts of their past.  This creative tendency was not practiced by Zionists alone, it is actually a crucial part of every Jewish Identitarian narrative. The Zionists invented the notion of a ‘historical right’ to other people’s land, and their so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist foes have been at least as duplicitous. When they preach to us in the name of ‘Jewish universal ethics,’ they are just fibbing, albeit in an institutional manner, as there is no such a thing as ‘Jewish universal ethics.’ Judaism replaces ethics (a mode employing cognitive judgment)  with Mitzvoth (a legalistic apparatus that replaces judgment with obedience to rules). Judaism also replaces universalism with racially oriented tribalism that is largely chauvinist if not supremacist.  

it is crucial to add that inventing one’s past is not solely a Jewish domain. An element of creativity is present for most people and probably all nationalists when they construct a narrative of their pasts. In his book Heidegger and “the Jews,”  French Philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard points out that – history may claim to tell us what really happened but what it does in practice, most of the time, is the opposite. History conceals our collective shame in an aggressive, and institutional manner.

Americans have been hard at work concealing their genocides by peppering their cities with Holocaust museums. The Brits are no different, they have made their Imperial Wars Museum into a holocaust monument. For obvious reasons neither the Americans nor the British Holocaust shrines chronicle the embarrassing fact that both Britain and America closed their gates to Jewish refugees at the time of the Holocaust. History  serves to conceal our shame rather than address it.

But Jewish history goes beyond mere concealment of Jewish shame. Jewish history is a unique intellectual domain that seeks the participation of everyone else in the concealment of Jewish shame. Not only do Jews build their historical narrative in a fashion that prevents Jews or anyone else from the crucial study of what it is that makes the Jewish past into a chain car accident saturated with colossal tragedies, pogroms, expulsions and shoahs, ‘Jewish history’ is a ‘system of thought’ that recruits others to participate and sustain the Jewish concealment apparatus.

The following article is an English translation of a Polish piece that appeared on BritishPoles.Uk a few days ago. It describes how Israeli History Professor Yehuda Bauer “taught young British historians how to describe the Holocaust.” as recounted by British Polish Oxford History Prof. Norman Davies in his recent autobiography. 

As far back as 1974, Bauer, according to Davies, instructed British historians to refer to the Poles as merely “observers” rejecting all references to Polish suffering and ignoring the fact that Poland is the country that suffered most during World War II, losing over 17% of its population. The Israeli ‘historian’ referred to the Poles as “bystanders” despite the  fact that Poles make up more than a quarter and more than any other country of the 26.793 Righteous Among the Nations recognized by Yad Vashem.  More than 50,000 Poles were executed by the Germans solely as  punishment for saving Jews.

Assuming that Prof Davies’ account is true and I have every good reason to believe it is, then what motivated Prof. Bauer to depict the Holocaust and the Poles in such a misleading light? Presumably, truth seeking wasn’t his prime motivation. Even more telling, if Prof. Davies account is accurate,  then it is reasonable to assume that the Israeli historian wasn’t at all interested in uncovering the truth, instead he was investing in the concealment of truth and seeking support for his project from the British historians.

Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power. Similarly, Jewish history, can be seen as the attempt to conceal the fact that Jews actually have a history. Everything that is happening to Jews now, has happened too many times before and will keep repeating itself as long as we are too shy to unveil that which Prof. Bauer attempts (presumably) to conceal. 

Norman Davies reveals how the anti-Polish narrative of the Holocaust began:

Source: https://www.britishpoles.uk/

Poland In@Polandin_com

Norman describes how professor Yehuda taught british historians how to speak about – presenting people as who were not suffering during https://polandin.com/44733436/british-historian-unveils-how-antipolish-holocaust-narrative-was-initiated 

Embedded video

152 people are talking about this
Norman Davies described in his autobiography how an Israeli historian instructed British scholars to classify Poles as “observers” during the Holocaust.

80-year-old historian Norman Davies described in his recently published 800-page autobiography the way Professor Yehuda Bauer taught young British historians how to describe the Holocaust. In 1974, Prof. Bauer met with over 30 historians at the Israeli embassy in London and instructed them to use the “perpetrators-victims-observers” divisions to describe those involved in the Holocaust.  The term ‘observers’ was reserved for Poles. All references to the fact that Polish citizens were also victims during World War II were rejected.

“It was a closed meeting for professional historians. Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli historian, was the main speaker. They were to be workshops on teaching about the Holocaust, and the beginning of a large campaign promoting knowledge about the Holocaust in the world.The diagram prof. Bauer presented was clear: former perpetrators – Nazis (not Germans), victims – only Jews, and witnesses – Poles, “ said Professor Davies in Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

 “Professor Bauer clearly outlines the historical pattern. It was based on the fact that during the war, in Poland, because it all took place in Poland, there were performers, there were victims and there were those who looked at it all passively, the so-called “Bystanders”. The performers are Nazis …”   said Davies.

The British historian emphasized that the word “Germany” was never used, only “Nazis” or “Nazis”.

Professor Davies said that Poles were presented only as observers and one is not allowed to mention Polish victims and suffering: “The probable result of this meeting was to show that Poland was historically the center of anti-Semitism and describing Poles as anti-Semites was justified. I said: I’m sorry, my father-in-law, a Pole, he was in two concentration camps during the Holocaust (…) I was talking about the father-in-law who survived Dachau and Mauthausen. I was shouted down. I heard: “Sit down!” And “Polonofil!”. 

According to prof. Davies, in the ’70s and’ 80s Poland’s role in the scheme was as an “observer”, and that became the dominant narrative. “Unfortunately, this pattern was adopted in the West not only at universities, but as common knowledge and dominates the narrative of World War II, ” said Norman Davies.

The Oxford historian also described how he was refused work at Stanford University under unclear circumstances after the selection procedure was completed. After completing all formalities, a university official contacted him and said that he would not get a job.” After a few weeks, I was told that the matter concerned Jewish issues, namely my writing about Polish-Jewish relations,” said Davies.

Norman Davies, born in 1939 in Bolton, is the author of several books on the history of Europe and Poland, the most famous of which is “God’s Games”, first published in 1981.

From the editor:

Poland is the country that, in proportion to its population, suffered most during World War II.  We lost over 17% of our citizens – about 6 million, including up to three million Polish Jews murdered by Germans. Poland is still demanding compensation from Germany for these terrible losses.

Poles constitute the largest national group among the Righteous Among the Nations recognized by Yad Vashem. So far 26,793 people have been commemorated. Over 25% of them were Polish. You can read more on the official Yad Vashem website. We must remember that during the German occupation of Poland many Poles risked their lives – and their families – saving Jews from Germany. To date, 6992 Poles, mostly Christians, have been honored by the State of Israel with the title of ‘Righteous Among the Nations.’ This is more than from any other nation (only 616 in Germany). The entire list is available here.Given the harsh punishment that threatened the rescuers, this figure is impressive. Polish citizens lived in the most extreme conditions in all of German occupied-Europe. Occupied Poland was the only territory where the Germans enacted the law that all help for Jews would be punished by the death of the rescuer and his entire family. At least 50,000 Poles were executed by the Germans solely as a punishment for saving Jews.


My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal and security services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me and others.

Donate

%d bloggers like this: