The Blood of the Saints, Pure Evil, and Zionist Preferences


Ruins left by terrorists at the Greek Catholic Church of Our Lady in the Syrian town of Yabroud in March of 2014

ISIS Sends Parents Rape Video
Plus Body Parts of Their Kidnapped Daughters

“In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State.”

–Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, as quoted January 20, 2016 in Newsweek

“Al-Qaida control over Syria would be preferable to a victory by Assad over the rebels.”

–Senior Israeli officials, quoted by Israel Hayom in 2013

“The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran…We understand that they are pretty bad guys…still, the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.”

–Michael Oren, in 2013 interview with the Jerusalem Post

By Richard Edmondson

Some people have a hard time grasping the concept of “pure evil.” It has such a surreal tendency to boggle the mind that for most people, the notions of “purity” and “evil” are seen as opposites, and the fact that you can combine the two together, and in so doing derive an extract, or a concentrate, so hideous it gives rise to primordial fears in the heart as well as a sickening feeling in the gut–well, this is something that busy, workaday people seldom contemplate.

So perhaps that’s how we might explain the comments above by Israeli officials in their preferential views of ISIS–is that these officials simply haven’t grasped the concept of pure evil.

The other possible explanation, of course, is that they have grasped it all too well.

Events testified to at a recent conference on the plight of Christians in the Middle East would suggest that some of those giving testimony have seen pure evil–up close and personal.


Jacqueline Isaac (L) with Samia Sleman, a Yazidi girl who at the age of 13 was kidnapped and raped by ISIS terrorists


And I would think that their views on the matter might be slightly different from those expressed by the leaders of the Jewish state.

“I was in captivity for six months and twelve days, in the hands of the Islamic State,” said fifteen-year-old Samia Sleman during the #WeAreN2016 international conference, held April 27-30 in New York. Sleman is a Yazidi girl who was kidnapped by ISIS from her village of Hardan, Iraq in August of 2014. She was thirteen years old at the time.

“They raped and violated myself and the girls that were with me in captivity. There were thousands of Yazidi girls in captivity in this headquarters, then they separated us into two different groups,” she said, adding that girls as young as seven and eight years were raped, while older women, along with large numbers of Yazidi men, were killed.

The #WeAreN2016 conference was sponsored jointly by In Defense of Christians, CitizenGo, and the Vatican’s permanent mission to the United Nations. The “N” in the name stands for the Arabic letter “nun,” often spray painted on the homes of Christians by ISIS terrorists when they capture an area. The letter is a reference to “Nazarenes,” and the people in such homes usually are killed or forced to pay a special tax known as the Jizya.

A report on the conference by the Catholic News Agency described the testimonies given as “graphic, brutal and raw.” And perhaps the rawest of all was that of California Attorney Jacqueline Isaac, who works with Roads to Success, a nonprofit organization providing aid to Middle Eastern refugees, and who spoke of the calamity that overtook one family in particular.

“They got a knock on their door. They opened that door and they found plastic, black bags. The bags had the body parts of their daughters…and a video–a video of their daughters being raped and tortured,” Isaac said. “They’re parents. They’re just like us. They’re parents. They’re mothers, they’re fathers, these are not numbers.”

Another story told concerned that of a Christian woman in Mosul whose daughter died when the family home was torched by ISIS, while three Christian clergy, Monsignor Jean-Clément Jeanbart, Father Rodrigo Miranda, and Sister María Guadalupe, spoke of ghastly events in Syria, especially in the city of Aleppo.

“We have seen things you cannot understand,” said Jeanbart. “We have seen people killed because they were Christians. We have seen bishops abducted, priests abducted–myself I have been three times in danger of death, two times in my archbishopric, one on my way to Beirut.”

But perhaps the most powerful presentation of all was that given by Sister María, who discussed not only the agony of the people of Aleppo, but also the outright fictions about the conflict pedaled by the media. Her talk is one of the most engaging and riveting  I have seen in recent memory, and what it reveals about the courage and resilience of Aleppo’s Christian martyrs is quite stunning.

It’s interesting that Michael Oren, who formerly served as Israeli ambassador to the US, would express such concern over what he refers to as a “strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut.” Oren is of course referring to the governments of Iran and Syria and to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I’m sure Israeli intelligence is well aware–and probably even Michael Oren himself knows this as well–that Christians in the Middle East have nothing to fear from either the Syrian or Iranian governments, and I’m guessing they equally are aware that Hezbollah has even forged a political alliance with a Maronite Christian party in Lebanon.

In fact, when I visited Beirut in 2014, I saw the St. Joseph Church, located right in the heart of the Hezbollah neighborhood of Haret Hreik–and I saw no visible sign the church had been vandalized. It was well maintained, looking just as it does in this photo:


No surprise, then, that Hezbollah issued a statement in 2014 denouncing crimes against religious sites–a statement that of course received no coverage in the mainstream media.

Besides posing no threat to Christians, the governments of Syria and Iran and Hezbolla, the “strategic arc” Michael Oren is so paranoid over, have, in combination with Russian air support, done the most by far to defeat ISIS–morethan all 59 countries making up the US-led coalition combined.

In addition to describing the attempts on his life, Jeanbart also talked about the Syrian government of Bashar Assad, defining it as “pluralistic” and “nonconfessional”–describing it as well as a government that had been in need of some changes and reforms, but insisting that these changes could have been achieved peacefully through the political system.

“Changing a few things, mending the Constitution, changing the government–and everyone would have been okay,” he said. “Why did they do all this war to destroy everything in Syria?”

It is an excellent question. Why did they? Another excellent question is why, instead of the present government in Syria, Israeli officials would prefer to see a Middle Eastern nation bordering their own state run by a bunch of blood thirsty maniacs–maniacs with a fondness for dismembering Christian children, and stuffing their body parts in plastic bags, and leaving them on the doorsteps of their families. It almost sounds like an anti-Semitic “blood libel,” doesn’t it? In fact, if you were to hear such a statement made about Israeli leaders in another context you’d likely leap to the conclusion that that must surely be what it is.

 photo mdtrtnetanterrst_zpswdr70kxg.jpg

But it does appear as if this is what they would prefer. Moreover, in addition to the statements quoted above, we’ve had a number of reports of terrorists being treated in Israeli hospitals, while the UN has released reportsdocumenting contacts between Israeli forces and Syrian armed opposition groups in which the Israelis were observed providing assistance to the militants. The reports were compiled by the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.

“UNDOF sporadically observed armed members of the opposition interacting with IDF across the ceasefire line in the vicinity of United Nations position 85,” said one of them.

A couple of questions here are worth asking:

1. Is Israeli intelligence convinced that such things as “moderate rebels” actually in exist in Syria? If not, then,

2. Have the Israelis intentionally provided assistance, including weapons, to Syrian armed groups, and have they done this knowing the weapons would end up in the hands of ISIS?

Numerous reports have appeared in the past year or so of so-called “moderate rebels” defecting over to Al-Nusra or ISIS and taking their US-supplied weapons with them. In fact, the phenomenon has been discussed in a couple of recent articles.

“While Washington is pouring billions of US taxpayer dollars into various training and arming programs in the Middle East and Central Asia, the US-backed fighters regularly defect to Islamists – Daesh, al-Qaeda, Taliban – taking their weapons and invaluable knowledge to ‘the dark side,’” comments Gordon Duff in a May 5 article published at Veterans Today.

The New Eastern Outlook also published a commentary on the issue, written by Martin Berger, who speculates that the defections are in reality a “planned event.” The idea, says Berger, is that those who’ve undergone US training are then able to pass their knowledge on to the members of the respective terrorist organizations “at a time when Washington was unable to train them openly.”

It’s not an altogether implausible theory. As Berger notes, last August it was revealed that the Pentagon had spent $42 million on two months of training for a group of moderates, half of whom were “immediately” captured by Al-Nusra and agreed to defect.

The only idea that’s farfetched is that a ragtag group of clueless (or maybe diabolical) misfits could arise from out of nowhere, wreak havoc upon the cradle of civilization, flood the Internet with slickly-produced videos…all with no backing or support whatever from any government, and with the intent of killing every “infidel” they can get their hands on but without launching an attack on Israel.

It would seem that these ever-buzzing, ever-replenished minions (of whomever) have a decided predilection for the blood of saints.

Zionist Desperation and the Coming Societal Pivot


By Richard Edmondson

We are approaching a pivotal time in America. With the aging of the older generation–that is to say those who grew up prior to the age of the Internet–the percentage of the population relying mainly upon mainstream media for its news will slowly diminish. A younger generation, consisting of those accustomed to getting most of their news and information off the Internet, will gradually begin to outnumber them.

What this means in practical terms is that Israel and its supporters will find it increasingly harder to dominate mainstream political discourse.

If we take 1990 as the base year or starting point of the information age, those who today are 26 years of age or younger will have grown up in households where computers, for the most part, are/were as commonplace as were TV sets in the 1960s.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, America’s population at the time of the last census, in 2010, stood at 308,745,538. Those aged 29 or younger comprised 125,955,404, or roughly 40.8% of the population. And that was in 2010. Today the US population is estimated at some 323,000,000–meaning those in the post-1990 age group are likely to make up an even higher percentage of the population. At some point in the near future, their numbers are going to top the 50% mark. That this has been discussed with a sense of gravity by Israeli lobbyists and strategists is almost certain.

Certainly we have seen a proliferation of disinformation websites, but truth has a way of resonating in a way that lies do not–and even when people don’t immediately recognize it as truth per se, the resonance is still there. What the Internet offers, then, is a means by which truth can be viewed on an equal footing with lies, much as it once was in the centuries before mass media began to play such a dominant role in society. And this is obviously having its impact upon the public.

According to a poll conducted last year, 70 percent of Americans disagree with the statement that the media “tries to report the news without bias.” The poll was conducted by the Newseum Institute, which found that trust in the media had dropped by 17 percentage points from a similar poll conducted just the year previous, and by 22 points since 2013. “In fact, the 24% who now say the media try to report news without bias is the lowest since we began asking this question in 2004,” the study states. Perhaps most significant of all, confidence in the media was lowest among those ages 18 to 29–only 7 percent.

A sense of desperation clearly is overtaking Israel and its supporters in the West these days. This is most visible in the multitude of attacks we have seen recently on the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, or BDS movement. And there are indications now that the Jewish state may be about to carry these attacks to a higher level.

According to a report here, Israel will pour $26 million this year into covert cyber operations aimed at combating BDS, with Israeli tech companies planning to introduce, among other things, “sly algorithms to restrict these online activists circle of influence.” The initiative will be accompanied simultaneously with distribution of a flood of “content that puts a positive face on Israel,” a nonprofit called Firewall Israel being the main spearhead of this latter. Presumably Israel’s already-considerable force of paid Internet trolls is about to be increased–perhaps substantially. Firewall Israel, by the way, is sponsored by the Israeli think tank, the Reut Institute.

“The delegitimization challenge and the BDS Movement are global and require a global response,” Reut asserts on its website. The site goes on to add:

Victory will be achieved when there is a political firewall around Israel and the right of the Jewish People to self-determination, meaning that delegitimization of Israel brings with it a heavy political, societal, and personal price due to its being seen and framed as an act of prejudice and anti-Semitism. Because of its anti-Semitic foundations, delegitimization cannot be eliminated, but it can be contained and kept at bay. As mentioned, because of the network architecture of the BDS Movement, there is no silver bullet against it, and victory will be achieved incrementally through countless of small wins.

In other words, BDS will be “framed” as anti-Semitic, a tour de force that will be achieved through cyber attacks as well as mainstream media power, with BDS supporters paying a heavy “personal price” by result. The final victory, Reut believes, will be achieved not all at once but through “countless small wins” racked up by the Zionists, wins that will erect a “political firewall” around the apartheid paradise, making it immune or insulated from global criticism.

That’s the theory at any rate. How it all plays out in reality remains to be seen, but clearly new BDS battles are cropping up virtually everyday. One of these is a movement at Vassar College, whose student body association, the VSA, just this past Sunday voted to approve a resolution expressing support for the BDS movement. The resolution was accompanied by an amendment that would also have prohibited purchases from 11 companies that profit from or explicitly support the occupation. While the resolution itself passed by a wide majority, 15 to 7, the amendment, which needed a two-thirds majority to pass, failed by a vote of 12 in favor to 10 opposed. Were you to take a wild guess that the amendment’s failure was due to pressure by the college administration, you would be right.

“The VSA could stand to lose all funding if the student body votes to pass the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Amendment, the center of an ongoing campus-wide debate,” the student newspaper reported on March 5, one day before the scheduled vote.

The article reports on a meeting between the college president and the VSA’s Executive Board, with members of the latter being specifically warned of the cutoff in funding. After the meeting, the president and one of the college deans issued a joint statement clarifying their position on the matter.

“All along, we have said that the VSA has the right to endorse the BDS proposal, given our commitment to free speech.  But the college cannot use its resources in support of a boycott of companies,” they wrote. “Were the VSA to adopt the amendment currently proposing such a policy, the college would have to intervene in some way.”

Vassar College is located in Poughkeepsie, New York. Last year in June, the New York State Legislature passed an anti-BDS measure, and then in November asecond measure, creating in effect a blacklist of BDS supporters, was also introduced and is now in committee. The language of the measure passed in June is Orwellian, citing BDS– rather than Israel’s occupation–as being “damaging to the causes of peace, justice, equality, democracy, and human rights for all peoples in the Middle East.” And similar measures are making their way through legislatures in other states as well.

Obviously, the Vassar College administration has seen the writing on the wall, but at the same time, Vassar faculty members are summoning the courage to push back in a show of support for the BDS movement and the vote taken by the VSA. Forty-one of them have signed onto a statement of support that reads in part, “We emphatically condemn any form of intimidation tactics from all individuals or parties who have threatened students supporting BDS or any other form of conscientious objection.”

While BDS quite obviously is high on the Zionist list of priorities, what’s also emerging now is a drive to clamp down on any criticism at all of Israel or voicing of support for Palestinian rights–and colleges and universities dependent upon wealthy private donors seem especially vulnerable to this.

A case in point is Harvard Law School, which recently saw $250,000 yanked by a funder who took exception to a panel discussion entitled “The Palestine Exception to Free Speech: A Movement Under Attack,” sponsored by the campus Justice for Palestine group. The program reportedly began with a “3-minute video of students and professors discussing how they were censored, punished or falsely accused of anti-Semitism for taking a principled stance for Palestinian rights.”

But it isn’t only speech that can arouse Zionist ire. The public display of a piece of art can also result in loss of funding. Such happened at York University in Toronto when Canadian TV and film  industry executive Paul Bronfman took exception to a painting hanging in the university’s student center. The painting depicts a Palestinian holding rocks in his hand as an Israeli bulldozer is about to destroy an olive tree.


The text at the bottom of the painting features the words “justice” and “peace” written in various languages. Bronfman complained about the artwork to the university’s president, and, after failing to win a commitment to have it removed, accused the school of “allowing hate propaganda to be displayed” and pulled all assistance to its Cinema and Media Arts department.

“The upshot is that if that poster is not gone by the end of day today,” fumed the media mogul, “then William F. White (Bronfman’s film company) is out of York. York is going to lose thousands of dollars of television production equipment used for emerging student filmmakers…”

But much like at Vassar, the faculty at York has come out in favor of freedom of expression, noting–in a statement signed by 91 full-time faculty and nine retired faculty–that the painting depicts “one artist’s response to the ongoing dispossession of Palestinians under Israeli occupation and the feeling that there is no end in sight.”

Roger Waters has also waded into the controversy with an open letter sent to the York University Graduate Students Association in which the musician accuses Bronfman of “trying to use his economic muscle” to have the painting removed. He also observes:

 The figure in the foreground appears to be a protester considering throwing a stone or stones at a bulldozer about to destroy an olive tree. The protester may be Palestinian. If the scene depicted is anywhere in the territories occupied since 1967, this person has a legal and moral right, under the terms of article 4 of the Geneva conventions to resist the occupation of his homeland.

As may be expected, a concerted effort appears underway in some media outlets to exact the aforementioned “heavy political, societal, and personal price” upon York, with the Toronto Sun, for one, publishing charges that the university “has  been infiltrated with anti-Semitism” and has become one of the “most hostile campuses” in North America.

But in the attack on academic freedom, universities aren’t the only entities being hit with smear campaigns. Individual professors are also being singled out. Attacks on professors who criticize Israel of course are not new. Steven Salaita lost his job at the University of Illinois after posting tweets against Israel’s Gaza onslaught in the summer of 2014, and other professors have faced similar repercussions over the years. But what seems to be emerging now is an intensification of the character assaults, with Jewish and mainstream media ganging up en masse on targeted academics.

One such academic is Oberlin College Professor Joy Karega, who, like Salaita, has taken heat over social media postings. But the hostilities directed at Karega have incorporated a level of volume and viciousness not formerly seen in the Salaita case. This in part is because Karega’s criticisms of Israel have been stronger. She has accused the Zionist state of being behind 9/11. She has also discussed the Rothschild banking empire, depicted ISIS as a CIA/Mossad front group, suggested the Charlie Hebdo attack was a false flag, and she has even, courageously, taken on the issue of Zionist control of the mainstream media.

But her comments on 9/11 are probably the ones that have set off the most alarm bells, or at least seem to be among the most consistently cited. Accusations that her views are “anti-Semitic and abhorrent” have been aired by the New York Times, while Fox News posted an article referring to her, in the headline no less, as a “crackpot prof.” The Washington Post, Slate Magazine, the Times of Israel, and others have also piled on.

Karega has her defenders, however, and one of them is Kevin Barrett, author of the book We Are Not Charlie Hebdo. In two articles published at Veterans Today (see here and here ) Barrett accused the Oberlin professor’s detractors of hurling ad hominem insults at her rather than “using logic and evidence.” In one article he particularly took to task the Jewish newspaper, The Forward, which published a singularly virulent attack piece entitled, “Inside the Twisted Anti-Semitic Mind of Oberlin Professor Joy Karega.” The piece quotes an Oberlin alumna who says, patronizingly, that she thought Karega had perhaps expressed her views out of “ignorance” and that maybe she was “not educated on the history of anti-Semitism.” Barrett’s response was that The Forward article itself “drips” with a certain amount of  “implicitly racist condescension toward proud African-American intellectual Joy Karega.”

The piece also accuses Karega of spreading “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories,” which leads us to wonder: Is it really possible The Forward’s writers haven’t heard of the 5 dancing Israelis or that their virgin eyes never saw a controlled demolition video on the Internet? Is it conceivable their suspicions were not aroused in the slightest by Larry Silverstein’s $4.5 billion pay-out bonanza on a property filled with asbestos and worth not nearly what it was insured for? If so, then the editorial staff at The Forward must surely be among the most credulously uninformed in the province of professional journalism.

Barrett also sent an email to a number of recipients at Oberlin, including the president and key faculty and administrators, defending Karega and offering to meet any one or more of her slanderers in an on-campus debate on “these critically important issues.” The email was sent February 29. Barrett says he still has not received a response. His defense of the embattled professor has, however, led to an attack–on both him and Veterans Today–in a Jewish media outlet, The Tower Magazine.

“Kevin Barrett, a writer for Veterans Today, a website that prominently features anti-Israel conspiracy theories, offered his support for Karega and her 9/11 theories last week,” Tower said in an article that makes no mention of Barrett’s debate challenge but which attempts to link him to “the neo-Nazi website Stormfront.”

And so the ad hominem attacks flow like lava down the side of a spewing volcano while the Zionist defamers and detractors don surgical masks to avoid any and all dangerous contact with “logic and evidence.” Meanwhile the societal pivot draws closer.

Creating a “firewall” around Israel in effect means a concerted assault upon free speech, or at least upon the freedom to speak freely, if we might phrase it that way. It means making sure a “heavy personal price” is paid by anyone who criticizes Israel.  As Voltaire said, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you’re not allowed to criticize,” and as more and more Americans learn who they’re not allowed to criticize (many of course already know), the inevitable result will be an increasing spread of “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” about Jewish power.  Has the Reut Institute thought of this? Or was that maybe the general ideal all along?

At any rate, by publicly aligning themselves with politicians widely viewed as corrupt, Israel is probably speeding up the process of its own “delegitimization.” What after all is the net effect when Americans watch their Congress members routinely expressing their fervent support for Israel, extolling its putative “shared democratic values”–the same Congress members who day after day go on capitulating to Wall Street and other big-moneyed interests? Does this result in Israel’s gaining support among the public…or losing it? I would say probably more of the latter. And the fact that the very same state–which people like Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton voice their adoration for–engages in relentless war crimes and extrajudicial executions while spitting on international law with impunity only serves to aggravate the situation even further.

Yet in spite of all this, Israeli strategists somehow believe, or at least are hoping against hope, they can put a “firewall” around the Jewish state by attacking BDS, flooding the Internet with “content that puts a positive face on Israel,” and exacting a “heavy personal price” from outspoken critics like Karega. It is either, a) a naive hope, or, b) a vastly overblown confidence in the extent and reach of their own power.

Or maybe it’s a little of both. Yes, they may achieve some “small wins” in the short term. But one fact cannot be hidden, no matter how much hasbara you try to bury it under, and that is that Israel stole the land upon which its state was founded in 1948. And not only did it not pay reparations to the land’s rightful owners, but it has gone on stealing more and more from them, bit by bit, piece by piece, settlement by settlement, up until this very day. And if support for Palestine is growing, it probably, at least in part, has to do with the fact that most of us have little trouble imagining a scenario in which we, ourselves, could be forced out of our homes and end up in the streets homeless.

As for the allegations about 9/11, the evidence that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and that one of them never was even hit by an airplane, is irrefutable, and the more people become aware of this (which is happening because of the Internet), the harder it’s going to be for Israel to keep the lid on everything. And the more stridently and vociferously the media gang up to attack scholars and academics for simply talking about the matter, the more  it’s ultimately going to serve only to raise public consciousness even further.

Perhaps it’s time for Israel’s supporters to take some anti-anxiety medication and to start looking at reality. And maybe, too, they should keep in mind the words of P.T. Barnum: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time.”

Dunk on Hate and Mad at the World

 photo isrstlrs_zpsun5hjsdt.jpg

Israel’s Diplomatic Wars of Aggression

By Richard Edmondson

Israel these days seems to be increasingly at odds with a good portion of the rest of the world. In just the past few months it has quarreled with:

  • Spain over arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu and six other Israeli officials for the 2010 attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla;
  • Sweden over comments by its foreign minister who has called for an investigation into extrajudicial executions of Palestinians;
  • college campus student groups supporting the BDS movement;
  • academic associations who have issued calls for academic boycotts of Israeli universities;
  • Brazil over its refusal to recognize an Israeli ambassador who hails from the right-wing Israeli settler movement;
  • The EU over labeling of products from Israeli settlements.
  • The UN over Ban Ki-moon’s recent criticism of the settlements

And really, if truth be known, Israel is probably not too happy just now with Italy either, which recently received Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on a state visit, resulting in a number of agreements between the two countries’ energy sectors as well as cooperation on a future high-speed rail project. Naor Gilon, the Israeli ambassador to Italy, complained that Rouhani was being treated like “the king of the world.”

 photo zameret_zps9e6e0zua.jpg

Zvi Zameret accuses Wallström of ‘ignorance and arrogance’ and suggests she might meet a violent end

War with Sweden

All in all, Gilon’s comments would have to be viewed as rather tame, however–at least by comparison. For some of the statements issuing from Israelis now, particularly those aimed at Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström, are positively chilling in their level of malice expressed, and frankly it might behoove the Swedish official to consider hiring a bodyguard at this point, if she hasn’t already done so.

As I noted in an article five days ago, Wallström is now regarded in Israel as “public enemy number 1” (the Jerusalem Post’s words, not mine) because of remarks she has made critical of Israel, including a recent call for an investigation into extrajudicial killings of Palestinians.

Now it seems there may be those in Israel hankering for the foreign minister’s blood–literally. If you haven’t read my article, Swedish Media Target Country’s Foreign Minister Following Her Remarks on Israel, I suggest you do so as it will place what follows into greater perspective. One day after posting that article, I became aware of two other articles, one by blogger Richard Silverstein and the other by Jonathan Ofir and posted at Mondoweiss, both of which discuss what appears to have been a scarcely veiled threat on Wallström’s life by a former Israeli official.

The comment was made by Zvi Zameret, a former official in the Israeli Ministry of Education, in an op-ed piece he wrote for an Israeli newspaper owned by Nevada casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. In the article, Zameret waxes lyrical on the 1948 assassination of Swedish diplomat Folke Bernadotte, and then goes on to suggest that Wallström might meet a similar fate. Here is a bit from Silverstein’s commentary on the matter:

Zvi Zameret, the former director for instruction for the Israeli education ministry has written an op-ed in Makor Rishon, Sheldon Adelson’s pro-settler newspaper, praising the 1948 assassination of UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte by Yitzhak Shamir’s Lehi gang. Zameret accuses Bernadotte of being an anti-Semite and claims that his views originated in a Swedish society that was suffused with this perspective.  He claims that ridding the world of the Swedish Count was necessary to protect Israel’s new existence.

He wends his way through a long historical discourse involving material already well-known related to Bernadotte’s proposals, which were rejected by Arabs and Jews alike.  Then he brings us up to the present day by alleging that remarks of the current Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallstrom, demanding that Israel be held accountable for the 160 Palestinians killed over the past two months in the latest Intifada, stem from the same well of Swedish anti-Semitism.

Silverstein says Zameret “hints that Wallström herself should share a similar fate to Bernadotte” and then gives us a direct quote from his article as per its English translation:

“What do the things I have mentioned attest about Bernadotte? [They indicate] covert anti-Semitism, ignorance and arrogance, collaboration with senior elements in Israel [Hebrew University President Judah Magnes] and interests that play a decisive role. Has anything changed in the Swedish DNA in the decades following Bernadotte’s death? Nothing has changed.

The Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallstrom, in the covert anti-Semitism which characterizes her, along with her ignorance and arrogance, and anticipation of the interests of her future Muslim voters–she too is attempting to battle against the basic foundation of the State of Israel.  I am certain that her intentions will be defeated, just as were those of the disreputable Count Bernadotte.

 photo bernadotte_zpsk09izvza.jpg

Count Folke Bernadotte

Bernadotte was assassinated by Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang, the same Jewish terrorist group that carried out the Deir Yassin massacre. Zameret’s glorification of his murder doesn’t seem entirely lucid or rational–during World War II Bernadottenegotiated the release of 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps, including a large number of Jews. After the war, he became the UN Security Council’s unanimous choice, in a vote on May 20, 1948, to try and mediate a settlement in the Palestine-Israeli conflict.

His murder took place September 17, 1948, carried out by a four-man team of assassins. The Stern Gang had been around since 1940. Its stated goal was to terminate the British mandate in Palestine and set up  a “new totalitarian Hebrew republic,” and one of its members, Yithak Shamir, ended up becoming an Israeli prime minister. It was Shamir, in fact, who ordered Bernadotte’s assassination. The man who actually pulled the trigger, Yehoshau Cohen, later became a close confidante of David Ben Gurion and was never charged in the case.

 photo margotwals_zpshh2ekqnc.jpg

Margot Wallström

In October of 2014, shortly after Wallström took over as foreign minister, Sweden became one of the first Western countries to recognize Palestinian statehood. Wallström called it “an important step that confirms the Palestinians’ right to self-determination”  and added that “We hope that this will show the way for others.”

In November of last year, shortly after the Paris terror attacks, Wallström suggested that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians could be helping to fuel terrorism. She followed that up with a comment in December about Israeli “extrajudicial executions,” and this month called for an investigation of Israel.

“Whether Zameret advocates Wallstrom’s demise explicitly or implicitly is hardly important,” comments Silverstein. “Even if you accept the argument that he isn’t explicit, clearly the reason Bernadotte failed in his mission is that Jewish terrorists assassinated him.  When you say you wish her intentions to be defeatedjust as his were, the line between murder and political defeat becomes exceedingly murky.”

Boycott Sweden! say Israeli Mayors

But of course it isn’t just Zameret. Lots of people in Israel despise Wallström and have “vociferously attacked her contentious words,” as an article here puts it. And this apparently applies to a good many Israeli officials. The same article goes on to give us the low-down on a “boycott movement” launched by 15 Israeli mayors and aimed at Sweden. The mayors were planning to attend a conference in the Scandinavian country in March, but recently announced they have cancelled, while former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has also called for a boycott of Ikea.

War With Spain

In November of last year, a Spanish judge issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and six other officials in connection with Israel’s 2010 raid on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, a violent episode in international waters which resulted in the deaths of 10 people.

The warrants were issued by Judge Jose de la Mata, and in  effect meant that should any of the seven officials set foot on Spanish soil they would be subject to arrest.

“Spain is just the latest member of the international community to accuse Israel of war crimes and pursue Israeli officials over the affair,” the Jerusalem Postreported at the time. And that is indeed correct. Both South Africa and Turkey had previously issued similar warrants.

Predictably, the Israeli government expressed hostility and outrage.

“We consider it to be a provocation,” said an Israeli foreign ministry spokesperson. “We are working with the Spanish authorities to get it cancelled. We hope it will be over soon.”

What do you suppose the words “working with Spanish authorities” might imply? Did it include issuing threats? Whatever it was, it took only two months to accomplish. The arrest warrants were in fact cancelled, according to a report published January 13 by the Adelson-owned Israel Hayom newspaper.

War with Brazil

Brazil, on the other hand, seems to be showing a little more resilience. According to a report here, “Israel and Brazil remain at loggerheads five months after Brazil refused to recognize Israel’s appointment of a right-wing settler as its next envoy to the South American country.”

“Settlers are Zionist agents that the world cannot accept, they steal others’ land, they are an insult to Brazil, to the government, and to millions of Brazilians with roots in the Arab world,” said Brazilian parliament member Carlos Maron.

Maron isn’t alone. A group of 40 retired Brazilian diplomats signed a statementagainst the appointment of Dani Dayan, who lives in the Israeli settlement of Ma’ale Shomron, in the Occupied West Bank. Dayan is an advocate of the settler movement and has made no secret of his views, having widely published articles in the mainstream media, including the New York Times.

“We consider it unacceptable that the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has publicly announced the name of the person he intended to appoint as his country’s new Ambassador to Brazil before submitting it, in accordance to the norm, to our Government,” said the diplomats. The announcement of Dayan’s appointment was reportedly posted initially on Twitter rather than being communicated directly to the Brazilian government.

The statement continues:

This rupture with a diplomatic practice seems to have been on purpose, an attempt to establish facts, since the appointed, Dani Dayan, between 2007 and 2013, was the President of the Yesha Council, responsible for the settlements in the West Bank, which are considered illegal by the international community, and has already declared himself contrary to the creation of the Palestinian State, which counts on the support of the Brazilian Government and was already recognized by over 70% of the UN member States.

Reportedly a group of 200 Brazilian academics have also endorsed a boycott of Israel. Netanyahu has refused to withdraw Dayan’s nomination or to appoint someone more acceptable to the Brazilians. If the Brazilian government stands its ground, it will mean a de facto end to diplomatic relations between the two countries.

War with the EU

On January 18, the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council reaffirmed requirements that export products from the Israeli settlements be labeled as such. More or less as with Sweden, Spain, and Brazil, the EU’s action has prompted cries of Israeli outrage. Netanyahu pronounced his unwillingness to “accept the fact that the EU labels the side being attacked by terror,” while ‘Justice’ Minister Ayelet Shaked called the EU measure “anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.”

Likewise, opposition party leader Isaac Herzog (supposedly a liberal) compared it to the “Zionism equals Racism” resolution passed by the UN in 1974, while Yair Lapid, another opposition party member, denounced the EU for “capitulating to the worse elements of jihad.”

War Against the BDS Movement

In summer of 2015, ‘Justice’ minister Shaked announced she was preparing lawsuits against BDS activists. The announcement was reported at the time by theTimes of Israel in a story which also mentions that Shaked has expanded one of the departments within her ministry in order to “push ahead with the program as soon as possible.”

Ministry officials believe that legal circumstances present the option of suing activists for damaging Israeli trade, and for discrimination and racism, based upon laws as they currently exist in various countries, the report said.

So far as I’m aware, no lawsuits have been filed against individual activists, however Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home Party, seems to be generally in support of the idea of striking back in some manner at the BDS movement.

“Let it be clear to any company or organization that’s considering boycotting us: We will hit back. We will attack our attackers. We will boycott our boycotters,” Bennett said.

“The boycott weapon is a double-edged sword,” he added. “If you’re thinking of boycotting Israel, keep in mind that there are tens of millions of Israel supporters around the world — Jews and non-Jews — with considerable buying power and boycott power. Whoever boycotts Israel will be boycotted. Whoever hits Israel, will be hit back. We will no longer remain silent.”

Bennett’s comments about the “tens of millions of Israel supporters around the world” are perhaps salient. Also last summer, Adelson hosted an anti-BDS summit in Las Vegas with the aim of establishing and funding “successful strategies for countering the wave of anti-Israel activity on college campuses.” Held at the billionaire’s Venetian hotel on the Vegas strip, the conference was attended by a number of wealthy Jews, including Haim Saban.

“The key decision reached at the conference was that there would be a concerted effort to curtail BDS,” reported the Jerusalem Post.

Though Netanyahu did not attend, a letter from him was read aloud to the conference participants. “De-legitimization of Israel must be fought, and you are on the front lines. It’s not about this or that Israeli policy. It’s about our right to exist here as a free people,” the letter stated.

Reportedly the Israeli government intends to allocate NIS 100 million, or roughly $25.2 million, to the anti-BDS effort.

War Against Academic Associations

At a business meeting held in November, members of the American Anthropological Association voted overwhelmingly (88.4 percent) in favor of a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions. A similar measure was passed that same month by the National Women’s Studies Association Executive Committee. These aren’t the first boycott actions taken by academic organizations in the US. The American Studies Association, The Association for Asian American Studies, and the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association have all passed academic boycott measures against Israel. And this is just in the US.

Measures have also been passed by academic organizations in Brazil, South Africa, Canada, the UK, and, of course, in Palestine, and probably elsewhere. And perhaps most recently a group of 71 British doctors have called upon the World Medical Association to expel the Israeli Medical Association. The physicians have accused Israeli doctors of “medical torture” on Palestinian patients and want to see a ban on joint projects with Israeli universities.

On January 20, the Science and Technology Committee of the Israeli Knesset held a meeting to discuss the issue (H/T Helvena). A press release on the discussion which took place can be found here on the Knessett’s website. One of those who gave input at the meeting was Peretz Lavie, president of Technion, or the Israeli Institute of Technology.

“We have no complaints against the global academic leadership; our problem is the campuses,” Lavie said. “Initially it was insignificant campuses, but it quickly spread to leading campuses in the United States.”

When Lavie says he has “no complaints against the global academic leadership” he is probably referring to the Association of American Universities, which on January 14, in response to the vote by the Anthropological Association, re-issued an earlier statement in opposition to academic boycotts. The AAU is an organization whose leadership consists of the presidents and chancellors of the 60 universities (in both the US and Canada) that are its members. Membership is by invitation only. The group’s statement opposing boycotts was initially released in 2013 in response to the boycott actions taken by the American Studies and Native American and Indigenous Studies associations.

The group’s re-release of that canned statement from more than two years ago was described by the Jerusalem Post as “a blow to the BDS movement.”

“Students who are exposed to this activity will be the next generation`s senators, and therein lies the great danger in the long term,” Lavie went on in his testimony before the Science and Technology Committee.

“In its report, the American Anthropological Association referred to us as universities of apartheid and decided to conduct a survey on whether the Israeli academia should be boycotted. We have to reach all 12,000 members of the Association. It is a symptom, and if we do not act now, it will spread. There must be one entity that will concentrate all the efforts related to this issue,” he added.

Another person who gave testimony was Ze’ev Feldman of the Israel Medical Association. It was Feldman who informed the committee of the recent statement by the 71 British doctors.

”The sword of the boycott is being raised on the Israeli scientific-medical community,” he said.

Ariel University Chancellor Yigal-Cohen Orgad asserted that Israel has “a real problem with governments, including western governments that encourage boycotts,” while Professor Zvi Ziegler warned, “We are unable to stop anyone with our meager resources.”

Several committee members are also quoted, including Chairman Uri Maklev:

“There is no doubt that the academic boycott phenomenon is expanding and is connected to the financial and consumer boycotts on Israel. Economic and commercial boycotts are associated with politics, but an academic boycott by educated and moderate people has a very strong effect.”

But rather than calling for an end to the settlements, most of the committee members seemed to be of the opinion that the Israeli government needed to devote more resources to fighting the boycott movement. The one exception to this was Arab Knesset member Basel Ghattas:

The world considers the settlements to be illegitimate. You can think differently from the entire world, it is your right, but it is also the world`s right to take measures in order to force you to establish two states.

War with the UN

On October 1, 2015, Netanyahu gave a speech before the United Nations General Assembly that was marked by a 45-second segment during which he paused and projected hostile glares out at those present:

On January 26, 2016, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon broke the UN’s “deafening silence” and, in a rare display of courage, issued a scathing criticism of Israel’s settlement policies.

Progress towards peace requires a freeze of Israel’s settlement enterprise.

Continued settlement activities are an affront to the Palestinian people and to the international community.  They rightly raise fundamental questions about Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution.

I am deeply troubled by reports today that the Israeli Government has approved plans for over 150 new homes in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

This is combined with its announcement last week declaring 370 acres in the West Bank, south of Jericho, as so-called “state land”.  These provocative acts are bound to increase the growth of settler populations, further heighten tensions and undermine any prospects for a political road ahead.

The inevitable furious response came quickly, with Netanyahu excoriating the UN chief for helping to “stoke terror.”

“There is no justification for terrorism,” he said. “The Palestinian terrorists don’t want to build a state; they want to destroy a state, and they say that proudly. They want to murder Jews everywhere and they state that proudly. They don’t murder for peace and they don’t murder for human rights.”

He went on to assert that the UN has “lost its neutrality and its moral force, and these statements by the Secretary-General do nothing to improve its situation.”


It seems Israel is now at war with the UN as well.

A Lack of Imagination?

 Perhaps most striking in all this is the Israeli lack of imagination–or at least that is one way of looking at it. Nowhere in his hostile comments aimed at his various enemies on the global stage does Netanyahu give the slightest indication of having once thought about halting the settlements and pulling back to Israel’s internationally recognized pre-1967 borders. Ditto with the other Israeli officials quoted above, with the lone exception of the Arab Knessett member. It is almost as if the idea has never even occurred to them.

If that  is the case, one could perhaps ascribe all of this to a lack of imagination. Certainly at this point, after 68 years of oppression, is probably does indeedrequire considerable imagination to conceive of how the two peoples could live at peace. But of course it wasn’t always so. And had Israel, starting in 1967, respected the people of the West Bank, and above all else respected their space rather than crowding them in with settlements and walls and soldiers, a peaceful resolution to the conflict probably could have and would have been achieved by this time.

Yet even now, it isn’t too late. Though it would be politically difficult, Israel coulddismantle its settlements (anything is possible when the national will is present) and pull back to the pre-1967 borders–basically the terms of the Arab Peace Initiative proposed back in 2002. If necessary, and it probably would be for a lengthy period of time, UN peacekeeping troops could be deployed along the border.

But Israel’s response to the Arab Peace Initiative was to call it a “non-starter,” and that seems to be its position today as well. And not only is there little prospect of dismantling of presently-existing settlements, but we see even a refusal to halt the construction of new ones. All of which would suggest that Ban Ki-moon is correct and that the settlement enterprise raises “fundamental questions about Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution.”

Or in other words, Israel has no intentions of making peace.

Certainly it’s possible that things could change, and that a new slate of leaders could arise in Israel with the imagination necessary to see the wisdom of complying with international norms of conduct. And that is what its more liberal Jewish supporters in America seem to be hoping for. But failing this, Israel’s wars with the rest of the world are likely to grow in stridency and ferociousness, and at some point could expand from the realms of diplomacy and/or covert operations fully outright into the military arena.

‘Bastards!’…Andre Vltchek Pens Hate-Filled Screed Against Christianity


Writer, journalist and filmmaker Andre Vltchek

By Richard Edmondson

Andre Vltchek, a writer whose commentaries appear on a number of sites including RT and Telesur, has published a vitriolic screed against Christianity in which he refers to Christians as “bastards” and accuses the faith of spreading a “monstrous dogma.”

The article was posted Christmas day under the title “The Barbarity of Christianity and the West” at the Dissident Voice, a site touting itself as “a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice.”

Throughout his article, Vltchek seems to equate Christianity with what he refers to as the “Christian West,” accusing Christians of electing “near fascist governments” which then proceed to unleash destruction throughout much of the world.

“Hundreds of millions, all over the world, have died so that the ‘message of Jesus’ could live,” he asserts. “Millions are still dying now, so that Christian fundamentalists can manipulate, rule and plunder the world, unopposed…”

“The only reason why the Christian West prospered and won countless colonialist battles is because it behaved like a beast, a true animal, in short: like the most brutal and barbarous thug on the face of the Earth,” he adds.

Vltchek is particularly concerned, and of course justifiably so, at events taking place today in the Middle East, but rather than look for other possible causes, such as the geopolitical ambitions of certain national leaders and/or powerful political lobbying groups, he seems to place the entire blame upon Christianity. Moreover, his hatred of the Christian religion appears at times to rise to an almost pathological level:

What a sick world they have been creating!

“Our dogmas, our religion raped you. Pray to it for your salvation!” Bastards!

At one point in the article he even seems to advocate violence against Christians:

How to neutralize them? How to get rid of them? During and after their revolutions, the French and then the Russians used to hang them on streetlamps. It is not done like this, anymore.

On Sunday, I contacted Vltchek by email in an effort to get a clarification on his views. Specifically I posed four questions to him. Though he refused to answer any of the questions, he did respond to my email within a few hours. Here is what he wrote:

Dear Mr. Edmondson

I definitely do not intend answering your questions, as I don’t like the tone in which your email is written. All your questions are already answered in my essays, and it appears that you are leading this somewhere where I don’t want to go.

Anyway, my essay is not an attack, or a mockery. It is a list of horrors performed by Christianity for centuries. Nothing abstract or emotional, just concrete, rational stuff.


Andre Vltchek

Here is the email I had sent to Vltchek, and which includes the four questions:

Dear Mr. Vltchek,

I am writing about your article on Christianity, posted December 25 at Dissident Voice. I’m thinking of posting a commentary on it on my blog (link below), and was wondering if you would care to answer a few questions.

  1. You rightfully express concern about events in the Middle East. I’m wondering does your concern extend to Christians in Syria and Iraq who have been kidnapped and murdered by ISIS, and has it occurred to you that your anti-Christian vitriol, as posted now on the Internet, could possibly make things even more dangerous for them?
  1. Do you think that generally speaking it’s acceptable to express hostility and contempt for other peoples’ religious beliefs? Specifically, I’m wondering about cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Were those acceptable, in your view, and do you see your attack on Christianity as being any different from that?
  1. I agree with you that the West has unleashed a horrendous amount of destruction in the Middle East, but are you sure Christianity is the main driving force behind that? Are you aware of the extent to which the pro-Israel lobby shapes US foreign policy? I ask the question because you don’t seem to mention either AIPAC or Israel in your article.
  1. Any other comment or point of clarification you would care to make?


Richard Edmondson

Vltchek also refers to “all the horrors committed by Christianity” and insists as well that there is something “encoded in Christianity” that has resulted in “the greatest crimes against humanity, committed, again and again, until this very moment.”

Whatever may be the psychological or underlying causes of Vltchek’s apparently deep-seated hatred, he does describe what he refers to as a “‘Christian episode’ from my youth” in which he encountered a Polish priest who he says attempted to molest him on a train ride from New York to Washington D.C. According to Vltchek, the man’s “insane face was twisted by lust” as his “hands kept grabbing me, searching for the zipper of my fly.” Vltchek narrates that he then stood up and “punched him straight in the face, with all my strength.”  Afterwards, as he relates it, a “reasonable, good-humored African-American man” working as a conductor on the train proceeded to pat him (Vltchek) on the shoulder while confiding, “I was molested in my church on several occasions.”

The piece finally closes with what some readers conceivably might construe as another call for violence. Here Vltchek warns ominously that “without stopping this monstrous dogma,” Christianity in another few decades “could easily devour another 10 or 20 million human lives.”

One need not wonder what the response would have been had the word “Christianity” been replaced in Vltchek’s article with the word “Judaism.” Were someone affiliated with a major media outlet to refer to Jews as “bastards,” and to talk about hanging them from streetlamps, that person would be fired in a heartbeat. No prominent broadcast or Internet news provider, either mainstream or alternative, would continue to offer a platform to such a person.


A screen shot of Vltchek’s article at the Dissident Voice

The article “The Barbarity of Christianity and the West” seems to have been published at the Dissident Voice website alone. Perhaps Vltchek wrote it especially for them. I do not know. However, you can go here and here to see other articles he has written and which have been published at RT and Telesur respectively. He has also appeared on Veterans Today radio programs, and it is said that he has done work for Press TV as well, though I could not find anything on Press TV’s site, only a video segment uploaded to YouTube more than a year ago in which he was interviewed as a guest commentator. My hunch is that probably Veterans Today, RT, Press TV, and Telesur are all unaware of his views on Christianity, or at least unaware of the extreme nature of them.

Certainly Christianity, in its past, has things such as the crusades for which it should be held responsible, and certainly as well there are Christians today who harbor misguided views on a number of subjects. At the same time there are also Christians who do wonderful work helping to provide for the poor. Catholic Charities, for instance, operates more than 160 local agencies nationwide serving millions of people per year.


Volunteers at the St. Vincent de Paul soup kitchen, Scranton, Pennsylvania

The major shortcoming of Christian leaders in America today–and I have said this many times–is their reluctance to stand up and speak truth to power and to denounce America’s invasions and wars of aggression. There are a good many Western Christians today who have openly opposed these wars. Here and here are but two examples. Would that the leaders of the churches they attend might find the courage to speak out in the same way, but alas, for the most part, they don’t.

At the same time, I’m not aware of Obama or any current member of Congress actually citing passages from Christian texts to justify their wars, either–and largely religion seems to be left out of debates on the floor of Congress. (Yes, it’s true Congressional sessions traditionally are opened with a prayer, mainly as a mere formality, but these have been delivered by Christian clergy, Jewish rabbis, Muslim Imams, and, on at least one occasion, by the Dalai Lama.)

By contrast, one might look to Israel where numerous people, including within the government, do appear to use Judaism as justification for Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Or…you could perhaps look to Myanmar, where Buddhists are carrying out a campaign against the Rohingya people that has been described by some as genocide.

The point I’m trying to make is that we live in a corrupt age, and that all religions, to some degree, have become corrupted. But this doesn’t just apply to religions. The corruption spreads across the board–to governments, education systems, the media, the legal system–pretty much you name it. Corruption is in virtually every fiber of the West’s being these days. There are all kinds of ideas on why things have reached this state, but one thing most sensible people would agree on is that it is wrong to blame all members of a group for the crimes or misdeeds of some.

US Seeks to Amass More Forces in Syria…But for Which War?


By Richard Edmondson

US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter is appealing for other nations to send their troops to fight a big war in Syria and Iraq.

“I personally reached out to my counterparts in 40 countries around the world in the coalition and asked them to contribute more,” Carter said Wednesday, Dec. 9, in testimony before the Senate (see video below starting at about 2:00).

Carter professes to be recruiting these additional forces for the war against ISIS, but one wonders if perhaps he might not actually have a different war in mind–say a war against Russia, or at any rate a direct attack on the Syrian Army, which could easily escalate into the same thing, as doubtless Carter would realize.

The removal of Syrian President Bashar Assad has been a primary US and Israeli objective for at least the past five years, and possibly much longer if we go by thenow-famous words of General Wesley Clark. Syria’s fall quite probably would have been achieved by this time were it not for Russia.

That US military efforts against ISIS have been waged insincerely, that it’s airstrikes have been carried out in pursuit of some purpose other than that stated publicly, and that the Obama administration all along seems to have had a goaldifferent from that of defeating the terrorist army, strictly speaking–these also have been apparent for some while. Over the past year as US planes were purportedly hitting ISIS targets, the power of the terrorists grew, the areas under their control in Iraq and Syria for the most part expanding (despite some defeats–thanks not to the US but to efforts of the Syrian Army and Hezbollah). It wasn’t until Russia entered the fray on September 30 that ISIS began to suffer major setbacks, including the bombing of its oil tankers.

Projecting perhaps their own scheming chicanery onto others, US officials at the time expressed doubts about the true intentions of the Russians, while Western media published widespread reports on deaths of civilians, reports based largely upon flimsy claims by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and other dubious sources.

“The result of this kind of action will inevitably, simply be to inflame the civil war in Syria,” Carter asserted in September.

In the video above, the Secretary of Defense expresses some nominal concerns over Turkey’s “often porous borders,” but following revelations of Turkish involvement in ISIS oil smuggling, including by members of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s own family, US officials appeared totally unperturbed. Likewise were they unperturbed with Turkey’s shoot-d0wn of a Russian jet, and, most recently, with its military incursion into Iraq (although it seems now at least someof the Turkish forces may be withdrawing). Turkey has been widely condemned by people around the world, but nothing it ever does seems to bother the US too much.

A Nest of Spies and Traitors?

Back on December 5, Secretary of State John Kerry delivered the keynote address at the Brookings Institution’s annual Saban Forum in Washington. In his talk, Kerry discussed the Syrian conflict and likened Russia and Iran to “problem children” for their support of the Assad government.

“If Russia and Iran stand as a block and allow Assad to simply stiff the process, and we get no transition at all, then it will be clear who the problem children are, and our options will be narrowed and we will have to make some tough choices,”said Kerry.

The arrogance on display was emblematic. That the US, rather than the Syrian people, has the right to choose who leads Syria, and to even oversee and engineer the country’s elections–these were the assumptions underlying Kerry’s remarks. And anyone who disagrees is a “problem child” and must be dealt with accordingly.

But the purported “urgency of defeating Daesh” wasn’t the only subject touched upon in the speech. Kerry also discussed the US relationship with Israel, touting America’s determination to “stand with” the Jewish state, presumably no matter how high its crimes against humanity may mount up.

The full text of Kerry’s remarks may be found here, and judging at least from the friendly acknowledgements issued in his opening comments, it seems to have been a largely Jewish affair, with perhaps a few token Gentiles present. Said Kerry:

Steny and Nita I know are here, and Jolie Ruben, my former colleague and longtime friend, and I think Bogie Ya’alon is out there somewhere. And Bogie, good to see you, my friend. And also Bougie Herzog is somewhere here. And oh my gosh, yes, madam, thank you for leading Wilson and all you’ve been doing. Appreciate it very, very much, Jane. Thank you. I’m really pleased that I could come here to be with you before I head back to Paris, where on Monday we sort of get into the ministerial period of the climate change negotiation. Let me just begin by thanking my very good friend, Martin Indyk. As we all know, Martin has invested literally decades of his extraordinary career in exploring ways and turning over every stone to try to help Israelis and Palestinians to find the path to lasting peace.

The two “Bogie/Bougie” men mentioned would presumably be Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Israeli Labor Party leader Issac Herzog. “Steny and Nita” would refer to Jewish Congresswoman Nita Lowey from New York and Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer. Hard to say for sure about the Jolie Ruben mentioned, but perhaps it’s the New York Times staffer by that name. In addition, Kerry also made references to the late Sandy Berger, as well as to Haim Saban, who according to Wikipedia is a US/Israeli dual national, along with Saban’s wife Cheryl.

Indyk, by the way, who you see seated next to Kerry in the video here, is a former AIPAC staffer and a founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who later scampered through the revolving door into government, serving on the National Security Council and also as ambassador to Israel. In 2000, Indyk’s government security clearance was revoked over allegations he had violated security procedures but was restored a month later by Jewish Secretary of State Madelaine Albright. You can also go here to view an interview Indyk did with Andrea Mitchel in 2010 in which he asserted that Israel should allow Tony Blair to assist with its internal investigation into the Mavi Marmara attack, this so as to give the investigation “more credibility.”

Berger, too, prior to his departure from this world two weeks ago, had a career somewhat tarred by controversy. In 1997 he paid a civil penalty to settle conflict of interest charges over his ownership of stock in a US oil company; in 1999 he landed in hot water over accusations he had failed to inform President Clinton that US nuclear secrets had been acquired by China; and in 2004 he was investigated for removing classified documents from the National Archives prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission, and then lying about it afterward to investigators.

“I also want to pay tribute to somebody that we all wish could have been with us today,” said Kerry. “Sandy Berger was a friend to me and I’m sure to many of you.”

Quite possibly he’s right on that. The Saban Forum took place at the Willard Hotel, roughly a six-minute walk from the White House, and it’s tempting to think of the event as little more than a gathering of those with, shall we say, less than complete loyalty to the United States (Joseph McCarthy, where are you when we need you?).

“We have given [to Israel] privileged access to advanced military equipment such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,” proclaimed Kerry. “Israel is the only nation in the Middle East to which the United States sold this fifth generation aircraft. And earlier this year the president authorized a massive arms resupply package featuring air-to-air missiles and other advanced munitions.”

The comment about Russia and Iran being “problem children” came near the end of the address, during a question-and-answer session (with Indyk alone asking the questions). At one point Kerry seemed to allude to “promises” the US had made with regard to removal of Assad–though without specifying to whom these promises were made:

I think Russia understands and I think Iran is coming to understand that no matter how much you might want to keep Assad, even if we were the most Machiavellian in the world and we went back on our promises and everything else – which we’re not about to do, I want to emphasize – but let’s say we said we want Assad. Okay, let’s keep him for a while and see what happens, and go fight Daesh. Couldn’t do it. You can’t do it. There is no way to stop the support for the Sunni fighters – and remember, most of this is on that side of the ledger. There is no way to stop them from attacking and going after Assad, as long as he’s there.

In addition to chiding certain countries for being “problem children,” Kerry berated Russia as having “just plunked itself in, gone into the fight to, quote, support their friend, Assad.” He added:

“So I think there are reasons that we all have to want to end this as fast as possible. And what we’ve tried to set up is a transitional negotiation where Assad has to, under the Geneva communique, begin to devolve some power. The election is fixed. We’ve all said we’re going to have an election. Even Iran and Russia have accepted that. Iran actually had its own proposal of a ceasefire, constitutional rewrite, a unity government, and election. So even Iran is pushing for a transition of some kind.

And the question here is: When and how can we get to the point where it is clear that really Assad has to make a choice? And you can have a smooth transition, where the Alawi are protected, the Christians are protected, the Druze are protected, the Ismaili are protected, the Sunni are protected, and you have all segments of a society.

In other words, submit to US/Israeli policy in the region, and everyone will be “protected.” It sounds a bit like a mafia protection racket. The terror troops will be sicced upon those who fail to comply or pay up. And just maybe they were–five days later.

‘Godspeed, Mr. Kerry’

Kerry’s comment that “the election is fixed” may have been part Freudian slip as well. Earlier in the talk he describes the proposed election as one that “will be supervised by the United Nations under the highest standards of international law and of elections, with fair, full, transparency and accountability, in order for even the diaspora to be able to vote for future leadership.” Perhaps one day Russian and Iranian elections might need to be “supervised by the United Nations” as well.

Should there be any doubts about the UN’s hypocrisy and double standards, consider the Security Council’s rejection over the weekend of a Russian motion calling for condemnation of a terror attack which took place last Thursday in the Syrian city of Homs.

The attack occurred one day after a truce was brokered between the Syrian government and hundreds of rebels who had occupied parts of Homs since as far back almost as the outset of the conflict in 2011. The agreement reached, considered a major breakthrough toward peace and reconciliation, is discussed by the commentator in the video below:

On December 10, the same day the above video was uploaded, the following took place in Homs:

It is now known that a total of 22 people were killed. As the Press TV anchor noted, the blast occurred near a hospital. Responsibility has been claimed by ISIS.

On Saturday, Russia introduced a motion in the Security Council condemning the attack, this after a plea for UN action by the Syrian Foreign Ministry. “Russia has prepared a draft statement for the UN Security Council in connection with the attack in Homs,” an unnamed diplomatic source was quoted as saying. “The proposal was rejected,” the source added.

The UN Security Council is currently chaired by the US.

The final word at the Saban Forum on December 5 was an articulation of gratitude toward Kerry expressed by Indyk.

“Mr. Secretary, as you head off to Paris again, I think I could speak for everybody here,” Indyk said. “We wish you godspeed and thank you for all that you do.”


The featured graphic accompanying this article is entitled “Nuclear Winter,” by EmilisB.

American Jews at the Service of Netanyahu

[Ed. – The following rather remarkable commentary concerning American Jews was published recently in Haaretz. The writer doesn’t come right out and use the word “fifth column,” but that essentially seems to be what he is talking about. He does, however, use the term “dual loyalty,” and asserts that “boundaries” have been “blurred.”

Keep in mind, this was published in an Israeli newspaper. It did not originate from the Occidental Observer or some other similar-type website. I will add one other comment as well: when and if a war breaks out between the US and Iran, it will not be Israeli troops doing the fighting and the dying. Nor for the most part will it be the children of the members of the Jewish organizations who have pledged their support to Netanyahu. It will be Gentiles, many of whom couldn’t afford to go to college and were forced into the military through the poverty draft…or else lured by the propaganda serenade…]

American Jews at the Service of Netanyahu

By Uri Misgav

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared jihad on the U.S. president and the Iran nuclear accord, bringing things to a climax this past week. There’s no point expecting him to take stock following the debacle or consider its ramifications. Netanyahu doesn’t recognize the concept of introspection or the notion of accountability. However, it is appropriate to suggest that America’s Jewish population and the organizations representing it look inward and do some serious reflection. Even if we attribute only the best of intentions to them, these intentions again lead to a well-known place.

It’s hard to overstate Netanyahu’s insolence. In a Web speech given from his office and with the Israeli flag behind him, he called on American Jews to unite against the accord, “regardless of your political affiliation.” It’s even harder to understand how the leaders representing these Jews didn’t recognize the trap Netanyahu was leading them into – regardless of their political affiliation. The apex was the surreal meeting between 20 U.S.-Jewish leaders and President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. I can’t recall a meeting between a U.S. president and vice president with U.S.-German leaders in order to discuss American relations with Europe. Or a conversation with U.S.-Japanese businessmen prior to the signing of a trade agreement between the United States and Japan.

It’s unclear who these Jewish leaders were actually representing in the Oval Office. Certainly not me or the half of Israelis who didn’t want Netanyahu as prime minister. In any case, they can’t represent Israeli interests. They may donate generously to projects in Israel or send their children and grandchildren for a rousing Zionist week arranged by Taglit-Birthright. But neither they nor their flock live here. And they didn’t even pretend to represent Americans of Jewish descent, since what was on the table was the implications of the nuclear deal for Israel. In other words, the assumption is that the clear-cut interest of the Jewish people everywhere is expressed only via the Israeli interest.

But thanks to Netanyahu and his irresponsible call, boundaries were again blurred. It’s no longer clear who is representing whom. Are American Jews supposed to be functioning as Israel’s arm in the midst of the world’s greatest superpower? Or is Israel their delegate, the aircraft carrier of the Jewish people, floating in the distant and stormy seas of the Middle East? Both options are obviously bad and distorted ones. This game squarely places U.S. Jews in the twilight zone of dual loyalty. How symbolic that the awful show on Capitol Hill took place at the end of a week in which the release of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard was announced.

It’s time for U.S. Jews to consider the harmful message that emanates from the trap Netanyahu is pulling them into, as well as the harm done by the lobbying, arm-twisting, as well as their political and financial machinations. Let’s avoid sanctimoniousness – Obama made time for them in his busy schedule as leader of the Free World because they represent voters and donors. Didn’t it occur to these Jewish leaders that their actions concerning the nuclear deal might reinforce classic anti-Semitic narratives such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

American-Jewish leaders celebrate a Passover seder with the president at the White House every year. That should suffice. They shouldn’t drag the nuclear deal there as well.

EU Allies Pay for America’s Global Conflict and Refugees, time for the EU to tell the USA to get lost

EU Allies Pay for America’s Global Conflict and Refugees

Europe’s refugee crisis is just another American bill for the latter’s legacy of global conflict – a bill that is being dumped at the European allies’ door to pay. Years of US-led wars waged in Central Asia, through the Middle East and across North Africa are arguably the major factor in the droves of migrants now straining the European Union, as they seek refuge from raging conflicts and deprivation. The nationalities of the refugees mirror the trail of countries that America has pulverised over the past decade. 

The situation of Europe bearing the brunt of costs for its American ally’s recklessness not only finds its manifestation in the growing refugee crisis facing the European Union. The same disproportionate repercussions – «Europe pays while the US slays» – is seen with regard to the Ukraine conflict and the increasingly perilous confrontation with Russia.

As with the growing refugee calamity, in the conflict over Ukraine and the dangerous stand-off with Russia, it is Europe that is mainly incurring the manifold problems that have been created largely by Washington’s policies.

Germany’s farmers alone are reckoned to have lost € 600 million in export business to Russia from the sanctions and counter-sanctions over the Ukraine crisis. The total economic repercussions across the EU from the debilitating standoff with Russia are multiples more.

The Brussels bureaucracy and certain US-lackey European leaders indeed signed off the anti-Russian trade sanctions. But, it has to be said, that the hostile sanctions policy towards Moscow ever since the alleged annexation of Crimea in March 2014 has largely been initiated and pushed by Washington. The Europeans, somewhat pathetically, have allowed themselves to be railroaded into adopting the Washington-directed policy, with a lot of arm-twisting by the Obama administration.

But the bottom-line is this: it is European workers, farmers, businesses and the wider public who are suffering from the US-led sanctions on Russia. America’s bilateral trade is a fraction of Europe’s trade with Russia, and so the impact and repercussions of anti-Russian sanctions and counter-sanctions are consequently felt most painfully by Europe – not the US.

In other words, it is all very well for Washington to embark on Russian hostilities because from Washington’s cynical point of view it is not the one who is picking up the economic and social bill for the confrontation. Instead, it is the European «allies» who are picking up the American tab, so to speak. And how the arrogant Americans must be having a good old laugh at that too! It’s like taking pals out for a slap-up meal and rounds of drinks, and then at the end of the night the loud-mouth boor sits with his hands in his pockets and gets the sucker pals to settle the bill.

The same goes for the upsurge in the Mediterranean refugee crisis – a crisis that is threatening to overwhelm EU countries, economically and logistically. The crisis may even herald a collapse among political establishments across Europe from fuelling the rise of far-right and anti-immigrant political parties.

Xenophobic, racial tensions are escalating across Europe as incoming migrants are perceived as «stealing jobs» and social benefits, as well as bringing «alien cultures». Europe is fast becoming a nasty continent of racial discontent, far removed from its supposed humanitarian and enlightenment values. The rise of German anti-immigrant movement, Pegida, and other fascistic groups across Europe is a sign of the malevolent mood.

This week some 1,200 would-be migrants perished in the Mediterranean Sea when their overcrowded, dilapidated vessels capsized after leaving the North African coast in the dark of night. The Geneva-based International Organisation for Migration estimates that by the end of this year, the death toll from refugees trying to reach Europe by this route may reach 30,000 – making it by far the worse year on record – 10 times the death toll for the previous record year in 2014.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants – 275,000 in 2014 estimated by Italian authorities – who are lucky enough to survive the journey to mainland Europe, land first on the so-called frontline states of Spain, Italy, Malta and Greece. From there, they travel on to other EU members.

In a Washington Post report on April 21, headlined ‘New migration crisis overwhelms European refugee system’, the article is billed as «examining the causes and impact of a global wave of migration driven by war, oppression and poverty».

The Post reports: «As Europe confronts a rapidly escalating migration crisis driven by war, persecution and poverty in an arc of strife from West Africa to Afghanistan, even high-level European officials are beginning to admit the obvious… The region’s refugee management system is broken.»

But what should be even more obvious, which the Washington Post astoundingly avoids examining and European leaders seem in denial of, is this: the «arc of strife from West Africa to Afghanistan» has been created directly by America’s warmongering across the globe. Strife-torn Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Yemen, through to Libya are all part of the dubious legacy of American «war on terrorism» or covert «regime change» operations.

In these pernicious military adventures, the US has been assisted by its European NATO allies and its Persian Gulf Arab client states, primarily Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

As Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov commented this week, the conflict and terrorism raging across these regions are a direct result of illegal US warmongering, both overt and covert. Why are European statesmen so blind to making similar deduction of the glaring truth? Is collective guilt inhibiting them?

For in the US-induced mayhem, the European Union is not blameless, of course. Britain and France in particular have been major players in perpetrating the US-led militarism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. France has singlehandedly contributed to the global «arc of strife» by conducting illegal military operations in Mali, Central African Republic and the Ivory Coast in recent years, where Paris launched those interventions/invasions without having a mandate from the United Nations Security.

All of those conflicts have greatly added to the surge in international refugee numbers that are now making their way to the European mainland. US-led and EU, Arab-assisted warmongering is by no means the sole cause. Among the migrants caught up in the Mediterranean maelstrom are Ethiopians, Eritreans, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, among others, according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. This latter group are most readily explained as «economic migrants». But what is unmistakable is that the major share of the refugees are those nationals where America and its allies have been directly responsible for sowing conflict.

In the deadly boat-sinking this past week, for example, in which nearly 800 were drowned off Libya, most of the victims were reportedly from Syria. And Libya itself would not have become a launch-pad for human-traffickers had it not been for the US-NATO blitzkrieg on that country during 2011, which led to the overthrow of the central government in Tripoli and its degeneration into tribal and extremist chaos.

Who can blame the legions of desperate people in their attempt to reach the relative safety of Europe? Facing deadly hazards of extremist militias, unscrupulous human traffickers, scorching deserts and treacherous sea crossings, the desperate refugees keep on coming. It is estimated by Italian authorities that up to one million migrants are awaiting to board rickety vessels in Libya alone in order to make the perilous journey to Europe.

Germany – the EU’s strongest economy – has been a magnet for the refugees who eventually make it to Europe. With a population of 82 million, Germany has given shelter to 173,000 non-Europeans last year, according to the Washington Post report cited above. That compares with the United States’ intake figure for Mexican and other migrants of only 121,000 for the same period, yet the US has four times the total population of Germany. That is, despite a much greater capacity for accommodating refugees, the US is taking in less migrants than Germany, never the whole of the EU.

So while US wars and conflict-sowing are being waged in an arc from Central Asia, the Middle East and to Africa, it is Europe that is absorbing the humanitarian «collateral damage», not the US.

EU leaders this week are holding emergency meetings to find ways of addressing the refugee crisis that is assailing the bloc’s economic resources and logistics for accommodating the newcomers. Priority is being given to security measures to stop-and-search vessels off the North African coast and to turn back those suspected of being involved in people smuggling. Such narrow security measures are unlikely to work in the long term because they do not address the root causes of the problem: conflict and deprivation in the countries from where the migrants originate.

EU leading members, including Britain, France and Germany, have gone along with, indeed fully supported, Washington’s global militarism and conflict-making over the past decade. Just as those same European states have also done with regard to Washington’s meddling in Ukraine and aggression towards Russia. But in all these machinations, it is Europe that is picking up the huge bill for Washington’s baleful policies, as can be seen from the flood of refugees and the repercussion on Europe’s economy from anti-Russian sanctions.

It is high time Europe developed some independent foreign policy backbone and stopped being a colossal sucker for Washington’s warmongering. Repudiating Washington’s belligerence would be a start to addressing a whole swathe of problems afflicting Europe.

In for a Penny, in for a Pound?


By Richard Edmondson

In the lead-up to this year’s Super Bowl–which, of course, was held this past Sunday without incident–a number of websites and videos (here, here, and here, for instance) speculated on the possibility of a false flag attack, possibly nuclear, occurring at the event.

This of course is not new. Similar speculations were posited leading up to previous Super Bowls–in 2014, 2013, and probably earlier years as well.

Though the predictions didn’t prove true this year either (and most of those who made them, I would guess, are glad they didn’t), there is nonetheless cause for concern, and the idea that Israel might do something totally insane, like attempting to pull off a nuclear false flag attack, is by no means an absurd or irrational fear.

Israel and its supporters in Western countries have enormous amounts of capital invested in perpetuating certain beliefs long held by the public–and when acceptance of these beliefs erodes or begins to erode, as we see happening now, and as more and more people discard them as they begin sorting through lingering questions as to why certain things are the way they are, an unsettling sense that the house is collapsing is likely going to set in for Zionists.

For Israel and its Jewish supporters in Western countries this can, and will, eventually lead to feelings of desperation. Losing one’s long-held grip on the world is not a comforting thought. It’s not a loss some people are able to take lying down, and as Israel sinks further and further into the status of world pariah–and as perceptions of Jews continue to change, in part as a result of that–the odds that somebody in power is going to make a decision to do something insanely stupid go sharply up.

There is an old saying: “in for a penny, in for a pound.” It means a person who undertakes an enterprise is intent upon completing it–no matter what the cost. A philosophy like that held by someone with a growing sense of desperation makes for a rather dangerous person, one you’d want to avoid if at all possible.

Getting the public to retain certain beliefs is vital, and astute observers will have long been aware that prodigious amounts of Jewish time and effort seem to be poured into the endeavor of shaping public perceptions. Not surprising, then, that the Hebrew language gives us the word “hasbara.”

Certainly a number of myths go into perpetuating the current status-quo, myths such as the conviction that the United States works to spread freedom and democracy in the world, or that US leaders act in the interest of the majority of Americans. These are myths that are coming unraveled now at a rather fast-paced clip, yet at the same time, continued widespread acceptance of them is not critical to maintaining Zionist suzerainty over the political systems of the US or other Western governments.

There are, however, four beliefs, in the main, which do rank as imperative, and which Zionist Jews must labor diligently to sustain and propagate–four beliefs whose endurance is requisite, and which must continue to be accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of the population, failing which the whole house of cards is in danger of collapsing.

The beliefs are that: a) Muslim terrorists carried out 9/11;  b) six million Jews died in the holocaust; c) Jews are patriotic and loyal to the countries in which they live; and d) pro-Israel lobbies in Western countries are no more powerful or influential than other lobbies.

These four principles have shaped popular perceptions of Jews to an astounding degree, and in the case of the holocaust have been held as sacrosanct. Should one or more of them be set aside or eschewed by a large majority of the public, Jews could be facing a crisis of unprecedented proportions.

It is perhaps for this reason that French comedian Dieudonné has triggered such a visceral reaction among Jews, not  only in France but in the US as well.  Last year the Washington Post published what could politely be classified as a hit piece in which the comedian was rather effusively reviled.

“I am not an anti-Semite,” French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala says with a devilish grin near the start of his hit show at this city’s Théâtre de la Main d’Or.

Then come the Jew jokes.

Normally the mainstream media’s response to “anti-Semites” is to ignore them, but Dieudonné’s following has of course become so large he can no longer be ignored–as the video below shows. Note, close to the beginning, the size of the audience as the camera pans out over the crowd:

The Post article, published well before the Charlie Hebdo attacks, mentions that French Jewish leaders are “decrying the worst climate of anti-Semitism in decades,” and it goes on to describe Dieudonné’s growing popularity as “a sign of the times.”

Indeed, many people now are questioning all sorts of aspects about the holocaust, including where the six million figure came from. Recently blogger Greg Bacon posted a link to the Library of Congress and its collection of digitized newspaper articles dating back to the nineteenth century. Bacon typed the words “6,000,000 Jews” into the site’s search function, and turned up 138 results dating from the mid 1800s up to the early 1920s.

Bacon’s post also includes–or did include–a video showing a 3-D tour of Auschwitz, particularly an area of the camp where Jews were said to have been herded, en masse, in groups of up to 2000 at a time, into an underground room, gassed, and subsequently taken to a second room to be burned in crematory ovens. Indeed, there were some ovens, it seems–a total of 15, each designed to hold one body at any given time. Bacon put up the post on January 28. The video has since been removed from YouTube.

But it isn’t only the holocaust narrative that is being widely questioned. The official account of what took place on 9/11 is also taking a battering. Last year the website Rethink911 published the results of a poll showing that 38 percent of Americans have “some doubts” about the official story. Ten percent do not believe it at all, while 12 percent are “unsure” about it.

But here’s the real kicker: Nearly half of those polled were unaware of the collapse of a third building. When informed about it, and actually shown video footage of the collapse of Building 7, opinions changed dramatically. Forty six percent were “sure or suspect” the collapse was caused by controlled demolition. This compares with 28 percent who were “sure or suspect” it was caused by fires, and 27 percent who had no opinion.

The poll results were published in September of last year, this as a digital billboard, showing the Building 7 collapse, was sponsored by the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and put on display in Times Square.

A number of other 9/11 researchers have noted that technology making it possible to fly passenger jets by remote control already existed in 2001–and some have pointed out that Rabbi Dov Zakheim, comptroller of the Bush Pentagon, had previously served as CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation. The parent company was involved in producing “flight termination” technology (remote control technology which can be activated in the event a pilot becomes incapacitated) for the Pentagon, and is today considered one of the largest “support contractors” for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA.

Zakheim holds dual Israeli-US citizenship, and in 2000 he helped produce a report which envisioned a “catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor” as being necessary to garner public support for a US war in the Middle East. That report was published by the Project for a New American Century, a think tank founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, both Jewish.

Currently a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Zakheim has been described as the bionic Zionist, and is also believed to have been responsible for unaccounted-for Pentagon funds totaling $2.3 trillion which were reported missing or misplaced one day before 9/11. You can click here to view a video which delves somewhat into his family history (he is descended from Russian and Polish Jews), and which asserts that, “Of all the Zionists in Washington, Zakheim is considered the king.”

This and other evidence pointing to possible Jewish involvement in the 9/11 false flag, along with, of course, the existence of pro-Israel lobbies in virtually every Western country, has led many people to question the loyalty of Jews in general to their countries of residence–and that, too, is a disaster waiting to spring.

Jewish allegiance to the state of Israel is abundantly apparent everywhere you look these days. It doesn’t necessarily mean an absence of allegiance for countries of residence, but it does fuel endless questions in peoples’ minds about “dual loyalties” and the like. In some respects the mainstream media, albeit inadvertently, are providing fuel for the fire.

Recently the New York Times published an article headlined, Jewish American Pilots Fighting for Israel, concerning a documentary about Jewish fighter pilots who secretly fought in the 1948 war in Palestine (H/T Ariadna). The film is produced by Nancy Spielberg (sister of Steven Spielberg), and you can go here to view a trailer, which includes excerpts of interviews with some of the now-elderly pilots as well as some brief footage of devastation. “These fond recollections of derring-do hail from a different era,” says the Times, and while it is true we’re talking about events that occurred 67 years ago, one would also wonder whether this “different era” in question might also entail certain similarities in terms of Jewish tribal loyalties.

It might give us pause to also wonder: what is the difference between those who flew the planes in 1948 and those who  remotely-controlled the airliners in 2001? Is the difference merely one of degrees? Is it that the airmen of 1948 attacked targets in Egypt and Syria while those of 2001 chose a target in America? Was the motivating factor, in any event, loyalty to Israel in both cases?

The question of Jewish loyalty has long been a topic of heated debate but has especially come to the forefront since the publication in 2007 of the book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. The authors did not address the issue of Jewish loyalty; their focus was solely upon the Israeli lobby and how its objectives are often at cross-purposes with US strategic interests. But by the very nature of the subject matter it covered, the book, almost by default, raised two very  important and unavoidable issues:

A) That AIPAC is not like any other lobby in Washington–since one would be hard pressed to point to any other interest group that has successfully lobbied the US government to act against its own interests; and,

B) That questions about the loyalty of Jews who support AIPAC, including Jewish members of Congress, must be regarded as legitimate areas of concern

And it is probably for these very reasons that the book triggered–not unlike that which befell Dieudonné in terms of its general style and substance–a visceral and monumental reaction from Jews and the Zionist media (visceral reactions can be anticipated anytime any one of the four key beliefs are called into question), leading to attacks upon the authors and even calls for them to be stripped of their university teaching positions.

In any event, the question is fully out in the open now, with the issue of Jewish dual-loyalty being discussed by Gentiles, and even in some case by Jews, although many, particularly in the latter community, still refuse to recognize a divergence between US and Israeli interests.

But this should probably not come as a surprise. And as Kevin MacDonald reminds us, “Psychological research shows quite clearly that people with strong ingroup loyalties are likely to suffer cognitive distortions that would bias their attitudes and their policy recommendations.”

Of course at the same time there is no such thing as uniformity of thought amongst any  people. Jews are no exception. Here are two Jews who hold that the very words “dual loyalties” are the equivalent of an “anti-Semitic slur,” while another, here, concedes that for Jews living in countries other than Israel “one’s loyalties are inevitably divided,” but that this is not a particularly big deal or anything to worry about.

And then there are those anti-Zionist Jews who express the view that Zionists themselves could be deliberately fomenting anti-Semitism (see here, here, and here ), with the motive of “ghettoizing” Jewish populations in Western countries, thereby inducing greater support for, and immigration to, Israel.

In some respects maybe it’s a moot point. The real issue is that the suspension bridge holding aloft the four key beliefs has a major fissure in it. Should the bridge collapse altogether, it will set the stage for a major sea change in public perceptions and attitudes toward Jews. For most Jews this would be a disaster in the making, although there are a few who perhaps will sense opportunity in it.

In any case, conditions of turmoil and uncertainty give rise to feelings of despair and acts of rashness, and as this happens the chances of a major, “world-changing” false flag event go up.

UK jihads refused return, but when they went in 2012 UK Govt/ BBC refered to rebels instead of terrorists & wrongly accused Assad of atrocities

Cameron warns that British jihadists could be prevented from returning home

7 November 2012

Britain is to begin talks with armed Syrian rebels in a bid to unite the opposition to President Bashar al-Assad, the UK prime minister said

Syria conflict: UK planned to train and equip 100,000 rebels

BBC Silent – David Cameron’s Syrian FSA ‘rebels’ latest war crime – executed 80 civilians

BBC Caught Fabricating Videos to Push Libya and Syria War Agendas


In Britain, ‘public servants’, like PM Cameron and Foreign Secretary Hague, dutifully obey their corporate-financier masters and their political bosses in Washington and were keen to lead Britain into a war, at first seemingly with or without the backing of the UN Security Council, with or without evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

Stop gloating, Britain – you helped to destroy Syria

No British intervention in Syria? Are these people serious? Britain has been intervening in Syria for two years. Morally, militarily, politically and legalistically, the British and American governments have been meddling in the hellhole that is post-Arab Spring Syria since early 2011. And in the process they exacerbated the conflict, deepened the divisions and shot down in flames any prospect for a negotiated settlement. Stop crowing, Britain – you pushed Syria to the precipice it now stands on.

Why Do People Hate Jews? Rabbi Sidesteps Question


By Richard Edmondson

Controversy has hit a school near Leipzig, Germany where an entire 9th grade class is reportedly under investigation for openly displaying respect for Adolph Hitler and posting photos of themselves giving Nazi salutes and what-not on social media.

In mainstream media reports on the story, parents and authorities are referred to as being “horrified” over the matter, while some of the social media postings reportedly included jokes about Jews as well as praises of Hitler as a “great man.”

The school in question is called Landsberg Gymnasiums, located in the Leipzig area, and while it appears questionable as to whether all 29 members of the class were involved in the historical revisionism–which has, of course, greatly upset Jews–the investigation by German authorities is said to be, at least as of now, focusing collectively on the group as a whole.

Below is an RT report on the story which includes an interview with a Jewish rabbi from Berlin. Starting at about 2:35, the interviewer poses the following rather pertinent question to the rabbi:

Germany’s far from being the only country with a growing far right sentiment in Europe. Why do you think that this ideology seems to be proving increasingly popular?

What the interviewer is asking is a slight variation on the question, “Why do people hate Jews?” And it’s a darn good question! Unfortunately, it’s one which Jews apparently are determined not to answer. With only a few notable exceptions, which you can just about count on one hand, Jews, when faced with the question of what is causing rising hostility and anti-Semitism, relentlessly evade, duck and eschew offering any kind of lucid, cogent analysis on the subject. And so it is with this fellow:

Let’s break it down. Here again is the question that the interviewer put:

Germany’s far from being the only country with a growing far right sentiment in Europe. Why do you think that this ideology seems to be proving increasingly popular?

And here is the rabbi’s response:

Well I believe that this ideology unfortunately, which you mentioned also in other countries is, is not limited specifically to Germany at all. We find it in a number of countries across the spectrum, even many well-known countries that stand strong for democratic values. However, here in Germany it has a special meaning, there’s a special responsibility. I mean the authorities are doing what they can. That’s clear. But it has to also come onto the level of the population in education, in the very, very young stages of children when the children are still young. Already there the necessity for tolerance and respect for people of other religions and of other backgrounds has to be grounded at the very beginning of their childhood.

Now, you’ll recall that the interviewer did not ask the rabbi for any tips on child raising. What he specifically asked was: “Why do you think that this ideology seems to be proving increasingly popular?” But the rabbi completely sidestepped the question.

If we want to find out the reasons for growing anti-Jewish sentiments around the world, we might consider the following:

1. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, including its most recent assault upon Gaza, which left more than 2100 dead

2. Pro-Israel lobbies in numerous countries, lobbies which are perceived as disloyal, which corrupt national leaders, and which work to subvert popular democratic will

3. Jewish-owned media holdings and banking interests which constantly seem to agitate for wars, and who continue to prop up and support the aforementioned corrupted leaders and keep them in office

If you want an explanation for the increasing and openly-manifested hostilities toward Jews that we are now seeing, I would suggest that these are three main areas you might wish to examine and consider as possibilities, though not necessarily in the order I have presented them. And if you want to look for why such sentiments are rising to the surface in Germany specifically, you might consider also the ongoing holocaust reparations that German taxpayers have been forced to pay out, not only to individual Jews but also to the state of Israel.

Many people are perhaps under the impression that, yes, some sort of redress likely did occur between Germany and European Jews, but that whatever it was, it most likely was resolved and settled a few years after the war. Not  so. German reparations have been ongoing for the past 62 years, dating all the way back to the Luxembourg Agreement, and there seems to be almost no end in sight. According to this site, heirs to survivors may now be eligible for payments as well.

The Luxembourg agreement was signed on September 10, 1952 following lengthy negotiations between an ad hoc committee of Jews representing various Jewish organizations, including the World Jewish Congress; officials from the new state of Israel; and representatives of the West German government, including the country’s then-chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Here is an excerpt from Adenauer’s memoirs that readers might find especially interesting:

It was clear to me that, if the negotiations with the Jews failed, the negotiations at the London Debt Conference [which were going on at the same time] would also run aground, because Jewish banking circles would exert an influence upon the course of the London Debt Conference which should not be under-estimated. On the other hand it was self-evident that a failure of the London Debt Conference would bring about a failure of the negotiations with the Jews. If the German economy was to achieve a good credit standing and become strong again, the London Conference would have to be ended successfully. Only then would our economy develop in a way that would make the payments to Israel and the Jewish organizations possible.

An article published in the London Jewish Observer at the time put it more bluntly:

The whole material weight of world Jewry will be mobilized for an economic war against Germany, if Bonn’s offer of reparations remains unsatisfactory.

The Jews who participated in the Luxembourg Conference collectively came to be known as The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, or simply The Claims Conference, an organization that still exists today and which, through the years, has been touched by scandals, including one which erupted in 2009 when it was discovered that colossal amounts of money had been paid out in fraudulent claims made by alleged “survivors” of German war crimes.

“Never in the six-decade history of the organization had theft of this scale ever been discovered,” said the JTA in a report published on the scandal in 2012.

The total amount of money stolen or misappropriated was estimated at $57 million. Yet still today the Claims Conference continues to receive, and preside over the distribution of, all reparations paid out not only by Germany but by all other nations that have been forced to expend monies to Jewish survivors as well. These countries include Hungary, Austria, and also Switzerland, where banks have been forced to cough up a reported $1.24 billion in holocaust survivor claims just since the late 1990s.

To what extent the 9th graders at the German school are aware of these issues is unclear. There seems to be a concerted effort to portray the actions of the youngsters not as a revival of Nazism in Germany but as a simple youthful inclination toward exuberance and the breaking of “taboos.” This at any rate is how Lutz Feudel, the school headmaster, is spinning it.

“Breaking taboos is part of young adulthood,” he said. “I don’t believe that they wanted to actively promote neo-Nazi ideology.”

Perhaps not. But there does seem to be currently underway a fairly widespread review, reassessment, and revision as to the history of the Nazis and World War II. One of the most recent articles I have encountered to this effect is by Zen Gardner, who says that rather than the Germans declaring war on the Jews, it was the other way around. And he even pinpoints a date as to when this occurred, March 29, 1933 (which would have been just two months after Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany, by German President Von Hindenberg, on January 29, 1933), while also supplying a quote from former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George that sounds remarkably, almost eerily, similar to the quote from Adenauer:

The International Bankers swept statesmen, politicians, journalists and jurists all to one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute Monarchs. They had declared economic and financial war on Germany.

In Gardner’s view it is “undeniable that many Jews and other people suffered terribly at the hands of Nazi Germany,” yet he adds that “the legend of Auschwitz as an extermination camp for Jews is an outright fabrication.” His drawing of this conclusion, he says, is based in part on the work of British author David Irving.

While Irving has of course been extensively vilified by the mainstream media, no one, so far as I’m aware, has successfully discredited or refuted his research, although certainly Wikipedia makes a valiant effort at it here.

But regardless of your take on the Nazis and the German concentration camps, Jews have marshaled the power necessary to make questioning them illegal in a number of countries–and Irving and others have been jailed for nothing more than expressing their views on the matter. Why? For if the historical narrative found in the officially approved textbooks is true, then surely it should be able to withstand scrutiny–in which case, why would it ever be necessary to pass such laws in the first place?

And why does Israel continue its systematic displacement of the Palestinians, its theft of their lands, and its ongoing construction of illegal settlements in violation of international law? Is it possible to build a case that these things, along with the Zionist-controlled media’s one-sided coverage of them, are arousing more and more people to anger? And what also of the pro-Israel lobbies, the Wall Street investors, the power of the Federal Reserve and the central banks in Europe–is it going out on a limb to speculate that anger is aroused here as well, or to deduce that this anger is directed, rightly or wrongly, against Jews collectively as a whole? And finally could all these factors, taken as a whole, account for the rising levels of animus toward Jews we are seeing, the so-called “growing anti-Semitism” that so many Jewish writers ominously expound upon?


But one thing is certain: a great many Jews, such as the rabbi in Berlin, definitely do not want to talk about it.

The Western/Israeli myth of intolerance in the Middle East

Hatreds spawned by the West – the myth of the intolerant Middle East

Violence in the Middle East is often blamed on age old religious hatred. But the region’s history is of coexistence—until imperialist superpowers tore it apart, argues Ken Olende

The latest US bombing of Iraq is claimed to be a defence of the Yazidi people. This religious minority follows a version of Zoroastrianism, which was the religion of the Persian Empire before the rise of Islam.

The Middle East is often portrayed as a place torn apart by deep-seated hatreds and senseless wars fuelled by religion. The very existence of such communities as the Yazidi and Iraqi Christians shows that its history has been very different.

Religious intolerance is not “age old”, but has been intensified by the imperial powers that have dominated the region for a century and a half.

The revolutionary Karl Marx argued that religion is the “heart in a heartless world”—something people turn to for comfort and a sense of hope. He wrote that religious ideas are not eternal, but develop with the social conditions around them.

Islam first arose in the seventh century. Most of the Middle East was ruled by either the Persian Empire based in modern Iran or the remains of the Roman Empire.

Both were oppressive to minorities. The Roman Empire was Christian, but enormously intolerant to anything its rulers saw as heresy. There were repeated attacks on Jews and unorthodox Christians.

When early Muslim armies spread many welcomed them as liberators.

A Jewish writer at the time told how “the creator has brought the Kingdom of Ishmael [the Arabs] in order to save you from wickedness”. A Syrian Christian historian said, “God… delivered us out of hands of the Romans by means of the Arabs… to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred of us.”

For a while the whole region was run as one state, the Caliphate, but this divided into kingdoms.

This was not a time of simple peace. Powers and centres rose and fell. Sometimes violent splits emerged and sometimes minorities faced persecution.


But the region remained in general one of the most advanced areas of the world—and one of the more tolerant.

In these states Jews and Christians could practice their religion and had certain rights as long as they paid a poll tax. Over the centuries this status, known as “dhimmi”, was extended to all non-Muslims.

This was not equality, but it was much better than the treatment of religious minorities in much of Europe at the time. The difference becomes clearest with the Crusades.

In 1077 a Turkish army conquered Jerusalem. A rumour spread across Europe that Christian pilgrims had been mistreated or even massacred.

This provided the excuse for an invasion by thousands of European knights in the first of the Crusades.

Crusaders killed many Christians, Jews and Muslims as they travelled, then put Jerusalem to the sword.

Crusader Raymond D’Aguilers wrote, “Men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed it was a just and splendid judgement of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers.”

The Crusaders were pushed out of Jerusalem after a century of battles—another war held up as an example of the region’s unending savagery. But evidence shows a very different Middle East.

Some 300,000 documents, known as the Geniza collection, found in an old Cairo synagogue show a long period of co-development. The Jewish writers of the documents shared the same kind of lives as their Muslim and Christian neighbours. They worked as traders and farmers and bought or rented property.

Right up to the 20th century, Jews spoke in Arabic and shared the culture of others in the Middle East.

For around 400 years before the 20th century most of the region was part of the Ottoman Empire, based in modern Turkey. The empire was Muslim, but Jews could work as government advisers and served in parliament.

As the empire went into slow decline, rising capitalist powers—Britain, France and Russia—competed to grab its territory. They created the religious intolerance that has dogged the Middle East’s recent past.

By 1880 there were 90,000 Europeans resident in Egypt. They were exempt from local law and didn’t have to pay taxes. In a period of extreme austerity for all Egyptians they flaunted their wealth.

Egyptians rose up and the British responded with a naval bombardment that flattened much of the coastal city of Alexandria. A full scale British invasion followed.

Rival powers offered the idea of liberty to people in each other’s empires. Lawrence of Arabia—British officer TE Lawrence—promised British aid to create independent Arab states if they rebelled and supported Britain in the First World War.

British imperialists had no intention of keeping that promise. They had signed the Sykes-Picot agreement with France, carving up Ottoman territories between their empires.


The Middle East had already been an important hub for trade routes, but with the discovery of oil it became an imperial prize without equal.

Britain backed the call for a Zionist state during the First World War partly to undermine Germany. But it went on supporting it after the war.

Sir Ronald Storrs, the first British governor of Jerusalem, said it could be “a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism”.

He looked to Britain’s first colony in Ireland. Protestants from Scotland had been settled in Ulster in the hope that they would always be more loyal to the empire than their neighbours.

This was the root of another long conflict often blamed on religion.

Far from the Middle East exporting its problems to Europe, racism from Europe spread to the Middle East. Zionism developed in response to antisemitism in Europe, not in Palestine.

Such divide and rule tactics have always been a mainstay of imperialism. Britain and France have been replaced as leading imperial powers by the US. It continued their poisonous policies through the 20th century.

Christians and Jews were involved at all levels of society when the modern state of Iraq was established. This changed under the occupation by the US and Britain from 2003.

The invaders were immediately unpopular, even among people who hated former dictator Saddam Hussein. Years of sanctions and the “shock and awe” air strikes had destroyed all sympathy.

Bogged down in a ground war against a unified opposition, US leaders moved in 2005 to divide Shia, Sunni, Kurdish and Christian Iraqis.

They encouraged the growth of Shia sectarian Badr brigades in the interior ministry. They convinced some Sunni resistance groups to turn on their colleagues through “Awakening Councils”. They built walls to divide the capital Baghdad into sectarian neighbourhoods.

Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric who led Shia resistance at the time, warned his followers against sectarian attacks. He said, “Do not forget the plotting of the occupation, for if we forget its plots, it will kill us all without exception.”

His warning was tragically prophetic. The US succeeded in breaking the unity of the resistance.

It managed to keep its grip a few years longer by shattering the society it occupied. The scale of sectarian violence made many Iraqis start identifying first as Sunni, Shia or Kurd.

Groups like the Islamic State today are the product of that occupation. They recruit out of divisions it sowed, anger at the corrupt sectarian state it left behind, and despair at the failure of united resistance to beat it.

The Jewish Question: A Problem Without a Solution

Part 1: The Jewish Problem in Historical Perspective

“As far as I know, no one has ever come up with an effective solution to the Jewish problem. Solving the riddle of the Sphinx would be easier.”

. . . by Lasha Darkmoon — June 20, 2014

1. Why all attempts to solve the Jewish Problem have failed

“Wherever the Jew is found he is a problem, a source of unhappiness to himself and to those around him.” — Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles. Click to enlarge

The Jewish Problem, more commonly and euphemistically known as the “Jewish Question“, has agitated the minds of political analysts throughout history but has remained unresolved to this day.
For centuries, a ready and makeshift solution to the problem consisted in the mass expulsion of the Jews.
Just get rid of the Jews, it was thought, and the problem would go away. This didn’t work. The Jews simply migrated and created problems elsewhere. And then, after a few years, their descendants came trickling back into the same countries from which their ancestors had been forcibly evicted.
Here is Queen Maria Theresa in a decree dated 1787, during the heyday of the Enlightenment period. The Queen of Austria-Hungary, Croatia, Bohemia, Mantua, Milan, Galicia, Parma and the Austrian Netherlands had grown weary of the Jews and the never-ending problems they had caused in her extensive dominions. Her expulsion order is typical of the many others  issued by other countries before her time, so we shall quote the angry queen in her own words:
“Henceforth no Jew, no matter under what name, will be allowed to remain here without my written permission. I know of no other troublesome plague within the state than this race, which impoverished the people by their fraud, usury and money-lending and commits all deeds which an honorable man despises. Subsequently they have to be removed and excluded from here as much as possible.”  (See here)

Jewish expulsions

Though Jews have been expelled from 109 locations from AD 250, expulsion failed to solve the Jewish Problem.
The next attempted solution to the Jewish problem, primarily advocated by the Jews themselves and their philosemitic supporters, was complete emancipation of the Jews.
It was widely believed that if their crippling disabilities were removed, and if Jews were made equal citizens, that the Jewish problem would just “disappear” — especially with assimilation. The Jew’s antisocial behavior, it was argued, was the natural result of his unfair treatment. Treat him well and he would behave properly.
It was always understood that assimilation was a necessary precondition for Jewish  emancipation. In order to become equal citizens, Jews had to promise to fit in with the society around them and become part of a happy and homogenous whole.
They were told: intermarry with the natives, convert to Christianity, learn the language of the country, dress like other people, adopt the manners and customs of those around you, and, above all, take a back seat and keep out of trouble.
It was a rare Jew who followed all these instructions to the letter. Some refused to follow any. As for the final injunction — take a back seat and keep out of trouble — most Jews found this impossible to keep. It ran against the grain of their nature. It was almost like expecting a cat not to kill birds or a fox not to raid the hen house.
The Jews received their first emancipation in France. This was in 1791 after the French Revolution, a catastrophic event engineered by Masonic secret societies in which the Jews featured predominantly and wielded the most influence. Several other revolutions were to follow in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. All of these, without exception, were masterminded by Jews.
“At the front of every one of these revolutionary movements for the destruction of authority, nationhood and religion,” noted an eminent elder statesman, “you find aJew.”
These inflammatory words were written by Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of England, himself a Jew who had converted to Christianity.
Emancipation proceeded at a rapid rate in country after country throughout the 19th century. Far from “solving” the Jewish problem, this merely made matters worse. This was because Jewish emancipation inevitably led to Jewish supremacy.
Every single country that emancipated its Jews was soon taken over by Jews.
In Russia, the Jews took their emancipation by force. This was in 1917 after the Bolshevik Revolution: an event carefully planned, financed, and largely administered by Jews from New York. Communism was then ushered in, the Pale of Settlement abolished, and Jews thereafter emigrated in swarms to the United States, Canada, South America, various other European countries, and, finally, to Palestine — where they immediately began to make themselves a thorough nuisance to the Arabs.
Did emancipating the Jews in Russia solve the Jewish problem? No, it did not. It made matters infinitely worse: not only in Russia but in every single country to which these refugees from the Pale of Settlement came with their beaky noses under black hats, their raggedy beards, their wild eyes, and their clackclacking Yiddisher tongues.
The Red Terror was soon to follow. The Russian peasants, who constituted 90 percent of the population at that time, were massacred in their millions, with Jewish commissars in the vanguard giving the orders to kill. Blood ran in rivers through the streets of Moscow and St Petersburg, much to the delight of psychopaths like Leon Trotsky, Lazar Kaganovich, and Ilya Ehrenberg — all of them Jews with lots of blood on their hands.
Over 66 million Russian Christians, according to Solzhenitsyn, were genocided by an essentially Jewish regime in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1953. In comparison, the French Revolution had been a nun’s picnic.
emancipation-of-jews-timeline1Here is the psychopathic Leon Trotsky (pictured),  shortly after the violent emancipation of Jews in Russia that followed in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution (1917):
“We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white negroes upon whom we shall impose a tyranny such as the most terrible Eastern despots never dreamt of…. We shall shed such floods of blood as will make all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars pale by comparison…. By means of terror and bloodbaths, we shall reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a state of complete stupefaction and idiocy and to an animal existence.”  (Full quote here)
— From the ‘Memoirs of Aron Simanovich’, quoted in The Nature of Zionism by Vladimir Stepin, Moscow, 1993, and translated from Russian into English by Clive Lindhurst.

2.  Zionism promoted as a solution to the Jewish Problem

A new “cure” for the Jewish problem was offered by Theodor Herzl in the late 1890s: Zionism. “Give us a country of our own,” the Zionists said in so many words, “and this will solve the Jewish problem.”
Quite simply, the idea was this: if Jews were given their own country, they would all go and live there and get out of everyone’s way. It was thought that the removal of their presence from every country, as they proceeded to settle in their new homeland, Israel, would solve the Jewish problem once and for all.
The formula was axiomatic and self-evident: No Jews, no Jewish Problem.
Is it anti-Semitic to say this? No, it is not, given that the pioneers of Zionism put forward exactly the same idea in different words. They demanded a separate Jewish homeland for Jews on the grounds that Jews were a headstrong and highly-strung race incapable of living in other people’s countries without creating problems sooner or later. The Talmudic mentality insisted: we Jews will not take orders from our inferiors.
Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, wrote in his memoirs:
“Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them. [This] reaction…cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word; it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake it off. —  Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error (1949). Quoted in Albert S. Lindemann’sThe Jew Accused, 1991 (p. 277).
Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, had himself made the same point much earlier. “Anti-Semitism,” he wrote, is “an understandable reaction to Jewish defects.” And in his diary he added: “I find the anti-Semites are fully within their rights.” (Seehere)
It has long been recognized by intelligent Jews that mutual antagonism between Jew and gentile is only to be expected, and that any attempt to achieve lasting peace and harmony between the two groups is doomed to failure. “I do not believe that the primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconcilable,” Jewish author Maurice Samuel points out in his book You Gentiles. “You and we may come to an understanding, never to a reconciliation. There will be irritation between us as long as we are in intimate contact.”  (See here)

3.  Why Zionism failed to solve the Jewish problem

Zionism seemed a neat solution to the Jewish problem initially. This was because, on the one hand, it meant that the Jews got their own country; and, on the other, it meant that non-Jews got rid of Jews and no longer had to put up with their pesky presence — which, as both Herzl and Weizmann had already conceded, was the root cause of anti-Semitism.
And so it came about that Zionism was widely seen in these early days as an original and workable solution to the Jewish problem, even though Zionism meant stealing Arab land on which to park this recalcitrant race of rootless cosmopolitans.
The awkward question nevertheless needs to be asked: did Zionism actually succeedin solving the Jewish problem, as it was widely expected to do? No, unfortunately it did not. Like all other solutions hitherto tried, Zionism was to prove an abysmal failure.
This was because Jewish leaders reneged on their implicit promise, or rather on the tacit understanding, that those who are given a homeland are under obligation to go and live there. The Jews were expected to emigrate to Israel en masse, thereby solving the Jewish Problem by removing the root cause of the problem, i.e.,themselves: meaning, their presence in other people’s countries as undesirable maladapts.
The Jews’ reluctance to emigrate to Israel en masse after 1948 defeated the whole purpose of giving them their own country in the first place. It made a mockery of Zionism and its rationale.
There are almost as many Jews in North America today (5.8 million) as there are in Israel (5.9 million). An enormous  40 percent of world Jewry now choose to live in the United States. Vast numbers of Jews moreover  continue to live in other people’s countries where they continue to excite anti-Semitism by their domineering presence, their over-representation in key professions, their tendency to network, and their constant involvement in fraud and financial scams.
This was not as it was meant to be. Why give the Jews a homeland if they refuse to live there? Why buy a man a horse, you might similarly ask,  if he refuses to ride it?
So here we are now: at this awkward impasse.
By giving the Jews Israel, the Brits and the Americans possibly made history’s most costly mistake. No decision they could have made is likely to have more catastrophic consequences. The Jews now have nuclear weapons. More than once, they have threatened the world with their Samson Option, i.e., world annihilation if ever Israel is existentially threatened. And needless to say, they are currently engaged in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians, a people whose only crime is that they happen to own the land the Jews covet.
Adolf Hitler once described America as the Jews’ “new hunting grounds”. I apologize for quoting the most hated man in history, but it seems there were times when Hitler actually hit the nail on the head. With remarkable prescience, he saw that the state of Israel would one day develop into organized Jewry’s international crime base from which it would plunder other countries, including America, with impunity:
“It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.”  — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 11


In 1946 the Jews owned 6 percent of Palestine.
Today they occupy (illegally) roughly 90 percent

Click to enlarge

In his final years, Stalin appears to have developed a negative attitude toward Israel, seeing it as a giant military base run by a Jew-controlled America that would one day threaten the vital interests of the Soviet Union. Before he could do anything about it, Stalin was assassinated.
The one man who could have stopped international Jewry in its tracks, as it ran its  rollercoaster ride to world domination with the United States as its battering ram, had been secretly poisoned to death — either by Beria, thought by many to be Jewish, or by another Jew in Stalin’s entourage.
The date of Stalin’s death, March 1, 1953, happened by a strange coincidence to fall on the Jewish feast of Purim.
International Jewry today continues its triumphant march in North America, Europe and elsewhere.
Continued in Part 2: The Devil’s Mousetrap

Dr Lasha Darkmoon is an academic with higher degrees in Classics. She is also a poet and translator. Many of her articles have been published hereand here; her poems and translations, here.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

From the 1948 Nakba to the 1967 Naksa

Live From Occupied Palestine

 Dear friends,

Today, June 5, marks the 47th anniversary of the Naksa (Arabic for setback/calamity). In 1967, Israel invaded Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian controlled territories seizing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. For the Palestinian people, the June 1967 war and subsequent occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem resulted in Israel’s illegl military occupation of what was left of their historic homeland. After the 1948 Al Nakba (the catastrophe), the 1967 Naksa (the setback/calamity) it is the single most important objective factor that defines the Palestinian people’s struggle for self-determination, freedom and justice.

In 1967 more than 400,000 Palestinians were expelled by Israel from their land, marking the second expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland since 1948 when more than 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled to neighbouring Arab countries by Zionist terror militias and 150,000 Palestinians became internally displaced inside the newly established Israeli state. It took Israel less than one week to forcibly displace Palestinians for the second time, with ninety-five percent of Palestinians fleeing to Jordan. A small number also fled to Lebanon and Syria.

I have included below photos from the 1967, as well as an extract from a 2004 bulletin issued by Badil, the Resource Center for Palestinian Residency & Refuge which gives a very good overview of the Naksa and its impact on Palestinian society.

I am also posting a link to an article I posted up a year ago about Israel’s razing and ethnic cleansing of the Mughrabi neighourhood in 1967, which took place within days of Israel seizing control of Occupied East Jerusalem.  The Mughrabi neighbourhood was ethnically cleansed in order to build the plaza which now stands in front of the Western Wall. 

The article by Ben Lynefield originally appeared in the American Jewish Forward. In the article Lynfield notes that the destruction fo the Mughrabi neighbourhood “is an event either unknown or repressed by most Israelis and Jews who visit the Kotel. It is deleted from public discourse about the Old City”. Lynefield’s article offers some valuable information on the razing of the neighbourhood within days of Israel seizing and occuping East Jerusalem and the ethnic cleansing of up to 1000 or more Palestinians from their homes.

You can read his article by clicking here.

For an overview and facts on the 1967 war, see the Institute for Middle East Understanding’s FAQ sheet (please click here).

in solidarity,

Al Naksa in Photos:

 Israeli military arrest Palestinians suspected of being members of Fatah

 Palestinians arrested by Israeli military forces

 Israeli soldier watch as Palestinian refugees flee across the Allenby Bridge into Jordan

A Palestinian girl carrying her sister as they prepare to cross the Allenby Bridge

 Palestinians refugees flee across the bombed out Allenby Bridge at the River Jordan into Jordan


 Palestinian refugees flee across bombed out Allenby Bridge

Israel razes hundreds of Palestinian homes immediately after seizing East Jerusalem leaving thousands homeless 

Within days of seizing East Jerusalem, Israeli razes Palestinian homes, ethnically cleansing thousnad of Palestinians in order to build the Western Wall plaza


From the 1948 Nakba to the 1967 Naksa

Extract from BADIL Occasional Bulletin No. 18, June 2004 (to read the bulletin in full, please click here)

[Clipped section – Prelude to Al Naksa] 

During the second Arab-Israeli war in June 1967 some 400,000 Palestinians were displaced. Half of them were refugees who had been displaced from the part of Palestine that became Israel during the 1948 war. This second displacement took less than a week. Ninety-five per cent fled to Jordan and small numbers to Lebanon and Syria. About one million Palestinians remained in the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and Gaza.

As in the 1948 Nakba, most refugees were displaced by Israeli military forces using tactics violating basic principles of international humanitarian and human rights law: attacks on civilians, massacres and other atrocities; expulsion; and destruction and looting of property. In Jerusalem, Israeli forces rounded up Palestinian men, forced them onto buses and sent them to Jordan. Some were beaten and then forced to sign papers saying they left voluntarily. At the border, refugees trying to return were shot at. 

Scope of Displacement

The Naksa altered the landscape of Palestine once again. About 1.4 million Palestinians lived in West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and Gaza on the eve of the 1967 war between Israel and neighboring Arab states. Until then, the majority of Palestinians living in the central (except the Jerusalem district) and eastern interior of mandatory Palestine had escaped the largescale displacement and dispossession of Palestinians living in other areas of the country. This included Nablus and Ramallah districts and portions of Jenin, Tulkarem, Hebron, Jerusalem and Gaza districts.

More than a third of the Palestinian population of West Bank and Gaza was displaced during the war. By the end of 1967 the proportion of the indigenous Palestinian population outside its homeland had more than doubled. Nearly half of all Palestinians were now living in exile. Seven villages in West Bank, several refugee camps in the Jericho area, half of the city of Qalqilya, and the Moroccan quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City were destroyed. Depopulated and destroyed villages included Imwas, Yalu and Beit Nuba in the Latrun salient west of Jerusalem, and the villages of Beit Marsam, Beit Awa, Jiftlik, and al-Burj. In the period immediately after the 1967 war, Palestinian ownership and control of land fell by nearly 15 per cent in these areas 

Denationalized and Dispossessed

In September 1967 Israel conducted a census in West Bank, eastern Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. Only Palestinians (and their offspring) registered in the census were considered by Israel to be legal residents of the occupied territories. It is estimated that 60,000 West Bank Palestinians were abroad at the time of the war and so were not included in the census nor were up to 30,000 Palestinian residents of Jerusalem. Administrative measure effectively prevented Palestinians abroad at the time of the war and Palestinian refugees displaced during the war from returning to their homes.

Israeli legislation and military orders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip applied many of the same property laws already in effect inside Israel. Military Order No. 58 Concerning

Abandoned Property (Private Property) enabled the government to acquire control of refugee properties in the West Bank. Unlike the 1950 Absentees’ Property Law applicable in Israel, the military order for West Bank has no time restrictions and thus enables Israel to continue to apply the Order subsequent to the original displacement of Palestinians from the occupied territories in 1967. Israel took control of state land under Military Order No. 59, Concerning Government Properties.

Israel did not apply these same military orders to eastern Jerusalem. Instead, it applied its own domestic law, under the 1968 Legal and Administrative Matters (Regulations) Law. This law also established procedures for Jews to reclaim lost property in eastern Jerusalem after the 1948 war. Under the same law Palestinian residents of eastern Jerusalem were exempt from the 1950 Absentees’ Property Law; however, Palestinians living in eastern Jerusalem who lost properties in western Jerusalem or other areas inside Israel in 1948 were still considered as absentees in regard to their property in these other areas. 

International Response

In June 1967 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 237 calling on Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of areas where military operations took place and facilitate the return of those inhabitants who had fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities. This resolution is reaffirmed annually by the General Assembly. Several months later the Security Council adopted Resolution 242 calling for a just settlement of the refugee problem. In July 1967 the General Assembly also requested the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), established in the aftermath of the 1948 war, to extend emergency relief and assistance to Palestinian refugees displaced in 1967.

[clipped section]

Since the Palestinian-Israeli conflict began, the UN Security Council has passed more than 200 resolutions on the subject but the trail of unimplemented resolutions is long. They include Israel’s failure to: rescind measures changing the status of Jerusalem; stop deporting Palestinians from the occupied territories; and abide by obligations and responsibilities in the 4th Geneva Convention. General Assembly Res. 194 on the right of return of 1948 refugees has not been enforced nor have Security Council Resolutions 237 and 242 on the return of 1967 refugees and withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories. Resolutions calling on Israel to comply with international law have been vetoed more than 50 times by the United States.

[clipped section]

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

Infographic: Identity crisis, the Israeli ID system

(Photo: Visualizing Palestine)
Published Thursday, May 15, 2014
The Nakba (“the catastrophe”), which refers to the ethnic cleansing of over 50 percent of the Palestinian population, was a defining moment of the long and ongoing history of forced displacement and separation of the Palestinian people that began with the events leading up to the creation of the State of Israel on May 15, 1948.
Today, 66 years after this date, the fragmentation of the Palestinian people both inside and outside of historic Palestine remains as concrete as ever.
The infographic represents the first time that this reality has been highlighted in a single visual, including each population group falling under de-facto Israeli sovereignty today. It de-constructs how different groups of Israelis and Palestinians experience segregation based on an Israeli-controlled system of colored ID cards. The graphic is based on data from UN agencies, and from Israeli and Palestinian government sources and NGOs.
The issue of prolonged Israeli sovereignty over Palestinians is also pertinent in light of growing talk among prominent Israeli politicians such as Naftali Bennet of permanently and unilaterally annexing large portions of the occupied Palestinian territory, and by Avigdor Lieberman of de-nationalising some Palestinian citizens of Israel. A recent Associated Press articlediscusses how a shifting demographic balance and continuing de-facto Israeli control over the Palestinian population weigh heavy in Israel’s calculations.

Visualizing Palestine is an organization that uses visuals to describe a factual rights-based narrative of Palestine.
(Photo: Visualizing Palestine)
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

A Wall for a Wall: Mirroring Racism

Now that our President has handed over the resolution of the Syrian debacle to the United Nations, perhaps justice demands that he hand over resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to that international body as well. One can turn to the reality of the illegal machinations of the Israeli Zionist government any day of the week and see and know and feel the terror that exists for the occupied people who are defenseless before the impunity granted to the state of Israel for crimes that any other member nation of the UN would, as is true of Syria, be brought for justice before the International Courts. Consider these items from today’s news:

“In the 12 years since September 2000 up to the end of September 2012 Israel killed 6,550 Palestinians in their homeland. Of these, 1,335 were children. Over the same period Palestinians killed 590 Israelis in their homeland, including 85 children.
This is a kill-ratio of 11 to 1. When it comes to children, the Israelis are even more proficient, achieving a kill-ratio of nearly 16 to 1.
This does not take into account the Israeli onslaught on Gaza from 27 December 2008 – 18 January 2009 which killed nearly 1,400 Palestinians a huge number of whom were children. Obama, the US president-in-waiting at the time, refused to lift a finger, let alone utter a word of condemnation.
Finally, the above does not take into account the thousands of Palestinian homes demolished by the Israeli military machine funded by the United States.” (, 9/29/13).

“Here’s a piece of disgusting news, so disgusting in fact that it beggars belief. Israel and its army of occupation are not just brutal, inhuman and utterly devoid of morality. Israeli army sprays sewage on the streets of the Palestinian town of Abu Dis )(Camden Abu Dis Friendship Association, on 26 September).


Here’s an idea whose time has come: create Israeli designed occupied territories in multiple cities across Europe, Britain, and America, each mirroring the prison that exists in Judea/Samaria (sic). Only here the 400 miles of wall would surround the Jewish enclaves that exist in these cities so that a veritable comparison might be made obvious to the entire world of the conditions that prevail in Palestine. The idea originates from Iran, a land that is threatened by the impunity of the state of Israel; perhaps it could become the next peace project of the United Nations after Syria. After all this one has existed now for over 63 years. Justice demands it.

“Supposing Iran imposed strict regulations on its Jewish community telling them there are places in the country they cannot go to, or gives them special coloured number plates for their cars which identifies them as Jews or constructs a ‘barrier’ around their residences restricting their movements and effectively blocking them from accessing other parts of Iran, or make a strict checkpoint system where Jews would have to queue up for hours to get a permit to go to taboo places for legitimate business or to visit a sibling or to take a patient to hospital. Add to this mix an official announcement that henceforth Iran would be an exclusive state  for Aryans and Aryans only, thus automatically relegating all minorities to a second class status, can you imagine the outcry  of such outlandish racist policies would make?” (Hameed Abdul Karim,

Sometimes a wall is needed if only to magnify its purpose, to include and to exclude: apples from cows or humans deprived of life by humans depraved enough to deny life; indeed, a wall mirrors those on each side, the haves from the have-nots, the people without a country from a country exclusively for one people identifiable only by their religion, a people denied freedom of movement or of economic growth or of their natural resources, the aquifers that traverse their land, the oil and gas off their shores, from those who have stolen the land and the aquifers and the taxes and slam the gates shut effectively imprisoning a people without charge or justice.

I speak obviously of the Sharon Wall of Fear and Racism that incarcerates the people of Palestine. It reflects like a glowing mirror in the sun the inherent racism that is embedded in the state of Israel as it continues its devastation of those not born into Judaism and imposes its will on the indigenous people whose land they occupy. I would suggest that Iran build what Hameed Abdul Karim describes in the above paragraph in Iran and America build its own Wall in Brooklyn and the UK build its Wall in London to reflect before the world what it prefers not to deal with, the lawless state of Israel that has yet to be brought before the international courts.

The irony of this suggestion jostles the just mind that knows in all probability that the people of the United States, many in Britain, some in Europe and all in Israel would be repulsed by such racism and condemn the nation and the people of Iran and America and Britain for such injustice and hate-filled behavior, yet, and this is the irony, they would not see the mirror reflection in that condemnation of the existing state of affairs in occupied Palestine. What is the cause of such overwhelming acceptance of the injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people by the Jewish State; what mental blindness prevents our representatives and Senators from realizing that the foundational principles of the United States of America are antithetical to the foundational policies of the Zionist state; and how can anyone present this contradiction to the citizens of America so that the injustices inherent in our unbridled support may be repudiated?

In 1492 and again about 100 years later when “settlers’ from Britain invaded the eastern shores of this continent, they brought with them beliefs rife with racism, arrogance and military conquest allowing them to enslave, incarcerate, and slaughter the people they encountered indifferent to the plight of these people before the might of their innate beliefs and overwhelming military power. That is the Eurocentric mindset that devastated the indigenous people with disease and massacre until they were essentially eradicated. That is the same mindset that the Zionists brought with them to Palestine. That is the colonialist mindset that cemented in the invaders their superiority over all others. It is a mindset that is anathema to the beliefs that all humans are created equal, that all are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and it is anathema to those who would deny the rights embedded in the Bill of Rights that guarantee to all citizens justice before the law. Yet this nation has supported without condition a nation that has acted contrary to all of these principles since its founding in 1948.

Perhaps it is time America relinquish its “unbreakable” support of the Zionist state so that justice can flourish in Palestine, so that Walls of Hate may fall before bridges of compassion and love, so that weapons of mass destruction can be removed from the face of the earth, so that peace may reign in the mid-East, so that brother and sister can live together throughout the world.

We are all al-Qaeda now, if Obama says so?

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. He rots the soul of a nation – he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city – he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.” – Cicero, 42 BC

The political earth is shifting under our feet here in the US. There is talk now of something that most felt would be a down the road event… that America may be reaching a ‘tipping point’. I define that to mean a much larger number coming to understand that our present form of government has failed us, including the balance of powers doctrine which the Founding Fathers carefully built into our system.

They did not have a crystal ball, and could not see that outside forces could combine with disloyal, greedy and even treasonous rogue elements inside multiple branches of the our government to literally co-opt the country into being a tool for these outside forces.

The recent case in Syria of the highly suspicious chemical attack (I am being kind here) has generated the lowest support numbers for American military action that anyone here can remember. But if that was not bad enough the Obama administration made another mistake.

Their official position was, “We have the power to do it, so it does not matter what the people think.” That was a very dumb move on their part and I think they will look back on it so.

A two-sided coin seems to be in play here. On June 21st Obama sent a War Powers justification notice to Congress regarding the 700 troops and the missile batteries being sent to Jordan. On June 27th he effectively nullified the War Powers Act by saying he was not going to use it anymore as American constitutional foundations were being undermined by using the act for continual war without Congressional consent.

A week ago Obama said he would seek UN approval for a Syrian strike, and absent that only a sizable international coalition would make an attack diplomatically justifiable, but said getting that done would be ‘problematic’. Then days later he flips again saying that he has the authority to punish the use of WMD (but not when we, the Israelis or our allies use it). After the US has supported the killing of 100,000 Syrians, countless wounded and 8 million homeless in its disastrous regime-change ploy, we accuse Syria of a horrible crime.

And now, until he flips again, Obama is saying he wants Congress to have a debate and a vote, but still insists he has the power to launch an attack anyway. Are you getting a bit confused? This all looks like a superpower in panic mode. But why?

The White House public policy advisers must have rocks in their heads thinking that Americans can’t remember all the juiced up Intel reporting that took us into series of disastrous wars that significantly endangered our national security, and still is. One really has to look back at it all and ask if that was not really their objective.

Dear Obama policy wonks and CIA people, we remember what a hoax our secret agent ‘Curve Ball’ was, and we don’t believe he scammed you. We think you let yourself be scammed by him as part of your own scam.

We remember the yellow cake hustle, the sacrificing of Colin Powell, and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld playing used car salesman on CNN while he showed made in Hollywood underground cities that Al-Qaeda had in Afghanistan. Yes… it was all bogus, and we remember.

People do not think that it was misinformation, but fraudulent evidence use to fool the public, to herd us like lemmings to the sea. Rumsfeld is despised in the military and Intelligence community now, along with Bush and Cheney and the rest of the NeoCon traitors.

We remember Wolfowitz testifying how two years of Iraqi oil production would cover the entire cost of the Iraq war. I could go on and on but we all know now it was just one long record of failure after failure, except for all the contractor money that was made by all those who thought a multi-decade War on Terror was just wonderful.

But this week we saw two significant segments of American society begin to awaken from their long slumber, the silent majority and American veterans and their families. Among the roughly 10% of Americans polled who supported an attack on Syria were all the pro-Israel American Jews, and the hard core Christian Zionists. What was missed is that most of the CZ’s seemed to be absent from the pro-military strike numbers. Even their leadership seemed to be keeping their heads down.

The rank and file military folks, they know they have been misused in the past and are a little more savvy about spotting another bogus national security threat being used as a cover for something else.

They sense the justification for a Syria attack as part of America’s post Soviet collapse continuation of commercial wars to secure and protect markets for multinational corporations, thus reducing the American people to plantation livestock and military cannon fodder.

They are seeing an insider government rogue element intermarriage with these supra-multinational corporations, including the banksters, as the most dangerous national threat that America has been facing. They are of course 100% right.

When Obama used Vietnam anti-war veteran John Kerry to trot out that pitiful excuse for evidence that Syria would pull a chemical weapons attack in areas where their ground forces had been succeeding, he shot himself in the foot. Absent was any mention of motivation, or the already known Intel of the rebels having chemical weapons and having used them.

Obama has now aligned himself with the depredations of the Bush II regime. His administration is now being viewed as a national security threat in itself. Obama, the Brits and the French have all been quiet on the major terrorism operations being run out of Saudi Arabia by Prince Bandar. They have murdered more people in Syria than were lost in New York City on 911. Syria has been getting the ‘911 treatment’ once a month, compliments of the protector of the free world.

Those who conspired to bring this about are guilty of crimes against humanity under international law. The charge is simply conspiracy to commit terrorism, and taking direct action to effect such. This is like… a really really big crime. The last time I looked, diplomatic immunity did not protect you from that.

The world knows now that the ‘Iran has nuclear weapons’ scare was all hype, created to build support for a hope for strike against Iran. The economic consequences of that misadventure would have tanked the world economy. What people, what nation would want to risk such a financial catastrophe when we have learned that the world financial system is a house of cards, constructed as such to benefit the few at the expense of the many?

The only entities who would be from such a disaster would be those who could profit from it. Why do some multinational corporations have intelligence capabilities that surpass many countries? Why does one of the major Internet companies have a paramilitary division, getting secret government contracts, including running assassination teams, unbeknownst to their shareholders? Do you think they are doing this for some public interest, or perhaps their own?

We must do more than just stop this contrived attack on Syria. We must break the machine the planned and pushed for it. We have to dig down to the bedrock and pull our home grown deeply embedded national security threats out by the roots. We must do this to defend ourselves. They have already killed us, on 911, and gotten away with it. That makes them extremely dangerous.

The phony war machine crowd will be cranking up their Congressional lobbyists this next week. The American public will need to put the fear into their Congressmen like they have never seen before. And we have to up the stakes for this fight. We have to start dialing back on where a penetration into the White House could then trigger a phony war based on phony Intel. And we have to clean out Israeli espionage in Congress as it is a constant knife to the throat of our country.

And we might want to put the Jim Dean trump card down on the table… no more internal investigations, period, as they are not worth spit. It makes no difference if they are military, Justice Dept, White House, FBI, CIA, or NSA. They can all be rigged via high level political obstruction of justice. Yes, we have knowledge of many FBI Israeli espionage investigations being stopped due to one call from the White House, which is nothing more than high treason.

We need a fourth branch of government whose sole job is to ride herd and root out corruption and treason in government, all branches of it. And such a fourth branch has to be answerable only to the people, where no political entity has veto power.

Only then we will be able to go down to the bedrock, and disinfect our house, and only then will we ever have any national security in any sense of the word. The only good thing that can come out of all this Iran/Syrian phone threat scam is that we use it as a launching pad to restart America all over again.

Our Intel files hold almost everything needed to prosecute the massive criminal empire that is protected by the highest political powers, because they are partners. They have all the bank transactions, all the emails, phone calls… and data mining can deliver them to the prosecutors offices on a conveyor belt.

We must make a pledge to each other that Syria is the last time we are going to let them pull this crap on us again. Large numbers of people in our government know who all the real bad guys are, but they aren’t telling. They are afraid.

We are going to have to figure out how to bring them over to our side or they will continue to make us all al-Qaeda funders and affiliates. God help us all… to save us from these barbarians in suits.


Futile Peace Talks – Again. The Jewish State’s Bottom Line

palestineflagThere are many flies waiting to spoil the ointment of the Middle East peace talks, not least Israel’s recent announcement of a rash of settlement-building. That triggered an angry letter to Washington last week from the Palestinian leadership, though it seems Israel’s serial humiliation of Mahmoud Abbas before the two sides meet was not enough to persuade him to pull out.
However, as the parties meet today for their first round of proper negotiations, it is worth highlighting one major stumbling block that has barely registered with observers: the fifth of Israel’s population who are not Jews but Palestinians.
The difficulty posed to the peace process by this Palestinian minority was illustrated in the defining moment of the last notable effort to reach an agreement, initiated in Oslo two decades ago.
In 1993 Yitzhak Rabin, then prime minister, assembled a 15-person delegation for the signing ceremony with the Palestinians at the White House. The delegation was selected to suggest that all sectors of Israeli society favoured peace.
When Rabin was asked why he had not included a single Palestinian, he waved aside the question: “We are going to sign a peace treaty between Jewish Israel and the PLO.”
Rabin believed his own Palestinian citizens should be represented not by their government but by the adversary across the table. The mood 20 years on is unchanged. The Palestinian minority is still viewed as a fifth column, one a Jewish state would be better off without.
Significantly, it was a matter relating to Israel’s Palestinian citizens that nearly scuppered the start of these talks. Israeli cabinet ministers revolted at a precondition from Abbas that the release of long-term political prisoners should include a handful of inmates from Israel’s Palestinian minority.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, won a majority in the cabinet only after agreeing to postpone freeing this group until an unspecified time.
Similarly, previous experience suggests there will be an eruption of outrage should Netanyahu’s promised referendum on an agreement depend for its outcome — given the likely split between Israeli Jews — on the votes of Palestinian citizens. A senior minister, Silvan Shalom, has already indicated that only Israeli Jews should decide.
But Israel’s Palestinian minority will be thrust into the heart of the negotiations much before that.
Last weekend Netanyahu picked at one of the Israeli right’s favourite sores, denouncing reported comments from Abbas that no Israeli should be allowed to remain inside a future Palestinian state. Why, asks the right, should Israelis — meaning the settlers — be expelled from a Palestinian state while Israel is left with a large and growing Palestinian population inside its borders?
A possible solution promulgated by Netanyahu’s ally Avigdor Lieberman would redraw the borders to expel as many Palestinian citizens as possible in exchange for the settlements. There is a practical flaw, however: a land swap would rid Israel only of those Palestinians living near the West Bank.
Netanyahu prefers another option. He has required of the Palestinian Authority that it recognise Israel as a Jewish state. This condition will take centre stage at the talks.
Leaders of the Palestinian minority in Israel are intensively lobbying the PA to reject the demand. According to a recent report by the International Crisis Group, Palestinian officials are still undecided. Some fear the PA may agree to recognition if it clears the way to an agreement.
Why does this matter to Israel? In the event there is a deal on Palestinian statehood, Israel will wake up the next morning to an intensified campaign for equal rights from the Palestinian minority. In such circumstances, Israel will not be able to plead “security” to justify continuing systematic discrimination.
The Palestinian minority’s first demand for equality is not in doubt: a right of return allowing their relatives in exile to join them inside Israel similar to the current Law of Return, which allows any Jew in the world instantly to become a citizen.
The stakes are high: without the Law of Return, Israel’s Jewishness is finished; with it, Israel’s trumpeted democracy is exposed as hollow.
Netanyahu is acutely sensitive to these dangers. Recognition of Israel’s Jewishness would pull the rug from under the minority’s equality campaign. If you don’t want to live in a Jewish state, Netanyahu will tell Palestinian citizens, go live in Palestine. That is what Mahmoud Abbas, your leader, agreed.
Netanyahu’s visceral contempt for the rights of the Palestinian minority was alluded to in a recent parliamentary debate. When an Arab MP commented, “We were here before you and will remain [here] after you”, an indignant Netanyahu broke protocol to interrupt: “The first part isn’t true, and the second won’t be.”
Recent government moves suggest that his latter observation may not be simply an idle boast but a carefully crafted threat. Israel is preparing to expel tens of thousands of Bedouin citizens from their homes in the Negev into urban reservations as part of a forced relocation plan. This ethnic cleansing campaign sets a dangerous precedent, hinting at what may lie ahead for Israel’s other Palestinian communities.
The minority has taken to the streets in the most widespread internal Palestinian protests seen since the eruption of the second intifada. Israeli police have responded with extreme brutality, using levels of violence that would never be contemplated against Jewish demonstrators.
At the same time, Netanyahu’s government has introduced legislation to raise the threshold for parties seeking entry to the Knesset. The main victims will be the three small Arab parties
represented there. The law’s aim, analysts note, is to engineer an Arab-free Knesset, guaranteeing the right’s continuing and unchallengeable domination.
Netanyahu, it seems, doubts he can rely on the PA either to supply him with the political surrender he needs from the peace process or to recognise his state’s Jewishness. Instead he is bypassing Abbas to protect against the threat posed by his Palestinian citizens’ demand for equality.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books).  His new website is

John Kerry’s Israeli-Palestinian talks are a cover for aggression and annexation


The so-called “peace talks” initiated by John Kerry between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are meaningless theatrics that are part of a stratagem concealing and obscuring the real intentions of the US and Israel in the Middle East.

When US President Barak Obama went to visit Israel, in March  2013, the peace talks were not even a priority for his  administration. The world was bluntly told by Obama that the  so-called “peace process” was not even on the agenda for  discussion between the US and Israeli governments. Hence, the big  question on a lot of minds: why have the talks become a priority  for the US government now?

  The “peace talks” illusion

The main purpose of the so-called peace process has been to serve  as a theatrical distraction. Initially, the Israeli-Palestinian  talks were used to keep the Palestinian people and Arabs at bay.  The peace talks and negotiations acquired another dimension with  time, when they became a convenient tool for distracting the  international public and influencing global public opinion by  presenting Israel as a reasonable entity willing to make  concessions for peace and security.

On the latter point mentioned above, on the concept of   “Israeli concessions” to the Palestinians, there is a  catch. Israeli concessions only exist in theoretical terms if  Israel’s illicit fancies are considered legitimate. In reality,  there are no Israeli concessions, especially when international  law is the measuring stick to evaluate the Israeli-Palestinian  conflict. Tel Aviv unlawfully claims the entire West Bank, which  it has no legal entitlement to under international law, as its  own territory. Israeli leaders present the attenuation of their  territorial claims on the West Bank, which they have been busy  annexing during the bogus peace talks, as some type of concession  to the Palestinians.

The so-called “Israeli settlements” in East Jerusalem and  the West Bank are categorically rejected by the United Nations as  illegal. They are a brazen violation of international law.  Israel’s settlements in the West Bank have unanimously been  identified as a war crime under the 1998 Rome Statute of the  International Criminal Court by all of the International Criminal  Court’s judges. The US is also an accomplice in this, because  Washington has prevented international action from being taken  against Israel. A spade should be called a spade: these Israeli  settlements in the West Bank are nothing more than Israeli  colonies.

  There are no Israeli concessions, just demands

It is comical to hear US Secretary of State John Kerry ask for  both Israel and the PA to make “reasonable compromises.”   To put it bluntly, it has actually been the Palestinians which  have made the real compromises and then, on top of it, have been  the ones that have been forced by both the US government and  Israel into gradually making more and more concessions. In  addition to the recognition of the approximate 80% of Palestine  that is demarcated within Israel’s 1967 borders by Palestinian  officials, about 60% or more of the West Bank’s territorial space  is occupied by Israeli settlements/colonies.

The Israeli Hafrada (Separation) Wall or Apartheid Wall has cut  off East Jerusalem and the most economically important lands of  the West Bank off from their Palestinian inhabitants and owners.  Palestinians are not even allowed to manage their own resources  and their fresh water is stolen on a daily basis by the Israelis.  Notwithstanding all this, the corrupt Palestinian negotiators,  which have no popular or legal mandate to represent the  Palestinian people, have been willing to recognize and keep the  bulk of the Israeli settlements/colonies in the West Bank (on the  best land) and to forfeit the legal rights provided by the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International  Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Palestinian people  to return to their occupied homes.

Palestinian protesters wave the national flag as their comrades climb Israel's controversial separation barrier. (AFP Photo / Abbas Momani)Palestinian protesters wave the national flag as their comrades climb Israel’s controversial separation barrier. (AFP Photo / Abbas Momani)

Israel does not want a genuine negotiated settlement with the  Palestinians. It merely wants them to be what can best be  referred to as “Fourth Worlders.” In fact, establishing  more settlements/colonies in the West Bank has become a national  priority for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Aside from annexing  the best land in the West Bank, Tel Aviv wants to dictate its  terms for the creation of a ‘Palestinian Bantustan’ that  will be comprised of several disconnected enclaves essentially  controlled by Israel via proxies and will lack any real  legitimacy, any real political independence, and any real  economic capabilities.

  The Palestinian Authority does as it is ordered by Washington and  Tel Aviv

Since the Oslo Accords, the occupation of the West Bank has  merely been outsourced to Palestinian collaborators. The PA and  its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, lack any popular mandate. There should  be little doubt that the morally bankrupt and illegitimate PA is  not fundamentally a US and Israeli client that polices the  Palestinians for Washington and Tel Aviv. Since the electoral  victory of Hamas and the defeat of Fatah in the January 2006  Palestinian general elections, the US and Israel have done  everything they could to prop up Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah  faction in Ramallah, while inversely crushing any semblance of  authentic democratic participation in the Palestinian  Territories. Since then no new elections have taken place and  Abbas has ruled via edict as a quasi-dictator supported by the  US, the EU, Israel, and the dictatorial Arab monarchies.  Moreover, Abbas has cancelled both the presidential elections and  the parliamentary elections.

There should be no illusions; the PA never had a choice about  entering the talks. The PA gets all its funding and authority  from the US and Israel, without which it would collapse. When  protests broke out in the West Bank against the PA, Abbas sent  envoys scrambling from Ramallah to see US and Israeli officials,  asking them to throw him a lifeline. He is not supported by the  people, but by brute force and the Israeli occupation. Via the  Israeli pledge to free several Palestinian prisoners that have  been held in Israeli prisons for decades the US and Israel are  even creating a cover for the PA to justify entering the  fictitious peace talks initiated by Secretary of State Kerry.

  The return of Arch-Zionist Martin Indyk

One merely needs to examine the US official supervising the  talks, to get a sense of how ingenuous they actually are.  Arch-Zionist Martin Indyk, a former high-level lobbyist at the  American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that was  eventually given US citizenship by US President Clinton to manage  US foreign policy in the Middle East, will be mediating the talks  between Israel and the Palestinian Authority as Washington’s  so-called special peace envoy. Indyk has been tied to every  tentacle of the Zionist lobby inside and outside of the United  States ranging from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy  (WINEP), which is the research arm of AIPAC, to the  Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which heavily influenced Qatar’s  Arab Spring foreign policy. According to a speech Indyk made to  the first convention of the self-described “pro-Israeli  organization” J Street in 2009, he deliberately emigrated to  the US as a means of ensuring that US foreign policy would serve   Israel’s interests. Indyk also served  as the US Ambassador to Israel twice, was an architect of the US  policy of containing Iraq and Iran, and an avid cheerleader and  apologist for Israel’s wars on the Palestinians in Gaza and  Lebanon. Now Indyk is in charge of the peace talks as a member of  the Obama Administration.

Equally disreputable to Indyk are the Israeli and PA negotiators  sitting at the table with him. On the Israeli side sits Tsipi  Livni, a brazen war criminal who was forced to cancel a trip at  the end of 2009 to the UK because an arrest warrant was issued for her. Sitting next to her from  the PA is a man who Livni knows very well, and who once told her  that he “would vote for her” if he were an Israeli. That  man, Saeb Erekat, is someone who no Palestinian takes  seriously or respects. In his entire career Erekat has done  nothing but grovel to US and Israeli officials; he said Senator  John McCain had a “genuine commitment to peace” after  McCain let it be known that he did not give a damn about the  Palestinians in 2008, Ekekat even called Israeli Prime Minister  Ariel Sharon—the Israeli official responsible for the Sabra and  Shatila Massacre in Beirut’s Palestinian refugee camps—his  friend, and on numerous occasions he has ridiculously apologized  profusely to the Israelis that the negotiations that Tel Aviv  itself has sabotaged have not succeeded.

  The peace talks and the regional equation

The timing of the Israeli-Palestinian talks is linked to US and  Israeli plans to save their declining regional status in the  Middle East and their clients. Regionally, the events involving  Egypt, Syria, Qatar, and the Muslim Brotherhood have additionally  had a big impact on the Palestinians and Israel. Abbas even made  a visit to Beirut in early July 2013 to tell the Palestinian  refugees in Lebanon to be neutral in the clashes taking place in  Syria and Lebanon.

Meanwhile in the Gaza Strip, Hamas has become more isolated. For  a while it looked like the Hamas government in Gaza was going to  win the favour of other Arab countries at the expense of Mahmoud  Abbas and his lackeys in Ramallah. The events in Syria and Egypt,  however, have hurt Hamas. Although he is not completely correct,  it is worth quoting what Eli Shaked, the former Israeli  Ambassador to Egypt, joyously said about Hamas as the Muslim  Brotherhood was being ousted in Egypt in early July 2013:   “Hamas has lost Iran, they have lost Syria and they are losing  Egypt. They are much more isolated.”  Despite the  suffering of Gazans, the isolation of Hamas has pleased Abbas and  his regime in Ramallah too, which went out of their way to  congratulate General Al-Sisi and the Egyptian military for  removing the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Cairo. Now a  military wave of terror has begun against Palestinians in  Egypt.

Palestinian Hamas security forces patrol near the border with Egypt in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, on July 5, 2013. (AFP Photo / Said Khatib)Palestinian Hamas security forces patrol near the border with Egypt in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, on July 5, 2013. (AFP Photo / Said Khatib)

The highly unpopular Abbas himself faces a potential rebellion in  the West Bank. A political crisis has been developing in his  fiefdom as his degenerate PA faces collapse with rising  unemployment, increasing economic stagnation, mounting  unpopularity, and its increasing repressiveness. The regime in  Ramallah has seen a wave of political purges and resignations by  officials trying to distance themselves from Abbas as the  situation in the West Bank becomes more desperate.

  Talking peace while preparing for war?

It is ironic that the US and Israel, two of the three parties  involved in the peace talks, have been threatening to attack  Syria, Lebanon, or Iran. Perhaps most interesting of all, the  announcement about the renewal of the talks between Israel and  the PA came just when the US and Israel pressured the European  Union to designate the military wing of Lebanon’s Hezbollah as a  terrorist organization, not that the EU has any relations with  Hezbollah’s military wing or knows anything about it. The EU  decision is clearly a political one that is really tied to the US  failure of imposing regime change in Syria, where Hezbollah has  intervened and the foreign-sponsored anti-government forces have  been routed.

Historically, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have always been  linked to alleviate pressure tied to US war plans. Washington and  Tel Aviv could be contemplating some type of confrontation with  Hezbollah or even its patron Iran. Israel’s tattered  international image could dissipate even more, if a new  confrontation with Hezbollah takes the form of another Israeli  war on Lebanon. Netanyahu has also started threatening to  unilaterally attack Iran again, which would be impossible for  Israel without US involvement. Aside from providing cover for the  Israeli settlements/colonies in the West Bank and providing  relief from the international pressure on Tel Aviv, the renewed  Israeli talks with the PA could serve as a means of portraying  Netanyahu’s government as genuinely desiring peace before it gets  involved in some sort of adventurism. Additionally, the EU’s  terrorist label on Hezbollah could be used by the US and the  Israelis to justify such a confrontation as a fight against  terrorism.

Whatever the reasons are behind the renewal of the futile talks  between Tel Aviv and the PA, the US government and Israel are not  interested in a just resolution. Neither the talks nor the  negotiators nor the US government, as a broker, are genuine. The  Obama Administration is merely pursuing its own interests in the  wider Middle East.

Livni, the Israeli representative at the talks, set the tempo for  the outcome of the talks herself by declaring that people should  not be “optimistic.” Washington and Tel Aviv will not even  let the Palestinians create their own independent country by  ending the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip,  and the West Bank. While the destitute Palestinian people undergo  territorial disposition, the sham peace talks have served as  nothing more than a smokescreen for Tel Aviv to systematically  colonize what is left of the Palestinian homeland as Israeli  Lebensraum or “living space.”  There is no  other way to phrase it.

Origins of Israel Palestinian Conflict

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

Dodging the ‘Hebrew Hammer’ in the Fight for Justice

An Interview with Armen Chakerian and Susan Schuurman

By Richard Edmondson

Susan Schuurman and Armen Chakerian are two of the founders of the New Mexico-based Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel, a group of activists who seek to raise public consciousness on Palestine by means of roadside billboard campaigns. The coalition was formed in fall of 2008, but it wasn’t until April of 2009, three months after Operation Cast Lead, that the group went public with its first advertisement—featuring a picture of a Palestinian girl with the words “Stop killing children. No more military aid to Israel.”
The ads appeared on 10 billboards throughout the city of Albuquerque. The message was designed to be “deliberately provocative” in hopes of generating some local media coverage. It worked. Maybe a little toowell. On April 28, just three weeks into what had initially been a two-month contract period, Lamar Outdoor Advertising effectively censored the ad by taking every one of the signs down. “The advertising was removed due to numerous complaints questioning the facts,” said the company’s local manager.
Emails in support of the ads poured in, however, and Lamar, at least initially, announced it would allow the signs back up but with a somewhat watered-down message (same photo with the words “Stop giving weapons to Israel with our tax dollars!”). This offer, however, lasted a mere two weeks and came to an abrupt end when the corporate office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana ordered the Albuquerque office to cancel its contract with the Coalition. Lamar cited an intense telephone campaign directed at its home office in Louisiana by Israel supporters. Somewhat lamely, the Albuquerque office offered to erect a replacement sign consisting of the words “Tell Congress: Stop Giving Money to Israel”—without a photo—but this was rejected by the Coalition as “too severely compromised.” The Coalition had just fought its first battle with America’s Israeli Lobby, and seemingly the Lobby had come out on top.
Yet at the same time, what had taken place in Albuquerque helped to inspire similar efforts around the country, with ads on billboards as well as public buses and trains. In Seattle a group readied a bus ad campaign featuring the words “Israeli War Crimes. Your Tax Dollars at Work” alongside a picture of a Palestinian family standing next to their demolished house. Though timed to coincide with the second anniversary of Operation Cast Lead, the campaign was nixed by Seattle/King County officials. However, a separate transit ad campaign was successfully launched, in Chicago—with ads featuring the words “Be on our side” along with pictures of Israelis and Palestinians. Calling for an end to US military aid to Israel, the ads first appeared in late 2010 and have since spread to New York, San Francisco, Boston, Washington D.C., and other cities, with the message being expanded from small signs on buses and trains to large roadside billboards.
The year 2012 has seen the Coalition launching a new billboard campaign, not in Albuquerque this time, but in Denver. The ad features the American flag as a backdrop and the words, “Tell Congress: Spend our money at home, not on the Israeli military.”
The response to all this by Zionists has been varied. “The Jewish community of Seattle should respond with the full force and let the Hebrew hammer drop on these haters like never before,” wrote one Israel supporter in reaction to the King County bus ads. “This group has unwittingly provided an opportunity for the world to be taught the lesson that if you slander the people of the book, you may just get the book thrown at you.” The same writer also proposed a four-step plan of attack that included suing the bus company along with a campaign of civil disobedience by “courageous young Jews” who would locate the garages where the buses were kept and lay down in front of them so as to keep them from “circulating their hateful message.”
But sentiments like this seem to have opened Israel supporters to charges of attempting to stifle free speech, an accusation no doubt lent credence by the fact that the ACLU launched a civil suit against the Seattle bus system over cancellation of the ads—and now some Israel advocates seem to be taking a different tack, involving perhaps a tad bit less swinging of the hammer. In response to the new campaign in Denver, that city’s chapter of the pro-Israel group Stand With Us has countered by launching a billboard campaign of its own—and one member of Stand With Us, Dr. Shaul Gabbay, likens what have been referred to as the “dueling billboards” in his city to a spirited dinner conversation.
“Both perspectives are legitimate in terms of trying to influence the discourse here in the United States,” said Gabbay. “When you have just one voice, we make mistakes. When we have different and sometimes heated positions, then we can make better decisions.”
In fact, there seems to be an emerging consensus—at least if we go by a Denver Jewish newspaper’s recent coverage of issue. This new consensus presupposes that signs referring to war crimes or the killing of children constitute “incitement” (never mind that some 1400 Palestinians died in Operation Cast Lead, approximately 300 of whom were children), but that ads appealing strictly to the economic argument (US tax dollars are better spent at home, etc.) are permissible. Which in essence means that a call for ending aid to Israel will be regarded as tolerable as long as the ad is ambiguous on why the aid should be terminated.
The Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel took its name from the ten year/$30 billion aid package to Israel agreed to by the Bush administration in 2007. Susan Schuurman and Armen Chakerian were interviewed by Richard Edmondson. The two Albuquerque activists responded to questions submitted by email.
Q: The story in the Intermountain Jewish News says there are two organizations with the words “stop$30 billion” in their names, one based in Denver, the other in Albuquerque, but asserts there is no affiliation between the two groups-even though one supposedly funded the billboard campaign in the other’s city. Can you clear up the confusion on this? Is there one organization, or two, or many? Basically give us a rundown on “who’s who” in the stop-aid-to-Israel billboard movement, and where are billboard ads running currently-in what cities?
A: We were the first organization to coin that name. The Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel, with a website called We are based in Albuquerque and are a grassroots group of volunteers. There have been two offshoots completely independent of our work, inspired by our work certainly, who borrowed elements of our name for their organization without frankly consulting us. The first one was based in Seattle, the Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign (SeaMAC) which used part of our name in their web domain ( Sometimes we get inquiries to our site that we can tell are in response to the Seattle group’s work. Recently we learned that a group in Colorado also borrowed words from our name, the Colorado Campaign to Stop $30 Billion to Israel, and has put up transit ads in Boulder and Denver. Their work was completely independent of ours and coincidental. To be honest, there are so many campaigns around the country calling for an end to military aid to Israel that is it challenging to keep up with them all. Our initiative to expand our campaign out of state was because a former member of our group moved up to the Denver area and found a billboard company willing to put up our message.
The only other multi-location billboard campaign is the Be On Our Side campaign, launched originally from Chicago but now maintained by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation ( They started in Chicago and spread to the Bay Area; Washington, D.C.; New York City; Portland, Ore.; Boston; Tempe, Ariz.; and Albuquerque.
Q: How long have you been doing this, how did you get started, and can you talk about some of the difficulties you’ve had getting your ads placed?
A: We started our billboard campaign in April 2009. The Coalition was an offshoot of the Middle East Peace and Justice Alliance. Many of us were frustrated with devoting much of our energy to hosting events and potlucks for visiting speakers. We felt that American aid to Israel made us as taxpayers complicit in war crimes and violations of international law. In the Fall of 2008, three of us (Armen Chakerian, Lori Rudolph and Susan Schuurman) decided to form a separate coalition of groups dedicated to working solely on this aspect of Middle East peace and justice work. We got a great response, especially after Operation Cast Lead; more than a dozen social justice groups joined the coalition.
We put up ten billboards that said “Stop Killing Children” (see homepage). Three weeks into the two-month contract the billboards were taken down by the billboard company because they got a lot of phone calls complaining about the content. Then we toned down the message to “Spend Our Money at Home, Not on the Israeli Military” and were able to put up a full-sized billboard at two different locations for several months each. We did not have any problems putting up the “Be On Our Side” messaged billboards. However, when we attempted to put up the flag design out of state we did encounter some resistance, claiming it was too controversial. We were successful in putting the flag design up on I-40 in New Mexico for six months last year without any problems, and we were also successful recently putting up 20 billboards with the same design in Denver. We hope to have this design up in another out-of-state city in a month or two.
Q: I understand the billboard featuring the picture of the Palestinian child with the words “Stop killing children-No more military aid to Israel” got censored. And of course the bus ads in Seattle that highlighted Israeli war crimes also were prevented from running. Why do you think these ads prompted such angry, emotional responses from pro-Israel groups, and what does it say about the state of free speech in America when public officials, such as those in Seattle, cave into their pressure?
A: “Pro-Israel” groups like Stand With Us and Christians United for Israel (CUFI) respond to our message of human rights for all people with a knee-jerk, emotional reaction that is based in fear. They often mistakenly interpret our call for equality as a call for Israel’s destruction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many politicians and media outlets are in turn afraid of the power wielded by the “pro-Israel” lobby. We put “pro-Israel” in quotation marks because we believe the lobby does not act in the best interests of the Israeli people. Our objective in these advertising campaigns is to change public opinion so that an open discussion can be held about whether carte blanche American support for Israel is in our country’s national interest.
Q: Tell us about your new ad campaign and how it differs from previous ones.
A: Our new ad campaign features an American flag. We wanted to emphasize that our message is indeed a patriotic one in that domestic needs are being short-changed by sending billions of dollars per year to support the Israeli war machine. This message seems to be resonating even more during this current economic down-turn. We also feel that more and more Americans want politicians to focus greater attention on infrastructure, education, and healthcare needs at home.
Q: There seems to be a feeling among Israel supporters that ads that refer to Israeli war crimes, or to the deaths of children in Gaza, constitute “incitement” or “hate speech”, while those focusing solely on the economic argument (America should spend its tax dollars at home, etc.) fall within acceptable boundaries. In the Intermountain Jewish News, an ADL official, speaking of the Seattle bus ads, is quoted as saying, “The ads that were on those buses were truly inciteful speech with regard to making allegations of Israel committing war crimes and other atrocities.” However, he says the new ads-presumably he means the ones in Denver-don’t appear to “cross the same lines.” Would you care to comment on that?
A: Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza, as documented in the UN Goldstone Report. After our billboards were taken down prematurely, however, we purposefully tried to find less provocative phrasing that would have a better chance of not being suppressed by opposition pressure.
Q: Your ads seem to have caused considerable consternation within the ranks of pro-Israel groups, but of course the real question is how much of an impact are they having with the public? Do you have any sense of public opinion about the ads and to what degree they may be influencing the way people think about the Middle East?
A: Combined with other communities’ campaigns, we feel that our messaging has created a safer space within which to criticize Israeli policy without being called “anti-Semitic.” In addition to being seen directly by tens of thousands of passers-by, the billboards led to media coverage both in Denver’s local Jewish community newspaper and on Denver channel 7.
Q: If people want to make donations to your coming ad campaign, how do they do so? Also anything else you’d care to add?
A: People can mail a check to Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel, P.O. Box 10856, Albuquerque, NM 87184-0856, or they can donate using PayPal on our website We urge everyone who cares about human rights for Israelis as well as Palestinians to join us in our work. America’s unconditional support for Israel in spite of its grave human rights record isolates us in the world and mocks our calls for freedom and democracy. Donations are tax-deductible and encouraged. Join our growing movement to end American military aid to Israel now.
Dodging the “Hebrew Hammer”–a Justice for Palestine Billboard Gallery
The initial 10 billboards in Albuquerque, with the words “stop killing children,”
were removed after complaints poured into the corporate office
of Lamar Outdoor Advertising


After the censoring of the first ads, the Coalition placed the above ad through a different sign
company, Del Outdoor Advertising. This one stayed up longer, although it had to be moved from its
initial location due to complaints received by a business owner nearby.

The new ad campaign now running in Denver

The “Be on our side” campaign began in Chicago and spread to multiple other cities.

The bus ad that never was. A flood of complaints from Israel supporters prompted
Seattle officials to kill this ad before it ever went public.

This billboard managed to be seen in Seattle for a few days, but it, too,
got squelched by Zionist pressure.

Seattle transit officials finally did allow this ad to be placed by the
Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign.

The organization If Americans Knew placed ads in Detroit earlier this year.

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

%d bloggers like this: